HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 05-21
Meridian City Council MeetinQ
May 21. 2002
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 P.M.,
Tuesday, May 21, 2002, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Cherie
McCandless and William Nary.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Mike Worley, Gary Smith, Brad Watson, Sharon Smith,
Brad Hawkins-Clark, Joe Silva, Tom Kuntz, and Dean Willis.
Roll Call:
X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Corrie: Okay. I want to welcome everybody here this evening. I will open the Meridian
City Council regular meeting, Tuesday, May the 21 st, 2002, at 6:31. We will start with
roll-call attendance, please.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Okay. All present. First we have the adoption of the Agenda. Council, are
there any additions or corrections on the Agenda? Hearing none, I will entertain a
motion to adopt the Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we adopt the Agenda as published.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes.
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve minutes from April 3, 2002 City Council Special Meeting:
B.
Approve minutes from April 17, 2002 City Council Special Meeting:
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 2 of 95
C. Approve minutes from April 23, 2002 City Council Regular Meeting:
D. Approve minutes from April 30, 2002 City Council Special Meeting:
E. Approve minutes from May 1, 2002 City Council Special Meeting:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-045
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 1743 square foot Sandwich
Shop with a drive-thru window in an L-O zone for Subway by Blaine &
Cynthia Jacobson - Northeast corner of Magic View and South Allen
Street:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 02-005
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 building lots and 1 other lot on
20.01 acres in a C-G zone for Willey Subdivision by Roylance and
Associates -- 3710 East Franklin Road:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 02-004
Request for modification of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and Order of Conditional Approval of Preliminary Plat regarding the
sidewalk requirement for Elixir Subdivision by Paul B. Clayton - 521
North Eagle Road:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 02-003
Request for a variance from Meridian City Code 12-2-5 regarding the
sidewalk requirement for Elixir Subdivision by Paul B. Clayton - 521
North Eagle Road:
J. Naming the Los Alamitos / Thousand Springs Park, Kiwanis Park:
K. Change Orders for Meridian Settlers Park:
L. ACHD Impact Fee Offset Agreement for Meridian Settlers Park:
M. Streetlight Agreement for Woodbridge Sub. No.2:
N. South Slough Sewer License Agreement, Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District:
O. South Slough Sewer Construction Reimbursement, Packard Estates
Developers, LLC:
P. Addendum No.3 to Agreement for Professional Services, Ten Mile
Interchange Sewer Study - J-U-B Engineers:
Q. Agreement for Collection Services on delinquent water / sewer /
trash billing accounts with Collection Bureau, Inc.:
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 3 of 95
R. Approve Beer / Wine Licenses for Kahootz Pub & Eatery:
Corrie: Item Number 3 is the Consent Agenda. You have the Consent Agenda in front
of you. Any additions, corrections, or anything you want to pull off?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing no objections, I'd move that we approve the Consent Agenda and that all
contracts, change orders, and everything and authorized the Mayor to sign and the
Clerk to attest.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mrs. Clerk.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4:
Presentation by 5.5.1. of S.W.A.C. Ink Cartridge Recycling Program:
Corrie: Next on the Agenda is a presentation by S.S.1. and S.W.A.C. Ink Cartridge
Recycling Program.
Sedlacek: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Steve
Sedlacek, business manager of Sanitary Services, 722 West Franklin, Meridian. Good
evening. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I have got a quick little handout to give
each of you. Sorry. I'm one or two short. We wanted to talk to you tonight. We are
seeking your approval or disapproval, however you want to go, on a program, a pilot
program, to recycle laser jet and ink jet cartridges as part of your residential and curb-
side recycling program. Councilperson McCandless is on the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, as is Gary Smith and a few other folks. If I forget to fill in a few blanks here,
go ahead and step in and fill in those slots. Basically E-Tech, which is a nonprofit
organization, located in Eagle and is run by Lisa Marie Goold and Lisa Marie is here
tonight to answer any questions you might be. We believe that there is a market for
used ink jet and laser jet cartridges and E-Tech has approached us with an opportunity
to collect these at the curb and we will place them in our trucks, take them to Western
Recycling and E-Tech will reimburse us 25 cents a cartridge for each one collected.
Basically, this is a commodity in the waste stream that can be segregated and removed
and placed in recycling bins. We don't have to modify the bins. We don't have to
modify our trucks. Space is pretty limited on our trucks. It's not like we can take
something that generates, you know, tons and tons of material, but we don't think there
will be a lot of these, although that's what the pilot program is to find out. We believe we
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 4 of 95
can handle the volumes coming in. So what we'd like to do is attempt a three month
pilot program where we go through an educational phase putting out fliers to the
homeowners through the billing process, letting them know this is coming on line, telling
them how to recycle, and what's recyclable and what's not, just, you know, be another
commodity that they can put in a bin and we will see how it goes. Then after three
months we come back to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee with the data about how
many we have collected, how much money is generated. E-Tech can get back to us
about how they are doing financially on this and see if it's something we want to
continue. We have talked with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee about it and they
were for it. I don't know if we ever had a vote or anything like that, but it was moved that
we bring to the Council as the next step to see if you want to do this. So that's about all
I've got. I have got a schedule in here on how this would work. At the end of the
program, which would occur about six months from now, we would be contracting with
E-Tech, just as we do contract now with Western Recycling, so your contract is with
sanitary service and then we would be contracting and receiving monies from E-Tech
and, of course, any recyclable commodity money, according to our contract, comes to
you ultimately, after the household hazards waste costs are removed from that. So
there is really no cost to us, other than the educational material to get the program
going, Sanitary Services is going to pay for that, and I guess there is a little more
postage, maybe one or two envelopes that go out, that the city would pay for. I don't
know if it's that much money. In fact, I'm not sure it's any money, because you have a
bulk-mailing permit. Any questions or -- you might want to -- did you bring examples of
the -- I have got -- I just happened to run through one of these. This is an ink jet
cartridge. They are not terribly big or heavy. They can be re-used. What will happen to
these is they will be shipped to, I believe, North Carolina; is that correct? For
remanufacturing?
Goold: Lisa Marie Goold. Mayor Corrie, and Members of the -- 863 West Quarter
Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. Members of the Council, kind of familiar here. This is a
black ink jet cartridge and these are actually Hewlett-Packard, the most popular -- what
most people use are Canon, Epson, and Hewlett-Packard and this is an ink jet that's tri-
color and because technology is changing quite rapidly, if I were to tell you a year ago
that I would be involved in cartridges as a non-profit organization I would tell you I don't
have the time for this, but the Lord sometimes brings you some passions and what's
interesting is that when we started with this I have had full support from Mayor Brent
Coles working with the in-haul landfill, who has really been working with us and has
really been wonderful at helping here, but what we have determined and what -- well,
you're familiar with in-haul landfill and the director and whole area, they know that
thousands of these going into our landfill. There are really no public receptacles that
are out there for the public to deposit these, so we have really found that there are
some real serious problems going on here. Currently, I'm working with actually some
subdivisions in putting together -- the subdivisions in putting a drop of these at different
homes, because they know that so many of these are being thrown out right now, so --
and that's what's happening in Eagle and the Boise area and having a pilot program
would actually be one of the very first throughout the United States, because I have a lot
of contacts in this industry since I have been involved and really don't know of curb side
recycling going on. If I can hand out something. Okay. What I've handed is basically-
- it's on the internet called Waste News and this really struck home for me. This is
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 5 of 95
basically an article where it really fueled the passion. Unfortunately, a lot of things stem
from the almighty dollar, so when you read this you can kind of read in between the
lines. So, anyway, our ultimate goal is to be able to stop these cartridges from going
into the landfill and doing a curb side recycling and I'm not saying that it's going to solve
everything, but I have a motto and I do have 65 recycling bins at Boise State University
and we are doing a very large campaign right now with the students and it will start this
fall and working with the athletic department in gearing this up, but we all have a motto
and my motto is when you hold a soda can you have a choice to either throw the soda
can out or to recycle it. Now who has thrown a soda can in the garbage and felt just a
little guilty? We all do. I mean if we do we do. I'm holding this cartridge. I will tell you
right now, 98 percent of the community does not know that they can recycle this. Now
what's interesting, I have been working closely with the professors at Boise State
University and having 65 recycle bins on campus and they are throwing their cartridges
or the laser jets, which is quite bigger, and then I will say to them: Now do you use
these at home? And they go yeah. Well, can you bring them? And most of them --
well, I just kind of throw them away. I guess I'm used to throwing them away. So that
shows you that people even within their office that might recycle them, the majority of
them at home are being thrown out. We are not doing it perfectly, it's just that we are
not geared for that. So any questions?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I have noticed in Boise some boxes that look like that style. Is that the same?
Goold: That's me.
Nary: Okay. And I have noticed a bunch of those around Boise and I mean, obviously,
you can't use those cardboard boxes for recycling at the curb, but is that the same
program?
Goold: Yes. It kind of looks like a cartridge.
Nary: Yes. Right.
Goold: Actually, I will tell what kicked the whole program off was this August we were
throwing so many of these away we thought there has to be something else to do with
it, so we had at the booth at the fair for non-profit and we had a banner made that said
Idaho plants spuds, not printer cartridges. Recycle your printer cartridges. And we
didn't know what would come from it, we just thought, you know, let's get the word out,
and I'll tell you, there was quite a bunch of people come in with their Albertson's bags.
At the end of the fair I think we had 200 and people just knew they felt bad throwing
them away, so they kept them, so --
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 6 of 95
De Weerd: I guess I'm a little bit more thrifty, because I find the programs that credit
you back if you turn in your empty cartridges you get a discount on your new one, so I
have been doing that for over a year and a half. But what do you hear back from
businesses like those? Do they feel like you're any competition to their for-profit
business or have you had any discussions with them?
Goold: A lot. Many of them really feel that I'm doing the right thing, because there is so
many that are being thrown out. I mean -- okay.
Sedlacek: Let me say one thing real quick. There are other outlets for these. I was in
the post office here in Meridian the other day and picked up a clear plastic pouch that
you can get at the front desk. They are just sitting there on the counter. You just shove
your ink jet cartridge in and seal it up and throw it in the out -- it's a prepaid postage
mailer and it goes right to a recycling center. Recyclers are trying to get these,
because, obviously, when you sell them for 50 dollars a cartridge new -- well, if you
could remanufacture that and refill it and sell it for -- you know, if you could get it for a
dollar and sell it for 30, I mean, obviously, you have labor to refill it and fix it up, there is
a business there. So people are trying to get these. This is a commodity that
somebody wants, just like aluminum and newspaper. So we have an opportunity to add
that as a commodity to our list of things we collect. But the people are, as you say, you
can send one back when you buy one and get credit, you know, and people are
welcome to do that. Personally, I just throw mine away.
Corrie: Steve, let me ask you how many times can they use those?
Sedlacek: These are a one-use deal until they get refurbished. Now I don't know how
many times they can refurbish them.
Goold: On the refurbishing side there are many different technologies that are going on
out there, because when these are being made from OEM's, the original equipment
manufacturers, they are being made so that they can only be used once. So, you know,
these engineers have been working very hard to be able to have these utilized and in
time it's going to drop the cost of some of the new ones as these manufacturers become
better and better at it, but I have seen a big difference in a year from manufacturers that
were able to take one of these and they have actually a 13 step process, a very good
specification as to be able to take these and do them correctly. If they are not done
correctly they can damage the computer, so that's why they are best to go back to
certain manufacturers. A lot of the manufacturers that make the cartridges for the
OEM's, they actually make their own cartridges, too, so a lot of them are seeing the
money that the OEM's are making and saying, well, you know, we make them for them,
maybe we can offer them less and give them a good product. So you will see a lot of
changes in the next two to five years and I think that printout that you have got there
clearly will, if you will read in between the lines.
Corrie: Any other questions, Council? Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 7 of 95
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think that this would be a great program to see how citizens react. I don't
think it's going to take a huge stream as far as bulk out of the waste stream, but I think
overall we will really be helping the environment on this and generating something that
we can give back to the community as well. So I think we should go for it and see how
it works out.
Bird: I second that.
De Weerd: What, go for it?
Corrie: Kind of a makeshift motion, but I will entertain a motion.
De Weerd: Makeshift motion. Well, I will let our S.W.A.C. representative lead us in that
motion.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move that we enter into this three-month trial period with the
ink jet -- ink jet -- what's the other one?
Nary: Laser jet.
McCandless: Laser jet --
De Weerd: Cartridge.
McCandless: Yes. I'm lost tonight. And enter into the three-month trial period.
Corrie: Okay.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor of the motion as aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Department Reports
A.
Parks Department:
1. Skate Park Construction Agreement - Heartland Construction:
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 8 of 95
Corrie: Thank you, Steve. Mrs. Goold, thank you very much. Five is Department
Reports with the Parks Department. First is the skate park construction agreement,
Heartland Construction.
Kuntz: Thank you, Mayor and Council. You should have on your screens tonight a
resolution -- actually, an agreement first with Heartland Construction to enable us to
build the skate park. Included in that agreement is an addendum outlining the
contingencies that must be met prior to starting construction and the third item you have
is a resolution by the city attorney. We are requesting approval of all three of these
items, so that we can move ahead with the project and I will stand for questions
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Tom, in the resolution it was 152,000 and in the agreement it has 153,000.
Which amount are you looking at?
Kuntz: Councilwoman de Weerd, the correct amount should be 152,000, so on the
agreement on 4.1.1, that amount should be stricken and corrected with 152,000.
De Weerd: Okay.
Kuntz: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: On page two -- and, I'm sorry, I don't know if it was the resolution or the
agreement, 6.1 talks about an interest rate, a percentage interest rate, but it was left
blank. Is that in the update as well?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Bird: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, in an attempt to get this to the clerk by the
Thursday deadline we'll explain some of the things that were missed, but this contract
was taken from the contract that was in the bid documents when it was submitted out to
bid twice before and that's what the contractors look at in terms of the entire bid
package when the price was negotiated at 152,000 and so we missed the interest rate.
I don't know what was anticipated. You can indicate what that interest rate would be.
The architect also needs to supply the deadline or the time construction would begin
and when it would end and also I think there were two addenda, in addition to the
addendum that lists the contingencies that have to do as part of the contract, but I didn't
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 9 of 95
have that with -- I didn't have that information when I was trying to get the documents
prepared and in by the Thursday deadline, so -- but just to explain to you where the
document came from and what those things are.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tom, how many addendums is there? The Mayor needs to know before he signs
something like this.
Kuntz: Councilman Bird, I will rely on our attorney to direct me here, but I assumed
there was only one, which talks about the financial obligations from parties A through E,
as addendum number one.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, what we were referring to in the
contract are the addenda to the bid specifications that -- or the contract specifications of
what was going to be done in the park. That does not refer to the addendum that lists
the contingencies for financing. So it's in that packet of specifications in terms of any
changes to those specs.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tom, it would have been when the contractors turned in their bids they had to
acknowledge if there was any addendums.
Kuntz: Okay.
Bird: The original bid. I have no problem with the rest of the Council to passing this, but I
would put the condition that the Mayor and the -- that the Mayor doesn't sign it and the
Clerk doesn't attest until all this completion on and off, the dates, and the addendums
and all this stuff be filled in in this agreement form, under agreement with the contractor
and the city. That would be -- and I would have no problem passing it and getting it
going, but I think we need to have those filled out before the Mayor signs and the Clerk
attests and I'm sure that the department wouldn't want to sign it until all this stuff was
filled out.
Corrie: I guarantee you I won't. Been there before.
Kuntz: I would agree with that. I guess I would like to just get some real clear
clarification so that I'm on the same page. It sounds like first one is 6.1 at that
percentage. That interest needs to be completed.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 10 of95
Bird: If he's willing to sign it with zero, we will put zero in there.
De Weerd: That would be my preference.
Kuntz: The other item is that there were some original addendums to the original bid
document. Is that correct?
Bird: Yes. Only we don't know, Tom. You'll have to look back on your original bids and
see if they acknowledged, any addendums. Look on your original specifications with the
Land Group or whoever was the architect that turned out. They could tell if you they had
an addendum. You should number them in this contract.
Kuntz: It's been so long I can't recall if there were or not.
Bird: I understand that.
Kuntz: Yes. What else?
Bird: We got the correct 152,000.
Kuntz: Right.
Bird: The addendums. And the completion date. That needs to be filled out.
Kuntz: Okay.
Bird: And as far as I know --
Kuntz: Now would the completion date be based upon the June 15th start date?
Bird: Well, yes, I believe so. That's strictly between what you worked out with him.
Kuntz: Well, given the fact that --
Bird: They have got so many days to finish it.
Kuntz: Yes. Given the fact that the addendum gives the financial donors June 15th to
obligate their money and, you know, if we could go from that date that would probably
work.
Bird: When are you going to be -- when are you going to have the -- everything ready
for him to start?
Kuntz: Well, I'm going to have the letters to all these people requesting that their
donations be received to the city the first part of June, give a June 15th deadline, and I
would like to work with the contractor to get their bonds and everything in place, so that
we can start construction June 15th.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 11 of 95
Bird: Are you going to have it ready for him June 15th?
Kuntz: Yes.
Bird: So he can start?
Kuntz: That's what I'd like to do.
Bird: Who is getting the building permit, him or you?
Kuntz: We are.
Bird: Have you got it going?
Kuntz: No.
Bird: Is the building permit going to be ready June 15th? Tom, all I'm saying is don't put
the date down for this guy to start if we can't -- if we can't perform. So set it back to the
30th of June. I don't care. With a completion date. But, you know, just get these filled in
is all I care, at a reasonable time. But if we are going to get the permit and everything, if
we don't have it ready for him he can't start it.
Kuntz: Sure. Councilman Bird, I guess the reason I thought we'd get the permit in a
timely fashion, is because the plans have already been reviewed by the Public Works
Department, so -- but I will definitely confer with them tomorrow and get a date that's --
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Without anymore discussion, I would move that we approve the agreement with
Heartland Construction for the skateboard park construction, with addendum number
one, and that before you sign and the Clerk attest, that you make sure all the blanks are
filled in on the agreement to the right, negotiate an interest on item 6.1 -- if he will go for
zero, I'm for that.
Corrie: We'll work it out.
De Weerd: Is that your motion or --
Bird: That's my motion.
De Weerd: If he will go for zero?
Bird: If he will go for zero, go zero.
Corrie: That's negotiable by us.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 12 of95
Bird: And that's negotiable.
Corrie: And see how much we can --
Bird: Anyway, that's my motion.
Nary: I'll second, Mr. Mayor. I did have a question.
Corrie: Okay. Discussion?
Nary: Yes. Just so our record's clear, since we have been talking about it and they are
trying to get this down on the record, the provisions we are talking about, Tom, is 3.1,
6.1,and I think it's 8.3, the ones that are the specific references. The other question I
had is on these other folks that have already offered to make these donations, Brighton
Corporation, Howell-Murdock Development and the like. Have you been in contact with
them to let them know that we are ready to go forward regarding -- had approved it
going forward on this?
Kuntz: Councilman Nary, I have been in touch with each of them. The Statesman did an
article about a week ago and contacted -- and I re-contacted all the contributors and
then as far as the concrete company, they were contacted by Heartland a little over a
week ago. So to answer your question, yes.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I know it's not really a part of the discussion for this motion, but if your office
can write a thank you note from the Mayor and Council, it would certainly be appropriate
when we have the ground breaking that they are specifically on hand to make sure we
properly thank them at that time.
Kuntz Councilman de Weerd, would you mind if I included thank you note in the request
for the funds?
De Weerd: No. I think it should be separate.
Kuntz: Okay.
De Weerd: You send your note, we'll send our note.
Kuntz: And then clarification on one statement you just made, would it be the Councilor
Mayor's choice to have a ground breaking?
De Weerd: Ground breaking or ribbon cutting. I just want to see it done.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 13 of95
Corrie: You can do one or both or whatever you want, just let us know, so we can get it
set up. I think we --
De Weerd: Ribbon cutting.
Corrie: Ribbon cutting is probably the best, because everybody is going to anticipate
this has started a year ago, so let's get it going and we will have a nice ribbon cutting.
That's my preference.
Kuntz: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. We can have a really nice one. We'll have half the kids in the city there,
anyway. Okay. Any other discussion?
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: Okay. All in favor of the motion as stated say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion
is carried. Tom, let's get together and get this all done and then we'll sign it then.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If I could have a number I will make a motion to pass the Resolution 02 what?
S.Smith: Councilman Bird, that is resolution number 02-375.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we pass Resolution 02-375, the Parks and Recreation Department,
City Council, pursuant to Code 50-341, for the construction of Tulley Park Skateboard
Park, finding that the construction of said park can be accomplished at a lower price on
the open market, now, therefore, be it resolved by the Mayor and the City Council of
Meridian, Idaho. I would move that we pass that with suspension of rules.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded on the Resolution No. 02-375. Is
there anyone from the audience that would like to have the resolution read in its
entirety? Okay. Hearing none, further discussion?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 14 of 95
Nary: Yes. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just a clarification. A resolution doesn't require suspension of rules.
Bird: That's right. I withdraw that.
Corrie: Okay. Then roll-call vote, Ms. Clerk.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion for resolution is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2. Chamber of Commerce Expansion Proiect - Request for
Additional Funds:
Corrie: Okay.
Kuntz: Thank you, Mayor and Council. The second item, the Parks Department was
contacted by Bennington Construction and the Chamber of Commerce last week
regarding the potential need for additional funds to complete the Chamber remodel,
which includes our Storey Park restrooms in a timely manner. We met with both groups
and it appears that Job Corps, who originally had volunteered to complete
approximately 30,000 dollars worth of free labor, was not going to be able to complete
the project in a timely fashion to allow the Chamber to get back into their building in
July. You should have a form that at the top says Change Order Cost Updates and
about midway down the page, starting with number one, additional supervision, it
outlines what it will take to finish the project and on the second to the last page outlines
the breakdown of the amount the Chamber will be paying to complete the project, which
is 6,976 dollars and they are requesting an additional 4,197 dollars from the city and I
told them that I would bring this to Council for discussion and/or action tonight.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tom, I got a couple of questions on this. The additional supervIsion, the
unexpected length of the project. Our share was the restrooms only right?
Kuntz: Correct.
Bird: Was it anything that we did to cause the delay in the restroom?
Kuntz: No, sir.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 15 of95
Bird: So what they are asking us to do is to share about 35, 40 percent of the additional
supervision cost. Are the restrooms ready?
Kuntz: Councilman Bird, they are not. I'm going to say they are at an 80 to 90 percent
completion stage. I guess what I understood from our meeting was that because they
are using youth that are learning a trade, that it's just taking them a lot longer, number
one. I know that item number two, on the drywall taping and texturing, they had to hire
someone to come in and redo some of what was done, because it was not done at a
very high level. So it sounds like what's happened is they are getting to the end and the
completion rate is not where it should be and so they are suggesting it's going to take
another four to -- four weeks of what was planned to complete the entire project,
including our portion, which is the restrooms.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess when we entered into this we were willing to accept the savings of
using the Job Corps and I guess that means we should also participate in what
additional costs there will be because of the savings of the using the Job Corps. So I
guess it's just one of those things that you have to do and we pay our share. Do you
have drywall in those bathrooms, though? I guess I thought it was all cinder block.
