HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 06-04
Meridian City Council Regular Meeting June 4, 2002
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:40 P.M.,
Tuesday, June 4, 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, Gary Smith, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Will Berg, Ken Bowers,
Shari Stiles, Tom Kuntz, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll Call Attendance:
Roll Call:
__X__ Tammy de Weerd __X__ Bill Nary
__X__ Cherie McCandless __X__ Keith Bird
__X__ Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: We welcome everybody here this evening. I'm sorry we got a little late start. We
were touring the new police building and it's going to be pretty nice. I don't want to be a
prisoner, but I think it's pretty nice. I will open the City Council regular meeting on
Tuesday, June the 4th, 2002, at 6: 40. Roll call, please, Mr. Berg.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Okay. Council we have -- the second is the Adoption of the Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We can take care of the changes with the deal that --
Corrie: Yeah. That would be --
Bird: With that, then, I move that we adopt the Agenda as noted.
Corrie: Okay. Any further corrections? Additions? Okay.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Bird, I noticed something tonight in our information, the changes in the
Findings on Heritage Commons that are on the Consent Agenda.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 2 of 66
Bird: Yeah. We can change that out on the Consent Agenda.
Nary: Okay. Great. I'm sorry.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, one of the things that I believe -- I expect you will do, I hope you
will do would be to table Item 10 and continue Items 11 and 12 all to June 18th, but
because those items are behind the Bear Creek and the Comprehensive Plan
discussion, in all fairness to Mrs. Powell, who is here on behalf of the applicant, if it's
your pleasure to continue those items, if you could do so as part of your adoption of the
agenda, then she does not have wait around, then, for all those discussions.
Bird: The motion will change, then, if that will please everybody on the Council. Mr.
Mayor, I'll withdraw that motion and I would move that we adopt the agenda and I'll go
through the whole thing. On the Consent Agenda we will move -- we would like to move
Items D, E, and F to 5-D, 5-E, and 5-F. Item No. 10 was the ordinance for Amberstone
zoning amendment. I'd like to table that to June 18th, 2002. And also Items No. 11 and
12, which is closed Public Hearings tabled for Amberstone Subdivision for the
annexation and zoning and the request for Preliminary Plat on Amberstone Subdivision,
also continue them to June 18th, 2002, and we would also like to continue the Item No.
6, the proposed Comprehensive Park and Recreation System and Action Plan to July
2nd, 2002.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Any other -- motion has been made and seconded. Any other
discussion? Okay. Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. May 14, 2002
Approve minutes from City Council Workshop:
B. May 15, 2002
Approve minutes from City Council Special Meeting:
C. Development Agreement: AZ 00-019 Request
for annexation and
Revised Cedar
zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 3 of 66
Springs
by Kevin Howell Development – northwest corner of North
Meridian Road and West Ustick Road:
5-D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 02-006
Request for annexation and zoning of 76.16 acres from RUT to R-8 zones
Heritage Commons
for proposed by Brighton Corporation – west side of
North Locust Grove Road between East McMillan Road and East Ustick
Road:
5-E. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 02-007
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 273 building lots and 12 other lots
Heritage Commons
on 75.39 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
by Brighton Corporation – west side of North Locust Grove Road between
East McMillan Road and East Ustick Road:
5-F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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
Heritage Commons
by Brighton Corporation – west side of North Locust
Grove Road between East McMillan Road and East Ustick Road:
G. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC 02-002
Request for a Vacation for unopened future streets within lots 5 and 6,
Pack It Up Subdivision
block 1 of Timothy Subdivision for by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. – west of South Locust Grove Road and north of East
Overland Road:
H. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 02-004
Request for a Variance to allow a second time extension for recording the
Pack It Up Subdivision
final plat for (formerly Overland Mini Storage
Subdivision) by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – west of South Locust Grove
Road and north of East Overland Road:
I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 02-001
Intermountain
Request for a Variance to the landscape requirements for
Outdoor Subdivision
by Hubble Engineering, Inc. – 1375 East Fairview
Avenue:
J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PFP 02-001
Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 6 acres in
Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision
a C-G zone for by Hubble
Engineering, Inc. – 1375 East Fairview Avenue:
K. White Drain Sewer Trunk Easement, John Kennedy:
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 4 of 66
L. White Drain Sewer Trunk Easement, Howell-Murdoch Easement:
M. Approve Beer / Liquor License Application for Michael McGuinness
at Whitewater Saloon – 1646 N. Meridian Road:
N. Approve Bills:
Corrie: Item 3 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda with the previous changes of
moving D, E, F to 5-D, 5-E and 5-F on the regular agenda and for the Mayor to sign and
the Clerk to attest on any contracts or noted papers.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Department Reports
Item 5: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
5-D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 02-006
Request for annexation and zoning of 76.16 acres from RUT to R-8 zones
Heritage Commons
for proposed by Brighton Corporation – west side of
North Locust Grove Road between East McMillan Road and East Ustick
Road:
5-E. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 02-007
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 273 building lots and 12 other lots
Heritage Commons
on 75.39 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
by Brighton Corporation – west side of North Locust Grove Road between
East McMillan Road and East Ustick Road:
5-F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 02-007
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 5 of 66
single-family residential dwellings, private open space with club house,
gazebo, parks and neighborhood scaled commercial site for proposed
Heritage Commons
by Brighton Corporation – west side of North Locust
Grove Road between East McMillan Road and East Ustick Road:
Corrie: Department Reports, being none, so we will go to 5-D, E, and F. Staff
comments. Well -- is staff ready to comment on D, E and F, why we are moving it? I
believe there was a -- yes. Brighton Corporation sent a memo to us. Do you have that,
Shari? Have you seen it?
Stiles: Yes. Mr. Mayor and Council, Brad Hawkins-Clark did review the changes that
are requested and staff agrees with all requested modifications.
Corrie: Okay. I assume the applicant agrees to that as well?
Wardle: Yes, we do.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Council have any questions? Hearing none, then, I will
entertain a motion to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on D, E
and F with the changes that were submitted by Jonathan Wardle, so we can -- want to
take them individually or -- okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for
approval of the request for annexation and zoning for Heritage Commons and for the
Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any other discussion? Hearing none,
Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 6 of 66
De Weerd: I move we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
approval of the preliminary plat for approval of 273 building lots and 12 other lots on
75.39 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Heritage Commons and ask the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Roll
Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for
approval of CUP 02-007, for Heritage Commons and ask the Mayor to sign and the
Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from May 7, 2002:
Proposed
Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System and Action Plan:
Corrie: Item No. 6 has been continued. We will I guess --
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we continue the Public Hearing for the proposed Comprehensive
Parks and Recreation System and Action Plan to July 2nd, 2002.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 7 of 66
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Is there anyone -- since we haven't even
opened -- is there anyone here that has come to testify that can't testify on July the
2nd? Okay. We have got a -- the reason we are delaying that is the impact fee
committee is making their final approval for the impact fees for the parks to coincide
with the Parks and Rec. System Action Plan, so -- okay. Motion has been made and
seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes.
Motion carried. We will continue the Public Hearing until July the 2nd.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from May 21, 2002: Proposed Amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is a continued Public Hearing from May the 21st, 2002. This is a
proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. At this time I
will open the Public Hearing and staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you should have received in your
packets two new items since the last meeting as requested. I guess one is requested
and the other one was new. The main reason you continued the last hearing was,
again, for the discussion of the proposed text in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the
Urban Service Planning Area. Prior to the last meeting you had received a May 21
memo from Gary Smith and Brad Watson and in that memo they had provided three
options primarily regarding sewer and water service to those areas that are outside the
city limits and within the area of impact. Given the significance of the change from the
proposed text, Council decided to continue that. The new item that you received was
from myself, a memo dated May 30, and that had essentially two new paragraphs that
more or less kind of provide the framework for how the text in the Comprehensive Plan
policy section could read. I inserted a spot -- a location that -- that would essentially deal
with your discussion tonight regarding the policies and so I don't think that -- unless you
need me to -- to go over the May 30 memo that more or less just kind of provides some
new language on what the Urban Service Planning boundary is, then I kept some of the
text that was already in the previous draft, which all of the public reviewed and received,
I think, really, in terms of policy, the main new issue that is in there that was not in the
draft that the public had available to them is -- really comes back to these three options
presented by the Public Works Department and, again, just to summarize what Brad
Watson did at your last meeting, Option A on their memo essentially deals with urban
density development outside the city limits is only going to be considered with
annexation applications and if connected to the City of Meridian water and sanitary
sewer. So that will -- if you will, that is the most restrictive of the three options in terms
of development in the area of impact. Essentially it would require all properties to be
contiguous before they could even submit an application for development to the city.
Otherwise, we would simply receive request via Ada County Development Services and
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 8 of 66
we would comment on those. Option B, then, would allow the urban density
development outside the city limits without an annexation request. So, in other words,
they could potentially be considered -- it is through Ada county, but only if connected to
City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer and, again, as with Option A, only where
those are constructed in conformance with our master plans. That's in both A and B that
they have to be constructed in conformance with Meridian water and sewer master plan.
And then C would simply just leave the language as it was originally proposed in the
draft that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved and that was in the March
2001 draft. So I think what's before you tonight is -- in terms of the continued Public
Hearing, is a decision on one of those three options and then if you're in agreement with
the additional text that I have proposed, just for the benefit of the public, since I don't
know who may have received it, the new paragraph essentially does deal with a review
of public service issues and that the city would consider in any review of developments
that are in the area of impact, the impact on police and fire in particular, not just the city
water and sewer. So I think in terms of the continued Public Hearing, those are the two
main items that were new. Our hope is that you can make a decision on that and make
a recommendation and approve one of those changes and then we do have the May 30
memo from Steve Siddoway that included the land use -- the future land use map,
which is essentially the same map that you had received, there was just error on a small
parcel that we had missed before, so should you move on it tonight, it would be the May
30 -- the future land use map dated May 30 that was included with Steve's memo and
then I think you have got the May 15th memo that has all of the other text amendments
and a proposed motion for the Council that are -- that was discussed at your May 15th
meeting and at that meeting I think Council was more or less in agreement with many of
those changes that dealt with demographics -- demographic and population numbers
and mainly some grammatical changes.