Kuntz: Councilman de Weerd, it's only the ceiling. The walls are cinder -- are block and
then painted and the ceiling is drywall.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Our agreement was to put in the restrooms at a fixed cost, as I understand it. We
had a bid that we had budgeted so much for. This is basically 4,197 dollars over the
money we had budgeted for the restrooms, am I not right?
Kuntz: That's correct.
Bird: What is the total cost, Tom, going to be for those restrooms now with this 4,197?
Kuntz: It should be in the area of 66 to 67 thousand total.
Bird: Do you have the money in your park budget to pay this?
Kuntz: Councilman Bird, I believe there will be some cost savings for projects that will
not stand a hundred percent complete by the end of this fiscal year, enough to cover
this. My only other concern is there is yet to be landscaping done and it won't be
expensive, but the understanding or informal agreement that we have is that the
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 16 of95
Chamber will get donated material -- we will supply the labor, but they will provide
donated materials as far as shrubs and that type of thing. We don't have a signed
agreement to that effect and I guess I'm a little concerned that we are now at 4,100 over
and then -- I just want to make sure that the Chamber understands that we don't have
additional funds to put towards materials for the landscaping.
Bird: Tom, you're saying that you're going to use funds from projects that you are not
going to have a hundred percent complete at the end of the fiscal year. Are these
contracts that are signed, that the money has been -- you know, like is it a contract or is
it just a project that you're doing in-house that you're going to not have it done, so you
can have some extra funds? Is it a contract?
Kuntz: No, sir.
Bird: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Do I understand this correctly, Tom, in the last part of your memo it says the total
value of the Job Corps labor of 17,772. So that's how much at least at this point -- I
mean it's not going to get any more than that, since we are coughing up this 4,000
dollars -- that's how much savings the Chamber and City have realized on this project
so far is 17,000 dollars?
Kuntz: Councilman Nary, that's correct. And the projection was for 29,669.
Nary: And how much was this originally -- how much was this anticipated cost supposed
to be originally before we knew the Job Corps was going to donate 30,000 dollars worth
of labor?
Kuntz: Our budgeted amount -- excuse me, Councilman Nary. Our budget amount of
162,000. Prior to Job Corps being involved the estimates coming back to us were in the
area of 172,000 to 174,000. Again, it's been quite awhile, so I haven't reviewed the
numbers recently, but it was a substantial amount that not only Job Corps saved us, but
then the Chamber was also able to secure numerous other in-kind contributions or
partial donations of the materials. So if you were to take the true value of this project
when it's complete, I would probably be in line to say that we are saving 20 to 30
percent in the total construction cost through different contributors.
Nary: So when it says here a grand total of 153,000, that's actually 10,000 dollars under
what we budgeted for this project originally? Is that -- am I understanding that correctly?
Kuntz: I don't know for sure, because I don't know what the Chamber's estimate was on
their portion of the building. I know that our portion of the building was 63,000.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 17 of95
Nary: Okay. So the figure you just said a second ago, 163,000, that was the total cost,
not just the city's cost? That was the whole building. Everything. Didn't you say
somewhere around 160 was what was budgeted?
Kuntz: Oh, I'm sorry. It was budgeted for 63,000 is what we budgeted. Not a hundred.
I'm sorry.
Nary: Oh. Okay.
Kuntz: Yes. I apologize.
Nary: So we budgeted for 60 and then we discovered then we were able to, with the
Chamber, have these -- this donation of this work, so how much savings were realized
and then where did that saving go? Did that get dedicated to a different project? Is that
where that went?
Kuntz: If I'm following your train of thought here, we -- the City Council approved a
budget of the city 63,000 dollars for our portion, which would be the restrooms only.
Nary: Uh-huh.
Kuntz: When they actually went out and started getting estimates to build the entire
facility, the restroom portion of that facility came in at about 72 to 74 thousand dollars.
We indicated at that time that we had budgeted 63 and is there a way to come up with
some cost savings. The Chamber went out and was able to secure materials, as well as
the Job Corps, to bring our amount for the restrooms back into line with what we had
budgeted.
Nary: So this is 4,000 dollars over what we budgeted originally?
Kuntz: Correct.
Nary: All right. I apologize.
Kuntz: Sorry.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tom, didn't we -- a couple months ago didn't we have a change order for the
restrooms on some hardware changes and stuff that was an additional cost, if I
remember right? Am I thinking of something else? Didn't we change some hardware
and stuff?
Kuntz: No. I think that part of the reason that the original estimate to build the
bathrooms went up to 74 was because we added locking hardware that is part of our
maxi-com computerized irrigation system that allows us to automatically lock the doors
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 18 of95
to the restroom at night, with a panic bar inside, of course. And so that was partially
what bumped it up to 72 or 74 and then with all the cost savings that we were able to
lower it down back to 63 or 64. That's probably what you're remembering.
Bird: Okay. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the change order request for the Chamber of
Commerce -- Meridian Chamber of Commerce for the Storey Park restroom in the sum
of 4,197.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to approve the change order requested from the
Parks Department for the amount 4,197 dollars. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Kuntz: Thank you, Mayor and Council.
Item 6:
(Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Item 7:
Tabled from April 2, 2002: FP 01-026 Request for Final Plat approval of
31 building lots and 4 other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear
Creek Subdivision No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC - east of Stoddard Road
and north of Victory Road:
Item 8:
FP 02-004 Request for Final Plat approval of 58 building lots and 5 other
lots on 20.76 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No.5 by
Bear Creek, LLC - east of Stoddard Road and north of Victory Road:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 7 was tabled from April the 2nd, 2002. This is a request for a
final plat approval of 31 building lots and 4 other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone for
Bear Creek Subdivision No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC, east of Stoddard Road and north
Victory Road. Staff, can you give us a report on that one?
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. The background on this is that we
had originally requested tabling of Bear Creek No.6 due to a submission problem with
No. 5 and I -- we can proceed with No. 6 if you like -- I mean one of the -- our
preference is to typically approve, you know, phasing according to the subdivision
ordinance consecutively, but --
Corrie: Well, we can do that if you want.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I can give you the --
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 19 of95
Corrie: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: There was with No.5, as you may recall, an issue with the final plat not
complying with the preliminary plat. The applicant has submitted No.5, which is Item
No. 8 on the agenda, that's the reason that now both of these are on tonight's agenda.
There are two items, though, that have come up. One of the agreements that Shari
Stiles made with the applicant was that although No.5 has a substantial modification to
the preliminary plat, the ordinance allows the planning director to make judgments on
those substantial changes and Shari considered the change of the elimination of two
open space lots to be significant, but rather than sending the final plat back to Planning
and Zoning Commission for a revised preliminary plat, because of the missing common
open space lots, she said that they could submit for a final plat Public Hearing.
Ordinance 12-3-7.D-2, that -- we can reference that in detail if you like -- does give the
guidance for how these final plats are processed. The clerk's office, however, was not
notified that No.5 should be a Public Hearing notice. So it was not noticed as such. So
staff's preference tonight -- our feeling is to meet that public notice requirement for final
plat for five, given that it's a substantial change. The other issue relates to the significant
change. There are some -- as you know, with Kodiak Subdivision, which is abutting this
to the south, Jim Jewett is the applicant on that, there was a denial recently on that, that
abuts here -- this vacant spot here to the south of Bear Creek 5. This is Bear Creek
Phase 5 in this area here. Staff has received an amended or a modified final plat for five
last Monday, May 13th, that actually proposes to reduce the number lots in Phase 5 by
seven in order potentially allow Phase 5 and what has been known as Kodiak parcel, to
allow that subdivision to look at potentially combining and coming in with a modified
Phase 5. Now that -- what you have received tonight for five is not that modified plat.
Like I said, that was just submitted last week. So because of the lack of notice -- public
notice for five and the change of the request of the final plat for five which we had
received, we are recommending that both Item No. 7 and No.8 be continued until June
4th. We also need that time to prepare final comments, which you have not received.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: June the 18th you mean?
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry. Is it the 18th?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Brad, I'm looking at the city code provision you're referencing in regards to No. 5
that you said the city provision regarding the change to the final plat, the administrative
review.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Nary: Since that has been to the Commission, I thought you said the Public Hearing
could be here, but it appears that in the code it says: Administrator may require the final
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 20 of 95
plat be submitted to the Commission in the same manner as required in the preliminary
plat process, including a public hearing and notice. So does it have to go back to them?
Hawkins-Clark: Councilman Nary, that was the discussion between Shari and the
applicant that she considered it not to be so significant to delay them to go back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission, so in lieu of the word significant, I guess, the
agreement that she came to with the application was that instead of going to the
Commission they could come to you, this body, for a final plat Public Hearing.
Nary: Well -- and I understand her reason for doing that, but we can't rewrite our city
code for convenience and this says if there is a substantial difference in the final plat --
and if that's what Mrs. Stiles determined, then the ordinance says it has to be submitted
back to the Commission. So -- I mean I understand she's trying to be equitable and
that's fine, but we can't just waive the requirements of our code when it's convenient,
because, otherwise, we would have to do it all the time. So I don't know how we could
do that. I mean there either is a substantial difference, which means the Commission
has to review it, or there is not. But I don't think you can split the baby on that. I think
you really have to decide one or the other and the Commission as to review it. It has to
go to them.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, Mrs. Stiles has deemed it a significant change.
Nary: I mean -- Mr. Nichols, I mean that's the way I read it. I mean I don't know if you
have looked at that, but I mean it doesn't appear to me that we can simply waive that
just because it might seem equitable.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Nary, the operative word
there is may, that the administrator has the discretion to determine, even if she finds the
change significant, has the discretion to decide whether it goes back to the Commission
for a hearing or not. So with that in mind -- and I haven't talked to Shari about this
specifically, but I believe that what she felt was that because of that discretion she could
conclude that it wouldn't go back to the Commission, but that the difference between the
preliminary plat and the final plat was enough that Council ought to hear testimony as to
why that change occurred and that's why the arrangement was made. I should also
state that Mr. Hawkins-Clark has informed me that the applicant paid sufficient fees also
to notice this for Public Hearing, so -- and they did pay those fees up front and that
should be noted to. But that's -- there is nothing in the code that says you can't have an
extra Public Hearing before the Council on this. Ordinarily there is no Public Hearing on
a final plat, but ordinarily there is no change between the preliminary and final that
constitutes a significant change.
Nary: Okay.
Corrie: Do we have enough time to notice it in on the 18th? I think we do, do we not?
Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. If the Council feels fine, then, with that
recommendation, I will entertain a motion to continue this final plat into a Public Hearing
needed for Item 5 and Item 6 at that time.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 21 of 95
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Would we like to hear from the applicant?
Corrie: Well, I don't think so in this case. We still -- I think we understand -- is the
applicant here tonight? You want to be heard?
Arnold: Yes.
Corrie: It's not a Public Hearing, but I will see what you have to say. Name and
address, please.
Arnold: Steve Arnold. I'm here representing -- I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West
Overland Road, representing West Park Development. I have got a couple handouts. I
don't know if you got those in your packets, but it kind of -- it was what I was required to
submit in order to be heard. It was essentially -- I have got the preliminary plat as
approved, the final plats as you have approved them, along with the proposed final plats
and how they fit into the original approval, so -- I guess what I'd like to start out with is
give you some basic site information here. I'll move into what has changed and where --
I guess where I've had difference of opinions with staff as to whether or not those are
significant or not.
De Weerd: Can I ask -- excuse me.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: So I guess what I want to be clear on, before we go into this dialogue, you're
not in agreement that this is a significant change, so you don't want the Public Hearing?
Is that what I'm understanding? You have paid the fee to have the Public Hearing.
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman de Weerd, yes, basically we paid the fee. I didn't
agree that we should pay that fee. I disagreed with the whole fact that it was a
significant change, in that the approval of Phase 1, 2, and 3 -- I mean there were other
changes in that that I feel were more significant than what is being changed in Phase 5.
So basically we paid the fee, we didn't agree -- I don't agree that this should be heard
as a Public Hearing. I have never had a final plat heard before -- before a public forum
such as this -- what's being proposed and, frankly, I don't agree that we made a
significant change. Other than what was approved by staff in Phase 1 -- I can go
through what has changed and let you guys determine whether or not it has been
significant or not. I don't think it has.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 22 of 95
De Weerd: I guess is this the appropriate forum to do that in? And if Council wants to do
it.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I was going to say, Mr. Hawkins-Clark, can you address the reason -- do you feel
comfortable addressing the reason Mrs. Stiles made that decision or do you think that
she should be here to address that? Because what I think Mr. Arnold is asking is he
wants to appeal this finding that she made.
Arnold: I have not seen a finding.
Nary: Well, this determination that was made by Mrs. Stiles that there was a substantial
difference between the final plat and the preliminary plat. That's what I'm hearing you
saying. You want to appeal that decision she made, which then kicks into this Public
Hearing issue. I mean do you feel comfortable in addressing that on behalf of the
department or do you think Mrs. Stiles should be the person?
Hawkins-Clark: I was the staff person that reviewed the application. I'm comfortable in
reviewing it if you like.
Nary: Okay.
Arnold: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Nary, I don't know that I -- we talked about that.
That was an option. I could appeal the director's decision. I note there is a change, I just
-- I tell you I don't know if it is significant and I guess I was told by your staff that this is
the process that I should take and that I should present before this Council those
changes and then you were to decide whether or not they were significant. That was the
direction that was given to me. So I'm not here to appeal the decision, I guess I'm hear
to request approval. I don't know that it needs to go before -- if it needs noticing or a
Public Hearing, that being the case, I guess because there is an error I will be back, but,
again, I'd like to go through some of the changes that we had made.
Corrie: May I ask first, is this the preliminary plat and this is the final plat that's
underneath it?
Arnold: Correct. Preliminary is on top.
Corrie: There is quite a bit of a change in here, as far as I'm concerned. I think it should
go back to a Public Hearing on the Planning and Zoning, but that's just my thought,
because you have changed this plat considerably from what I can see.
Arnold: Mr. Mayor and -- well, I agree there has been changes. I reviewed these
changes the very first time in '99 from the Highway District standpoint. I think if you will
note, the north end -- the biggest change has been street layout. There was some
discontinuing of the cul-de-sac and extending of the streets at the north end. They -- as
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 23 of 95
you go further south there was a -- they eliminated enough of the road -- on the east-
west road, Kodiak Drive, and then just south of that they flip-flopped a cul-de-sac. The
open space -- we have not decreased the amount of open space, we have shifted that
throughout the subdivision to accommodate the different street layout and the storm
drainage. The trigger that triggered this discussion about changes was the open space
lot there at the northeast corner of the site. It's currently 41 ,683 square feet and what we
have platted and approved is going to be roughly half of that, but we have taken that
open space and have shifted it throughout the subdivision further to the south. I guess
we have difficulty right now is we have had Phase 1 approved -- well, we have recorded
Phase 1, 2, 3, and we have gotten approval for Phase 4, we submitted this to you -- we
had to submit it in September of 2001. You know, since then I've had numerous
meetings -- well, I found out in December that we were -- that the final plat wasn't going
to approved, because it was considered a significant change. I have worked with staff to
try to figure out which forum I need to take to present these changes to you. This was
the one that was chosen, so I guess we have had this here for about eight months and
deferred No. 6 numerous times. Ideally, tonight, when I talked to Brad -- Mr. Hawkins-
Clark earlier it was the June 4th agenda that we were going to shoot for if it was
deferred tonight. Ideally that being the latest that we are deferred. Other changes we
have -- if you will notice, all the phasing has changed from the preliminary. The park --
it's had significant changes as well, but I think those changes are for the better. I'd defer
comment to the Parks Department. Open space like I say, we have shifted some of the
open space throughout subdivision, but, again, that was accommodating different needs
for storm drain. The number of lots, I don't think that was discussed. We have gone from
326 approved down to what you have before you tonight is 325. We have increased the
number of common lots from 37 to 50, partly due to phasing and some of the storm
drain requirements. I guess what I would ask for tonight, essentially, that we, if at all
possible, act on this, both Phase 5 and 6, and I have a proposed modification to the
final plat. We are proposing that these southern seven lots that's adjacent to the piece
that's south of us be eliminated from this phase, because there is some negotiations
with the property owner to the south. I guess I'll stand for questions, but I --
Corrie: You have dropped open space -- total open space has dropped; correct?
Bird: About a half acre.
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, if you will look at the calculations excluding the irrigation easements,
I included those irrigation easements in my calculation, because that was what was
presented to the City Council after the approval of the preliminary plat. So if you exclude
irrigation easements, which are -- they were not landscaped in any means or required to
be landscaped, so I don't -- I don't include those as usable open space. If you will note,
the Kennedy lateral easement along the east boundary of the subdivision, that's where
the major change in the width of the easement occurred, but that's just fenced and
behind it is dirt, so if you exclude those irrigation easements, it actually increases
slightly, probably about 5,000 square feet.
Corrie: Council, discussion? Questions?
Nary: I'd just like to hear from Brad --
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 24 of 95
Corrie: Okay. Brad.
Nary: -- what the reasons were.
Hawkins-Clark: I think Mr. Arnold summarized it pretty well. For us, the main -- the main
difference is that when you're talking about open space, the goal here is what's usable
and the main -- as Mr. Arnold said, a significant change was there in the northeast
section where you had close to one acre contiguous block of open space there on the
preliminary plat, which is the first page there, and then if you go to the second page it's
down to approximately a half acre, and I think that was the main consideration from Mrs.
Stiles, because of the actual usability of the space. Much of the open space now is -- is
located within either smaller common lots or landscape buffers and while the total open
space number, excluding the easements, may have increased, I think our -- then staff's
opinion is that the emphasis here is what's usable by the future residents and we feel
that that has decreased. There is certainly -- there is an expansion of two lots in the
southern portion of the subdivision. It does give the residents in the south, you know, a
little bit more -- two more lots that could be used. We are not arguing that. I think that's
-- that's recognized on both sides. It's just -- it is a significant -- from us for that large
block of contiguous open space in the northeast quadrant.
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, I guess what I'd like -- what I had conversations with Mr. Hawkins-
Clark earlier is that the recommendation was to approve the final plat, as I understand it.
Is that still the case?
Hawkins-Clark: The Planning and Zoning staff and Public Works staff have not finalized
the recommendation. From us, Planning and Zoning is comfortable with the revised No.
5. What we are not comfortable with is the fact that it wasn't noticed as a Public
Hearing. We are recognizing that that's the city's responsibility.
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, also if I could -- it was my understanding if it was deferred tonight,
that we would be on the June 4th. Has that changed?
Hawkins-Clark: That was an error on my part. I did not realize the noticing requirements
pushed it out to the 18th.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Brad, why can't we go ahead and pass the one, if you have got a final on six, if five
is the hold up? I mean they are not touching each other, they are two separate deals. If
you have no problem with six, why can't we -- why do you want to table both of them,
let's put it that way?
Hawkins-Clark: Councilman Bird, in order to be consistent with the previous action of
this Council, which was to table six, because of an incomplete five and the subdivision
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 25 of 95
ordinance does refer to consecutive development. But, you're correct, we do not have
issues with six.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Brad, my understanding is that a lot of these reviews of the final plats, we are --
there is always some change to some degree. Lots change a little bit, sometime lots are
combined, those kinds of things. Do we have any other history of this particular
circumstance where we have made this decision what's a substantial difference?
Because our code doesn't give us any guideline as to what does that mean and I guess
what I'm concerned with is -- Mr. Arnold didn't exactly say that, but what I'm concerned
with is that is this decision based upon some other prior history that we have or did we
just decide that here, because -- I mean one lot going down from an acre -- an acre, is
that what it was?
Hawkins-Clark: Uh-huh.
Nary: I mean that does seem significant to me, but have we had a history about that
with other subdivisions?
Hawkins-Clark: We are not aware of any to this degree. Certainly there have been --
you're right, there are those small minor tweaks that maybe it's a knuckle, instead of,
you know, a cul-de-sac or something that gets modified. One of the main standards we
try to stick by is the number of lots. You know, certainly the number of lots cannot
Increase.
Nary: All right. Do we any guideline or practice? I mean -- so what I'm hearing you
saying is we haven't invoked this provision before, at least that you're aware of.
Hawkins-Clark: Not that I'm aware of. Correct.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess in line of Councilman Nary's questioning, I would have two
questions. One is from what I understood from what you said, the changes were
primarily due to requirements by ACHD and some the road configurations? Is that why
some of these changes happened?
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilperson de Weerd, I guess I'm the one that created the
problem at the Highway District. We made some changes --
De Weerd: You did this?
Arnold: I did.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 26 of 95
De Weerd: Well, at least you're consistent. I think we need to continue --
Arnold: And at that time, you know, the way I saw it, was -- and I guess the staff at that
time -- you will notice the road layout to the north is -- to me that was on the verge of
significant change and I wasn't sure if I should take that before our Commission, but
when I was employed at ACHD I was also directed that they didn't want to see all these
dumb little things and I guess we are -- we get phases one through four approved here
and then all of a sudden those have -- in my opinion more changes than what we are
looking at tonight, road layout and phasing and other open space areas within the sub.
So I mean that's -- I guess after you set a precedence you -- yes, essentially the city has
had with Phase 1 -- I mean it had all these changes and then we are hitting the brakes
on Phase 5 and -- partly my fault about four years ago. So it's coming back to bite me,
but --
Corrie: Usually does.
De Weerd: I hope you share that with the rest of ACHD staff what you're learning now.
Arnold: There is a lot of hope in this Council and I believe we have got favorable
comments from staff. I guess the question is does this need to be heard and I guess
that's the magic question. We paid for. It I didn't know that it -- I didn't know of any
ordinance that required it, but I also didn't know of any that didn't. So we paid our fees
and I guess I need clarification for that, so that at least if we are being deferred on that
basis, that it's clear to us that it does need to be noticed.
De Weerd: I guess I can't answer that quite yet, but the open space is in Phase 5, which
was in Phase 2 of the original plat and why did that shrink and is it usable or is it a
drainage fill?
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman de Weerd, it's going to have trees and grass. There
was no pocket park or any kind of playground equipment that was required to be
installed there. The other issue that we have with the open space decreasing is we have
got -- my client donated an 18 acre park just a little ways away and this -- how much
open space does the subdivision need? It was proposed as a multi-drainage use, multi-
use drainage and open area. Because of the roads -- the change in the roads, it was not
required to be as large, so that's one of the reasons why we decreased it, but then we
picked it up in other areas.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess he raises a good question, that these changes have been there
since Phase 1. You know, why are we revisiting it or why are we looking at it now in
Phase 5? What took us so long to determined that this was a significant change? And
that's no criticism to anyone. I guess I would share the same observation as -- it's
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 27 of 95
almost a moot point at this point. So I -- maybe, Brad, you could share why now. And I
don't mean it to be an unfair question, but it is a good question. Why now?