Corrie: Thank you, Brad. Council, comments?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Brad, the population numbers will not be stated in this Comprehensive
Plan? Is that not correct?
Hawkins-Clark: That is not correct. The intermountain demographics are -- from Dale
Rosebrock was the --
De Weerd: In those tables.
Hawkins-Clark: In the tables. Correct. Yeah. Not the -- his numbers were much less
than what you saw with regard to the parks when we -- when we were reviewing the
park's plans and those, so his projections are in the May 15th memo and if you were to
adopt that, along with the March 2002 draft, then it would include his text and it has the
employment numbers, demographics, and other census updates.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 9 of 66
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Before we open the Public Hearing, I do want to make sure that I -- I did
speak to a couple of the members, John Eaton and Mark Estess and Larry Durkin, on
the Comprehensive Plan.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would also like to note that I talked to Mark Eaton and -- or Mark Estess and
John Eaton also regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
Corrie: Anybody who didn't?
Nary: I also spoke to Mr. Eaton --
Corrie: Let the record show that I did as well talk to all three. Actually, I did more
listening, but -- so we are all set then. Open the Public Hearing, so anybody that wishes
to testify -- okay. Is the testimony you're about give the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Eaton: Absolutely.
Corrie: I'll give you about three minutes, take five at the most.
Eaton: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is John Eaton, with the Building
Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho. We are at 6206 North Discovery Way in
Boise. We are here tonight to ask you on behalf of the people that were involved in this
process through the Planning and Zoning hearings that took place previously, to hold off
any changes at this time to the text in the Comprehensive Plan as noted in the May 21st
memo from Gary Smith and Brad Watson. As some of you may know, this was a long,
long process that we went through and we had a lot of input, it was a very good process
we thought, we were very happy with the staff work that took place and with the input
from the community that was allowed. We had several of our members that worked on
this and this section of the plan that you're looking at changing -- I'm not sure which
page this is in the future conditional land use regarding the Urban Service Planning
Area language, we are -- we were concerned that this came up the last minute. We
have not seen this until this last week, that's the first time that we had heard about these
changes. We worked through this process with the staff and our understanding was that
we had an agreement on this language before it came to the Council out of P&Z and for
them to change it now I think is a little too late. I cannot move that fast for my board of
directors to find out if any of these changes that they propose are anything that we
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 10 of 66
could accept or would support. However, we will make a commitment that if this does go
forward with the language that is currently in the Comp Plan, we will sit down and some
of the other contractors will also with your staff and see if there is anything that we can
do to address your concerns to help out -- I understand that they do have some serious
concerns and we think that maybe some of those will have merit and need to be
addressed, but not at this time.
Corrie: Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Eaton, are you taking a position on only the May 21st memo or are you
also taking the position on the May 30th memo that Mr. Hawkins-Clark prepared?
Eaton: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nichols, I have not seen the May 30th memo that Mr. Hawkins-
Clark prepared. I would -- I can't take a position on it, because we did not get it. I will
say this, I would recommend that you hold on that also, because I do not know that we
-- I don't know if it's a significant change or not, because we haven't had a chance to
look at it. I think that the document that you got substantially, from Planning and Zoning,
was something that we spent countless hours working with your staff on and with your
Planning and Zoning Commission and any changes that were made to that we would
like the same level of input.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: John, who all participated in that?
Eaton: Several members of our association. I don't know all their names. Some of them
are here. We also had -- just run through our developers council and passed our board
of directors.
De Weerd: What staff members?
Bird: Oh, your staff members. I'm sorry. Brad and Steve were mostly involved. Brad
Hawkins-Clark and Steve, I think, and you did have somebody from Public Works there,
but I'm not sure who it was.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 11 of 66
Corrie: Okay.
Eaton: Thank you.
Corrie: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this
time? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Durkin: It is.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address 1505 Tyrell Lane, Boise, Idaho. 83706. I
did speak with some of you and I just wanted to state on the record why that was the
case. There was some confusion from the Clerk's office whether this was going to be a
Public Hearing and open to the general public or if it was only going to be staff
testimony. As some of you know, I have been involved in this process for I think about
three years now, beginning -- our first meeting was over at a school auditorium and
breaking up into lots of different groups and meeting a couple weeks ago in Public
Hearing and I was most concerned and the reason I met with you, I thought the process
that we had established early on, in the middle, and at the end, was being changed
rather significantly and I was concerned about that. There were a number of times
throughout that process when I -- well, I, frankly, twisted arms of realtors and building
contractors to make certain compromises and this change in the utility hookup for the
boundary line or whatever we are calling it, seemed like a last minute a lot of people
that were involved in the process just really hadn't had an opportunity to -- I am here
tonight to tell you that this change doesn't have any effect on me, it doesn't have any
effect on any of our clients, but I was most concerned with the process. And I'm also
here to commit my immediate time and efforts to sit down, either in a workshop setting
or with staff, and with the affected parties and come up with language to make it more
satisfactory. I think overall the document that you have hashed out through the last
Public Hearing is an excellent document and the process that you have gone through
has been the finest I have ever seen. Be happy to answer any questions.
Corrie: Thank you. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Estess: I do.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Estess: My name is Mark Estess and my address where I work professionally is 9550
West Bethel Court in Boise, Idaho. I'm here before you this evening to say, first of all,
that I think that the process -- the process we have gone through to get to this point with
the Comprehensive Plan for Meridian has been a really, really productive one, it's been
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 12 of 66
an educational opportunity for me and I think for you all and as well as your staff, it's
been a great process wherein a lot of people have really made a good faith effort to
resolve some fairly complicated land use issues and up until about two weeks ago,
actually, when I became aware of the memo that -- I think it was the May 21st memo,
that brought this issue back to the table, I really had been really impressed with the
amount of disclosure and the amount of kind of give and take that had gone on between
your staff and other representatives that are here this evening and I really commend
you all for facilitating that kind of dialogue with the business community and myself in
particular. With respect to where you all go from here, like the people who have gone
before me, I am also willing to sit down with you after you decide to, in fact, vote to pass
this plan as it is, to actually set the recommendations that P&Z has put forward to you,
which I'm of the opinion that it really was representative of a lot of hard work, a lot of
significant compromises. Our association is not of the belief that it's perfect language
and there certainly is some room for improvement. I do think that -- I have read the May
21st memo, I have seen or been contacted about a May 30th memorandum, which I
think is probably -- represents a step back or I wouldn't have anticipated that somebody
should, in fact, contacted us, given the fact that we have really been involved to the
extent that we have and I suspect that given the kind of deadlines and -- that that was
perhaps just an oversight, but I would ask you here this evening to, in fact, accept the
recommendations that have been put forward by the Planning and Zoning Commission,
it represents a lot of work and I think Bill Nary -- Commissioner Nary, in particular, is
really attune to the level of compromise and the arm twisting that went on to get that
particular language on this issue. So with that I will field any questions you may have.
Corrie: Questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Wardle: It is.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Wardle: Mike Wardle, 50 Broadway Avenue in Boise. Mr. Mayor, I'm not here to -- well,
I guess I had hoped to be here tonight with some sealed envelopes that had the final
draft of the North Meridian Plan. It probably will be tomorrow. But I wanted to step
forward with a two-sided sheet of paper. The first side -- there is a date on both of them,
12/31/01. This was the initial draft of the policy formulation concerning urban service
policies and talked about the urban services boundary question, the extension of the
sewer and water, and the process by which that could go forward. On the backside of
the paper is another -- it's the latest version of that. The date at the bottom, just partially
cut off, is June 4th, 2002. That's this date. Essentially, the same items, except we took
the number one from the previous version and split it into two. I guess my point is that
you're going to have an opportunity very shortly to deal with the question again and so if
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 13 of 66
you were to follow the recommendation given to you tonight by these individuals that
preceded me, it doesn't close the door for this discussion, because north Meridian is
going to provoke the very same discussion very very shortly. Essentially, the process
that we have all been through to this point does encourage extension of the city
services for all of the properties within the area of impact and I don't know that I have
heard anything from those that have been responsible from the development community
that have been stake holders at the table with you, have indicated anything different, but
I guess I'm just saying that there is an opportunity to revisit this very shortly, because
when the item comes to you tomorrow or the next day, it will have a schedule with some
recommendations of actions to be taken, so I guess I would not suggest that what has
been requested is out of order this evening. I do want to raise one question, though, and
I know this hearing is only for this particular issue, but I was told this evening that there
is a new land use map that has new park elements and so forth on it and if that, in fact,
is the case, I would be concerned from a legal perspective that you need to publish and
allow some comment on that. I'm certain of the full implication, but it does have
implications from the perspective that the public, including myself, just learned of that
this evening. I think it's a question that needs to be addressed, perhaps by your legal
counsel, and I would answer any questions or just quietly retreat.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions of anybody here?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Pavelek: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Pavelek: My name is Richard Pavelek. Offices at 2501 Bogus Basin Road in Boise. I
guess I'm fortunate or unfortunate to the fact that I did not participate in any of the
general discussions of the Comprehensive Plan. I do, however, have an issue that may
have a means of looking at the specifics. Comprehensive Plans, as you well know, are
a very broad view of how you approach development and redevelopment within the
urban and regions within your area of impact, specifically, the question of how you
provide services to properties in the area of impact. We are currently working on a
parcel of land that is in the South Slough trunk extension area. This area I think may --
by looking at it, may provide some clues as far as the pressures that are going to be
faced now and in the future as far as whether to provide urban services beyond the city
limits to properties that not contiguous with the city. In this area there is already urban
development to the north, on the north side of Ustick. With the exception of the
Cloverdale Nursery area, there is substantial urban development to the east and it will
be likely surrounded by urban development in the future, long before it has an
opportunity to become contiguous with the city boundaries. In this area and because of
just simply the direction of urban pressures, we would very much desire some
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 14 of 66
clarification of the policy of the City of Meridian as far as extension to this area. It may
not be prudent to extend services throughout the area of impact boundary, but I think in
specific areas that might be another approach. So as you review the policies for the
extension of services, we ask you specifically to look at area by area and it may -- it
may expand, because I'm not privy to all the discussions that have taken place and will
take place of other areas, but specifically I have looked at this area and see that there is
a need for the consideration. We do have Boise city services on three sides of this
property and I did drop off a letter -- it was late and I apologize for that, but it should be
in your packets. It just simply streamlines the issues of either clarifying for this specific
area how you're intending to approach the urban service question and if it's not, you
know, our preference would be to reconcile the interface between the City of Boise and
the City of Meridian. We prefer to stay in the City of Meridian and move forward, but you
can appreciate the investment that the developer has put in this property and the need
to see some opportunity to move forward. I'm sure that I'm not alone in terms of raising
these kinds of issues, but I think by maybe looking at this type of specific issue with
problems being faced by the community, it will give some direction as far as how you
might approach the provision of services. So if there is any questions, I will be happy to
address them, otherwise, I will sit down myself.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Pavelek, I was reading your letter and it appears the concern is the property
that is both within the City of Meridian's impact area, as well as in the City of Boise
impact area. Is that what I got out of your letter?
Pavelek: Basically what we have is a 90 acre parcel of land out there, 20 of which is
within the City of Boise's area of impact and has contiguous boundaries with the city
and we will be proceeding on annexation of that property. We may, in fact, look at what
part of the area of impact agreement of extending 300 feet into the Meridian to reconcile
the street pattern, but that parcel of land would move ahead. The balance of the land,
which is 70 acres, is within the City of Meridian's area of impact and is currently without
the extension not developable, because it's nearly, I believe, a mile and a half to -- the
nearest boundary is a mile or mile and a half to the closest boundary with the City of
Meridian.
Nary: So if I understand the question brought forth in your letter, though, is whether or
not, since it's in the City of Meridian's jurisdiction at this time, I guess the question -- in
your letter it says you'd like to develop this as one project. So the question, then, being
is the City of Meridian willing to give that property to the City of Boise's impact area or
whether or not we want to have that within our impact area and keep it that way.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 15 of 66
Pavelek: Well, the question that I raise is simply that if it is not done in a timely manner,
it cannot be developed as a single project. We basically can deal with two municipalities
as a single project that goes from the City of Boise into the City of Meridian. The
problem that we foresee is really a question of timing. If, in fact, there is no easing of the
extension of urban services to this property, then time will pass and it will not be
developed as a single parcel. So from us we view it as a time, a sequence of moving
through a series of parcels of land and whether we deal with two municipalities --
obviously, we prefer one, but that's not the critical obstacle. The real obstacle is the time
and sequencing of moving through an overall parcel of land. It is held as a single
ownership.
Nary: Well, I guess I'm not clear, Mr. Pavelek, what is your preference -- is your -- the
focus of your attention, then, is on the South Slough and how services are going to get
to this property and what time period that's going to happen and it's not really dealing
with moving that without -- outside of the city's impact area.
Pavelek: The easiest thing for us to do is -- because services are to the property from
the east, to go in the City of Boise.
Nary: So how would they do that? How would they have that discussion with us as to
whether or not it would remain in our impair area or whether or not, like the other pieces
of property that we have had this discuss throughout the Comprehensive Plan, how
would they have this -- how would this person has this discussion with us about whether
or not it should be remain in our impact area?
Stiles: They would need to submit an application and go through the Public Hearing
process that -- since the issue is only the text in the Urban Service Planning Area, it's a
little too late to discuss it, I would think, for this particular project.
Nary: Well, I think he was raising it in relation to what we are talking about tonight, but
he was also talking about the impact area itself and whether or not it's Meridian or Boise
and we have had this discussion with a couple of different parcels in this process, so if
they wish to do that, that's a different process, that's an application --
Stiles: Yes.
Nary: That's something they can do, there is no impediment to doing that?
Stiles: Not to applying, no.
Pavelek: Mr. Mayor, if I could, to follow that question up, you are modifying the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does define the area of impact for the
City of Meridian. There is consideration for this parcel not fitting into the servicing of the
City of Meridian. We would request consideration for the area of impact boundaries to
be modified. The decision is not a discussion between the City of Boise and the City of
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 16 of 66
Meridian, the discussion is really what the City of Meridian chooses to do and how they
prefer to service it or whether the question is whether they truly can service this parcel
of land and so there is consideration for the request to modify the area of impact
boundary at this time, if, in fact, services can't be provided and can be part of
modifications to the Comprehensive Plan that's currently before you. I recognize it's
quite late in terms doing this, but I guess we have been working in terms of the specifics
of the property, not being fully aware of the process that you're currently going through.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Pavelek -- and I know that you know this, I mean we can certainly reevaluate
the area of impact and go through that process separate and apart from the
Comprehensive Plan; correct? Pavelek: That's correct. It's only a six-month delay
minimum in terms of the considering this option.
Nary: But we still -- there is a whole lot of process to move something from one impact
area to another, requiring basically meetings with us, meetings with the Boise City
Council, agreement on a Public Hearing, agreement by the County Commissioners, all
of that process, if that's the avenue that you want to do, and that's doesn't have to be in
conjunction with this; right?
Pavelek: Mr. Mayor, Councilman McNary, the process between the City of Boise and
the City of Meridian has had a series of different methods of defining which municipality
to annex in the various properties along the common boundary between those two
municipalities. I went through the file of a recent modification to the area of impact
boundary and it was simply a letter from Mayor and Council stating that they had no
objection.
Corrie: It's got to go through the city -- the full city Council in order to change those
boundaries now. We can't just send a letter -- we send a letter and it's done.
Pavelek: I understand that --
Corrie: Okay.
Pavelek: -- it also went -- the process then extended through Ada County and Ada
County has considered it and at that time the annexation, after mutual agreement,
proceeded with annexation through the City of Boise. So I guess what I'm saying is
there has been a number of cases and there has been a number of different methods of
achieving a determination of which way to go for property in this particular situation.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 17 of 66
Nary: Mr. Pavelek, I know that you haven't been here for -- like you said, for some of
these hearings. There is actually -- there is two pieces of property on this map and we
have been in that discussion about -- in relation to the City of Boise and taking them out
of our impact area. There is a process and I think Mrs. Stiles has said that's the process
you need to go through, if that's what you'd like to do on this piece of property, then
there is a method to do that that doesn't have to be tied around this Comprehensive
Plan map today. So you could do that. But I appreciate the other point you raise is a
different issue. If you weren't going to do that, if you were looking at just developing this
70 acres within our impact area, you have raised sort of a snapshot of what the question
is that we are dealing with tonight is how do we get those services there, how do we
develop that -- how does that property get developed currently if it stays within our
impact area. So I mean it is food for thought in this discussion and I appreciate that, but
there is a method you can still do that and, like Mrs. Stiles has said, it's simply an
application, you can request that, you can file that, it comes eventually to us, and we
make a recommendation and you have to go to the Boise City Council and get the same
recommendation and you still have to go to the county commissioners, so you can do
that and this -- what we are doing tonight won't impact that. You can still do it.
Pavelek: I am simply here to present the option of the first choice and that is the
extension of services. Thank you.
Nary: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you, Richard. Anyone else wish to testify on this subject? 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?
Groves: I do.
Nary: Before Mr. Groves starts, I did have a conversation with Mr. Groves, probably
about the same property we are talking about now, just so Council is aware I had a
conversation with him about it.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please.
Groves: My name is Craig Groves. I reside at 3920 East Shady Glen Court in Boise.
Mayor and Council, I'm here to the add to what Dick was talking about on this particular
property and I apologize for coming in late and I hope I'm not reiterating things that Dick
has already covered. A couple of things that are unique about this site that I'm not sure
Dick pointed out, is that this site, which adjoins Cloverdale Road here and extends half
-- into the half section of -- half section towards Eagle, on that boundary, originally was
in all one ownership, okay, and the father passed away and left the parcel to the brother
and sister. What's unique about that is that the impact line, which comes down the
corner section line there, divides brother and sister's property in half. Okay? So
originally we have a parcel that was all under one ownership, the father dies, leaves the
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 18 of 66
property to brother and sister, and then through the governmental process we come in
and divide the property in half, so now brother and sister decide that it's time for
retirement and they'd like to sell and sister can sell and develop her property in a timely
fashion, but brother can't until we are able to get services to the site from the City of
Meridian, even though the City of Boise has property that is annexed into their city limits
adjacent to the site and we have sewer and water available through United Water and
the City of Boise surrounding the site and it seems to me that in looking at your
Comprehensive Plan -- and I don't know if this is possible or not, but, you know, trying to
address those situations where you have got continuous ownership with property
adjacent to Boise city limits, with sewer and water available, yet -- and outside the City
of Meridian's impact area -- or outside the City of Meridian's city limits, but in their
impact area. You know, what kind of a policy does this Council have in that area and
maybe you have a written policy now and what the policy is and we are just going
through the process, but I'm looking for some direction on that.
Corrie: Okay. Any comment, questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think the question has been asked if this area can be serviced and,
indeed, it can and what kind of time frame and I know our staff has been working very
diligently trying to get services out there. Maybe if Gary could say a few words on the
process and where we are at right now.