Hawkins-Clark: The main answer that I have is that the reason for the significant change
in Phase 1, which it used to show a cul-de-sac and then it was connected, the reason
given at that point in time to staff was for utility purposes. I can't go into detail what that
was, but that was the reason, to accommodate some kind of utility change or tunnel. So
I believe Mrs. Stiles felt that that -- you know, there was a justification because of the
actual infrastructure that deemed it to allow the street change. Phases 2 and 3 there
really were not what would be considered significant changes, a few widenings of some
pedestrian pathways there, beyond that there really wasn't a reason to trigger -- trigger
the change. Now you're correct that in that one-acre park, it was just missed by the staff
reviewer in terms of the provision, just one of those common space lots, so I guess
that's about alii can tell you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: So, Brad, did I just hear you say that the basis for the substantial difference to
want to have a Public Hearing on this phase was also part of Phase 1 and that was
missed the first time, so now we are doing it on this phase?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Nary: I know I'm paraphrasing, but is that essentially what you just said?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Nary: Okay. Mayor, if I could -- one thing that we are at, if we were to want to go forward
on Phase 5 and didn't believe a Public Hearing was necessary, we are still not prepared
to go forward tonight, but we wouldn't have to set it all the way to the 18th.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Nary: Would that be correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Arnold, I'm a little puzzled by -- that the plat that was submitted last week, a
new Phase 5 -
Arnold: Yes-
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 28 of 95
Nichols: I guess my question would be which one is it that you want this Council to
consider? Because right now the one that's in front of them that you presented is the
second page of this document, is different than the one that was submitted last week,
and if this Council were to approve this Phase 5, but then you decided that you wanted
the other Phase 5, it might compound the problem even worse.
Arnold: No, we don't want to do that. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nichols, first of all, I guess I'd like to
pull my previous statement that I was the fault for making the changes here. I didn't -- I
wasn't aware that utilities were an issue, so for the record I will state that. Ideally, yes,
we'd like you to act on this modified phase and if -- I thought I got that to you in time, but
it appears that you guys did not have that before you tonight. I have copies of that, but I
don't know if that's going to suffice for notification purposes. I don't know that under
normal circumstances what I -- it was my understanding I got it in there in time to be
notified. I'm not sure why you guys don't have that before you tonight. I have got copies
of that, but is it -- it's my understanding that because it's not a standard plat it's not a
public notification, that process, that if you decide tonight that you don't need notices,
you could act on this -- the revised Phase 5.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: This seems to get --
Corrie: Worse.
De Weerd: -- a little bit more muddied as we go along. I would imagine the reason why
you would like Phase 5 to be approved is so Phase 6 could be approved and then he
can go back and change Phase 5 later, but I don't think that's the way it's supposed to
go. Now the modifications that you're requesting I would imagine are significant and so
probably they should have the Public Hearing. So what we have in front of us sounds
like it's almost a moot point to begin with, because you're already modifying it. Is that my
understanding? Am I following this or it's just not right?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: This is what I'm hearing and maybe I'm wrong, too. What I'm hearing is that what
is submitted before us tonight, No. 5 and No.6, No. 6 is not a problem. No. 5 is a
problem and the reason -- the significant reason that there was determined to be a
substantial difference was the change in this common lot on the northwest -- or
northeast corner of it. But that common lot had already been altered in Phase 1, which
has already been approved. So if that's the whole -- if that's the significant basis and the
rest of it is fairly minor changes, then it is moot, because we have already approved it
and we should have caught that originally if we felt that was a significant difference or a
substantial difference. So to me it doesn't make sense or seem fair to set this over for a
Public Hearing when, really, if it should have been done, it should have been in Phase
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 29 of 95
1. Right now in Phase 5 it isn't a substantial difference anymore, it was at Phase 1.
That's what I think, Mr. Mayor, so we can -- but we are not -- we want to make sure, like
Mr. Nichols said, that we are passing what is the -- what is your final plat. I think I did
hear Mr. Hawkins-Clark say they weren't -- they didn't have a final recommendation,
because of the -- I guess disagreement on what's a substantial difference, but we don't
have to set it over to June 18th, we could set it over to next Wednesday and get this
figured out and have one plat before us and no more changes and we would be done
with it. We can take them both up next Wednesday at our next meeting if you wanted to.
Or June 4th. And we could still do it sooner, but we can determine if there is not a
substantial difference, we don't need a Public Hearing, we can set it over either to next
Wednesday or June 4th, get the staffs final recommendation, make sure the plat you
have given us is the final one, without anymore changes. That's what I think I'm hearing,
so --
Corrie: It has to be June 4th. The 29th is not a land use.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Am I confused as everybody else is? Is this Phase 5 final plat we are looking at
here is not the final plat? You have got another one that you turned in Friday?
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, we turned something in on the 13th, eliminating --
if you look at Phase 5 right now, on the second page, because that's the final plat, we
turned something in, not including the seven lots at the cul-de-sac. We are not
proposing that we change that. We are just not including it in that phase.
De Weerd: What?
Bird: Then that changed the phase completely.
Arnold: It does change the phase, but as stated earlier, we are doing that for
possibilities of working a negotiation out with the property to the south, which if we
include this phase and we plat it and record it and we do reach an agreement, then
we've got to vacate right of way and vacate all the easements and go through that
process. So you will get to see me a little bit more than you probably want to and I get
more chances at confusing you.
Bird: But until we see this in the final plat phase, the new final plat, I don't know how we
can act upon it. You're saying you're taking seven lots out? Which seven -- I mean
which seven are you talking -- are you talking about the --
Arnold: Just the seven -- I have got a copy of that.
Bird: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Are you leaving those in? I mean until I see
it -- if this got the 13th, how come we didn't get it?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 30 of 95
Arnold: I have got a copy of that if you'd like that now.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I may be so bold as to make a suggestion.
De Weerd: Please.
Nichols: I would suggest the Council continue these two matters, five and six, to the
meeting on June 4th, recognizing Mrs. Stiles' conclusion of significant change, but in
looking at the delays -- this was submitted a long time ago and it's important to get
some resolution on it one way or another and also recognizing that there was another
Phase 5 submitted last week, which you do not have before you, which staff has not
had an opportunity to give its comments to, that it would seem that June 4th still is going
to require staff to reallocate and move some things in order get comments to you in a
timely fashion and also to the applicant, but that seems to me where you're headed and
rather than use up anymore time this evening, that would be my recommendation to
you, that you move it to the 4th, staff can do their reports, and include the modified plat
that was submitted last Monday.
Nary: Could I second that?
Corrie: I prefer a motion.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I'll do that. I would move that we continue Item 7 and 8, FP 01-026 and FP
02-004, the final plats for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 5 and No. 6 and if we could put
them on our agenda in that sequential order would probably be easier as well, to
continue it to our June 4th meeting for I guess continued review.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to continue No. 7 and 8, which is a
request for final plat for Bear Creek No. 5 and No. 6 to June 4th, 2002. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? Motion
carried. We will -- or City Clerk will make that -- just reverse five and six.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2002: Proposed Amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian:
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 31 of 95
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Item No.9 is a continued Public Hearing from May 15th, 2002.
It's a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. So at
this time I will open the continued Public Hearing and this is not for public testimony, it's
only for testimony from our staff. So, Gary, I guess questions of you and --
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, just to summarize as far as the last
meeting, as you may recall, the Urban Service Planning Area paragraph was brought
up. It's on page 83 of the text and that was an amendment that the Planning and Zoning
Commission forwarded on to you that you had requested further input from the Public
Works staff on, particularly regarding the -- some proposed language. So we do --
Planning and Zoning has one other proposed change that I don't believe was included
on Brad and Gary's item that I will address after they are done.
Watson: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I believe Gary handed out a -- sort of a
summary memo that we wrote earlier today regarding the current language in the Urban
Service Planning Area paragraph of the Camp Plan. It's more just a summary of sort of
the history of applications outside current city limits that are submitted to Ada County.
Most of you were on the Council last year when we went through this and there are a
couple members of the audience tonight that were part of those applications, but we
were directed to prepare comments and submit testimony recommending denial to both
of those projects that were being processed through Ada county and proposing private
water and sewer systems. We feel like the current language in the Urban Service
Planning Area paragraph in the draft Camp Plan would allow some of those projects to
have a better chance of moving forward. When I testified against both those projects at
Ada County last year, I testified on the technical -- water and sewer technical aspects,
but what I heard the Commissioners saying -- and they agreed with some of those
points, but -- and it's just my opinion, I think a lot of their reason for their voting for denial
was based on Comprehensive Plan issues. The old -- or the existing Comprehensive
Plan has some somewhat specific language saying that urban development within the
county, within our impact area, but not contiguous to the city, needs to be serviced by
City of Meridian -- well, by municipal services. There was some argument over the
definition of municipal at the time. What we have listed in the memo is basically the
same points that we listed in our written testimony and oral testimony to Ada County.
The biggest thing from a Public Works standpoint is our ability to master plan our
facilities when we have a patchwork of either extensions of private systems from other
communities or stand-alone community systems. We don't serve discrete packets, we
plan for large expenses and everything that we size and route has to go through
property to get to other properties upstream or downstream, depending on whether
you're talking about water or sewer. We spent hundreds -- and it will probably shock
some people -- we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars planning our wastewater
collection system, our water supply system, our water distribution system, to service our
entire impact area and we feel like community scale private -- privately owned systems
will disrupt what we have already done to the point where what we have already done is
oversize or we can't get through the areas where these people have developed to other
areas that do want to annex to the city. There are a couple of other points here in this
memo that we wrote today. They are somewhat secondary in my mind to the master
planning issue. The final bullet point that I have on this is not something that I testified
about at the county, but I certainly understand the conviction that we are here to listen
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 32 of 95
to proposals, but even the projects that are contiguous to the city or will be contiguous
to the city, those proposals -- we are evaluating those proposals daily. You only hear
about them months and months after they come in. You never hear about some of
them. If we are doing not only these projects that are trying to annex to the city that are
contiguous, but any five, ten, 50 acre parcel anywhere in the impact area, if we are
evaluating those from the standpoint of trying to connect those to our system some day
way out in the future, I'm not sure that we have the resources to do that. We have
application fees, review fees, inspection fees that we can impose on anyone that's using
our system, but where we are reviewing applications that aren't connected to our
system, we won't maintain them, we won't own them, we won't receive any income
from those applications. The third or fourth pages that are attached to that memo -- and
please stop me if you have any questions. I'm kind of rambling on here.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Brad, since this is a camp plan and a policy statement, why can't we, In
ordinance, create fees for this?
Watson: Councilman Nary, Mayor and Council, maybe I'm misinterpreting the way this
is written now, but if the project goes through Ada County, the City of Meridian is the
recommending body, there is no point, if they have private water and sewer services, at
which we can collect. We have nothing, other than making a recommendation to Ada
County, please, when you take these building permits or, please, when you sign the
plat, can you collect a check for the work that we do.
Nary: Well, that -- but that's not the language -- that's not what the language says at all.
The language just says we will consider growth in the impact area and we will evaluate
those systems in the impact area if they could be annexed to the city when they are
contiguous, that the city can't take those systems over -- I mean it doesn't just say it's a
free reign of development in the impact area.
Watson: Councilman Nary--
Nary: And we can't have an ordinance -- is your concern we couldn't have an ordinance
that would apply to the impact area. Is that what you mean?
Watson: Councilman Nary, Mayor and Council Members, I don't know. Can we have an
ordinance that applies to property outside the city limits?
Nary: Right. And I don't think we can, but that's all I'm asking you, is that what that -- is
that the concern is that we won't be able to collect any fees and right now what do we
do. When Power River -- I wasn't here when Power River and Westborough were
submitted, so what did we do then? We spent hundreds of hours of our time and we
received no fees for that, is that what happened?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 33 of 95
Watson: Well, our Public Works fees were not in effect at that time. You recall that they
were recently approved.
Nary: Correct.
Watson: But if that happened this year, yes, we would be working for free, but that's
really a secondary issue here. I understand that it doesn't give developers free reign,
but we -- I interpret it when applications, such as Powder River goes to Ada County, the
City of Meridian is the recommending body. However, they have adopted our
Comprehensive Plan. If our Comprehensive Plan simply says we will consider it, that
doesn't seem as strong of language as what we have existing.
Nary: Okay. When this was discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission, I
believe there was a representative from the Public Works Department there. Those
comments weren't brought forward.
Watson: You're absolutely right, Councilman Nary. I was there and I think it was either
the last or the second to the last meeting -- and I guess I should have spoke up, but the
momentum -- I felt like the horse was out the gate and you'll recall that you and I had a
private conversation the next day that I felt the Public Works Department had done a
very poor job of educating the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Nary: And I guess my only other concern, then, Brad, is we have had now -- that's -- this
came up last meeting. We have had three months of meetings and we didn't bring it up
again and now if we want to change it, the issue is that now do we have to have another
Public Hearing, because it's a substantial change to what had already been decided by
the Commission, therefore, another Public Hearing has to be held. Not that we can't do
that, but that's certainly I think another thing we have to consider if you do want to
change that to this proposal that's been brought forward by you and Gary.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I think that's what this meeting is all about, so --
Nary: Whether we have to have another Public Hearing.
Corrie: If you had significant changes, which is not all that bad.
Nary: Which isn't a big deal. That was part of the intent to get accomplished and we
have had three months of meetings and we haven't had this issue brought up again until
now.
De Weerd: Not until last week. And it is significant and that's why we did continue it until
this week and -- so that we had additional background to provide to Council and why
that language should change and -- because I haven't quite learned how to argue with
an attorney, so --
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 34 of 95
Nary: But that's all I'm saying, I'm saying if we want to change it, we can change it. If we
change it, we have to have another Public Hearing, because the people who are
supportive of that language have a right to come and tell us to leave it, so that's -- so we
can't just change it tonight. We can, but we have got to have another hearing if we want
to do that. And that's fine with me, I'm just process-wise. That's the result. We wouldn't
have to come back if this information was brought forward three months ago.
De Weerd: Well -- and it doesn't help to say if we only get that. We have to deal with
today and beyond. So I guess it looks like, again, we are not going to vote on it,
because I cannot -- well, unless you did want to go with the current language, but I
don't. So that's why I had asked that it be continued another week and if that's what we
have to do, then that's what we have to do, because it's too big, it's too important, in my
opinion, to the whole overall long-term planning for it and that's what exactly this
document is, it's a long-term plan.
Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion to continue the Public Hearing until the June 4th
regular meeting.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Could we all also just limit testimony to this particular item and --
Corrie: Sure.
De Weerd: -- since it's the only change that we are --
Corrie: We certainly can.
De Weerd: Now I do have one other question. In our Comprehensive Plan do we
reference the population numbers that we heard last week?
Hawkins-Clark: No, we do not.
De Weerd: Okay. So we don't really have to have a conversation on that one?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Corrie: I don't think so.
Bird: I hope not.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 35 of 95
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry. I just -- for clarification, because the -- for staff in terms of how
to insure that the public receives this -- because our understanding from your previous
meeting was that the reason to continue it to today was for this specific reason.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Hawkins-Clark: So, essentially, are we -- are you looking for us to notify certain
developers or to have an alternative form of public notice on this item? I'm just trying to
understand in terms of insuring that the reason that you're continuing it, that we meet
the intent of that and if that is to make sure that this wording is adequately distributed,
but we can do that.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I would have that same question. We did continue it last week
because of that specific reason, so, Mr. Attorney, I guess I would like to get your
opinion, is it something -- if someone had an interest and they knew we were talking
about it at this meeting --
Nary: They are not allowed to speak here tonight, so we're not taking public testimony,
so --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the only requirement that I'm aware of is
that when you continue a Public Hearing, you continue it to a date certain and announce
what the topic is, which is what I think the motion will be. I would also note in looking at
the audience there are members from the development community here that are
interested in that Urban Service Planning Area that were part of the testimony with
regard to where that boundary should be and I would expect that there are people who
come that are interested, even if they have been told that they are not going to -- that it's
not a Public Hearing in the sense that they have an opportunity to give that public
testimony. So my conclusion would be that you continue it to date certain and announce
that it be a Public Hearing on the Urban Service Planning Area language that's
contained in that particular provision of the Comprehensive Plan, that that's sufficient
notice and that you can then proceed to take that testimony, take that evidence, and
then render a decision based on that. I'd also like to -- point of clarification, if I may,
point out that the issue in Westborough and Powder River was not limited just to sewer
and water. There were other issues that pertain to public safety matters and so I think
you need to anticipate that those things would also be addressed in testimony or the
reports that would come from staff.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 36 of 95
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion before I go for the motion to continue? I'll entertain a
motion that we continue the Public Hearing to June 4th, 2002 on the Urban Service
Planning Area testimony only as -- discussion?
Nary: Mr. Mayor, I'd so move and if we could reference I guess -- I think we tried to
clarify at the last meeting that it's not really the specific Urban Service Planning Area,
but it's the discussion in regards to urban services outside the city limits in the urban
impact. I think it's more descriptive so that people don't think it's the other thing,
because that did have some particular concerns, I would move that we continue this for
public testimony to June 4th on the Comprehensive Plan.
De Weerd: I would second that.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. Discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, were there specific -- was there specific testimony at Planning and
Zoning that staff should specifically notify those individuals?
Nary: That was seven or eight months ago. I don't remember. I'm sorry. I can't
remember the specific people --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary -- or, excuse me, Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I would recommend that you not try to go
through and -- because then when you make that sort of effort and you miss somebody,
then you open up a different can of worms. I think -- I wouldn't go that far.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nichols: That may be commendable, but as soon as you do you miss somebody, then
you create more problems.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried to continued the Public Hearing until June the
4th.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: ZA 02-001 Request for amendment to Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance by Jim Jewett and B & A Engineers:
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 37 of 95
Item 11:
Public Hearing: AZ 02-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 3.84
acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for proposed Amberstone Subdivision by
Jim Jewett - south of West Cherry Lane and south of North Summertree
Way:
Item 12:
Public Hearing: PP 02-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19
building lots and 2 other lots on 3.84 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Amberstone Subdivision by Jim Jewett - south of West
Cherry Lane and south of North Summertree Way:
Corrie: Item No. 10, 11, and 12 have reference to Amberstone Subdivision. First, Item
10 is a Public Hearing request for amendment to the zoning subdivision ordinance by
Jim Jewett and B&A Engineers. There was a request for annexation and zoning of 3.84
acres from R-1 to R-8 zone for proposed Amberstone Subdivision and 12 is a Public
Hearing request for preliminary plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots on 3.84
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Amberstone Subdivision by Jim Jewett.
With Council's approval I will open the Public Hearing on the AZ 02-001, 003, and the
preliminary plat 002. Hearing none, I will open the Public Hearing on Items 10, 11 and
12 and start with staff comments, please. I'd like to request an amendment to the zoning
subdivision ordinance first, Brad, it all kind of depends on that.
Hawkins-Clark: Sure, Mr. Mayor. Before I go into it, to clarify, the Item No.1 0 is a little
unlike previous projects, in that the annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat, the
approval of those is dependant on approval of Item No. 10.
Corrie: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: Because of the modification to the ordinance. So just for that
clarification. Right.
Corrie: We'll take it in that order. Thank you, Brad.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. In terms of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance
amendments, you had received a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission for approval of the request. There was a reference to Exhibit A in Planning
and Zoning -- in the recommendation. The copy that staff received did not have that
attached. Did the copy that Council received have that attached? If not, then you would
not be able to follow along some of these. But, particularly, the ordinance amendments -
- the zoning ordinance is proposing two new definitions -- two new definitions and four
amended definitions to our zoning ordinance. In addition to that, the -- what's on the
screen now is a proposed modification to the schedule of use control and essentially
what's happening here is they are proposing a new category of housing type for the city
and it's the single family attached dwellings and as you can see, the -- well, maybe you
can't if you didn't receive the attachment, Exhibit A, from the clerk's office on that, but
essentially it's proposing to add the single family attached, which is a structure
consisting of two side-by-side dwelling units where a single family dwelling shares a
common wall and a zero lot line, each on a single lot, so it's differentiated from a duplex
in that a duplex would typically be a rental type situation and it would typically sit on its
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 38 of 95
own lot with two dwelling units on a single one. So the single family attached has that. It
modifies the definition of townhouse in that instead of two attached, a townhouse would
now be three minimum or more attached single family dwellings, each of them having
private entrances. So there is a proposed shift there that's not -- it's not -- for your
information, totally unusual. Many zoning ordinances compliment or have similar
definitions for these two types of dwelling units. Just to highlight a couple of the other
proposed changes in the zoning amendment. There is a proposed change to the garage
requirement in the city and that is that duplexes and attached single family dwellings
would have a size difference now, so instead of -- if it's a -- if the size of the garage shall
be measured by the exterior dimensions and it is based on each dwelling unit, there
would be basically a single car garage of ten by 20, if it's a single for a one bedroom,
and if it's a two bedroom or more, then it would be a 20 by 20, which is sort of your
standard 400 square foot garage. So that's a change. There is proposed new language
for common drive design standards. There is also a proposed change for the planned
development standards just to include a change in width there of less than nine feet. As
far as the setbacks, the main change that they are looking for is -- is the R-8 district
change and that's proposing, number one, to reduce the minimum lot area for a dwelling
unit from 4,250 to 4,000 square feet and that the minimum street frontage would change
from 50 to 40. I think those are some of the main highlights from the zoning
amendments. I won't go through in detail all the rest of those, unless you have
questions. I can go on. I think that takes care of 10. Item No. 11 is the annexation and
zoning request for the 3.84 acres. Currently county R-1 to an R-8. Parkside Creek
Subdivision abuts Cherry Lane here on the north. Black Cat Road is approximately a
half-mile to the west there. So we are talking about this enclave piece here. Staff and
the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of that annexation
request. Here are some site photos in the vicinity. Existing pasture. Item No. 12 is the
preliminary plat for the 19 building lots and 2 other lots on the -- on the in-fill piece.
There is a proposed -- there is a proposed main entrance here aligns with the street to
the north of Cherry. The proposed single family attached houses, which would be what
would need to be approved in a zoning amendment to approve our -- are here along the
north -- in the north section of the project. This is an open space lot that is centralized,
sort of a common area for each of the attached units to front on. The public street does
extend to the south where there are single family detached houses at the south end of
the project to be more compatible with the single family attached houses in Parkside
Creek. So these are the larger single family detached here. You should have received a
position statement from Anna Powell, who is representing the applicant. It's the same
position statement, essentially, for both the zoning amendment or the annexation
request and the preliminary plat and essentially reflects a change to the Ada County
Highway District staff report, which was just recently made last week, so it simply is to
correct Ada County Highway District's condition. I think with that I will stand for any
questions.
Corrie: Any questions from Council at this point?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 39 of 95
Corrie: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. We will hear from the applicant at this point. Is
the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Powell: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Okay. Name and address, please.
Powell: Anna Powell, B&A Engineers, 5505 West Franklin Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705.
Corrie: Thank you.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council, I'd like to really just address the zoning
ordinance first and not delve into the subdivision until we get through that zoning
ordinance amendment, so --
Corrie: Fine.