Smith: Mayor and Council, Council Member de Weerd, we are still anticipating that
construction on the South Slough extension will start November 1st, which is a schedule
that we presented to you sometime ago, and that project will extend sewer to the east
side of Eagle Road. It will also extend sewer up to Ustick Road and I believe it carries it
under Ustick Road -- or, excuse me, under Eagle Road at Ustick. The crossing under
Eagle Road south of that point is at Leslie Way, it comes out of -- I think it's Carol
Subdivision. So at this time that's as far as the plans exist for extension of the South
Slough sewer. The process is, number one, obtaining easements for a preliminary
alignment of an extension on the sewer line. Since we are keeping it in the low area, the
low land elevation area along the drain, that's where the master plan shows the sewer
to be located and so the first step in extending it any farther to the east would be
obtaining easements after a preliminary alignment is established for continued
extension of that sewer line. But as you pointed out earlier, I believe that all of that
property is sewerable to the South Slough and that's part of the drainage area for the
slough.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Corrie: If you'd like to --
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 19 of 66
Groves: Along Gary's point, we are fully aware of that situation, but in the past I'm not
sure what the Council's position has been on servicing those properties that are not
annexed into the city, because, you know, even though we might have sewer half a mile
away and even though we might be able get easements to the site, if we want to invest
the money to extend the sewer another half mile, if we don't have an annexation route
or path, is that -- how is the Council going to view that type of property?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I don't know, maybe Mr. Nichols can answer this, but if under the law that
changes in July, if they do receive city services, then they can be annexed at any point
in the future to when they are connected, so I don't know if that's -- I don't know if that
helps or hurts, I don't know if that's a good or bad thing, but I think that's my recollection
of what the law change is. Is that correct, Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Nary, the law will allow
annexation when the property is contiguous if it's certified by city services. There is a
provision in the city code for extension of water and sewer services outside the city
limits. Typically those have been coupled with irrevocable consent to annexation and a
requirement that the consent to annexation be noted on any deeds, plats, and those
sorts of things, but I believe that the process is to ask or to submit a request to Public
Works for water and sewer service and that be processed through the Council and it's
taken up on a case-by-case basis, rather than a policy, because each individual
property is different. A piece of property that's on Chinden Boulevard will be treated
differently than one -- likely to be treated differently because of the sewer issues than
one where the sewer is only a short distance away. So water services provided to
Summer's Funeral Home on Ustick Road within the last two years, water and sewer
services provided to Edinburgh Place Subdivision within the last two years and so there
are some instances where water and sewer services are extended, but, again, the
process is to apply for those through Public Works first and then, you know, there is --
an agreement can be reached on that issue if Council so desires, but I'm not aware of
any written policies, because of the case-by-case nature of each property.
Corrie: Is there anyone else that would like to issue testimony on this Urban Service
Planning Area? Okay. Council, any other comments? Staff? Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, just to clear up an issue on the Comprehensive Plan map, the only
change that's been made to the map is there was a designation of a quasi public
property for a park and ride lot that was on the wrong piece, and that simply -- that part
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 20 of 66
of the map was corrected to move that over so that it was on the right parcel, but other
than that, there has been no changes from what's been presented to the public.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Nichols, for clearing that up for us. Shari, did you have --
Stiles: That's what I was going to --
Corrie: Okay. Good. Okay. Any discussion, comments, Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess it should be noted that the park sites that were mentioned were
added on are potential, quote, emphasize potential park sites, were added several
meetings ago. Was that in April that that came up? So it's been on there for the last
several drafts that we have seen of it. Most of the testimony -- and I know I kind of
opened this can of worms, so it seems, on these urban service areas. There is -- there
is a lot of areas that need to be further discussed and probably even procedures that we
need to look at to keep our Planning and Zoning Commission better in line with what
Council is looking at. The urban service area issues were raised at the same time this
was just going in front of Planning and Zoning and so I'm quite astonished that the
language came to us the way it did with the serious concerns that staff has raised to us
and in light of some of the testimony that we have given to the county and that this
Council were in full agreement with on those issues as well. But some other things have
been brought up through the North Meridian Planning Area in some of the
conversations tonight, so it does need further discussion, I just don't want to see us hold
up this Comprehensive Plan any longer. I think there is some people out there who for
three years have been very patient and have participated in this and we need to see
that we uphold our end of this deal. I appreciate the different organizations and the
emphasis of the BCA and Association of Realtors have and the development
community that has been participating in the North Meridian Planning Area, but this is
an issue that we are trying to address and it's -- we have some very legitimate and
serious concerns to our planning of our area of impact and we don't want to see it keep
getting chipped away at and being distributed out. We made a commitment to serve that
area and I believe our staff has been working very hard to get that accomplished, it just
sometimes takes a little bit longer than we'd all like to see. So I would like us to move
forward and definitely take up the offer to look at this immediate concern of addressing
urban services and honoring the process that apparently that this has gone through and
I understand we haven't been a part of that process, but we will have the opportunity to
let staff know what our concerns are, what our desires would be, and things that we
would like focused on in those meetings. So that's really all I have to say. This has been
a real long process and I really commend our planning staff for all the work and effort
that's gone into this and to the citizens that have participated, I mean we have had
some awesome participation in this. It seems like we get new stuff every single
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 21 of 66
meeting. We just have to stop somewhere and hopefully polish it up as we find out
areas that we need to concentrate on.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess since I have got to be involved with both of these and I guess I'm the
lightning rod for this particular section, I guess my only comments is I do appreciate the
Building Contractors Association and the Realtors Association, Mr. Durkin, Mr. Wardle,
Mr. Groves, all these people brought these issues forward as to how we are going to
address this. I appreciate the offer to work together to look at this again and evaluate
this language and I said it on November 1st and November 15th and December 2nd
and December 20th when we talked about this with the staff, that we are not necessarily
-- I'm not necessarily married to this language. All that we have looked at is the concept
of what we were trying to put in this language. It is not -- it is not the death nail for what
we are trying to accomplish with the city and that's what I think is maybe been a
problem in why this has been delayed another few extra weeks. This is not really that
problematic, in my opinion, as to what was left here by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. I mean it says the City of Meridian desires all development within its area
of impact be served with urban services from the City of Meridian. It says that we -- our
preference is that all of that be city-owned services. That anything annexed has to go
through requiring city-owned services. It says that if we can't do it yet, we will talk to
people about how we might be able to assist in getting that done. I don't think those
things are very earth shattering, they are simply discussion points, and I think what's
been brought tonight by these different groups are the things that -- exactly what we
have talked about all along, it's just a discussion point, and I think that's -- I think that's
all we have ever been talking about. I think the language needs to stay the way it is and
I think we can address it again. I think we will address it again. We can change the
language at anytime under the law. I don't think there is any problem doing that and I
think we do need to go forward. I think we need to get this done.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would echo Councilman Nary's words on that. I think that that's something we
have had people get up and testify and they worked hard on this and it is just language,
you can always put amendments to it and we need to go forward with it as the Planning
and Zoning -- because we have had workshop on text, we have had workshop on the
deal and at that point nothing was brought up until May 21st when we probably should
have had it adopted before that, so -- and that's something we can work out. The
language can be worked out. It just gives you a plan to work off from, so I'm like
Councilman Nary and Councilwoman de Weerd, let's go forward with it and get it
adopted and get the thing going.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 22 of 66
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Just for clarification, I still do have an issue with the language, so I am very
anxious to get to the table to work through it, but it is the process that, you know, I
recognize and, you know, realize that we just can't continue to hold this whole document
up for it, but do look forward to going through the process again to address some of the
language and I know that as the spokesperson last year on this issue, I had the whole
support of the Council at the time, so I do believe that we are on the same page as far
as some of the things that this might say or might not say, but we just need to move on
and then address this specifically in a different forum.
Corrie: Okay. One more chance, anyone? Council. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close
the Public Hearing.
Nary: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Any further comments? Okay. I'll entertain a motion, then, hearing nothing
more, on the question of the verbiage on the Urban Service Planning Area.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we pass the -- the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law -- or do we have -- prepare a resolution. Sorry. Maybe we should
have had our other attorney make this motion. I would ask that the attorney draw up a
resolution to adopt the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, with the text
amendment as stated as the May 15th memorandum from the Planning and Zoning
staff, to incorporate the map as dated May 30th, 2002, and I think that's about it.
Corrie: Is there a second on the motion?
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 23 of 66
De Weerd: Does staff have the comments? No?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I could just clarify, if I may?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Gary and Brad, the last draft that we have, plus your May 15 memo, plus the
May 30 map, that's all we need? There are no other memos, no other additions,
changes, that's -- we are good to go with those?
De Weerd: I reluctantly keep in Dale's demographic stuff.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just so it's clear on the record, the May 15th memo, for those that don't have that
in this audience, doesn't address any change for the Urban Service Planning Area
different than what the Planning and Zone Commission passed in December. It was
other text changes, most of them fairly minor types of changes, clean-up types of things,
but not directed to any stuff we just got from the last --
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: If our Planning and Zoning staff can get the most recent memorandum from
to Brad to these separate organizations and individuals, so we can quickly get a
schedule on these meetings.
Corrie: Okay. Let's take about a five-minute break. It will probably extend to ten.
(Recess.)
RECONVENED AT 8: 00 P.M.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 24 of 66
Item 8: Tabled from May 21, 2002: FP 02-004
Request for Final Plat approval
Bear
of 51 building lots and 4 other lots on 20.76 acres in an R-4 zone for
Creek Subdivision No. 5
by Bear Creek, LLC – east of Stoddard Road
and north of Victory Road:
Corrie: All right. I will reconvene the City Council meeting and we are going to Item No.
8, which was tabled from May 21st, 2002. This is a request for final plat approval for 51
building lots and 4 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. Staff
comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I'd just like to give you a little history of why this was
done the way it was. I think there has been some question about that at the last
meeting. Bear Creek No. 5 was submitted and it did not conform to the approved
preliminary plat and during our review of it, it was noticed that previous phases had
gone through that also did not conform to the approved preliminary plat and not wanting
to perpetuate an oversight, we asked the applicant to at least go through the Public
Hearing process, because we didn't feel it was a staff function to approve elimination of
open space and that's why we wanted to at least get it on the table and also as a Public
Hearing, so that it -- so that it went through some type of process. We didn't think it
would be absolutely necessary to go back to Planning and Zoning Commission, but did
think it should be a public process and I guess it is a public process; it's just not
published. That was -- that was kind of our line of thinking when we asked them to do
that. Otherwise, we would not have processed the final plat application that was
submitted. This plat is -- the phase immediately adjacent to Elk Run Subdivision, which
would be north going this direction. This was the phase that there is approximately half
an acre -- at least -- at least a quarter acre of the open space was removed in this plat.