Powell: Having said that, I feel as if I'm here not representing only Mr. Jewett, but also
the city, because this was a very cooperative effort. The original intent -- I'm not going to
go into a lot of the detail at first, because I think Mr. Hawkins-Clark did a fine job, but I
just want to talk about the process a little bit and why we did it and the impetus behind it
was to distinguish between the duplex and single family attached. There is a demand
for this type of housing unit and the Meridian code had seemed to address it in some
spots, but not in others. So we wanted to set out to clarify it. So I went through the
whole zoning ordinance, tried to find all the things that might pertain to this, and then I
did run it by staff and we went through several reiterations and there are -- some of the
amendments were requested by staff to correct other deficiencies in the zoning
ordinance. So there was a couple of things I wanted to point out, just so you don't think
we are greedy. We didn't actually ask for the reduction in lot size in the R-8, that was
actually requested by staff. So I just kind of wanted to make that clear that that's where
that came from. The definitions, the intent behind that was just to clearly distinguish
between the type -- or between and among the type of housing uses. We did change
the definition of flag lot, only to take out a standard that was in the definition section. We
moved that to the zoning schedule of use controls where it would be easier for people to
find, basically, when they were looking for standards on flag lots. And then we went
through and clarified some of the distinctions between duplex and attached single-family
dwellings and attached single-family dwellings are zero lot line units, so we have
addressed those. And then the common drives. It's very typical when you build these
not to have two separate driveways, unless, perhaps, it's on a corner. So we felt the
need to add standards for the common drives and work that in the planned development
standards as well. Those standards were started in the planned development section,
but we had to kind of clarify them and enlarge them a little bit, so they made a whole
new section for common drives, so that you didn't -- you could do them outside a
planned development. Private streets they do want clarified. Anything serving more than
four would still be -- four dwelling units could not be common driveway, so it would have
to go through planned development procedures. Other than that, we just cleaned up the
table a little bit since we were in there. Staff asked us to take out multi-family dwelling
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 40 of 95
and three family dwelling, because, really, townhouses and apartment buildings address
those issues already. So those two zoning classifications weren't necessary any longer.
And that's it. I will spare you from the gritty details unless you have specific questions.
Corrie: Questions at this point?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Ms. Powell, I'm looking at a memo from Dave McKinnon, dated April 15, which
is a red lined, tracks changes to the existing ordinance. Is this -- it's a little different than
the one that you submitted. Is this one acceptable to your client as Mr. McKinnon
proposed it?
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nichols, Dave -- Mr. McKinnon issued an updated e-mail on April
18th and that is the one that the P&Z has recommended approval of to this body. The
changes were not substantial. If we had to go back to that other version, we could live
with it. It was -- in all honesty, it was just clarification -- pagination errors and a few
words that were -- they were largely typographical, they were not substantive changes.
So I would prefer to go with the one from the 18th.
Corrie: Does that answer your question, Mr. Nichols?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: The one you're talking about that was in front of P&Z, is that dated 4/15 or
four --
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman de Weerd.
De Weerd: Or 17th.
Powell: I have April 18th.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, if I could clarify. Yes, it was dated the 17th, but it was
received -- received by the Clerk on the 17th, but it was for the 18th P&Z meeting.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Powell: I'm sorry.
Corrie: Okay. Anything else?
Powell: No. I was looking at the date I received the e-mail. I'm sorry.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 41 of 95
De Weerd: I just wanted to make sure.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to Issue testimony on the
Amberstone Subdivision? Okay. Council, discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess some of the cleanup in this, Brad, there were certain issues that
came up in an application that the Wardles had and I can't remember the name of it, but
we liked the original design and it, unfortunately, didn't meet our ordinance. Does this
clean up some of the issues that were raised in that particular application?
Hawkins-Clark: Mrs. de Weerd, it does. It does address the common drive issue, which
was one of those. It does address the setback. This does allow for -- if you have two
separate detached structures, it does allow for ten feet separation between the external
walls. That one was Berkeley Square. I could not tell you if there were some items in
that -- I believe each of the setback issues, the common drive issues, are -- and the new
definition are all accommodated now in this proposed amendment.
De Weerd: Good. Okay. That's all.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, just to point out that the language you
have before you is not in ordinance form. If you approve it we will have to put it in
ordinance form and then that ordinance will have to be adopted and published and be
effective before you can act on the annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat
application that's before you, just so that there isn't any misunderstanding as how that
process would occur.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. If you want we can close the Public Hearing on this
and go to the request for amendment and go to the ordinance form and then back to the
annexation and preliminary plat.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd move we close the Public Hearing.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 42 of 95
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 10, 11, and 12.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes.
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just for clarification, Mr. Nichols, we can pass all of them tonight, it's just a timing
issue of where we adopt them at a later meeting; is that what you meant?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nary, Members of the Council, the annexation and zoning and
the preliminary plat presuppose that this ordinance has been adopted. So what I would
-- at least maybe I'm looking at it too limited, but what I envision is you would table this
to June 4th, that at the June 4th meeting we would have an ordinance in place to adopt
these changes, if that's what you want us to do, and then at the June 4th meeting you
could then act on the annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat, because those
will require findings which have to entered and by the time those findings are actually
signed by the Mayor and entered, the annexation -- or the amended ordinance would be
in effect. So that's how I envision this process.
Nary: So we could recommend approval the Item 10 tonight or the ordinance to be
returned on June 4th and then table other two?
Nichols: Yes.
Nary: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor -- and maybe there is some discussion, but I don't
have any. It seems pretty straight forward and it seems to make sense to me, so I guess
I would move -- I move that we approve ZA 02-001 for an ordinance to be returned to us
on June 4th for our approval pursuant to the findings of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and staff of request for amendment to the zoning and subdivision
ordinance by Jim Jewett and B&A Engineers.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, roll-call vote, Mrs. Clerk.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 43 of 95
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: I will entertain a motion on the tabling of Item 11 and 12 until the June 4th
meeting.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move that we table Items 11 and 12, AZ 02-003, and PP 02-002, request
for annexation and zoning of 3.4 acres from R-1 to R-8 for proposed Amberstone
Subdivision, along with the preliminary plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots
on that same acreage until our June 4th meeting.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. You've heard the motion. Any further
discussion? Just a minute. Any other discussion? Okay. Roll-call vote, please. I'll
explain it, then.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. I'll let you have a few words here.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, I understood the motion. I understand what you did, but I wasn't --
what I wanted to ask was if it was possible to conduct the Public Hearing tonight. I didn't
see that the Public Hearing was dependent upon the --
Corrie: Can't have a public -- well, we have a Public Hearing, but nobody testified other
than you.
Powell: No. The Public Hearing -- my understanding was that the last Public Hearing
was just on the zoning ordinance amendment. Was it also on the preliminary plat and
the annexation?
Corrie: Right. And we opened them all three at one time. All at once.
Powell: Never mind.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: AZ 02-006 Request for annexation and zoning of 76.16
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed HeritaQe Commons by
Brighton Corporation - west side of North Locust Grove Road between
East McMillan Road and East Ustick Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 44 of 95
Item 14:
Public Hearing: PP 02-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 273
building lots and 12 other lots on 75.39 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed HeritaQe Commons by Brighton Corporation - west side of
North Locust Grove Road between East McMillan Road and East Ustick
Road:
Item 15:
Public Hearing: CUP 02-007 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for single-family residential dwellings, private open
space with club house, gazebo, parks and neighborhood scaled
commercial site for proposed HeritaQe Commons by Brighton
Corporation - west side of North Locust Grove Road between East
McMillan Road and East Ustick Road:
Corrie: All right. Okay. Then Item No. 13, 14, and 15 is also from Heritage Commons.
Item No. 13 is a request for annexation and zoning of 76.16 acres from RUT to an R-8
zone for proposed Heritage Commons by Brighton Corporation, the west side of north
Locust Grove Road between East McMillan Road and East Ustick Road and then we
also have a request for a preliminary plat of -- this is entirely different. Maybe we ought
to take these one at a time, so we don't get confused. So I will open the Public Hearing
on request for annexation and zoning of 76.16 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for the
proposed Heritage Commons, AZ 02-006. Staff comments first.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. So do I understand
correctly you'd just like a staff report strictly on --
Corrie: Just on that one. Right.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. To orient you, the subject application is proposing to annex Ada
County -- current Ada County property zoned RUT to a city R-8 zone. The Charter High
School is immediately across Locust Grove on the east side. Existing county residences
abut the property. On the north two five acre parcels there, there is a little over an acre
piece here and then another -- I believe it's four or five acre piece that abuts to the east
here. There are existing county subdivisions abutting here to the south. The Sundance
Subdivision, which you had recommended approval of a few months ago, is here at the
northeast corner of Meridian and Ustick Roads. So the request is to annex. The
Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval and the recommendation
for the annexation and zoning I believe is clean. There was a couple of position
statements on the other two items associated with Heritage Commons Subdivision, for
PP02-002 -- I'm sorry -- 02-006, their recommendation I believe stands with -- stands as
correct.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions for staff at this point?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: All right. This is a Public Hearing. This will be on the request of annexation and
zoning. Do we have sign-up sheets for this one? Okay. We have Bev Donahue, Mike
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 45 of 95
Donahue, and Herb Lee. First Bev -- oh, I'm sorry. We have the applicant. I'm sorry,
David. Trying get it moving along here a little too fast.
Turnbull: I appreciate you letting me come up.
Corrie: Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Turnbull: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address, please, David.
Turnbull: My name is David Turnbull, I'm president of Brighton Corporation, the
applicant here. My office address is 12426 West Explorer Drive. We came prepared
tonight to make a presentation based on the whole application, which is the preliminary
plat, Conditional Use Permit, and the annexation. I would say right now, since you have
opened this hearing, we have no issues on the annexation and the staff report or
Findings of Fact that came out of the Planning and Zoning Commission. There are a
couple of issues that we would need to discuss on the preliminary plat and the
Conditional Use Permit, but other than that I will hold my presentation on those issues,
because all of our presentation refers to those issues. And I will stand for any questions
you might have on the annexation, but I can't imagine what they would be.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I hope that -- I wish it turns out to be true here. Let me take them one at a time.
Turnbull: Okay. But I would ask, probably, when we get to the conditional use and
preliminary plat, those are very much tied together and we'll make one presentation on
that.
Corrie: Thank you. Now the sign-up sheet for the one that we are doing now, the
request for annexation and zoning. Bev Donahue. Is she here today -- tonight?
Somewhat the same ones are going to be for all three of those. We probably ought to
open it up. Didn't know quite sure where you're going, but that's okay. Is the testimony
you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Donahue: I do.
Corrie: Name and address, please, ma'am.
Donahue: Beverly Donahue, 3775 North Locust Grove, Meridian, Idaho. The small acre
-- little over an acre where we are going to be discussing tonight. I don't know if you
received this in your packet from ACHD, this letter. You were supposed to receive it this
evening.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 46 of 95
Corrie: I don't know that we received any from ACHD or not.
Donahue: Did you get it? Did they get it?
Corrie: I don't have it in my packet.
Donahue: From Craig Hood. You did not get it?
S.Smith: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Yes.
S.Smith: I would be happy to go make copies.
Hawkins-Clark: If I could just clarify, Mr. Mayor, I believe that that -- that memo from Mr.
Hood speaks specifically to the access onto Locust Grove and so that would be a plat
issue, not necessarily --
Donahue: Okay. So for clarification, I didn't know when you had -- earlier today the city
they said you'd probably do 13, 14, 15 all at once, so I didn't know if my disagreement
was for all of them or a la carte.
Corrie: Okay. If you want to come back and do all three, it's going to be the same thing,
so we can go ahead and -- what I should do is back up and reopen the Public Hearing
for all three at one time. I thought there was going to be some controversy on the
annexation, but there doesn't seem to be, so let me go back.
Donahue: Because that's what they explained to me.
Corrie: Right. And I will open the Public Hearing for all three and then we will have --
step back then and let the staff and them do the other part, so -- all right.
Nary: Would it be necessary, Mr. Mayor, to make sense simply, just -- like you said,
open the Public Hearing and simply table this discussion on the annexation until after
we have heard all the other --
Corrie: So -- all right. Let me open the Public Hearing and then we can table that first
part of it there. I will open the Public Hearing, then, on Items 14 and 15 as well,
preliminary plat and request for Conditional Use Permit. At this time you want to table
the -- Item No. 13?
Nary: I'd so move.
McCandless: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 47 of 95
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table Item 13 until after the preliminary plat and
Conditional Use Permit discussion. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the
motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. Staff, go forward and then we will get the developer and then we will get
to the -- sorry about that. I thought we would save some time, but I guessed wrong.
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Sure. The -- to continue, there is some site photos here of the
surrounding area that -- I guess we do show these related to the annexation and zoning.
Existing private easement road there along the north property line. That is a shot
looking to the west and then the right one looking north into the site from Ustick Road.
In terms of the preliminary plat, the applicant is proposing 273 building lots. There are --
there are actually -- we need to make a correction to the number of other lots. It was 17
other lots. Just a correction on that. As a point of beginning, this is shown on the draft
Comprehensive Plan as a proposed neighborhood center area, so, if you recall, those
are the half moon shaped type designs on the future land use map that is part of the
draft plan, so the applicant was well aware of that. This is coming in and sort of the city's
first attempt at sort of reviewing what might one of those look like and many of the
proposed standards that staff had for those neighborhood centers are reflected here
and a couple of those are right here. I'll point out the small neighborhood commercial
area on Locust Grove here, they have proposed six lots. Again, here is the primary
entrance road from Locust Grove. There is another entrance road here along the north.
They have proposed a large common lot here. There is also a large common area here.
So you -- as you will see in the Conditional Use Permit on the next item, they are
proposing a gazebo feature on this open lot and a community center on this. So they
have got approximately a little over six acres of open space, I believe, that is useful
proposed. A couple of other features of the plat to point out. They are proposing narrow
lots that are facing the entry road here and here. They are alley-loaded lots. There is an
alley behind them here, there is an alley here, there is also some alley-loaded lots here
along the north. The street configuration is also somewhat conforming to our proposed
neighborhood center and that is you can see the block lengths for the most part are
between five and six hundred feet, so fairly narrow lots -- or, I'm sorry, blocks here and
here. They have proposed stub streets to the south at two locations and to the north
they do have the street that abuts the northern boundary here. There is also a proposed
stub here and here. To the west they have two proposed stub streets here and here.
The Planning and Zoning Commission did receive quite a bit of testimony on it and one
of the main points of difference between the Meridian Fire Department and the applicant
are the proposed narrow streets. They do have several 29-foot wide street sections,
which, as you're aware, the standard that most of what Meridian has constructed and
sees today is a 36-foot wide street section. So I think at this point I will let -- since this is
a staff presentation, I'll let Joe Silva touch on their concerns with the narrow street
sections. If you -- if you want, I can show you where those are at, but generally they are
here where you see some of the shorter 500-foot type long blocks. The main entry road
is your standard width. They do have a proposed 29-foot wide collector along the north,
but that is proposed to have no parking. The point of difference between the applicant
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 48 of 95
and the fire department are the streets that are residential that have 29-foot street
sections that allow parking on both sides. So I will let Joe touch on that issue.
Silva: Joe Silva, Fire Marshal. In an effort to provide some background information for
both the Council and the developer in this case, we did a -- kind of a show and tell
demonstration of how the 20-foot minimum fire -- the fire lanes are typically a minimum
20 feet wide and what we did is invited Mr. Wardle, the representative for the developer,
and members of the Planning and Zoning staff to join us in a kind of somewhat of a
demonstration to demonstrate how the 20-foot is utilized in the field. With that thought in
mind we took some photographs of that -- of that session to kind of share with the
Council to kind of provide them some background on how that goes about being
utilized. And essentially -- this will take a second to load. What we did is we set up a
mock street, utilizing a 20-foot wide fire lane and there is three things -- three key issues
we intent to try to address this evening, how do we use the 20-foot wide fire lane, how
many calls for service does a subdivision the size of Heritage Commons expect to
generate and how many of those will be fires. So what we did was we set up in a
parking lot. The curb there on the right-hand side of the screen represents one side of
the 20-foot and the actual vertical surface of the vehicles parked there on the left
represents the other side of that 20-foot width. There is some challenges offered in
advancing hose lines in narrow alleyways or -- as you can see where that one person is
standing right -- right there, that represents about five feet of distance right there and
now the challenge will be bring the hose lines off -- they are loaded in a transverse
compartment that goes across the apparatus, now they are going to have to be
deployed and I might point out also that it's our Planning and Zoning staff that has the
fire equipment on in these photos. So we are going to pull them down. Some of the
challenges we have with other vehicles that may be parked along the street and that's
one point that Mr. Wardle has indicated in the design that because of the two-car
garages, the ability for vehicles to be parked off street on the driveway, that utilization of
the street for purposes of parking will be somewhat minimal. However, when we get
only five feet to deal with on one side of the apparatus, sometimes the supply lines,
which are that yellow there, are five inches in diameter, if it becomes charged at 80
pounds pressure, which is our typical hydrant pressure, it can become lodged
underneath a wheel and constrict or restrict the flow of water into the fire apparatus. The
other challenge is when we have -- to save compartment space, the apparatus has
been designed to have a ladder rack on the top of the vehicle to save compartment
space, therefore, we can pick up the whole right side for carrying rescue equipment.
When that ladder rack comes down it sticks out about five feet three inches and then
you still have to have room in order get people down in there to unload the rack, as our
Planning and Zoning staff is attempting to demonstrate here. We are going to pull --
have to remove that ladder off that ladder rack. Typically that ladder rack is strictly
horizontal once in the fully down position, so this would be a very awkward position for
any person attempting to unload that ladder -- reception ladder off the apparatus. Other
equipment also must be deployed. Those doors are approximately 16 inches in width,
so that you have got to maintain a certain amount of room to be able to manipulate
other equipment around the apparatus. What we also wanted to demonstrate is even in
older neighborhoods, which this subdivision will not always be new, but it will transition
to an older neighborhood, of which people will partake in different, you know, sort of RV
vehicles, whether or not they are trailers or snowmobiles, boats, trailers, those problems
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 49 of 95
exist throughout our community and this is just an example mid day on Cathy Lane of
how that stacking takes place. This would be somewhat of a typical construction zone
on Campfire Street. You can tell that vehicles and trailers are parked eschew on the
street and makes for narrow passages. Sometime after the neighborhood is fully built
out and during just the course of routine maintenance, whether that be lawn
maintenance or whatever, obstructions do appear and in this case it's a lawn
maintenance trailer, combined with an island that's a landscape island on an entry to a
sub. This midday shot of West Cherry. So these obstructions as subdivisions become
older, vehicles and families have teenage children that drive and not all vehicles get
stacked into the garage and onto the front driveway. So those are some of our
challenges in providing emergency services in these neighborhoods. Of course, some
of these challenges can be overcome by staffing levels and what we hope to intend to
do is build in some passive assistance in a variety of emergency services in these
neighborhoods. These are our local comparisons to staffing levels with Nampa and
Caldwell with the number of people in our department per thousand, as opposed to
Nampa and Caldwell, and then the number of on-duty staff reflected of our Station two
in our operation. To kind of give just a quick summary on our number of requests that
we can typically expect in Heritage Commons Subdivision with 273 lots built out, one of
22 residents, based on historical data that we have experienced we will call for services
-- call Meridian Fire Department for service and that converts to 34 requests for service
in just this subdivision, with expectation of about two percent of the structures having
some sort of structure fire on any given year. Basically that's -- those are the things I
have got. I'll stand for questions on any of those issues or any other related fire
department issues.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. A couple of the other items on the preliminary plat, for the
Council's awareness, that have not been fully resolved, at least that we are aware of,
there was quite a bit of this discussion regarding how the north property would be
accommodated. Staff's understanding is that the applicant has met with the -- I believe
the three property owners on the north and there is an offer to construct a rail fence with
some landscaping to help to beautify that entrance road coming off of Locust Grove and
you can see it currently would run right up to the property line, so there is an offer, I
believe, to beautify this north, rather than putting a six foot solid cedar fence, which
nobody agreed would really be appropriate. So that was one of the requests of the
Planning and Zoning Commission was to meet with those property owners and, as I
say, I believe that was done, but the applicant can address that further. Another issue
was -- there is a user irrigation ditch that courses here along the east boundary of the
property, existing county property here and existing county property here. There was an
offer, I believe, to construct a new -- it is going to be piped. The ditch is on the Heritage
Commons property, so the question was how will they maintain access to the water. I
believe that there is an offer to provide some valves -- it will still be piped, but to provide
valves for those folks to have access to that water that way. The position statement that
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 50 of 95
I submitted does address a couple of other small changes that were not included that
Mr. John Wardle submitted that reflect a few changes there, but I think the only other
issue of disagreement that has come up, there is a common -- what staff is viewing as a
common driveway at this location here along the north. The request is to serve five
buildable lots off of that common drive. The Planning and Zoning Commission said that
that could happen if the -- if it was widened to 24 feet wide. Currently it's 20 feet wide.
That would meet the common driveway width, the 24 would, but the applicant is
proposing to stay with 20 foot wide and still service five lots off of that. A couple of
highlights on the Conditional Use Permit, since that hearing was also opened. This was
submitted by the applicant as a proposed street scene and that would be, just to go
back, as you come in at the entrance here on the north and here on the south, so a
couple of the features of the Conditional Use Permit and planned developments, the two
amenities, one of those amenities is a community center. This is a proposed elevation
of that, and another amenity is a gazebo, which was proposed towards the front end of
the project. I believe there are a couple of modifications, so I won't spend much time on
the commercial, because I think the applicant has come prepared to have some
discussion on that front commercial area, but this was the original submission. I think
the only other issued on the planned development that I did address in the position
statement, dated May 20th, was the front commercial area here, these proposed six
lots. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to you is that right now
they would have to come back with a Conditional Use Permit to receive approval on this
commercial area. That is primarily because of the proposed elevations for the
commercial buildings don't match the lotting pattern that is here, so there was -- the
request is to come back and basically get that through a Conditional Use Permit fixed
up and then they would be allowed, without a Conditional Use Permit, a number of
uses, some of your standard neighborhood type uses that are health care facilities,
doctor's offices, etc. Unless there is any other questions, that's the highlights that I
have.
Corrie: Discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Developer now. Dave. You have been sworn in, so just give
your name and address, please.
Turnbull: I'm still sworn?
Corrie: Yes. You're still sworn.