They have redistributed it throughout the plat. They also did add two additional lots in
this section where the open space was removed. You have comments that were
prepared on this subdivision. We would recommend approval with all staff and agency
conditions.
Corrie: Council, questions, comments?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Then I will entertain, then, a motion for request for the final plat approval
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. Just to make sure, we have a revised plat for No. 5 that
was received by the Clerk on May 24th -- yeah. May 24th. Is that the one that's --
Stiles: That's No. 6. That's the next one. Is that right? No?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 25 of 66
Bird: No. That's 5.
Corrie: No. 5 is the one you had up there on the board.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I apologize. This one is also adjacent to the Jim Jewett
property off of Meridian Road. What they have done with the latest submittal, it was
apparently received by the City Clerk on May 24th. This is the version that we did
comments on. It has taken off -- how many? Approximately seven lots. Seven lots in this
vicinity and that's in order to perhaps come in in the future with an alternative plan
should this ever -- should some alternatives every become available for redevelopment
of that piece property different than was proposed by Mr. Jewett. So they just didn't
want to be locked into that configuration. They will have to come back in with a
preliminary plat for the entire piece at such time as they develop that. So the only
difference between the version that you saw in the last meeting and this one is the
elimination of those seven lots. So we would ask that the one dated by Michael Mart -- I
don't know if that's -- it shows 4/29/02, that it was signed by Michael Mart, and received
by the City Clerk May 24th, 2002, be approved with all staff and agency conditions.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Has the applicant seen the staff comments and is in agreement with them?
So these comments were on the revised plate, Shari?
Stiles: Yes, they were.
De Weerd: Thank you. I have no comment.
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: All right. I'll entertain a request for final plat approval on Bear Creek Subdivision
No. 5.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for final plat of 51 building lots and 4
other lots for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 5, with the map -- or the plat dated 4/29/02,
received by the city 5/24/02, and ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 26 of 66
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further comment?
De Weerd: With all staff comments.
Corrie: Okay. Okay. Hearing none, Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Tabled from May 21, 2002: FP 01-026
Request for Final Plat approval
Bear
of 31 building lots and 4 other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone for
Creek Subdivision No. 6
by Bear Creek, LLC – east of Stoddard Road
and north of Victory Road:
Corrie: Item No. 9 has been tabled from May 21st; excuse me, request for final plat
approval on 31 building lots and 4 other lots in 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone by Bear
Creek Subdivision No. 6. Staff?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, we have prepared our comments on this subdivision and
ask that it be approved with all staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Okay. Discussion? Comments? Questions from Council? Hearing none, I'll
entertain a motion on the request for final plat approval for Bear Creek Subdivision No.
6.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for final plat of 31 building lots and 4 other
lots for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 6, to include all staff comments and ask the attorney
to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing
none, Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 27 of 66
Item 10: Ordinance No. : ZA 02-001 (Amberstone Zoning
Amendment)
Request for amendment to Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance by Jim Jewett and B & A Engineers:
Corrie: Item Number 10 was an ordinance and it's been requested to have the
ordinance on Amberstone Zoning Amendment, also Number 11, the hearing, request for
annexation and zoning, and also the preliminary plat to be tabled until June 6 -- excuse
me -- June 18. So we will take them one at a time.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we table the Ordinance ZA 02-001, Amberstone Zoning
Amendment, until June 18th, 2002.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to table the ordinance on the Amberstone
Zoning Amendment. Any further comments? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11: Closed Public Hearing Tabled from May 21, 2002: AZ 02-003
Request
for annexation and zoning of 3.84 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for
Amberstone Subdivision
proposed by Jim Jewett – south of West
Cherry Lane and south of North Summertree Way:
Corrie: Number 11.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue the closed Public Hearing Table May 21st, the request for
annexation and zoning for Amberstone Subdivision until June 18, 2002.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? All those
in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 28 of 66
Item 12: Closed Public Hearing Tabled from May 21, 2002: PP 02-002
Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots on 3.84
Amberstone Subdivision
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed by
Jim Jewett – south of West Cherry Lane and south of North Summertree
Way:
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Number 12. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move that we continue the closed Public Hearing table from May 21st, 2002,
for the request for preliminary plat approval on Amberstone Subdivision to June 18th,
2002.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13: Ordinance No. ______ : AZ 00-019
Request for annexation
Revised Cedar
and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for
Springs
by Kevin Howell Development – northwest corner of North
Meridian Road and West Ustick Road:
Corrie: Item Number 13 is an ordinance -- Mr. --
Berg: Sorry, Mayor. 02-952.
Corrie: Okay. Ordinance No. 02-952, request for annexation and zoning of 100.71
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development,
northwest corner of North Meridian Road and Ustick Road. At this time I'd like to have
Ordinance No. 02-952 read by Title only at this time by the City Clerk.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 02-952. An
Ordinance finding that certain land owned the Leslie Family Trust and the Moore Family
Trust, to be known as Cedar Springs Subdivision, located northwest of North Meridian
Road and West Ustick Road and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of
the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and finding that the owner has
made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to
the City of Meridian and zoning designated Low Density Residential District, R-4,
declaring that said land by proper legal description described below be a part of the City
of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders,
or parts thereof, in conflict herewith and directing the city engineer to add said property
to the official map of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 29 of 66
Meridian to final a certified copy of the Ordinance and map of the area to be annexed to
the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and the Assessor and the State Tax
Commission, State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-
2215.
Corrie: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to have the Ordinance read in its
entirety? Hearing none, Council, I will entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 02-952.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I move the approval of Ordinance No. 02-952, the request for annexation and
zoning 100.71 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for the Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin
Howell Development, northwest corner of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road,
with the suspension of rules, pursuant to the Idaho Code.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion approved on Ordinance No. 02-952.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 02-008
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Moxie Java
drive-thru window and drive-thru lane at an existing coffee
shop by Avest Limited Partnership – 1800 North Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: Item No. 14 is a Public Hearing. This is CUP 02-008, request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a drive-thru window and drive-thru lane at an existing Moxie Java coffee
shop by Avest Limited Partnership, 1800 North Locust Grove Road. At this time I will
open the Public Hearing, staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, we have reviewed this application and I think after three
times we finally agree on a workable layout for this drive-thru. The applicant took all the
suggestions that were made at the previous Public Hearings and has come up with a
good solution to the concerns that the City Council and staff had. What they are
proposing is to make -- designate this a one way, which I think Councilman Bird was
trying to vocalize during the last Public Hearing, but they have shown this to be one
way. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations were to extend this little
island here another 18 feet to provide a greater separation between the opposing traffic
in for the drive-thru for the TCBY. Another request was made to move the menu order
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 30 of 66
board up to approximately here, so it would allow stacking of at least two cars -- two
cars before it impacted the driveway here. So with the recommendations of the Planning
and Zoning Commission and staff and agency comments, we recommend approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
Corrie: Okay. Council, any questions of staff?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: Okay. Raise your right hand. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Durkin: It is.
Corrie: State your name and address, please.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 1505 Tyrell Lane, Boise. 83706. I know
the last time we were here we spent a little time talking about how many times we have
been here and it's been a lot of times and I appreciate your patience and I appreciate
staff's patience in working through this. I'm here tonight on behalf of Avest Property
Management, the owners of the property. We respectfully request your approval for a
Conditional Use Permit for this Moxie Java drive-thru. The request is consistent with
ACHD requirements and meets their highest standards. This request is consistent with
all Meridian ordinances. The request is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan
and the latest draft of the new Comprehensive Plan. This center was designed and built
in the early 1990's and at the time it was the closest city center site available. While it
does include a large Fred Meyer, the site is geared to neighborhood uses, with uses like
a bank, a sandwich shop, drycleaners, grocery store, beauty salon, movie rentals, etc.
We are required to go through this conditional use process for drive-thrus in the City of
Meridian. There was a concern expressed sometime ago about the parking to the east
of the drive-thru. You should be aware that the city ordinance for the shopping center --
for the parking for the shopping center is far exceeded. Our parking in front of the
building we have 39 stalls in the front of the building. While there is parking at the side,
we believe that the vast majority of the users will use the parking in front of the building.
When we were here last time we were denied by Council and the Findings of Facts No.
3 read: In order to obtain approval for the requested drive-thru, the applicant will have
to prepare a different design that will eliminate the potentially hazardous intersection
with the existing drive-thru lane that serves the TCBY business on the west end of the
building. The modification that I handed to you tonight is slightly different than what's on
the board. While the request from Planning and Zoning was that we extend that turn out
area 18 feet, we were able to extend it further than that without interfering with any
traffic flow. I have handed you a map that highlights that, so that there is no conflict
whatsoever with any of the other drive-thru traffic. I want to remind you that the Loop
Road to the north of the shopping center is a private drive, it's part of the overall
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 31 of 66
development and it isn't really monitored or controlled by ACHD, but we have gone to
ACHD on a number of occasions with this application and confirmed a number of times
with them that they have no concerns with the traffic -- with any traffic conflicts. We
have complied with your findings from last time on making these modifications. We have
extended the turn out. We have eliminated the menu board. When we made the
application that was originally planned to have a menu board, now there will be a menu
board right next to the window, so the plan that Shari had on the screen that shows the
menu board up closer, instead of moving it, we just eliminated it and that's reflected on
the plan that I handed out to you. I've tried to rewrite this for different meetings, but
you've heard some of this before. Centers must change over time or they die and the
tenants must change over time or they go out of business. I want to remind you that
when the center was built there was one drive-thru coffee shop in the entire Treasure
Valley and now there is many, including several in Meridian. We have spent an unusual
amount of time and money going through the approval process, primarily because we
feel so strongly that a successful coffee shop use is a critical component to the neighbor
center. I want to thank the staff again for all of their time and effort in sitting down with
Avest and helping with a design plan that meets any of the comments that have been
brought up before and we respectfully request your approval this evening, so that we
can continue to upgrade and make modifications to this development. I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Larry. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to
issue testimony? Okay. Council, any discussion while the Public Hearing is open? If not,
I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru
window and drive-thru lane at the existing Moxie Java Coffee shop by Avest Limited
Partnership.
Nary: Second.
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. Opposed no?
All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 32 of 66
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would like to commend Mr. Durkin and Avest Partnership for trying to come
back with a better design and a better use of the property to make it safer, to make it a
little bit more of a protective type of traffic lane. That was my concern previously at the
Planning and Zoning level as well, the crossing over of the other lane. I think they have
done that. I think those are the two issues we tried to address and I think they have
done a good job of bringing it back in a good fashion and taking care of those concerns.
I don't have any concerns at this point.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I, too, feel that you have done a real good job. I was totally against it
before, but it looks to me like you have taken care of the safety concerns that we had,
so --
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I knew this would work out one way or the other. I knew we could get a drive-thru
and they did a great job of getting this designed and it's going to be very very safe, so if
there is no more comments, I'd make a motion that we would adopt -- that we approve
the Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window and a drive-thru lane at the existing
Moxie Java coffee shop by Avest Limited Partnership, 1800 North Locust Grove Road,
with all staff comments supplied and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion --
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Discussion? Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Bird, does that include the site plan proposed tonight by Mr. --
Bird: Yes. That is including the new public testimony.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 33 of 66
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: In the recommendations from Planning and Zoning Commission it asks that
language be placed that it run only with the property in question, hence adopting --
Bird: I'll adopt that. Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Part of the motion then?
Bird: Yeah. Part of the motion.
Corrie: Also the second?
McCandless: Second agrees.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: In number ten, I guess because of the new site plan that was provided by Mr.
Durkin tonight, number ten in the recommendations and findings it should probably say
something to the effect that they will extend such bump out to at least 18 feet and that
will incorporate the design in the site plan and I think there was also a reference to the
sign -- or the menu order board. I guess we could eliminate that or maybe I guess we
could leave that and they don't have to put one and leave it, if that's okay with you, Mr.
Bird.
Bird: That's fine.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Okay. Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, abstain; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Three ayes, one abstention. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE OBSTAIN.
Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 02-009
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
residential development consisting of four town-house style units in a two
Thornton Four-Plex
story building in an O-T zone for by Scott J.
Thornton – 121 East King Street:
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 34 of 66
Corrie: Item Number 15 is the Public Hearing request for Conditional Use Permit for a
residential development consisting of four townhouse style units in a two story building
in an OT zone for Thornton Four-Plex by Scott J. Thornton, 121 East King Street. At this
time I will open the Public Hearing and invite staff's comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this property on East King Street is directly east of the
Meridian Motor Cycle Shop on East 1st Street. Main Street. They are proposing to
demolish the existing single family residence and replace it with a four-plex with a
townhouse style construction. There is one tree on the site -- well, one good tree on the
site. The alley exists in the back -- in the back and the Ada County Highway District has
set forth their requirements for paving that alley. There was a single family home to the
east. Meridian Cycle's parking lot abuts the west side. This would show the four units.
They are not requesting a subdivision. It's just for the four-plex. They are showing two
trees and elimination of the one existing healthy tree. I'm not sure that it was addressed
fully at the -- at least I don't see in the recommendation where it was addressed by the
Commission whether mitigation would be required and how it could be achieved for the
site for that existing healthy tree. It would probably be impossible to fully mitigate, as the
ordinance requires in caliper per caliper replacement once a healthy three is removed.
They can testify, I guess, whether they are able to keep that one tree, but I can't tell
from this site plan and, unfortunately, neither Gary, nor I, have a packet of the
application that shows the full size. They are proposing tandem spaces in the rear
adjacent to the alley. They are required to have two spaces per unit. The tandem
spaces were recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, with
the requirement that the four northern most stalls be covered. The setback that's been
proposed on the plan, they do show the ten-foot sideyard setbacks. These are, per
ordinance, five feet per story. I don't know if it's been addressed whether these are
proposed to be covered at all, these porches. If they were to be covered, they would not
meet the setback requirement and, therefore, should not be approved to have any sort
of covering over the patio areas. They are also -- the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended that their plan be approved as shown, with a five-foot parkway on East
King. This could also have some trees planted in that parkway section. Then they'd
have the five foot sidewalk and then what the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended was that a nine foot setback to the building from the back of sidewalk be
approved for this project. I don't see the trash enclosure on this plan. I suppose it's back
here. I guess the applicant can address that. This will need to be enclosed and
approved by Sanitary Service Company. The fencing was addressed at the Planning
and Zoning Commission and it was their recommendation that no permanent fencing be
required for the project. I don't know if there is anything existing as far as a fence on this
side. I would think that a fence should be required on the eastern boundary due to the
fact it is a single-family residence on that side. I'm not quite sure what is there. This is
the front elevation of the building and the rear elevation of the building. These would
actually be the east and west elevations, because this would be the view from King
Street. Staff would recommend approval of this application with all staff and agency
conditions and would ask for your decision on the fencing requirements and the
landscaping requirements. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 35 of 66
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions of staff at this point?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: This is a Public Hearing and I invite the applicant to step forward, please. Is the
testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Thornton: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address, please. And you have five minutes.
Thornton: Scott Thornton. I live at 1284 South Ashley Place, Meridian, Idaho. 83642.
We have been working with the staff on this little project. We picked up this piece of
property with an older home -- and you saw the pictures -- which was pretty run down
and we thought this was a little bit better option than trying to work with the existing
home. We've addressed all the findings and recommendations and agree to follow all
those recommendations. I guess I can address some of the things. The existing tree on
the front of the property, a large tree, there would be no problem keeping that. We did
discuss that in the Planning and Zoning meeting. The trash enclosures. It doesn't show
up very well on that particular drawing, but it will be enclosed on three sides and with
the letter of approval. We did on this particular drawing here change the site elevations.
Those are kind of little facade deals to dress it up a little, because that side was just
nothing on it originally, there were no windows or anything, so we kind of dressed that
up, because it is the side that's facing King Street. In the back of the property there is an
existing chain link fence, it's a four foot fence that runs down there now, and on the front
side of the property or the west side there is a -- kind of a rickety picket fence that
probably should be removed I would think. With that I guess we have tried to address --
and, like I said, agree with all the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning staff
and request that you approve this Conditional Use Permit and would be glad to answer
any questions you have about the issues.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Scott. Is there anybody here 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?
Williams: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Name and address, please, for the record.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 36 of 66
Williams: My name is Cameron Williams. My professional address is 230 East 1st
Street, which I found out today was now 230 North Main Street, and we do like the
change. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council, for allowing me to speak with you this
evening. I own the property bordering the west side of this proposed two story four plex.
I would ask the Council to consider the following points that I see as problems with this
proposal. As you can see in the pictures, this two-story four-plex is proposed for a lot
with a total width of only 50 feet. The design of this four-plex would put all the doors and
windows facing my property and the east side property, with only a minimum buffer, no
fences, and no privacy for either neighbors. This design would preclude me from the
highest and best use for my commercial property should I, in the future, need to build a
larger commercial structure towards the back of my property on Meridian's Main Street.
Two, if this project is allowed without substantial changes there could be health and
noise problems from -- for any new tenants. Under the current use by my existing
business and tenants with more than 25 employees, we could create a nuisance where
there is no nuisance existing now before this proposed four-plex. Three. The access
plan for tenant parking is to use the narrow, unpaved, one-way alley as its only access.
This usage will create problems as this narrow alley, 16 feet wide, if you don't include
the power poles, as noted in the ACHD report, is also used for garbage collection and
the delivery for the adjoining business and residences. Tandem parking is also being
proposed without the City Council recommended garages. If this plan is implemented
many tenants will likely ignore the one-way signage from East 1st Street and attempt
access to this parking off this already congested street. Also, as this type of tandem
parking is inconvenient for many two-car families, we will likely see tenants parking on
King Street or on my property, causing even more congestion and problems for myself,
my tenants, and the neighborhood. And, fourth, this proposed project does not fit with
the character and design of the Old Town. The provided pictures show a very large, tall
structure, built as part of a much larger development. This is not a four-plex designed
with unique needs of this small lot, the surrounding neighbors, and does not fit with Old
Town designs. I urge the Council to reject this proposal and ask the developer to
develop a project that, one, faces the true front and back of the developer's property;
two, uses approved parking from East King Street and not tandem parking from an
unimproved, inadequate back alley. Three. Does not negatively impact the surrounding
neighbors and provides adequate landscaping, buffers, and fences. And, lastly, it's
designed to solve the problems I have presented, resolves the additional problems and
concerns outlined in the report by Planning and Zoning, and fits in with the neighborly
intent of Old Town zoning. As neighbors and residences, we do not need a four-plex
developed for a large complex in Boise crammed onto a small lot in Old Town. Thank
you.
Corrie: Any questions of --
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to issue testimony tonight?
Okay. Applicant, comments on what was said?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 37 of 66
Thornton: Yeah. I'd like to make a couple comments on the concerns. Basically, I
guess, what I'd like to address is the entrance to the property from the rear, that was
required or requested by the Planning and Zoning staff. The widths and those
requirements for the alleyway were met with paving from ACHD. The project is within
setbacks and I guess those are my main points that I'd like to make, except we have
done the things that were requested of us. It does fit within the property. This wasn't
actually designed as a huge project. There are -- we have two of them on one small lot
in Boise, is where this design came from. It's very similar to the design on the other side
of King Street, which is on Meridian and King, is actually a very similar design, a little
set of units in there. I think it would be a nice improvement. If you look down King Street
about one block on the north side of the road, there has been a unit that's two stories -- I
believe it was a three unit apartment project that actually had only five foot setbacks and
was recently approved. It's just under completion of construction right now and it's only
a block away to the east and on north side, like I said, and, in addition, we did have -- I
like to remind the clerk -- of course, you didn't see it in your packet, we do have one
letter from a neighbor two homes away that actually said that this would be a good
improvement to the neighborhood. So with that I will leave it to Council.