Turnbull: I only like to do that once a night, but -- and get away with it. Jonathan are you
ready to go? We took a little bit too much time in Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing and we'd like to conserve your time, as well as ours, and so we have produced
a Power Point presentation that will help us through. I want to -- Mr. Mayor, Members of
the Council, that -- I haven't been as excited about a project for a couple years as I am
about this one. We began the planning process on Heritage Commons with the idea
that the new development in Meridian needs to come up with a fresh identity. If you go
back to the early to mid '90s in Meridian city, virtually every new development was
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 51 of 95
required to comply with the R-4 zone, lower density zone, so what we have ended up
with over the past many years is a repetitive 80 foot by 100 foot lots as far as the eye
can see. The amenities were sacrificed in order to maintain affordability. The planned
development process was very seldom used, because of the vague standards and the
difficulty and time-consuming nature of the process. So when we were considering what
to do and how -- when we were contemplating a land plan for Heritage Commons, we
were encouraged by kind of a new way of thinking from the Meridian City Planning and
Zoning staff, headed by Shari Stiles, and, in fact, been bolstered by Brad Hawkins-Clark
and Steve Siddoway's determination to provide new direction for Meridian's
development patterns. So Heritage Commons' application before you this evening is a
result of consultation with your planning department and it's tailored to the concept that
has been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the Comprehensive
Plan, which I thought maybe you would sign off on tonight, but apparently have not
been able to get that far. Heritage Commons breaks a pattern of repetitive,
unimaginative subdivisions. We offer a variety of housing types, sizes and pricing. Our
design provides a safe, well-connected street system built on a neighborhood scale and
our amenity package will be unparalleled, as you will see a little later. And as kind of the
pioneers we are, we are submitting the first neighborhood -- or what we term a village
center. In your Comprehensive Plan you call it a neighbor center, we call it a village
center. Heritage Commons offers both carriage lane and conventional homes. Many of
these plans we have developed for both our Harris Ranch project and for Heritage
Commons specifically. In fact, Jake Centers is here, who has been very innovative in
coming up with several of these designs. These are the carriage lane homes. These are
homes where the garages come off of an alley. They fit on home sites as small as 3,520
square feet. We also have conventional homes that offer access off garages. The
home sites range anywhere from 5,000 to 8,000 square feet. Now if you want to take a
look at -- you will see this home right here, for example, this was a parade home out in
Harris Ranch. It's got a two-car garage front, but, actually, that's a three-car garage. It's
a tandem garage. It also appears as a single story, but that's a two-story home, actually,
but you won't know that from the front or the back. And it's 2,700 square feet. The same
can be said about many of these plans here. So we feel like the architecture is what
makes all of the difference here. You could take the land planning as good as we think
Heritage Commons is and still put in substandard architecture and have a substandard
development. So we are very concerned about the esthetics and the long-term appeal.
We like to be proud of what we do and what we end up with when we are finished. Just
as important as the functionality and ambience of the community is a safe, well-
connected street system that is built on a neighborhood scale and this will address
some of the issues that Mr. Silva brought up. We believe that traffic -- traffic calming
needs to -- traffic calming or slowing features need to be built into the system, rather
than added later. The result is a pedestrian friendly, neighborhood friendly environment.
As you can see in this diagram here, we have for the past eight years -- I don't know
that we have done a subdivision for a long time that hasn't had detached sidewalks, but
these things come at a price. They provide pedestrian safety, but they come at a cost to
the development, so we like to do them, so we do. You'll also notice that if you measure
here you will see a well-connected street system. There is no home within this
development that is more than 350 feet from a secondary access and that's the
advantage that a gridded street system gives you and why the street widths that we are
proposing are appropriate. I'm going to let Mike Wardle discuss that in further detail in
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 52 of 95
just a minute. We have spent a great deal of time working on the amenity package and I
think that you will recognize that what we have proposed here is far more than what
would be required under your PD ordinance. You will notice that as we flip through
these slides we have incorporated a common architectural theme to the amenities as
we plan -- as we planned and also in the commercial elements. The slides that Brad
showed you previously were our initial concepts. We have since over the past month or
two refined those significantly. You will probably notice that there were at least three
different architectural themes incorporated in those and I was uncomfortable with that, I
wanted all the common area amenities to have a common architectural theme. So here
is the entrance for Heritage Commons. You will see a separated boulevard entrance.
This structure here on the left -- this guard house on the left is not a guard house, that's
the pressure irrigation system. Probably the best one you will see. The one over here is
just for show. We will probably use it for storage or something. I don't know. But,
anyway, this gives you really kind of a nice sense of a broad lane into the community.
As you continue up the street, when you come into the community, you're coming up
this way, you will come to the commons park. This is a 2.4 acre park, it's larger than a
soccer or a football field and one of the unifying elements in the middle will be this
gazebo, which is really not just your standard backyard gazebo, this is large enough to
accommodate -- you could accommodate a wedding, you could accommodate a stage
play, you could accommodate a wedding, for that matter. The same architectural
elements on there together. And then as you continue up the street even further you
have our community center and you will see what was previously an old farm house
look is now tied into the same architectural theme. It comes complete with a gathering
room, conference room, exercise room, kitchen, and restrooms and changing rooms.
And then a significant swimming pool behind, an outdoor swimming pool. And then
finally to the west side of the project we have two smaller pocket parks surrounded by
44 home sites and here is the community center right there. So you can see we have
really given a lot of thought to our amenity package. As I mentioned, Heritage
Commons is proposing the first neighborhood center. We call it a village center,
because in planner jargon a neighborhood center refers to a seven to ten acre site that
has a grocery store and fuel stations and related retail. That's not what we are planning
here. We are planning something that's more on a neighborhood or village scale. It's
appropriately located at the mid section line, right in the location where you have one of
your circles drawn on the Comprehensive Plan. It's innovative in balancing new
urbanism concepts with market realities. The easterly buildings here are pulled up
against the Locust Grove frontage, so that you bring your architecture forward to the
street. The westerly buildings provide a buffer from the main drive-thrus and parking
from these residential lots behind. So the parking and drive lanes are concentrated
between the buildings for both esthetic and for practical reasons. The architectural
theme that you have seen throughout is incorporated in our architectural theme here. I
might point out Brad indicated that when we first submitted this plan there was some --
maybe what was perceived as an inconsistency in the size of the elevation versus the
size of the buildings. We actually submitted two elevations at the Planning and Zoning
hearing, one was approximately this size, one was approximately this size and this
represents foresighted architecture. The larger buildings would -- this would be the front
elevation, the small buildings this would be the elevation here. So we are trying to build
in enough flexibility in this plan so that this first of your neighborhood centers has
maximum opportunity for market acceptance and success, because we feel like what
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 53 of 95
we do here and whether we succeed or not will determine whether you have anymore in
the future. We have designed -- excuse we. We have designed three alternative site
plans. One is a six building layout. We also have a five building layout with two buildings
on the west side that are the larger buildings, the three on the front are the smaller
footprints. Then we have a third alternative that is four larger buildings. So, in summary
-- I'm going to let Mike Wardle step up here in a minute, but, in summary, Heritage
Commons we feel is a fresh approach, it's innovative, and it's pioneering and we have
been pioneers in the past and we will continue to stick our necks out, but we need your
assistance in this effort and at the end of Mr. Wardle's presentation I will ask you for
some specific approvals. Stand for any questions. I'll invite Mr. Wardle up.
Corrie: Okay. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Wardle: Yes. Mike Wardle, 50 Broadway Avenue in Boise. 83702. I appreciate Mr.
Silva's comments, because the discussion that we have had is the same discussion
that's been ongoing throughout the country -- go back one, Jonathan -- for some time. In
fact, it stems back more than a dozen years when the first concepts of new urbanism or
the traditional neighborhood elements came back into vogue. It's a national discussion. I
was interested to see the number of calls that the fire department would expect at
Heritage Commons that were true fire calls, because nationally fire trucks roll to --
anywhere from 67 to 80 percent of their calls are medical, a very small percentage of
the calls actually require the services of the fire truck per se. I, too, am excited about
this project, because it does embody, not in a pure sense, but in a Meridian, Idaho,
sense, the elements of new urbanism that take us back to a time where the street
system really is not the dominant feature. Streets are critical to the character and the
quality of community. In a report entitled Toward New Neighborhood Street Standards,
August Awanti, guru of the so-called new urbanism, stated: The street, which is the
public realm of America, is now a barrier to community life. And, in reality, that's been
self-inflicted, because we have gone away from traditional neighborhood elements, we
gone to an automobile-oriented type of development design where livability is not the
first priority and yet it should be. We typically see long and poorly connected streets,
wider, because bigger is better, and so the individuals, the people that live there, are the
ones that have suffered. The street systems typically are not as safe, because they
invite speed, they are not as friendly, because they don't separate the pedestrians from
the travel lanes sufficiently. And they usually require an action to go back and to calm
streets and we see a lot of that for the Highway District to put in some type of a barrier
to make people slow down in those street systems. There was a study done in the late
1990's in Longmont, Colorado, that concluded that narrow streets are the safest. There
is some interesting information that's pointed out that if we take the typical 36 foot
street, in comparison to -- in the case of Longmont, Colorado, quite a wide variety of
streets that I will talk about in moment, even here in Meridian, they found that the
streets -- the 24 foot street was actually the safest and that included parking on those
streets. Just going from the 24-foot wide street to a 36 foot street resulted in a 400
percent increase in accidents and they come back to an interesting problem, even on a
low volume street there are more accidents when it's wide, because of speed. There
has been a discussion in this region, in Oregon in particular, in the city of Portland,
about skinny streets and they concluded in this particular study that the skinny streets or
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 54 of 95
the smaller streets are safer from an automobile accident perspective, but they also,
interestingly enough, found that there was no correlation in reduced effectiveness of fire
protection with the narrow street system. That study concluded with a recommendation
to policy makers, because, in reality, the decision is made by policy makers, not by
recommendations from fire codes, but it suggested that policy makers need to look at a
larger public safety issue and ask is it better to reduce vehicular accidents, injuries, and
deaths or provide wide streets for no apparent benefit to fire response and, in reality,
that a truism. Four years ago a man by the name of Dan Burton came to Meridian, I
think he was sponsored here by Smart Growth and I'm not certain who else, but he
spoke at a facility here in town and talked about standards that he had come up with for
helping neighborhood street design and his most effective street was the 24 or 26 foot
wide paved street. Now I have to qualify that. That would range from a 28 to a 30 foot
back-to-back street and when I speak about the streets that we have tonight in Heritage
Commons, the Highway District's 29-foot street is basically right in the middle of those
two. His was 28 to 30 with the curbs and gutters. The Highway District standard is 29
feet. So we are right in the middle of that. But the key to a healthy neighborhood street
was the fact he had detached sidewalks. You have -- it's providing access, really, only
to residential uses. Parking is provided on both sides and they are typically short streets
terminating in two to six blocks with on-street parking encouraged and he had a
concluding comment, too. If on-street parking is light or non-existent or limited to only
one side, streets will fail to properly slow traffic. He talked about emergency response
and pointed out that it's improved by having totally connected short blocks in a grid
pattern, not by wider, longer, and single access cul-de-sacs of the typical streets of the
recent decades throughout suburbia. He felt that a better solution was to have the multi-
gridded access system and points out the effectiveness of driveways as providing this
space that is the concern of the fire department. There are two schematics shown here.
The top one is taken directly from Mr. Burton's healthy neighborhood street and it's also
the same standard of the Portland queuing street, that I will talk about in a moment,
relates to. The bottom -- and I don't have my glasses on, hopefully you can read it, it's
essentially the same street, 26 to 30 feet wide, and it's also the queuing -- and the
queuing concept is simply the same thing that we find in all of our old town areas. If you
have parking -- a great deal of parking you may find a situation where you have to
hesitate. You have got essentially two lanes of parking, one through lane, but if you
have cars parked like in myoid north end Boise neighborhood, you have cars parked
right across the street, the opposing traffic would wait for just a moment or two while the
first one to that hole got through it. There were no driveways on the street, so -- and
very few alley parking spaces, so the reality was that the streets were choked up. That's
not typical in the new subdivisions where we have off-street parking and usually two to
three car garages. I would point out that, again, Heritage Commons' minimum street
standard is 29. Portland got into the skinny street program about 12, 13 years ago and
in looking back they found that the best neighborhoods that they had were those that
had the older style gridded street patterns. They also found that those street systems
were actually the safest. There were environmental benefits from those skinny streets,
there was certainly a better use of the land, there was less impervious area for storm
runoff, hence less collection problems. There were financial benefits, lower
maintenance costs for the taxpayer, lower development cost, but increased affordability.
Quality of life issues, they were safer for pedestrians, because the streets were
separated from the sidewalks, as Heritage Commons proposes to do. Even bicycling
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 55 of 95
was safer, because you found typically lower speeds. And so, essentially your
community, really, was improved by that skinny street system. But the final issue was
that it requires that there be a grid-like street pattern, which actually improved
emergency service access. Prior to 1991 Portland's local neighborhood streets were
designed for higher speeds and two directional traffic and basically it was to satisfy the
20 unobstructed access for the fire department. The fire department went through a
very serious analysis and I -- not because I expect that nothing will change in terms of
the standards that we propose, but we have here this evening and we will even loan to
Mr. Silva, the videotape that came out of that region to show how the actual real
working situations occur on those narrow streets. The fact is that after they did their
analysis, they came to the conclusion that as long as the streets were through and
connected, they were for basically low density single family neighborhoods and there
was ample off-street parking and little requirement for off-street parking, not that it
wasn't allowed, but simply typically you have your garage and your driveways for the
off-street parking and you have frequent driveway openings that provide passing
pockets, they approved and adopted and changed their standards to accommodate that
so-called queuing street with a 26 foot to 28 foot wide improved section. What they also
found is that these narrower streets -- and they are actually going through a process of
retrofitting -- they calm themselves. Now the ACHD system that we are proposing
conforms with changes that were made three years ago and that came during the time
that we were trying to implement a system at Harris Ranch, but the realities of Harris
Ranch does not embody the standards that ACHD adopted. Heritage Commons does.
They had two options, to go to a narrow or 29 foot wide local street, residential street,
and that refers to one that's under a grid system, you have to have detached sidewalks,
a planter strip, block lengths less than 500 feet and at least two street connections with
volumes of less than 500 trips per day. Everyone of the streets that we propose
accommodates that or conforms to that. The other option was if you didn't have a grid
system, as long as you had passing pockets where you had predetermined and pared
driveways, a vertical curve or a development agreement that guaranteed that those
driveways would go in that location and that, again, traffic volumes of less than 500 trips
per day. Heritage Commons actually, all of the streets that -
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, I hate to be rude, but if I don't do something I'm going
to fall asleep. You know, this is a lot of information to digest and I think we need our fire
department to take a look at it, but in light of the time it's getting and we have a lot of
agenda here, we do usually have time restrictions on testimony and --
Wardle: Mr. Mayor and Madam de Weerd, I'm just about finished.
De Weerd: I don't want to be rude, but --
Wardle: I appreciate that, though.
Corrie: If you will finish up --
Wardle: I will very quickly. Go to the next one, Jonathan. This particular slide shows in
the blue the larger streets, the 33 to 36 foot wide streets that perform -- we have
provided a real network for access without any restriction at all. The yellow streets are
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 56 of 95
the 29-foot streets and in all cases the traffic volumes are less than 300 feet. Excuse
me. Less than 300 vehicle trips per day, except in two locations and those are just over
300. The last slide I have is -- if you have got good color vision there, you will see red
lines at various locations. The red areas are essentially non-parking zones. All the way
around the community -- or the little common park is a parking restriction and all of the
driveway locations essentially providing spaces that provided -- about 25 to 30 percent
of all areas along any street frontage are maintained as non-parking for the driveways.
And you put those side by side, then it actually creates no parking areas, but gives the
fire department the space that they need for any staging. Mr. Mayor, Council Members,
that's really all that I am bringing to you this evening, but the plan does totally grid and
totally connect, the streets conform to ACHD standards and have been approved by
them. Thank you. Mr. Turnbull will finish up.
Corrie: Can you do it in about two minutes?
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, just a couple of outstanding issues. One
is the commercial CUP and that's found in your Planning and Zoning CUP
recommendation number two, page two. We request the conditional use approval of
the three site plans presented this evening be granted and request that you delete P&Z
recommendation number two for a separate or further CUP approval for the commercial
development, except for uses not listed in our annotated staff report. That's request
number one. Request number two, there was some confusion in the Planning and
Zoning Commission hearing regarding the access to the Donahue parcel and part of
that came with the Public Works recommendation that perhaps sewer access -- the
sewer line needed to be provided to their parcel to provide sewer service. We've had
our -- we had our engineer verify the parcel can be serviced by the existing sewer line in
Locust Grove Road. There is no need for a sewer service from Heritage Commons. This
was originally a concern of the Public Works Department, but we have provided them
with the documentation, I believe, for that and they have accepted that. We do not
believe that there is a basis for requiring us to provide an access to the parcel to the
south. We are building an entry road, entry features, and entry landscaping and
providing neighboring property with a sizable buffer from our development. To require
us to provide access free of charge to this parcel I think is unjust when we are
expending all the money to make those improvements. During the Planning and Zoning
hearing there was some confusion about a vehicular access easement versus a sewer
access easement and at least two of the Commissioners spoke out against requiring a
vehicular access easement, but when the issue of sewer service came up, they did
recommend that we provide a sewer service and easement and the way I heard it was
they were requiring a sewer service along a sewer line and an easement accompanying
that. The third item is common drive. The common drive is P&Z preliminary plat
recommendation number six, page two. We propose modification and we are willing to
make a compromise here. We had originally proposed a 20-foot wide driveway. The
staff is construing that to be a private street, not a common drive, requiring a 24-foot
wide street and sidewalks on both sides. We are proposing that we provide a 24-foot
wide common drive, but that no sidewalks be required. And as you probably are aware,
as a planned development, we are not subject to all the ordinances -- the subdivision
ordinances, we can create different standards. And, furthermore, this Council just
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 57 of 95
approved another common drive, 20 feet wide, serving six lots in another project and
we'd ask for the same consideration. Is that two minutes?
Corrie: Yeah. You'll probably have to answer some other questions, so you'll have a
second crack at it here. Thank you. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mrs. Donahue. Bev. Thank you. We already swore you
In, so --
B. Donahue: I'm all sworn in?
Corrie: Just give us your name and address, please.
B.Donahue: I haven't moved yet. I'm at 3775 North Locust Grove. Do you want to go
back to the original thing where I'm located?
Corrie: Fine. Put it back on there.
B. Donahue: Okay. These are some of the concerns we have that I just handed out to
you. The first one is on the irrigation. We have been down to City Council numerous
times trying to get information regarding this subdivision and we have had a couple
problems, because like in some of the notes it was supposed to be handed in ten days
prior, well, one person says ten days, including the weekends, well, the office is closed,
so I don't know if it's ten working days or ten days total, trying to get some information.
We finally just received information yesterday on the irrigation on how it's supposed to
go. Well, the problem we are having with the irrigation is we irrigate from the north
where the entrance way will be, because we can't irrigate from the back of our property.
We always have done it from the north, which they know, because we have all our pipes
set there. So no one has contacted with us and that water issue hasn't been resolved
yet. The next problem we have is the curb cut, which we went down to ACHD and spent
most of the morning with them. My main concern is safety. We have five teenagers and
with the increased volume of the roadway, we cannot back out onto North Locust
Grove. We are already having problems doing it now and when the subdivision comes
in and the other subdivision, we are going to have 1,300 more cars daily coming down
Locust Grove, we have got the school across, which now the kids will be seniors and
they will be driving at the school, so that both of them are coming south toward -- south
on North Locust Grove, we can't even back out, we are going to get hit. So I'm going to
have car accidents, my kids won't even be able to get to school, to work, whatever. So
what we are proposing is on our property on the side of our garage make a road that will
go back on our property, we'll do it on our own property, we will put our own driveway in,
and we want an entrance that is matched up with the commercial property, so we can
get onto the subdivision and go around the corner, so we are driving forward and not
with our butts going onto the road. And ACHD, after talking to them, they also agreed
that it would be up to you now to make a motion or look into that for our safety. And
that's what that letter is that I asked if you had received earlier. The third thing that we
are interested in is the sewer stub. We received notification today from the Brighton
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 58 of 95
Corporation that somebody come out and looked at the way the sewer was set up. Well,
I'm a little confused, because when the charter school came in and they put the sewer
into the charter school, that was going to fill up the sewer problem there and then the
charter school was planning on adding and putting more school buildings around, which
is going to have to attach to that sewer, so we want to know where we are going to be
able to hook up to the sewer, because if that's full to capacity, which is the charter
school and they have all their ground yet to still build and add onto, are we even going
to be able to, if we ever go into the city, attach that way or from Heritage Commons?
That's a great concern of ours. Then the fourth thing is the fencing. They have
discussed it with the neighbors on the other side, but my concern is now all of a sudden
I was in the middle of a field, I'm corner lot property, and we are not talking, you know,
people visiting fields or anything like that, we are talking 1,300 cars daily going by our
bedrooms. So I want some kind of a buffer, I would prefer something like a block wall
and a lot of vegetation in front of the block wall to help with the noise, because if they
are going slow because it's going to be pedestrian friendly, little motorcycles and
everything are slowly going to go up to the stop sign, so that's -- I'm going to be listen to
all kinds of traffic 24 hours a day. So I have been trying to get a hold of Shari Stiles and
talk to her about that, but, unfortunately, she's been out sick, so I have not gotten
anywhere on that aspect. Also we have other property around us for our horses,
livestock, and whatever, I don't think a wood fence is going to cut it for the people that
are still out in the county and that have domestic animals. Also the fifth thing is our
concern is the commercial property. We had met one time prior to the P&Z meeting and
we were assured that was going to be professional office buildings, doctor offices, and
things like that and then looking at some of the minutes, the new paperwork that we just
received, it can be a family restaurant or fast food, whatever. Now we were led to
believe one thing, now we just wanted to know exactly what the clarification is going to
be on commercial property. We ask for no drive-thru things or drive-thru type facilities,
because, you know, we don't want kids or people hanging out in that area across on the
side of our house. I think I'm done.
Corrie: Okay.
B. Donahue: Are you awake?
Corrie: Yes. We were listening to you. Mr. Bird, do you have --
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Any questions? All right. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Maybe our staff could answer a few of the questions that she brought up in
terms of irrigation and the responsibility of the property owners to maintain what
currently exists and the sewer stubs and -- and Brad could maybe define what
neighborhood business uses are allowed.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 59 of 95
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, the irrigation situation, the developer is
responsible to provide irrigation water to the properties that they are impacting with their
development. They can't -- as I understand it, they can't change the point of delivery
and they can't change the amount of water that has been used by the property. It's my
understanding that the sewer stub into Locust Grove will work. Elevation-wise, once the
White Drain is constructed and the effluent from the Vienna Woods Subdivision and
Edinburg is diverted into the White Drain, the capacity in the eight-inch line in Locust
Grove is not an issue. And I don't believe it would be an issue for a single family
dwelling at this time even. Was there another item, Council Member de Weerd?
De Weerd: No. But if Brad could help with this definition of what type of business uses
are allowed, that would be helpful.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. As far as businesses uses, the way it's drafted now is there would
be no fast food at all. Any drive-thrus of any kind would require a Conditional Use
Permit, so that would go to -- everybody within 300 feet would be notified by mail. The
uses that would be allowed, the list that has been submitted -- it includes health care
facilities, your dental, doctor's office, pharmacy, optical shop, that kind of thing. Office
and retail and the list there includes a bank, it does include dining and other food,
beverage-related uses, personal services, retail store, restaurant and it does allow for
the planning director to make a determination if another use is considered neighborhood
friendly.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Mike Donahue. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
M. Donahue: I do.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
M.Donahue: My name is Mike Donahue, I live at 3775 North Locust Grove. Basically
going to run through what the wife just went through. The irrigation issue, like I say, we
really -- our main concern is we don't see no final plan how our water is going to be
handled, so we are real tentative as to that issue and talking with the developer earlier
tonight, he pretty much promised us we'd get together with one of his engineers
sometime this week and start working out some type of a -- I guess a formal plan as to
how we would go about that. I explained some of my problems and I think when we
were at the Planning Commission earlier today it appeared to us that they were going to
irrigate off the west side or supply the water off the west side, which ours has to be off
the north, because our water flows from the north to the south. So we are just real
tentative and unclear about how the process -- this irrigation issue is handled and we
don't want to be left out in the cold, you know -- you know, standing there trying to figure
it out. And I guess just -- that's a real big issue with us on that access of the water. Now
on the curb cut, the problem we really have is the outlet. On our driveway it's less than
150 feet from the outlet of the subdivision. We are standing right at 120. And that's why
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 60 of 95
we got the letter from the highway department and, you know, that's why they are very
supportive of our, you know, view that, you know, a curb cut and access out onto
Heritage would be -- you know, would be a better flow plan for the traffic, because our
driveway is only 33 feet to the street, so you're going to pull into our driveway and you're
going to back out and the guy -- Craig Hood down at the highway department, he did
see the issue there, that it is less than 150 minimum that they require for that speed
zone in that area and they have 150 foot for -- it's a 35 mile an hour speed zone? Yeah.
So, you know, I mean as far as access to our property, it's a big issue, because now we
are going to have -- my wife said 1,300, I seen a thing where it said 1,600 and I think
1,100 or so on the farther service road to the north. So there is going to be a lot more
traffic on that road. Right now their study shows like I think 4,800 trips a day with they
estimate a two percent increase on that right now. That's without the subdivision or
anything else that went in, all the subdivisions to the north, you know, all this other
traffic, including the school and all this other stuff. So we are looking probably 6,000
trips a day and he seemed to agree with that. Craig did. He didn't seem to have too big
of an issue with that. So our feeling is we'd like to see the Council, you know, require
that and I don't think it's a big cost issue. On the total cost of this development, I think
it's a very small, small issue. You know, I can appreciate, you know, the developer, you
know, he don't want to put out anymore money than what he has to, but, you know, from
our standpoint, you know, our lives have been impacted by the main entrance coming
directly along our property line, so now we have all that issue with noise and traffic and
you name it, you know. So we think it's a good compromise, you know, and a benefit for
all, not only including us, but everybody else that travels North Locust Grove, because
with us backing out that's an issue with the traffic that has to go by. You know, if
somebody makes a mistake, you've got serious problems. And you got the high school
directly across the street and when they come out, I have been there, and it's -- you
know, they are going for the fastest Coke in the world, you know. So that's our issue
with that. Now as far as the sewer stub, my biggest concern with that is if we stick with
the Locust Grove use -- now I'm trying to find their letter. Okay. From, I guess,
Northwest Engineering. Now down on the bottom portion of their letter -- apparently they
turned this into the planning department. It says based on our field survey it is
reasonable to assume that the property could be serviced from the existing main to the
north on Locust Grove and the thing that makes us a little nervous is, you know, that
little lawyer-type wording there, it's reasonable to assume. So let's say it doesn't work,
then we are kind of held hostage, you know, since -- where are we going to go? We are
going to go back out through the way where they -- Planning and Zoning recommended
that sewer stub. Now if they want to say without a doubt, put it in writing, if it doesn't
work we will take care of it, I have got no problem with that. But until you get rid of that
little, you know, fudge factor there, you know, reasonable to assume, well, then, we got
a -- I think we have an issue there. So we'd like you to stay with the P&Z
recommendation to put the sewer stub onto the property. And, once again, as far as I'm
concerned that curb cut is a big issue, not only with our safety, but the public safety
traveling on North Locust Grove. You have a driveway that's 33 feet in depth, you're
coming out onto a main street like Locust Grove, there is guaranteed to be problems at
some point in time, especially when we fall within -- you know, we don't even meet their
recommendations of 150 feet. We are 120 right now. And the guy down at the highway
department, you know, he didn't -- didn't hesitate to write that letter. He said I have no
problem with that. He says I'll meet with my supervisor and I will have you something by
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 61 of 95
3:00 and I think as you can see that letter is probably dated 3/19, so apparently they
thought this was a big enough issue that, you know, they'd get right on it on what they
said they would do and I think that pretty much covers it. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Donahue, I just had a couple questions. Just so I'm oriented, could you show
us where the location of your house is and where the driveway is, just so I'm clear in my
mind?
M. Donahue: This is basically where our house is. Okay. Our house is located -- I think
this is a well marker right here. I'm not sure. That's basically our driveway right there.
That's the edge of our driveway and our driveway -- the edge of our driveway to the
edge of the property line is 85 feet and then you have his buffer, which I think is another
30 -- I'm not sure. I'm going by what we talked about out on the -- out on the sidewalk.
So this --
Nary: So this location is approximately where your driveway is?
M.Donahue: Yes, sir.
Nary: And where is your house currently?
M. Donahue: Our house is 33 feet back and that's our house.
Nary: And how is it oriented? Does it face --
M. Donahue: It faces the street. The entrance would be on the north side and that -- the
edge of our house to the edge of our property is 32, 33 feet -- I guess I would say 33
feet to the property line. So that would be the relationship to everything how our house
sits.
Nary: Okay. Thank you. No other questions.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Herb Lee. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Lee: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address.
Lee: My name is Herb Lee. I live at 3665 North Locust Grove, which is to the south of
the Donahue residence. It's a four-point acre parcel there. The issues that I have will be
-- the traffic issue that they have, I know their concerns, I took a picture, I thought they
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 62 of 95
had it, but they don't have it. The irrigation is a problem, because my property flows
three different ways. Okay. The water -- the ditch comes down the west side of the
property and down the back of my property line and about halfway up the property line I
have a ditch that I can block off and send it up toward Locust Grove. Okay. To the front
of my property. From that point it goes north and south. Okay. The water will flow -- I
take that from you. The water that comes down the back comes up here and then I have
-- it diverts this way and diverts this way. The water in this area all drains this way and
down here, because the waste ditch comes down here, it comes underneath that ditch
there. Okay. This water that comes back here I drain -- I irrigate from this side this
direction for this area right back in here, the water comes across the front, comes down,
and drains this way like a little ditch right here that comes out, catches the water and
goes on down that line there, which is where this waterline goes and that becomes my
waste ditch also for the property that's on this side here. So all this water right in here
and here flows down this way and comes out the back. All this water over here, it goes
out and comes down and goes down this way. They were saying that they wanted to get
rid of the wastewater from this area, but they have no -- right now no place for this
wastewater here to go if they stop the ditch at that point. So my issues are the water as
far as where the waste goes and how do I get my water from here up to there and how
do I get it back up into here and that's something that we need to work out with those
guys there. If we come over, like they say, and meet with the engineer and find out what
will work, I'll work on that. One other issue that I have is the fencing again. I have
horses, okay, and if they put a wooden fence on down my fence line, no matter what
you do they will be gnawing on that wood fence. I have some pictures that I have taken
of some of the other subdivisions that are in the area, they have -- the ones that I have
seen that the horses don't seem to bother are a block wall and vinyl fences. So there is
some -- they could do those two things, other than a wooden fence. A wooden fence
requires a lot of maintenance. Vinyl fencing, every time it rains it's new again, it's
washed off and it looks good again. And that will enhance the vision of all that. If they
put a block wall down there or a vinyl fence, I don't have a problem. If they want to put a
bock wall or a vinyl fence down there, I don't have a problem with the either. The sewer,
I go along with what they are saying right now, that if it will work they can go ahead and
we can tie in out here and work, that's okay with me. The sewer that they are talking
about stubbing up over on Donahue's is over here, that would mean that I would have
go through here. So this -- it's kind of -- I don't know what to do there. I don't know if
they can come in through here and down our property line with the sewer stub, if this
doesn't work over here or if they guarantee that this will work, I don't have a problem
with that. There will be a lot of traffic. They have 1,646 cars per day coming out of here,
they have 1,400 and some odd over here per day, after the final phase they have -- this
is going to be their main entrance going in, okay, I was under the impression, maybe I'm
wrong, I thought they needed two entrances, one that was going to be a service
entrance, if that's a service entrance over there, it's not going to be done until Phase 5.
Okay. So if that's going to be an entrance, maybe that's where they need to have the
trucks come in. I don't think those guys will like that too well. But at least it will alleviate
some of this problem here until everything is developed and this is a five phase -- is that
a five year project? Is that the way you got it pegged? Did you guys see that? A year
per phase?
Corrie: We'll let them answer that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 63 of 95
Lee: I don't know. I think that takes care of what I had in mind.
Corrie: Okay. Is there anyone else from the public? Is the testimony you're about to give
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Spirk: Yes, it is, sir.
Corrie: Thank you.
Spirk: Thank you, Mayor and City Council, for your attention.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Spirk: I'd like to go on record as opposing --
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Spirk: Oh. I'm sorry. Paul Spirk, 3534 Curt Drive.
Corrie: Thank you.
Spirk: First of all, I'd like to go on record, as I said before, to oppose Heritage
Commons, because of the safety issues. I have researched commons and found out
that the original name means a large expensive area of land on common ground and in
all the concerns these communities were self-contained, with the outer perimeters being
large areas of farmland, grasslands, parks, and common areas. This should never be
developed for these intended uses. That's what commons are. In these self-contained
communities are shops, retail, barber shops, there is transportation such as buses, light
rails, trains, commuter vans, and common places for these neighborhoods. What is
being proposed is a copy from something old. Alleyways. Narrow streets. Front porches.
Back garages. People move to the suburbs, as I did, to get away from the city life.
That's crowded living areas, congested streets, crime, noise, pollution, and government
telling you what you can or cannot do with your property. The city planner has been
asked on several occasions -- I have been at the hearings, the public hearings that I
have attended, he was asked what is a subdivision. His next question was -- another
question that was asked was what is a neighborhood center. What are the standards
being used to the determine these entities? His response has been vague and not very
clear. His pet answer is mixed use. Even that is unclear to me, because the colors on
the map change all the time. I feel that if the city is planning to improve lots that are
narrower than three sheets of plywood from end to end or smaller than those in old town
Meridian, they will have to continue to approve other developer and planners for smaller
houses. It is unconscionable to me to think that the three impacted schools can absorb
the additional student population when River Valley Elementary, Lowell Scott Middle,
and Centennial High School are overcrowded at this time. I'm a school teacher. Other
neighborhoods that have been developed throughout the country over the past 50 years
with small lots, limited parking, no public transportation, no access to services have
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 64 of 95
failed or at best have been turned into rental properties and neighborhoods in ghettos.
My question is this proposed neighborhood is a neighborhood to nowhere. Thank you.
Corrie: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Yes, sir.
Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Johnson: Yes, sir.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Johnson: C.L. Johnson, 1570 East Ustick Road, Meridian. Just two questions and I
think the Planning and Zoning have answered that. One is where are the sewer stubs --
I adjoin the property on the south. I have some pasture ground on the south of this
property. Wondered where the sewer stubs were and to insure that the wastewater from
my property has -- arrangements have been made to expel that off my property.
Corrie: Okay.
Johnson: That's the questions I have. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Anyone else like to issue testimony? Is the testimony you're about to give
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Centers: Yes, sir.
Corrie: Name and address, please, for the record.
Centers: Jake Centers, 2011 Locust Grove, Meridian. And I just want to come up and
talk a little bit about Brighton Corporation. lawn Tahoe Construction. We do quite a bit
of building in quite a few different developments and one of them being Harris Ranch
out over in Boise city, which is a Brighton Corporation development. When I began
building in Harris Ranch about three years ago I thought that my biggest obstacle in
getting my plans approved would be Boise city and I was sorely mistaken. Brighton
Corporation's ACC approval is a major pain in the neck. And then once you do get your
plans approved through their architectural control committee, they make you post a
thousand dollar bond to insure that your approved plans conform to what you actually
build. So if you build a home and are missing a couple of floor holds or missing an
architectural element that was on the approved plan, they won't refund your money until
that element is done. So as far as there being any concerns about the quality of
construction of these homes, regardless of their size, trust me, there is -- that's not
going to be an issue. The other thing about Brighton Corporation is they also have a
building division, so they build within their development. So Brighton Corporation is very
concerned about the quality of the development all the way through build out, unlike
other developers who just develop and don't really care, as long as they sell their lots to
get the project sold out and move on. Not the case with Brighton Corporation. And just
as a final note, you know, I have sat in a lot of these meetings where the P&Z, the staff,
and you, Council, have commented on how tired you are of 8,000 square foot cookie
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 65 of 95
cutter lots in standard subdivisions. So, you know, Brighton Corporation particular has
listened to that and they are presenting Heritage Commons to you tonight. So, you
know, I would just say that Heritage Commons is providing what you have been asking
for, but, you know, they cannot provide the innovation that you have been looking for
and still meet your old standards and requirements. So keep that in mind when
considering the facts of the reduced street widths and some of the other -- I think very
innovative ideas that they have brought forward here tonight. And in response to the
gentleman's comment about his concern of houses being built on 24 foot wide lots, if
any of you have had the opportunity to go down to Harris Ranch and look at the Mill
District, I think you would be very pleasantly surprised at what we can do on 24 feet. So
any questions?
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. A few questions need to be answered, and,
Dave, just -- if you can kind of a wrap up here. I'll give you --
Turnbull: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I'd like to -- the first thing I'd
like to, I guess, relate to you is that I did something that I have never done on a project
before when we entered into a contract on this property. I went out and knocked on the
homes -- the door of every home that surrounded that -- well, on Locust Grove and
along on East Heron's Crossing, just introduced myself to let them know who we were,
that we were planning on putting forth a development plan and that we would look
forward to answering any questions they had. As you can imagine, there weren't too
many -- a lot of times people aren't home, so I went prepared with a letter and a
business card and if they were home I gave them a businesses card and told them what
we were up to, if they were not home I left a letter in their front door, along with a
business card asking them to call me at any time. Since that time Jon Wardle has
visited the property out on Locust Grove three times, left business cards each time,
called twice, and so I don't think there is any lack of effort to try to communicate with the
neighbors and address their concerns. Now I will address some of the testimony that's
been given. The Donahues, who abut our property -- can you put that plat back up?
They spoke about their irrigation concerns. This is nothing new to anybody who has sat
on a planning and zoning commission or city council. We convey irrigation water just as
it was before our development. Sometimes it has to be piped and sometimes it has to
be rerouted, but the point that Gary Smith made is true, and I believe it is a condition of
our final plat that we will take care of the irrigation water. That's a commitment that we
have always had, we have dealt with it on every project. There is not a property in Ada
County that doesn't have a ditch or several ditches running through it. This is probably
something new to the neighbors and so it concerns them, but it's not anything new to
this process and we will deal with that. The access issue. I can understand the
Donahue's concern for safety and there is one thing that we would agree to, if their
concern is a driveway to their home through this location, we will provide a narrow
access for a driveway for their home. What I do object to is having to improve this whole
buffer here, go to the expense and maintain that and then having them come in in the
future and piggyback off our effort and so, okay, we are going to stick some commercial
buildings in there and then we will get the opportunity to go ahead and provide
maintenance for their landscape buffer and pay for their landscape buffer, pay for their
utilities, pay for their roadway system into it. So if their concern is an access driveway
for their home, we would be happy to provide that. The sewer has been addressed by
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 66 of 95
our engineers and been reviewed by the Public Works Department, which Mr. Smith I
think referenced. The buffer on this side right here is actually more significant than any
of the other buffers. It brings us from 28 to 35 feet from back of curb to their property
line. So we did that, because, number one, we line up with the access to the charter
school across the street, but we felt like it was important to provide that extra buffer if
we could. So there will be a significant buffer there. As far as the commercial uses that
were brought up, I think Mr. Hawkins-Clark has addressed that. There will be no fast
food. If there were a bank that needed a drive-thru, they would need a Conditional Use
Permit. Quite frankly, I think a bank with a drive-thru in this location would not be
obtrusive or offensive, it probable would be appropriate, but it still would require a
separate Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Lee addressed some of the same issues, traffic,
which has all been reviewed and approved by the highway district. Irrigation, which I
addressed under the Donahue comments, and he had an issue on fence, on a wood
fence. Well, you know, if I have I don't know how many property owners that abut that
property, but if one wants chain link and one wants vinyl and one wants wood, one
wants concrete block, pretty soon I have a hodgepodge in my neighborhood that is,
quite frankly, unacceptable to our development. So we want a unified fencing program
as much as possible and we are proposing a wood fence on the boundary and I believe
that's what has been required and approved in all other developments around the city.
Mr. Lee asked about this second access here. Actually, this is, you know, from an
emergency standpoint that would function. The question how long this whole project will
take to develop out? I hope two years, but I can't tell you today whether it will be two or
five years. If it's longer than five years I'm probably in trouble. Not be in trouble, but -- I
think it was Mr. Paul Spirk who talked about safety and got into a definition what a
common is. I guess you can go to different parts of the world and find a different
definition for commons. There is probably no common definition for common. But I'm
not sure what that has to do with this development. He also indicated that he moved to
the suburbs so people couldn't tell him what to do with his property. I think we feel the
same way. We don't feel like somebody else should be able to tell us what to do with
our property. The reference to lots that are no wider than three sheets of plywood, well,
actually, they are four sheets of plywood. And, actually, if you go down to Harris Ranch
you will find they work very well. I am -- honest to goodness, I am more proud of what
we have done in the Mill District at Harris Ranch. I walk through that project, there is
not a single -- there is one sign for a resell and it's because they want to build another
knew home in the Mill District with Mr. Centers over here. That's a testament to the
effectiveness of how people feel about that community and I'm more proud of that
project than everything I have done so far and will be prouder of this one when it's done.
He addressed school overcrowding and the ghettos. I think that's the one that Mr.
Centers gave about our ACC being a pain in the neck. I'm not sure if that was a
compliment, but I think that's probably the reality with our developments, we are very
careful about the builders that we'll let in, we are careful about the architecture that we
allow to be built and we hold people to a higher standard and I guess I don't make any
apologies for that. Doc Johnson, as I know him, asked about sewer stubs. His property
stub is right here and there is a sewer stub to his property at that location. I don't
remember if there was another questions.
Johnson: Just the wastewater.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 67 of 95
Turnbull: The wastewater, of course, is the same comment that we handle on a routine
basis and that would be dealt with, with the conditions of the final plat. Finally, I guess I
would like to address a little bit the fire department's objections. I would not expect the
fire department to give on narrow street standards anymore than I would expect a
school teacher to give up tenure. That's, I guess, you know, kind of their job, their
territory to stake out. But we do ask the Commission to balance the interest and
recognize that narrower streets in a well connected network provide the necessary, but
infrequent fire department access, while providing a neighborhood that functions in a
safe and more livable manner 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It was very interesting
after -- the day after the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing where we got into all
this thing about narrow streets, we actually had a fire call at the Harris Ranch on narrow
streets and, guess what, there were five fire trucks on the spot and put out the fire
before there was any damage at all and they had to drive through two existing phases
of the development to get there. So I think that's a testament that narrow streets can
work, they can accommodate the fire department. Mr. Silva showed some pictures of
some existing developments and I think one was in Ashford Greens, which was one of
my developments and he showed a landscaping trailer with the gate open. You know,
sure, there is going to be parking some places. There was also a very broad, expansive
driveway right next to it where the fire department could pull their truck right up and
serve -- you know, respond to any kind of an emergency in that location. So the fire
department, I think, and the city need to recognize that they will not get both
connectivity, which we provide here, and wider streets. You're going to get one or both
and if you can't do this on this kind of a development, and you require us to go back to
wide streets, I can point an example right here, I could eliminate that street connection
right there and still fall within your subdivision ordinances, I could eliminate that street
connection right there and still comply with your subdivision ordinances and, guess
what, I'd lose probably 750 feet of street expense and sewer expense and water
expense and I would pick up six plat-able lots. I'm about half a million dollars behind by
providing this connectivity and if we don't have some cooperation for the city and
foresight to recognize that these streets actually work and they actually will function as a
better, more livable neighborhood, then I'm afraid this is the last you're going to see of it.
I mean that will be the message that you send to us and the rest of the development
community. So I hope I have wrapped it up quickly enough. I feel very strongly about
this project. We have done the best planning that we have done and I'm exited to get
going. The other comment I would like to make and I appreciate the effort the planning
department has made, we have talked about centers through the whole Comprehensive
Plan here, how do we get this kind of development to be submitted and, you know, how
do you get developers to submit something like that. I ask for one thing. I didn't ask -- I
didn't ask for anything but this, expedited hearing process. We've had an expedited
hearing process, we got put on the Planning and Zoning Commission, we got through
there in the first night, we are asking for your approval here tonight so we can move on
with the process. Time means as much to us as far as almost anything else and if we
can get fast -- you know, I'm not talking about circumventing the process, but I'm talking
about expediting the process and if we can get that, as well as fast turn around times for
our final plats and our construction plans, that's the best incentive you can give us.
Thank you.
Corrie: Any questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 68 of 95
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I did have one. Mr. Lee asked about a sewer stub as well. You
answered on the Donahue and the Johnson property, but you didn't answer on his.
Turnbull: Mr. Lee and Donahue's are adjoining parcels and we had our engineer go out
and shoot elevations on their property, shoot elevations on the sewer lines out here, we
submitted a letter to your Public Works Department that says that his findings are that it
will adequately -- the trunk line at Locust Grove Road will adequately service these
properties. If they want more proof, I guess we are always going to have to -- your city
has the data and they reviewed it and they were okay with it, so I don't know what more
to say about that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Turnbull: We made a specific effort to go out there and verify it and we have done that.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I had a question for Brad. I was noticing in the position statement -- and I don't
know if it was a slight discrepancy, but in the retail is has a bank with a drive-up and
then at the bottom it talks about a drive-thru requires a CUP and I did hear Mr. Turnbull
say that a drive-up window for a bank would require a CUP. So what was -- was that
just an oversight in that inclusion of a bank with drive-up as an allowed use? So we
would have to strike that?
Hawkins-Clark: Council and Mayor, my understanding is that the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation is no drive-thrus period.
Nary: So we would simply eliminate with a drive-up on the retail provision regarding a
bank?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Okay. Any discussion before -- want to close
the public hearing or keep it open?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 69 of 95
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: All three?
McCandless: Yes.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on
Items 13, 14, and 15 for Heritage Commons. Further discussion? Then all those in favor
of the motion say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried. Public Hearing is now
closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Comments, discussion from Council?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I think this is probably one of the finest planned developments that I have
seen since I have been sitting here. I feel like they have answered all of the concerns
that were given to us up here and I want to compliment them on the work that they have
done toward it. I think it's lovely and I think it could work. And I think it's time we put our
money where our mouth is when we -- we have been talking about -- not subdivisions,
but planned communities such as this.