Corrie: Council?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Thornton, just so I'm clear in looking at all the different site plans and stuff,
what I thought I heard Mr. Williams say is that essentially the front and back of this
building face east and west, not north and south.
Thornton: Yes. That's true.
Nary: Okay. So basically the frontage on King Street there is the side of the building;
correct?
Thornton: Yes.
Nary: And that's where you have that one picture that you showed some windows and
something, is that what it is?
Thornton: Yes.
Nary: Instead of a blank wall?
Thornton: Right.
Nary: Okay. Now what about that -- the concern he has of trying to have all the
occupants of this four-plex using this alley? I mean --
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 38 of 66
Thornton: Well, basically --
Nary: When you're talking about garbage trucks, it's wide enough for cars, but garbage
trucks only go down it once or twice a week.
Thornton: Sure.
Nary: Not, you know, 40 times a day.
Thornton: Well, I would have been happy to design the parking any way that was
requested. This is the way that I was asked to do it basically by Planning and Zoning
and by Ada County. So that's the way I put it together for them. They seemed to not
have a problem with it. They did not want it coming in from King Street. I don't know all
of their reasoning for why they like to do that, but basically we were complying with their
request, so --
Nary: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. With that I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Oh, I'm sorry, Shari.
Stiles: I'm sorry. Excuse me. I just realized as I was looking at this plan, they will not be
meeting the ten feet per story. I'm not sure how far out -- how far out those projections
are on either side, but those would be considered part of the building and would be
reducing that setback and also the fencing that's proposed separating the different units
would be within that setback and the fence is also considered a structure, so I guess I
just needed to clarify that if your decision is to approve this, then that should probably
be addressed, whether those fences will be allowed and whether the ten foot per story -
- or five foot per story must be met.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mrs. Stiles, so what in the recommendation from Planning and Zoning were you
suggesting we change? Is it -- since the site plan says a ten foot sideyard setback, so is
that okay or is that something we should change, since the ordinance requires a
minimum of five feet per story, so ten foot is fine.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 39 of 66
Stiles: The site plan does show ten-foot setbacks. However, there is no consideration
given for these upper -- the upper story and the projections of the building. In Meridian
those are considered a part of the building.
Nary: So what I've asked, then, was what would you suggest we change in the
recommendation?
Stiles: I'm not sure what the width of that is. Again, neither Gary nor I have the -- seem
to have the packet for the application. If the applicant could address that. And also the
fencing. I don't think the fencing between the units was considered during the Planning
and Zoning Commission hearing. I'd like to know the distance between that -- between
their proposed fencing and the property line.
Nary: Well, I guess I'm confused, Mrs. Stiles. In the recommendations from the
Planning and Zoning Commission it says the applicant did not address fencing on the
proposed site plan, yet you referred to comment on the site, but the zoning and
development ordinance does not address fencing requirements and the P&Z
Commission supports no fencing for this project. So it appears that the applicant didn't
address it, because the Planning and Zoning Commission decided not to require it, so
are you asking us to change that or are you asking us to revisit it after it's already been
heard and had a Public Hearing and they have already made a discussion and they
have made a recommendation?
Stiles: I don't think they were addressing anything to do with the fencing between the
units.
Nary: Then why is it --
Stiles: Do they want no fencing? I'm sorry.
Nary: And I'm just reading from the recommendation and it says no fencing, so that tells
me they discussed it and that was the recommendation. Now if that isn't that, then these
are in error or we are going to re-issue -- re-hear an issue that's already been decided.
And if we are, that's fine, but I just want to know is that what we are doing?
Stiles: If that's the applicant's understanding that the fence will not be built, then I guess
that's fine. I guess I -- by reading that I don't get that they were even addressing the
interior fencing, because the comment says the applicant did not address fencing. Well,
they show it on their plan.
Nary: I agree. What I guess my problem is, is that this recommendation is unclear. It is
a hodgepodge of what was in the staff report and maybe what was discussed at the
Commission, because it has a very mixed feel to it, it says they didn't address fencing,
but they must have addressed fencing and it should be a good neighbor quality, but
they don't recommend they have any, so I just want to know which one it is.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 40 of 66
Stiles: It is a mixture between the two. I guess the recommendation from Planning and
Zoning Commission, I guess, would be the Commission agrees not to require
permanent fencing and the applicant shall contain debris on site during construction, so
it does not migrate onto adjacent properties.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: What would be classified as a good neighbor quality? Should not be chain link
or six foot cedar. What would it be?
Stiles: I don't know.
Corrie: I'm asking you. What would it be?
Stiles: A good neighbor fence is alternating -- typically an alternating panel so it looks
the same on both sides.
Corrie: All right. Okay. Mrs. de Weerd. Sorry.
De Weerd: I can't remember.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Again, the other question I have, Ms. Stiles, is on number five, the building
setback. The requirement is five feet per story. Now I understand what you're saying
about that little jutted out window, but it's just a two story building or not. Is it more than
a two story building with that jutted out window?
Stiles: No.
Nary: So it's a two story building and it says in the recommendation, the site plan
shows ten foot sideyard setback, which is complying with the ordinance, so --
Stiles: The site plan does. The elevations do not show that --
Nary: Do the elevations show it to be more than a two story building?
Stiles: They show it to be -- that the main part, the bottom floor is 30 feet wide, but on
the second floor it will be less -- it will be greater than 30 feet wide, so --
Nary: Does that make it more than a two story building?
Stiles: It makes it less than a ten foot setback.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 41 of 66
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, where they are measuring from would be the outer wall on the
second level to the property line.
Nary: I understand that. What this says is -- and that's what I was asking Mrs. Stiles is
this says -- and the recommendation is that the site plan says it has a ten foot sideyard
setback. She asked us to revisit that. What I'm saying is it a two story building or not?
The fact that the upper story is bigger in those places where those windows jut out,
does that make it more than a two story building. If it doesn't, then what difference does
it make about the window elevation? Who cares? It either is a two story building or it is
not. If it is, then it has a ten foot setback and that's what the requirement is and there is
nothing to do differently. If it makes a difference, that's what I want Mrs. Stiles to tell us.
Just because those windows stick out, does that make it different than a two story
building.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, I don't know where the two story is coming in. I
know in Boise city they have a different way to measure the sideyard setback. The
building official in the City of Meridian counts that second story as needing to meet the
setback requirements of ten feet from the property line. So it doesn't make a difference
whether it's two story or not, I mean I didn't say anything about it being more than two
stories or -- I don't know where you're coming from.
Nary: I'm reading the recommendation number five. Do you want us to change it?
That's all I'm reading is what was recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Did you read it?
Stiles: Yes, I did.
Nary: Okay. Do you want us to change it? And if you do, why?
Stiles: I just want it to be clarified that there is -- there are not ten foot sideyard
setbacks.
Nary: Okay. So this is in error.
Stiles: That's an error. Yes.
Nary: This is incorrect?
Stiles: Yes.
Nary: Okay. In their minutes they addressed this at the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Why are they in this recommendation if they are wrong? Do you have a
position statement? Do you have something else to show that?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 42 of 66
Stiles: I think it was missed. I do think it was missed. And, like I said, we searched for it
in the application and we can't find it. So we don't have a full scale drawing. I think it
was missed. I think it was an error on our part to not consider it. The site plan -- it is
true, the site plan does show ten foot sideyard setback, but the elevations don't support
that.
Nary: So what do you want us to change or what do you want them to clarify, since we
still have the Public Hearing open?
Stiles: That either the -- that they let us know what those projections are, how far they
project, so we can -- so you can either approve it with reduced sideyard setbacks and
so it just can't say this, just so it doesn't say that it shows ten foot sideyard setbacks
when, in fact, the plan does not meet the sideyard setback requirement at ten feet. I
mean it is Old Town, we look at everything on its own merits, I don't think there is a
problem with this, it's just I would like it to be correct.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think the issue is that the site plan as
drawn shows it meeting the ten foot setback, except that the site plan does not show on
it the projections that come out over the -- over the foundation and so Shari's point is
that perhaps corrected by a revised site plan, which shows those projections and if you
choose to, if you will, reduce the setback as specified, it could be approved in your
motion what those setbacks would be.
Nary: Thank you. And all I was asking Mrs. Stiles is what does she suggest we do,
because this is exactly what's in the staff report. It's the same wording in the
recommendation and now this gentleman hasn't had any opportunity to really address it
very clearly, because our staff report is wrong and the recommendations are incorrect,
as they just copied the staff report. So how is he supposed to address that?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don't know how you're going to address it on the site plan, because a site plan is
basically that, just shows the footprint of the foundation. Your elevations -- your
elevations -- I guess that would be the only place you would be able to show the
property line and measure over the deal, but I'm like Mr. Nary, why is it being brought up
at this point when it went through two -- and I don't know why Shari don't have a packet,
to be truthful, and I went through and stuff and I don't know why the packet isn't there,
but I'm kind of like Mr. Nary, I mean what do you want and how do you recommend and
how do we fix it. You don't do it by site plan, unless you have an elevation drawing on
the site plan and I have never seen one of those.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 43 of 66
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I apologize, I can't review every site plan before the
comments are reviewed and it goes to Planning and Zoning Commission. If you would
prefer that I not make any comments on errors that I see when it comes up to Council
and, I apologize, I have not had time to review it before today, then let me know that,
but I guess if I see an error, then I think I have to say something. And it matters not to
me whether you reduce the sideyard setback to seven feet or five feet or whatever, I
just would like it to be accurate, whatever is shown there, because we have to live by
the findings that are created as a part of this process.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: When we started this, Mrs. Stiles, all I asked was what was your suggestion to fix
it. That's all I wanted. It was what was your suggestion. If it is inappropriate for you to
make that suggestion, then maybe the planner who is the one that worked on this and
presented it is the one that should be here doing that and all I'm asking was some way
-- if we are going to have to make findings and we have a staff report that's incorrect
and missed it, as you stated, and we have recommendations that just copied the staff
report and, again, they are wrong, how are we supposed to go forward, so we can get
this taken care of for this person? All I wanted was some recommendation from you as
to what should we do to correct the language or if Mr. Thornton needed to make other
testimony to clear that up, then he can do that, but I don't think we have given him any
direction as to what he's supposed to do. So that's the issue I wanted to fix. That's all.
Stiles: Okay. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. Stiles.
Stiles: What I would suggest, then, if the Council is going to approve reduced setbacks,
that all of the language that -- the narrative type language be omitted and that the
Council merely address the setbacks that are approved as part of this application. I
don't know how far those projections are. They are considered part of the building, it's
not an architectural projection, such as -- oh, well, architectural projections are -- that
we go -- such as eaves, yes. The eaves do not count. It's the living area wall.
Corrie: Mr. Thornton, let me ask you -- let me ask Mr. Thornton to come up here. How
far do those windows set out there?
Thornton: Well, I'll have to give you a guess at this time, but I believe it's two feet.
Bird: They are just a seat --
Thornton: They are just a window seat type --
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 44 of 66
Bird: But they are an area that you can be in? It's a seat.
Thornton: You could sit there, yes.
Bird: You could say it's a seat.
Thornton: Yes. Again, you know, they are also to add character, as much as anything,
to the outside of the structure and the same with the front side also. The pop outs on the
front side are actually split between two units and they are the walk-in closet area in the
floor plan.
Bird: And they are also two feet, approximately?
Thornton: Yes.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I have a question for the applicant, since I still haven't found ACHD's report.
Did they not ask you to pave a portion of the alley?
Thornton: Yes, they did. And that's addressed on that site plan.
De Weerd: Okay.
Thornton: This is a little bit better size for you, but that's the site plan that we submitted
and this is the part that they requested be paved.
De Weerd: Okay. So you're paving from the street on out to the back side of your
property?
Thornton: Yes. Essentially there is some paving existing that we will go to.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. It looked like a big black blot on mine, so we appreciate
the clarity.
Corrie: That's a lot better than what we have there. Okay. Any other discussion? I
assume the silence means there isn't. Okay. Any other testimony that you want to hear
from the Public Hearing? If not, I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on
Item No. 15.
McCandless: So moved.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 45 of 66
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing for the Thornton four-
plex. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All
ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Further discussion? Comments?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And I did hear what Mr. Williams said and I do think there are probably some
concerns about this particular property, but I think it's an improvement and it's a
balancing act, as we have to do on a lot of these properties, but I don't really think this is
a bad project. I think there are some concerns, some of them are marketing type issues
and whether or not the way it's situated and those kinds of things, but I don't think that's
our concern. I don't have any problem with it.
Bird: I don't either.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I also understand the concerns of the neighboring business, but the goals of
the Old Town are a mixture of residential and business and a higher density and these
achieve it and certainly we are working on design standards that can start helping have
a better blueprint to follow to address maybe some of the concerns that you have raised
today as well. But it is definitely an improvement and we are trying to look at how we
can encourage these kinds of improvements. So, you know, I understand your concern
and I think that the people that move in there are going to understand they are right next
to a business, so I would go ahead and -- do we have a motion or --
Corrie: Not yet.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I would move that we approve the request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a residential development consisting of four townhouse style units in a two
story in an OT zone for Thornton four-plex, to allow the reduced setback to eight feet
from the second story elevation bump out and to approve the -- or incorporate the
recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission and applicable staff
comments, ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 46 of 66
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Since we are trying to clean up number five, we can clean up number eight. I
mean it appears that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation shows no
fencing between this property and the adjacent property, so if that's what we are doing,
let's make it a little clearer. Is that the way you read that?
De Weerd: Yeah.
Nary: Let's make sure that number eight reflects that that's what the recommendation
is.
De Weerd: Okay. If that would be noted in our findings, that the fencing is not required.
Corrie: Okay. Anything further discussion? Okay. Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 02-007
Request for annexation and zoning of 40
Marlin Subdivision
acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed by
Winston Moore – north of I-84 and east of South Linder Road:
Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 02-008
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
152 building lots and 5 other lots on 40 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
Marlin Subdivision
proposed by Winston Moore – north of I-84 and east
of South Linder Road:
Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 02-010
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a Planned Development for single-family residential lots in a proposed R-4
Marlin Subdivision
zone for proposed by Winston Moore – north of I-84
and east of South Linder Road:
Corrie: Item Number 16 is a Public Hearing, request for annexation and zoning for 40
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Marlin Subdivision by Winston Moore, north
of I-84 and east of South Linder Road. We also have a Public Hearing, request for
preliminary plat on 152 building lots and 5 other lots on 40 acres. And then we have a
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 47 of 66
Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single-family residential lots. So
at this time, if there is no objection from Council, I will open all four -- excuse me -- all
three Public Hearings and we will issue testimony in all three, if you so desire, at one
time. Okay. I will open the Public Hearing for Items 16, 17 and 18, in reference to Marlin
Subdivision on the annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit.
Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property immediately adjacent to I-84 on
the western boundary -- or the eastern boundary is The Landing Subdivision, the final
phase, and the Landing Subdivision is also to the north. Waltman Lane is roughly
adjacent to the north boundary, parallel with the north boundary to the west and that
goes to the elementary school site, which would be the Peregrine Elementary School.
There is an existing ditch called the Kennedy Lateral that traverses down the eastern
boundary. This was tiled in the phases of The Landing Subdivision. They did submit the
planned development for a couple of reasons. One is that it's designated as a mixed
planned use area in our Comprehensive Plan, which requires all uses to go through the
planned development process and also they had requested some reduced frontages
throughout the development to provide a mixture of housing types. There was some
discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the landscape buffer
adjacent to I-84. The buffer that was completed as part of The Landing Subdivision
adjacent to the freeway has been very unsuccessful. It was a 20 foot high -- or 20 foot in
width before you got to the fence and then it dropped sharply into the back yards of that
-- of the lots within the subdivision, but they did provide a minimum 20 foot planting strip
prior to the fence as it was required by our ordinance at that time. The ordinance has
now changed to require additional landscaping. It was the recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning Commission that they be allowed to put the fence roughly at the
apex of what would be the berm. I don't see in the recommendations the response from
the Idaho Transportation Department. They do have some guidelines on how far they
would like buildings to be located from the freeway. There will be a third lane added to
this section of the freeway and they do have a standard for that, but not having their
comments I am not sure what that is. There will be an overpass in the future at this
location for Linder Road and Ada County Highway District has made their comments
regarding the tapering of right of way they will need and I believe the site plan has been
drawn to accommodate that future overpass. There is existing rural residential type
housing units across the road to the west on larger lots that are still in the county. The
property has been farmed for many years. The site plan does show a variety of housing
units within the development, has large open space areas. I guess I will need the
applicant to address the fencing. I believe it was proposed to be 35 feet wide, which
would mean that at 17 and a half feet they would have the top of the berm. Actually,
they are showing 24 feet from I-84 right of way to the top of the berm where the fence
would be and then the actual property owner's lot line would be an additional 26 feet
from that location. The concern was, was that the property owners would build another
fence on their property line and it would leave kind of a no man's land between the
fence on top of the berm and the property owners, so it was their recommendation at
Planning and Zoning Commission that the property owners did not need to fence along
their property line. I believe that was the one outstanding issue that hadn't been clearly
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 48 of 66
addressed at Planning and Zoning Commission and would request your guidance on
that and, otherwise, would recommend approval of the project with staff and agency
conditions.
Corrie: Any comments or questions from Council at this time? Okay. Thank you, Shari.
This is a Public Hearing. I would invite the applicant to speak first. We have got all three
of these, Jonathan, so however you want to -- is the testimony you're about to give the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Seal: Yes, I do.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Seal: My name is Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 600 North Steelhead, Boise,
Idaho. Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. First I wanted to mention normally
Winston Moore would be here tonight. He's been ill, so he wanted to make sure that
both the Mayor and the Council understood the fact that he is not here is not a
representation of his lack of interest, but the fact that he had planned on it. He
apologizes for not being here tonight. So, anyway, having said that, the first item --
could we turn that light off? Thank you. This is -- and I apologize for the size, but we
tried to get some stuff in here. This is a color rendering of the project and I think first
what I would like to talk about is this is 152 lots, as was mentioned. What we have got
here, first off, is this is, as you say, an in-fill space for the city limits of the City of
Meridian. If you look at the surrounding homes in The Landing, these lots line up with it,
so they are no smaller than they are. The lots, as I mentioned, these lots in this project
conform to the Comp Plan. We are going to be developing -- or are in the process of
developing right now, we have submitted very strict CC&R's for this project. It would
address things such as the design of the buildings, such as the pitch of the roof, the
color of the shingles, the storage of the vehicles, the maintenance of the property. We
want to keep this as a quality type project. I think the other thing -- and I have probably
said this to you before when I have been in front of you, but I think it's always worth
repeating. As you know, this is going to be developed by Winston Moore. I think it goes
without saying that he builds quality. It's important to him that he builds quality. His
reputation is important to him and I think as I go through this I think you will see that this
is reflected. These are entry level homes. We think that these are the type of homes
that you need within the community that will enable people within Meridian to not only
work here, but to live here. I think in many cases many of these people are faced with
going to Kuna or Nampa-Caldwell. There is nothing wrong with those communities, but
it requires a substantial drive. I think what's reflective of the quality of this project, if you
here we have two open area parks that we are providing. The total acreage of those is
slightly under four acres, approximately two acres each. Within these two parks we
propose to put playgrounds. At the P & Z hearing several weeks ago one of the
requests that they made was to put playgrounds in both. I have an example here and I
will pass it out to you. This is a little bit of a representation of the type of playground
facilities that we will install and I'm not suggesting that this will be the specific kind, but
this will be I think a very good representation of it in terms of quality, design, the type of
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 49 of 