Corrie: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would agree with Mrs. McCandless that the -- you know, it -- I try very hard to
stick to what our ordinances say and what our requirements are and I don't see anything
in here -- there is, obviously, some tweaks that need to be resolved regarding some
fencing, but that's included in the recommendation and some issues with irrigation and
sewer. As Mr. Turnbull stated, it's exactly right, the law requires it. I mean he knows
that. I don't know if you knew that before this whole process started, but the law requires
them to meeting those delivery needs, waste needs, all of those things, that has to
happen. So that's not a concern to me. I would also agree with Mrs. McCandless that if
we were -- if we weren't dealing with Brighton Corporation and the track record that they
have in these types of developments, you know, maybe it is a concern, it is different, but
we wanted different and we have asked for different and we have made a point of
bringing that out and I'm not concerned that Brighton Corporation is not going to follow
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 70 of 95
through with this. I have complete confidence in them being able to do that. Again, there
is a few minor tweaks. I think most of those were addressed in this position statement
by Mr. Hawkins-Clark. Those are the things that were discussed at the Planning and
Zoning level. The narrower streets, I understand Mr. Silva's concerns. In my experience
the city of Boise was concerned about the exact same thing in regard to Harris Ranch
and they have not had a problem with that. That was worked out fine and they raised
the exact same issues about access and it hasn't been a problem. So our experience
has been that they really can work as Mr. Turnbull stated. I understand Mr. Silva's
position, it isn't something we are used to here, it's something that is different, but I think
it can work, I'm not concerned that it won't be able to be done properly and there will be
access for the fire trucks. That won't be a big problem I don't believe.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I will follow the other two Council people. I agree. I think this is a very, very nice
planned development that Meridian can certainly use. I like the commercial part of it, the
neighborhood center, we have been wanting to get one off the ground. Brighton Corp
has come forward. I suggest anybody that thinks that you can't get around on the
streets to go down into Harris Ranch, take a big truck with a trailer behind it, which
probably turns as far as a fire truck and you can get through. I think it's the first of its
kind in Meridian. I hope it isn't the last of its kind. I hope we get a couple more like this,
because then we can quit being cookie cutter subdivisions.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd?
De Weerd: I didn't say anything.
Corrie: Certainly don't have to. I mean if you have said all you want to say. Discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Okay. I didn't want to disappoint anyone, but it's getting late, so won't say
much. I just also would echo everything that has been said. I know that there is a lot of
discomfort, because there are still questions out for several of the property owners, but
those will be addressed and I think the developer has noted that he would give you a
curb cut and put that in the recommendations that's to your property and that would
have to then be discussed if your property were ever to redevelop, because I do
understand their concerns. So I think with everything that's -- a lot of the testimony with
the sewer and the irrigation, fencing has yet to be resolved, but in staff
recommendations that is an issue, so with that I think Mr. Nary can make a motion.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 71 of 95
Nary: Mr. Mayor. I guess we will start with item number 13. I move the approval of AZ
02-006, request for annexation and zoning of 76.16 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for
proposed Heritage Commons by Brighton Corporation, west side of North Locust Grove
between East McMillan Road and East Ustick Road, and for Council to prepare
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order, pursuant to the staff
recommendations, including -- I don't believe there is any other additions or corrections
to the annexation, and include the staff report.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for a recommendation of approval
of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order by the
attorney. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mrs. Clerk.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I move the approval of PP 02-007, request for preliminary plat approval of 273
building lots and 17 other lots on 75.39 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed
Heritage Commons -- this was modified, so that was -- to include the staff report, as well
as the position statement by Mr. Hawkins-Clark dated today, dated 5/20/02, in relation
to the preliminary plat and it appears that Mr. Turnbull had raised that outstanding issue
regarding the Locust Grove parcel and that's the one regarding the driveway, so the
driveway we would want a specific finding that they would provide a driveway access
only through the property on the -- I guess the south of the entrance way to the
adjoining lots and counsel to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and
Decision and Order pursuant to those changes.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Discussion? Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd just ask Mr. Nary -- it sounded as
though the Donahues needed the access for the residence, that was their primary
concern, but Mr. Turnbull's concern was that that access not be converted into some
sort of commercial access if the property's use somehow changed and I believe
Councilwoman de Weerd may have been alluding to that in her comments. So I would
ask that you -- if you want the use of the driveway restricted to that residence and the
existing pasture area, I suppose, maybe they might have some reason to do something
back there, if that's your --
Nary: What I would prefer to say is that there would be a private residential driveway
access only, so that it's clear that the Donahues will have access, but any other
development in the future -- this common drive issue I don't recall if there was any other
concern about modifying recommendation number six, the 24 foot wide private street.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 72 of 95
McCandless: Second agrees.
Nary: Was that something we need to clear up, Brad? This is what was brought up by
the developer. Preliminary plat recommendation number six on page two.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. They -- I believe the proposal meets the planned development
ordinance, with the exception of the sidewalks. I mean I think in this situation staff would
support their proposal.
Nary: So include this recommendation, but modify number six with a 20 foot wide
private street and I will give this to Mr. Nichols to include in the Findings of Fact, so he
can include this other recommendation as well.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Just to make sure, does that eliminate sidewalks on both sides of the street or
would it allow sidewalk on one side?
Hawkins-Clark: Both.
Nichols: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think this is probably discussion that should have been under the
annexation and zoning and here we have the leaders of the north Meridian area plan,
but in other developments we have included some language as far as participation in
the recommendations that come forth in particular to the transportation issues and, Mr.
Attorney, maybe you can help me on this. Were we supposed to do that under the
annexation and zoning and -- or is this an appropriate spot for it?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it's not really a plat issue as such, it would
either be under the Conditional Use Permit or under the annexation and zoning.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I would hope that we would remember that in the next
motion, since we failed to in the first one. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, roll-call vote, Madam Clerk.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 73 of 95
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Number 15, request for Conditional Use Permit.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, I move the approval of CUP 02-007, request for Conditional Use
Permit for the planned development for single family residential dwellings, private open
space with a club house, gazebo, parks and neighborhood scaled commercial site for
proposed Heritage Commons by Brighton Corporation, to include all staff comments,
including the position statement of May 20th of '02 by Mr. Hawkins-Clark of the Planning
and Zoning Department, as well as the -- as well as what's recommended by the
developer -- I'm not sure -- Brad, correct me -- basically what's brought up by the
Brighton Corporation about deleting recommendation number two, the requirement for a
separate CUP with a site plan, is that taken care of at all with this language that is
included from the prior memo from Brighton Corp in regards to number two? What
seems to be recommended here, seems to be cured by this statement, other than we
would amend retail banks to exclude the word with a drive-up, and then there isn't a
CUP for every single use on this property. Some them are allowed.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. In terms of use, that's correct. The position statement, if you
recommend approval of that, then the position statement is worded as such that they
have to come back with a Conditional Use Permit for the configuration of the
commercial area and that was because prior to tonight we had not seen the new
elevations that they had shown. Still haven't spent a lot of time with that. Essentially
what it comes down to is -- is that the elevations, knowing which they submitted -- what
they have submitted tonight, if that's your recommendation for approval, which is
different than their original application, then I think we are comfortable with that and that
portion of the position statement could be stricken that requires a separate Conditional
Use Permit for the commercial area.
Nary: And I guess I'm comfortable with that. If it does change certainly, then, you can
bring that back, but I guess my motion would be that we strike that language and that
we go forward on what was presented. If the staff feels that it isn't consistent with what
was presented tonight, then a separate hearing needs to be held, then we can do that,
but I'd rather we go forward, that's the whole --
Bird: I'd rather we go forward, too. and I think that something -- the arrangement on that,
the lots in the commercial could -- I don't know why that has to come back for a
conditional use. I think that's something that the developer and the staff could work out,
as long as -- we basically agreed upon the design and whether they put four large ones
on or two large and four small, I think that's something that we don't have to go back for
a Conditional Use Permit, definitely, for. You know, I think that's something that --
between staff and the developer decide on that.
De Weerd: We have definitions that deal with that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 74 of 95
Bird: Right.
Nary: So I guess the conclusion of my motion would be for counsel to prepare Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, consisting of all of those
multiple findings.
Bird: I will second it.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Excuse me.
Nary: And also I would like to amend my motion to include that they also comply with
the recommendations from the North Meridian Area Planning in regards to traffic and --
that was the traffic issues we were talking about, whatever you're talking about -- I
totally forgot that.
De Weerd: I think our attorney has the language down by now.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, what we would include would be the same
language that was included for Cedar Springs, for Bridgetower, it has to do with any of
the issues pertaining to ACHD infrastructure and other type issues and things that have
been discussed in the North Meridian Planning Area. So it's become a standard
condition on those -- those north area and so I can't recite it verbatim, but --
Nary: So what Mr. Nichols said I would like that included in the motion.
Bird: Second agrees.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I do have one other thing and that is the site plan layouts that were
shown on the Power Point presentation do not appear anywhere in the written record
and so we need Mr. Wardle to print out those site plan layouts and provide them to staff
and we will attach them to the findings as the layout that does not require a CUP for a
site plan that --
Nary: Okay.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Madam Clerk.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 75 of 95
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Before we go on to the next one, let me say something here. I think our
Comprehensive Plan is falling into place here early. We do have the developers on this
ten square mile area that we have worked with and I'm really happy that the first one
that's really come across to do something of this nature for us is Brighton Corporation.
They are a great builder, you look at all their properties, they are superior, so, David,
this is from the chair taking a privilege that I appreciate what you have done here, I
know you're going to work with the neighbors and you always have and I'm just thrilled
that we are starting with you and you were one of the leaders in that north ten square
mile area and I hope that they all start following suit and go from you now. All right.
Thank you. Council, you want a break for a second? Okay. Let's have a break for about
five minutes.
(Recess.)
RECONVENED AT 11 :03 P.M.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: VAC 02-002 Request for a Vacation for unopened
future streets within lots 5 and 6, block 1 of Timothy Subdivision for Pack
It Up Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - west of South Locust
Grove Road and north of East Overland Road:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: VAR 02-004 Request for a Variance to allow a second
time extension for recording the final plat for Pack It Up Subdivision
(formerly Overland Mini Storage Subdivision) by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.
- west of South Locust Grove Road and north of East Overland Road:
Corrie: All right. Okay. We'd like to reconvene the Council and Item Numbers 16 and 17
is a Public Hearing request for vacation for unopened future streets within Lots 5 and 6,
Block 1 of Timothy Subdivision for Pack It Up Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineering. And
then also a Public Hearing, request for variance to allow a second time extension for
recording the final plat for Pack It Up Subdivision (formerly Overland Mini storage
Subdivision) by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., So at this time I will open the Public Hearing
on both 16 and 17 and invite the staff's comments first and then we will go to the
representative.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. The vacation is an
interesting one that I don't think we have ever actually seen before. Briefly, the reason
for it -- and here on the screen is what you probably recognize as Overland Mini
Storage lot here, it's actually part of the Timothy Subdivision. I guess I don't have that
on there. But the Timothy Subdivision as it was originally approved included some
designated future right-of-way streets that were, of course, never actually built, because
this an existing vacant lot. The applicant has addressed all of that in their application,
which I assume you have read. We do have a staff report to you, dated today, from
Dave McKinnon and he does address briefly some of these issues. The Ada county
engineer and surveyor John Priester has -- is the only person that has said that these
future unopened streets require vacation. Ada County Highway District and our staff
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 76 of 95
said that we could process it without it, but they are here to basically request a vacation
of those -- of those future. So we are supportive of that. The time extension is tied to
this Item Number 16, in that since Ada county is requiring a vacation, they got delayed
for the recording of their plat, so that is the reason why they are unable to meet the time
extension which you had already approved a year ago, so they are asking due to this
unforeseen issue with the Ada county surveyor they are asking for that second time
extension for six months, not one year.
Corrie: Any questions from staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Is the representative -- is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Boyle: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address for the record.
Boyle: Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive, and I just got
to apologize up front, because my presentation will be much less exciting than the
previous one you just saw, so -- much shorter as well, though, so I guess there is
benefit there. I do have copies of the original Timothy plat. I believe they may be in your
applications. If you want to look at those I will pass them around. I will try to be as brief
as possible. This particular subdivision for Pack It Up Subdivision was essentially a re-
plat of two lots in Timothy Subdivision, being Lots 5 and 6, which are the southeast
corner of the subdivision. Timothy Subdivision, when it was originally approved, had
these neat little future streets shown on it, with a note that at the time that a subdivision
was recorded in the future that they'd like to see this future street network. We have
processed the Pack It Up Subdivision. These future streets, as you will note, there is
nothing that ties them to anything in the world, they don't have any bearings or
dimensions on them for that matter, and it also shows kind of an urban lotting pattern.
Again, those were -- at some future date it was expected that this would develop in
accordance with Timothy Subdivision when urban services became available in the
area. Obviously, through other developments on Lot 2 of Timothy Subdivision, other
lots, it hasn't occurred as they were projecting in the future. There have already been
buildings constructed over the future street area and other portions being Lot 2 of what
was originally Timothy Subdivision. So, essentially, we went through the platting
process, ACHD signed off on the plat, as well as the city, with no problems with regards
to the future streets, which aren't improved, aren't dedicated as public right of ways per
se, as typically dedicated. The Ada County surveyor and his review of the plat has
required that we vacate the streets, which has kind of thrown us into a little bit of a
predicament there, because ACHD did recognize them as being publicly dedicated. We
are going through a process with ACHD to vacate the streets. We have had many
discussions with their legal department on it and I don't think that they are even stated
as a true vacation of a public street, but more to the effect that they were quitclaiming
any interest that they may have in a future street within those locations. So, in a
nutshell, because of this single issue with the county surveyor and him being adamant
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 77 of 95
about that, we have sent letters and had correspondence back and forth with him
regarding the issue and he has pretty much stuck to his guns on it. Because of that it
has delayed the recording of the plat. That is the only outstanding item that we have to
record this plat. It is the county surveyor signing off and, therefore, the treasurer and
recorder, which our pretty much routine signatures there. So with that said, this plat
would have been recorded if this issue had not come up within the given time
constraints, but based on that we are requesting the time extension, which we are
projecting will probably take roughly two to three months from this particular point in
time, but should be easily accomplished in six months, and get us through ACHD's
process for quitclaiming or vacating the streets. With that I'll stand for any questions.
Hopefully that was quick enough get us home in a half an hour.
Corrie: You did a good job. Do Council have comments, question?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: We are basically vacating a street that doesn't really exist anyway?
Boyle: Right.
Nary: You wonder why people think government doesn't work. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else to issue testimony? Seeing none, Council, any
other testimony for the Public Hearing? Okay. Then I'll entertain a motion to close the
Public Hearing on Items 16 and 17.
McCandless: So moved.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 16
and 17. All in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Discussion? Okay. I'll entertain a motion on the request for a vacation of
unopened future streets in Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, of Timothy Subdivision for Pack It Up
Subdivision.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 78 of 95
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for vacation for Pack it Up Subdivision within
Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, of Timothy Subdivision and ask the attorney to draw up Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, roll-call vote, Madam Clerk.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Item Number 17.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for a variance to allow a second time
extension for the recording of the final plat for Pack It Up Subdivision, as requested by
the applicant, and to include staff comments and ask the attorney to draw up Findings
Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
roll-call vote, please.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18:
Public Hearing: VAR 02-001 Request for a Variance to the landscape
requirements for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Hubble
Engineering, Inc. - 1375 East Fairview Avenue:
Item 19:
PFP 02-001 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 4 building lots
on 6 acres in a C-G zone for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by
Hubble Engineering, Inc. - 1375 East Fairview Avenue:
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 79 of 95
Corrie: Item Number 18 is a Public Hearing. This is a request for a variance from the
landscape requirements for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Hubble Engineering,
1375 East Fairview Avenue. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and invite staff
comments first.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The subject property is
here. I'm sure you're well aware the -- two items are before you, the lots here are tied
together and that approval of the preliminary final plat would be reliant on approval of
this hearing. Essentially, they are requesting approval to allow the existing six foot wide
landscape buffer that is on Fairview Avenue in front of Intermountain and Intermountain
is on this right parcel only. The left is what is proposed to be platted in the next item into
a few lots. So Jane Suggs is here and she does have a proposal tonight that we -- we
actually haven't had time to review much at staff level. Our recommendation, basically,
for the request on the variances is specifically to not grant the existing six-foot street
buffer. We did propose an alternative in our recommendation on page three, so that is
what Jane has come prepared tonight to address in terms of our compromise that we
had proposed there. We are recommending to remove the row of parking that is
immediately adjacent to the existing street buffer, which is along Fairview. Intermountain
was approved on the basis of a department store, which had a parking ratio of one stall
for 400 square feet. They would still meet ordinance should they lose that row of parking
there adjacent to Fairview. The relocation of the emissions van and the coffee kiosk will
need to be handled in a manner that doesn't further reduce the number of available
parking stalls. The coffee kiosk was approved with the Conditional Use Permit, I believe,
about four years ago. Mayor, did you open 19 as well? Okay.
Corrie: Yes. There was only one.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Could I ask you a question, Brad, before you go on for the other --
Hawkins-Clark: Sure.
Nary: What I was noticing in the compromise paragraph, it says that the required
parking for the store was 137 spaces. By eliminating the row of parking it goes down the
160 spaces, but it says that the coffee kiosk and the emission van would need to be
handled without reducing any further parking stalls, but don't they have a 23 stall leeway
here to be in compliance?
Hawkins-Clark: That is correct. Yeah. The last sentence there on the second
paragraph, parking lot was approved with 193 spaces. 137. So, yeah, if you factor in the
requirements for the stall, there is a surplus of parking.
Nary: Okay. If they were able to relocate -- if we just follow what your suggestion was, if
they were to relocate that emissions van and coffee kiosk in their lot and only reduce 23
spaces, they'd still be in compliance with this.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 80 of 95
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Nary: I know there is some other stuff regarding landscaping islands and all those
things. Okay. I just wanted to be sure I --
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Right. The last paragraph there on page three of our report does
discuss the installation of interior landscape islands. That would -- essentially what is
proposed to help bring the number of trees up to what was originally required for
Intermountain Outdoor Sports. So I think on Item Number 18, you know, essentially, we
are recommending a compromise of sorts, but not the six-foot to be allowed. So in
terms of 19, the plat -- here are some existing photos. I'm sure you're all well familiar
with the area. There is an existing Quonset hut out there that we are recommending be
removed prior to building permits and here is a copy of the proposed plat. They are
looking at four lots, essentially dividing this left vacant area here into three lots and
Intermountain would sit on its own lot and I think I'll just leave it up to Jane to address a
couple of the outstanding issues that we had on that plat.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Brad, I don't see any mention about sidewalks. Are there any sidewalks in
there?
Hawkins-Clark: There are no existing sidewalks.
De Weerd: Do you know -- that's -- we don't have sidewalks on either side of that street.
Bird: They put sidewalks in down --
Hawkins-Clark: Stonehenge.
Bird: Yeah. They put sidewalks down there and -- yes, across over there at Walgreen.
Walgreen and down there they have sidewalks. I don't think -- I know the athletic club
does, but --
De Weerd: That's what I mean. We don't have sidewalks on either side of a very busy
street.
Hawkins-Clark: The Highway District on the plat, they did -- the Highway District did
require installation of it. If you saw their comments.
De Weerd: Okay. But it's not in our comments and it's -- usually it's standard comment,
but I just -- it was a glaring omission.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 81 of 95
Hawkins-Clark: Well, we can glaringly put it back in and in bold.
De Weerd: I'm sorry. It is getting late, you know.
Corrie: What makes you think it's late? It's early in the morning. All right. Anything else?
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: Okay. The applicant's representative. Is the testimony you're about to give the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Suggs: Yes, sir.
Corrie: Name and address, please, for the record.
Suggs: My name is Jane Suggs and I represent Hubble Engineering on behalf of Jerry
Sweet and Intermountain Outdoor Sports. First, let me just clarify one thing. On page
three of the recommendations on the plat, at the top of page number 13, construct five
foot sidewalk on Fairview Avenue. The sidewalk to be installed prior to issuance of
occupancy permits for Lots 2, 3 and 4. So -- is that not on yours? For the plat.
Nary: That's page four, actually.
Suggs: I'm sorry. It's there and -- not curb and gutter, but sidewalk. Okay. Clint stole my
thunder, because I did -- also won't be as fancy as Brighton Corporation. So thank you
for that. And we will do this really fast, because the last time I had talked about this
project at P&Z it was 1 :00 a.m. This process is a little bit unique. You have seen this
before. It's a preliminary and final plat, because we have four or fewer lots. Also as staff
mentioned, this all sort of hinges on landscape variance. Landscape variance is not
heard by P&Z, but only heard by you. And I have a copy of a landscape plan that Brad
will put up in just a minute. But first let me tell you -- let's talk a little bit about that
landscape variance. Our original landscape variance request was that we just use
existing landscape. This project was built out something like seven to eight years ago
and the landscaping was installed according to the approved plan, but there might have
been some things that didn't quite get put in just like the plan had asked. But my first
request is that the existing landscaping stand for the landscape for the subdivision,
because this is just a simple subdivision of the undeveloped portion on the corner. That
included the six-foot -- six to seven feet of landscaping that's located along Fairview
Road. Now I am actually asking for a new variance request and I have some conditions
-- or a position statement on the staff report and also I have a new variance letter. You
probably didn't get that in time, because I didn't fax over in time, so I have copies of
that. Nobody's seen that yet. What that new variance request does in response to the
position statement to the staff's findings on the variance was that I hope to -- we plan to
put on a 35 foot buffer along the undeveloped portion of the site along Fairview Road. If
Brad could put that landscape plan up, so that we can take a look at that. There we go.
You will see there on the west side of the site along Fairview Road we are installing a
35-foot landscape buffer on the undeveloped portion. That will be 20 feet -- a 20-foot
buffer along Stonehenge -- a sidewalk along Stonehenge, as the councilman
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 82 of 95
mentioned. In addition, as the staff requested, all the dead and dying landscape along
Fairview Road in front of the existing store will be removed and replaced with
appropriate landscaping. As the staff recommended, all the landscaping will be in
easements, not in common lots, which it is typical. New landscaping will be provided
along the east property line. You can see that closer to where the arrow is. And very
specifically there will be a new landscape buffer along the Fairview Street frontage. Now
the first request was that we actually not improve that landscaping. Staff had requested
that that entire row of parking be removed along Fairview and that that all be landscape
buffer. We agree with that, but we do believe that those two permitted uses, one of the
ways that we can accomplish having them not impact the parking anymore is to have
some cutouts for that. So that's what's shown there, but more than 60 percent of that
buffer will be the width that was recommended by the staff. All the variances -- all the
landscaping on the undeveloped portion of the site will be pretty much in keeping with
the landscape ordinance. We are asking for a continued variance on that landscape
buffer along Fairview Road and the interior landscaping and the reason for that, of
course, is not only the removal of parking, but also the disruption to the existing parking
facility -- this is an existing store, why we are asking a variance for is because of the
condition regarding the fact that this is not a new project, this is an existing commercial
enterprise. I wanted to go over the staff report on the variance. It seems that staff was
able to make three of the four findings for the variance, but on the fourth finding, number
D -- or letter D, they could not make the finding and one of the reasons they could not
make the finding was because they chose this particular item of the landscape buffer
along Fairview Road and said that they could not make the finding that this particular
approval would -- they think it would impact the landscape ordinance by creating I guess
some sort of precedent in allowing a six foot buffer and we -- I think we have solved
that, because the reason you could make that finding was a specific -- it seemed to be
specific finding and so we believe we have addressed that by adding a landscaping
buffer and making it wider along Fairview. Also in that finding the staff had commented
that the landscaping -- the reductions that we had asked for were beyond the alternative
compliance section of the landscape ordinance and we were not asking specifically for
alternative compliance, we were asking for a portion of that. In alternate compliance
there is a section for variance. We feel the areas that are just kind of beyond the
alternative compliance part of the landscape code. I believe that they can with these
changes make the appropriate finding and so that would make the full findings for the
variance.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Ms. Suggs, they don't find the second one either. It says there is no topography
problem. Am I misreading that?
Suggs: Well, they say: However, staff finds the existing asphalt parking lot is a condition
that makes strict application of this ordinance unreasonable. B. Is that what you're
reading?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 83 of 95
Nary: Right. Yeah. Okay. I guess that's -- I don't agree with that. I think just because
there is asphalt there and an existing parking lot or something -- that's not what they are
talking about, but -- okay. That's fine.
Suggs: I'm reading that as they have found -- in fact, on one, in each of those, A, B, and
C, it seems if they made a finding D, they were unable to -- a specific example of that
landscape buffer along the street and not allowing the six to seven foot buffer that
exists, but I believe that the findings can be appropriately made. I can move on to the
next item, which would be the preliminary and final plat, unless there is some questions
specifically about the landscape variance.
Corrie: On the cut outs in the front there on that Franklin side, what are you planning on
putting there?
Suggs: There are two existing uses there that are permitted and it's a coffee kiosk and
an emissions van. So those have been permitted to be there. I know the staff report kind
of mentions the coffee kiosk, but that's just something we had worked out in the
Planning and Zoning meeting.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Currently that coffee kiosk has -- essentially is like a drive-thru for those parking
stalls. With those trees and buffer there, where is the traffic flow going to go?
Suggs: We have allowed enough room. Just like they do now. That's pretty much uses
-- it sits long the edge of the parking and you can go behind the coffee kiosk one way
and it would be kind of in the travel lane in the other. I mean it pretty much is located
about where it is right now and it just impacts one row of parking there. So where you
see the cut out will go from the 26 foot width to -- back up to about the six or seven foot
width of buffer.
Nary: And why isn't it possible to move the van and that kiosk to a different location on
the lot?
Suggs: Well, we are trying to do what staff requested and try to allow those uses to
remain without impacting additional spaces.
Nary: I don't think they said it had to remain in the same space, so I'm saying why can't
they move to a different space on that lot? You still have a 23-space buffer between
what's required by code and what's left by eliminating all of those spaces on the front.
Suggs: There are two items. One is -- well, first, the store was analyzed under the idea
of being a department store and not a retail space, which is -- retail store, which is
typically one space for 200 square feet, instead of 400 square feet. So there is a little bit
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 84 of 95
of a concern there. The owners are concerned not with just meeting the minimum
requirements, but allow -- providing parking for their customers, which I don't know if
you have been over there, but I have been a few times and it stays pretty packed. Also
there are some plans, according to the owners, of the possibility of expanding. The
facility was built so that it could be expanded into more retail space and we didn't want
to create a situation where there would be a problem with actually doing that expansion
and not having enough a parking. So even though there is some leeway, we want to
leave as much leeway as possible and have those kind of in those locations where it
could be convenient for them to remain, but also not impact the parking spaces.
Nary: So if the store was evaluated at one space per 200 square feet, how much
parking is required?
Suggs: 242 spaces. For retail, office, and warehousing.
Nary: So you want them evaluated in regards to that?
Suggs: No. I want to continue to evaluate it the way that they had and the way that I had
discussed with staff earlier. However -- I mean I don't want to eliminate any type of
leeway we have in that parking to try and reduce the parking down to the space. I mean,
again, I'm trying to -- we are trying to make sure that we are serving the commercial
spaces as well as possible.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess before we move onto the application itself, you know, we have
worked really hard to try and be consistent among the decisions we make and with the
applications that we get for a variance and it seems to me like we received the request
for variance for Seven Gates a year or two ago and we gave them no credit for having
asphalt down, that that was some kind of a reason for a variance. It was Seven Gates;
is that right? John Forsythe's property?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
De Weerd: And so I guess I'm struggling a little bit trying to justify the variance. I
certainly understand it and I do like the alternative. However, I do think that like staff is
recommending with the landscape islands and stuff like that, that there is compliance
issues that they never met before, which, again, was something that we had with Seven
Gates, and they can go ahead and put landscaping in that parking lot, which I believe
we have done with other applications. So I'm not quite certain why this is all of a sudden
different because there is existing asphalt. So I would appreciate maybe a little bit of
help catching up here.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 85 of 95
Hawkins-Clark: I can pull the landscape ordinance to quote directly, but the landscape
ordinance that was approved about two years ago has a clause that addresses if there
is an existing site that -- it's tied to the percentage of the lot that is going to be
redeveloped -- it gets somewhat into an issue of are we considering this to be a
redevelopment of Intermountain, even though it's just a plat. The way the landscape
ordinance reads, it's talking about actual redevelopment of an existing commercial site.
Should they come -- should they come in with a proposed to, for example, put a
mezzanine level in the store or expand it some way, that would probably be a little bit
more clear cut issue of whether the landscape ordinance would kick in. Does that make
sense? I mean it's addressing a development site there. They are at this point in time
not proposing any developments. It's strictly a subdivision. So that, for us, was some of
the difference. I can pull the wording. It's just going to take me a second. That's the gist
of it.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Brad, maybe you could -- while you're looking for that, what it sounds to me, I
guess, and maybe that's what this disagreement is, but it sounds to me -- and I guess I
agree with Councilwoman de Weerd, I mean I don't think asphalt is a real good reason
to grant a variance, but my reading of that was that the intent was instead of having to
tear out 29 feet of asphalt down here somewhere, the staff's compromise suggestion is
to rip out about half of that and basically still have a pretty fairly straight landscape
buffer across the top of that and not have these little cut outs where there is really -- it
sort of defeats the purpose of the whole landscape idea is to have these cut outs with a
van parked there and a kiosk parked there and really eliminating that buffer. That's the
way I read what the concern about the asphalt is. It's not -- if you can tear out this much
asphalt, you can tear that piece out, too. That's not going to matter. It's -- the issue here
is how much is too much and that's what that particular compromise is. This I just don't
think is much of a compromise. That's not really what the purpose of the ordinance is, is
to create a landscaped look to the street and that's why it's there, but I think the staff,
you know, has come up with something that is a compromise, I just don't think your
compromise is really much of a compromise at all.
Suggs: And -- Brad, did you want to speak --
Hawkins-Clark: I was just going to say it is Ordinance 12-13-11-4, existing parking lot
applicability, and it is tied to -- 25 percent is the number for re-striping the parking lot,
overlay the parking lot, replacement less than 25 percent, no additional landscaping is
required. For parking lot replacement that is 25 to 50 percent of the parking area, then
we require the perimeter and right-of-way landscaping. So do you happen to have that
number, Jane, what the percentage of the parking area is that is -- or would be required
to be torn up? It looks -- it just appears that it's less than 25 percent.
Suggs: Well, we would prefer to tear up as little as possible. In fact, our proposal to do
what I believe is a compromise -- a healthy compromise here along the landscape
buffer along the street, especially since we are taking out all the old landscaping and the
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 86 of 95
lava rock there and putting in lawn and trees that seem to fit the site. And this is on the
existing portion where we are not planning on doing any development and we are
meeting the code on the undeveloped portion. In fact, I believe your Comprehensive
Plan will soon not require the 35 feet of landscaping on this portion of Fairview, you
would be going back to a 20 or 25 foot buffer along that section, so, actually, everything
that is being proposed now is going to be above and beyond what would be required. In
fact, some of the landscaping -- because they put the sidewalk within two -- close to the
edge of the pavement so we could avoid some of the poles that -- it shows the poles
there. We will actually be getting publicly some landscape within the right of way, so
that, actually, it will be a little bit more than some of that that you see where the line is,
so we are going a few feet beyond what was recommended by the Council -- by the
staff. I'm not sure, maybe Brad can tell me, but I think Fred Meyer just put in a gasoline
island. Did they do additional landscaping when they --
Hawkins-Clark: They did. They installed about ten new internal planters where it was
previously just stripped.
Suggs: Did they put anything additional up front?
Hawkins-Clark: On Fairview?
Suggs: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: They had existing 35 feet.
Suggs: Okay. I would like to move on, maybe, to the preliminary and final plat, unless
there is more conditions -- concerns about -- again, just to make the point that this is an
existing site, that Intermountain Sports is not going to be -- we are not making any
changes to that and the three sites will be developed by others, likely, and sold. So then
they would be developed by others. And that would be, again, maybe an appropriate
time to -- well, as Brad said, whenever there is a building permit would be a perfect time
to ask for additional landscaping.
Corrie: Jane?
Suggs: Yes.
Corrie: Maybe you'd know. What's the width -- you have those two cut outs there.
What's the width of the berm between the -- your edge of the road there? Is it less than
what's there now? See, when you had your --
Suggs: The cut outs?
Corrie: Before you had cut outs.
Suggs: The cut outs would pretty much be just what the parking is now, which is about
an 18 to -- 18 to 20 foot parking space with the cut out and the width of that is going to
be probably eight to nine parking spaces long. Maybe.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 87 of 95
Corrie: What is the width north and south of there? It's 35 feet on the sides there, but
what's -- where that cut out is, what's the width from the north of the cut to the --
Suggs: Of the landscaping? Right now it's about six feet and we are putting about three
or four feet within the right of way, so it looks like it could be as much as ten and -- I
have a scale, Brad, if you need to measure it off of that. Actually, that might not be to
scale. No, that's not going to work, since it got reduced.
Hawkins-Clark: Oh, is it reduced?
Nary: Ms. Suggs, maybe it's the lateness of the hour, but I have heard you say this
twice now. You're saying because it's an existing store that it would be more appropriate
when the store was requesting a change for us to request the landscaping
requirements. So it would be your position, then, you're not required to do any
landscaping and you need this variance at all?
Suggs: Well, my first variance was not to put any additional landscaping in, but we feel
like we want to, though, beyond that and do some additional on the existing store. That
would not -- our first request was not to put any landscaping, it was to use the existing
landscaping and then put the landscaping that was required on the undeveloped
portion. That's why we come in with this variance -- this change variance with us, which
would ask that we do consider some of the staff requests for compromise and that we
put some landscaping along the Fairview Road frontage.
Nary: Because it appears to me that your compromise is really a compromise of the
staff's recommendation to compromise the 35-foot requirement.
Suggs: Yes, it is.
Nary: Okay. So it is not really an alternate to the 35-foot, it's actually an alternate to the
19-foot requirement that the staff made.
Suggs: I think it's more than 19 feet. It's about 20 -- 20 something.
Nary: I just saw the 19 feet in the paragraph here. Approximately 19 feet. Provide a
significant amount of new landscaping, approximately 19 feet. The resulting buffer
would be 25 to 26 feet.
Suggs: Twenty-six feet. Right.
Nary: Okay. So it's an additional landscape --
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, the distance of the buffer in those cut out areas is
about 17 feet from the back of sidewalk and about seven or eight feet from property line.
Suggs: Yeah. I would be happy to answer any more questions. It is 17 feet of
landscaping when your new ordinance tonight asks for 25. The Comprehensive Plan
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 88 of 95
asks for 25 along this street. Moving on to the preliminary and final plat. We agree with
the staff's recommendation that this is something that should be approved, again, with
the variance according to this landscape plan. Just to clarify a couple of the other
issues. On item number two, I have spoken with public -- one of the public works
engineers and the applicant will provide some information about the capacity of the
irrigation system and an OM manual and the -- it was -- I understand from the Public
Works Department they would like to have that when the plan review process goes
through for the development of those other lots. And we talked about the coffee kiosk,
which is number three, that that is an allowed use, even though it says it shall be
removed. The Quonset hut, the one that's used now for community activities, that will be
removed. Number four addresses the landscape variance. Number 18, I just wanted to
clarify that it asks that irrigation ditches and laterals that are adjacent to the site be tiled
or -- and I take that as enclosed. The Jackson drain is a pretty major drain. And we
talked to the irrigation system and they don't really want that large of drain enclosed. But
we will -- we do show that in the final plat. An easement to protect that is on the property
and we will make sure that the irrigation system does not impact that. At the Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting there was a neighbor, Mr. McNitt, that came from the
Danbury Subdivision, and requested that we work out an irrigation system with him. It
turns out that Danbury is irrigating a portion of the land along Stonehenge and we --
already the owners have been talking to Mr. McNitt about taking -- changing that. There
is already a stub for irrigation there. It comes off of well water on the site. And, in
summary, I would hope that you would approve the preliminary and final plat for the
Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision and do that according to the landscape variance
request that's shown -- the variance request and the landscaping shown on the plan as
presented tonight. And I can answer some more questions about that or some of the
items on the preliminary and final plat.
Corrie: Okay. Council, questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Nary: No.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Jane. Appreciate it. Since this is a Public Hearing I have to
ask the question. Is there anybody from the public that would like to issue testimony?
Chief Worley? All right. Good. With that, Council, do you have any more discussion on
the Public Hearing portion of it? If not, I will entertain a motion to close the Public
Hearing on the variance request 02-001.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on VAR 02-001 for Intermountain Outdoor
Subdivision by Hubble Engineering.
Nary: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 89 of 95
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes.
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. Discussion? Comments?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: In regard to the variance, I'm reading the staff report and I guess I'm not really
sure, it says in the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning, as well as the
suggestions by the applicant here, that we design this landscape -- I think what she was
-- Ms. Suggs was saying was that we adopt the landscaping suggestion they made. I
just can't find the grounds for a variance here. I don't even agree with the staffs finding
in the second one that asphalt is a good reason to make compliance unreasonable. I
just don't. It's just asphalt. If they have to tear it up, they can tear part of it up. But we
have a reason for a landscape ordinance. We are attempting to enforce that
consistently. I think consistently here the only variance that we should be considering is
whether or not it has to be 35 or 25 and if in our new Comprehensive Plan along there is
25 feet, then that's what we should allow is 25 feet. And I think the staff's
recommendation makes it approximately 25 feet, 25 to 26. I don't want to design the
front of the landscaping, but I think 25 feet is fine. They can move those uses. I agree
that the coffee kiosk is an approved use that they can have on that site, but they just
can't have it there. They can put it somewhere else. There is space on that lot to move it
to another location and they can do that, but I don't think there is any other findings that
I can see to grant a variance to the degree that the applicant is asking for. I think we
should be fair and reasonable and make it 25 feet. Other than that, I don't think there is
enough evidence to grant a variance otherwise.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I agree with what Mr. Nary said and I also caution that if we grant this
variance we would sure set a precedence for other variance requests that we wouldn't
want.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Hearing none, I will then entertain a motion
on the request for a variance.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 90 of 95
Nary: I'm going to move that we deny VAR 02-001, request for a variance in the
landscape requirements for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision as requested by the
applicant. I don't know that we need to say that we grant a variance up to 25 feet, but
their application is a request from six foot to something else and staff's recommendation
was 35. I guess 25 is reasonable. I don't know if Mr. Nichols could -- if he has any
thought as to how to frame that as you really are only asking for one thing and we are
really talking about something else, though everybody is agreed that they can do
something else.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, in addressing a variance you can -- I
believe the staff recommendation as set out in the report from David McKinnon, which
was received in the clerk's office on the 17th -- in other words, you don't -- you don't
have to say it's either approved or denied, because they have requested just to go to
the six feet or now just a modified version. I think you can say we are going to grant the
variance only to the extent contained in the staff report for the reason -- for these
reasons: One is there is a pending Comprehensive Plan change which would reduce
the street buffering along there to less than 35 feet. Second, there is no change in the
existing building itself or the existing use that is currently on the property itself and the
elimination of one row of parking will not drop the parking below the minimum amount
and that it's consistent with what's already there. We can craft it if that's what you want
to do to allow them that flexibility and it would only be, as I understand it, on the
developed portion of the lot and the developed portions would have to comply with the
existing landscape ordinance it pertains to.
Nary: I appreciate that. Thank you very much. That sounds -- and, again, I'm looking at
the position statement by the applicant and they are essentially agreeing that what they
have fashioned here is what they are going to live with, so I would move that we grant
the variance, then, instead of 02-001, the request for a variance to the landscape
requirements for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision pursuant to the staff report of April
22nd, with the staff compromise that your landscaping be less than 35 feet and
approximately 25 feet to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan change that is
imminent, as well as the fact that there is no change in use to the space, so the
reduction of parking spaces will not impact the required number of spaces for that use
of that retail store and that facility, that being the uses that are in that row parking
spaces needed to be eliminated and be relocated to another portion on the site and that
the other landscaping requirements and recommendation by the staff be adopted as
well. That's all.
McCandless: I will second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Would you repeat the motion?
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 91 of 95
Corrie: That was a rhetorical question. Okay. Roll-call vote, Mrs. Smith. Sharon.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Request for preliminary and final plat approval of 4 building lots on 6 acres in a
C-G zone for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision and I think we have discussed that. Is
there anybody -- any further discussion? Okay. I'll entertain a motion, then, on the
request for preliminary and final plat.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd move the approval of PFP 02-001, request for preliminary and final plat
approval of 4 building lots on 6 acres in a C-G zone for Intermountain Outdoor
Subdivision by Hubble Engineering with all staff comments, as well as the -- on the
position statement, changes as requested by the applicant and that counsel prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20:
Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Okay. Delinquency and trash turn off schedule. This is to inform you in writing, if
you so choose, that you have a right to a predetermined hearing at 7:30, on Tuesday,
May the 21 st, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person and be judged on
the facts and to defend a claim made by the city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is
delinquent. You may retain counsel. And your service may be discontinued on May the
22nd, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone here that wishes to contest
their water, sewer, or trash delinquency?
Smith: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Yes. Gary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 92 of 95
Smith: The water department has requested that they also be allowed to turn off on the
29th.
Corrie: The 22nd and the 29th?
Smith: Yes, sir. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Service will be discontinued on May the 22nd or May the 29th, unless
payment is received in full. You are hereby informed that you may appeal to have the
decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho state
code. Even though you appeal your water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list
is $14,862.83. I will entertain a motion on the delinquency turn off.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I move that we accept the water, sewer and trash delinquency list and the turn off
schedule for May 22nd and May 29th.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Any other discussion? All those in favor of the
motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: I will entertain a motion to adjourn, unless anybody has anything seriously to
discuss.
Bird: So moved.
Worley: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: I didn't hear a second on that, so you may talk, Chief.
Worley: I'd just like to mention to Council if you want to tentatively put on your schedules
the afternoon of June 17th. We are tentatively planning a ribbon cutting for that day.
Corrie: June 17th.
De Weerd: Put it on the 19th.
Bird: And you and the Mayor are barbecuing?
Worley: Something like that, Mr. Bird.
Corrie: Don't tell all, chief.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 93 of 95
Worley: And also, Mayor Corrie and President de Weerd, we would like to schedule a
final walk-through on the 11 th prior to the -- you're not going to be here then either.
Striking out all over tonight.
De Weerd: Gone from the 9th to the 18th.
Worley: It's all planned this way, too.
De Weerd: I know.
Worley: The 17th of June is on a Monday and I was talking about a Mayor and Council
final walk-through on the 11 tho
McCandless: Is that going to be at night or --
Bird: During the day. We will have the Chamber come do their normal ribbon cutting.
McCandless: I haven't made my reservations yet. I might come back early.
Worley: It's still tentative, but I was told today that the clean up and waxing and that sort
of thing starts probably the end of this week.
Corrie: Okay.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: There is one thing I wanted to say and that is it seems like we are getting
an awful lot of pieces of paper that we are supposed to read while they are talking to us
all of a sudden.
Bird: We are having that trouble again, aren't we, Cherie.
McCandless: Yes, we are.
Bird: Shut them down again if they aren't in here by Friday, they don't --
McCandless: Well, I don't know about you guys, but I can't read and listen at the same
time. One or the other.
Corrie: Well, then we can certainly do that, if that's what --
McCandless: Well, we thought we had that--
Corrie: Well, I know, but it seems like that keeps popping up. So what we need to do is
have the city clerk's office make sure that when they come that they know that Thursday
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 94 of 95
is the cut off and I will make the announcement at the beginning of the meeting that any
new materials will not be accepted --
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think another thing that we have to make sure is our staff comments and stuff get
out to the applicants in plenty of time. You can't expect the applicants to have it here by
Thursday or Friday if we don't get our reports to them until Thursday or Friday and then
there isn't time if they haven't got the faxes that Monday, then we get upset over them
being there Tuesday, I think that as the previous Council did a couple times, we just
shut her down, just don't take it. And that happens once or twice -- and as for staff,
that's -- Mr. Mayor, you're going to have to take care of that end of it and if they are not
getting it out we have got to find out why they are not getting it back out to them in time
and if the applicant isn't getting it back, they can be put it off for two weeks, as far as I'm
concerned. I'm like Cherie, I'm sick and tired of coming in here and getting six inches of
paper that shows up on important items that we sit here and try to read through and find
out and, you know, it doesn't make us look too smart and it doesn't take much -- I don't
need much help to look dumb.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: The other side of the coin, though, that we do need to remember as we go
through the budget process next month we need to look at that, but part of the reason,
to be fair to the staff, is we don't have a lot of staff. We have a lot of stuff, but we don't
have a lot of people to do it. And so we need to evaluate that, too, if that is part of the
problem. I don't know what the particular problem is, but I agree it is very troubling and
difficult to try to evaluate something as you're reading it when they are trying to talk to
you. But part of that problem may be the fact that we just don't have enough people to
do the things that we need done. So we either need to figure out a way to do that, or we
have to look at some other way to do that, so that way we don't delay developers
unnecessarily and give our staff adequate time to respond to things and give us
adequate time to review things.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I just want to remind you that on the 29th that we have -- we meet at 5:30,
because we have a -- the joint meeting with ACHD on Waltman, Main Street
intersection and then on the 18th we meet at 4:30 with Doneen Blakeslee in June and I
just wanted to say something to Gary. That letter from Brad to the -- on the South
Slough, sewer and water, that was a great letter. If you could pass that on to Brad, that
was very nice.
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21 , 2002
Page 95 of 95
Smith: I will. Thank you.
De Weerd: I move we adjourn.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Adjourned at 12:05.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:05 AM.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED
ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
/ /
DATE
SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK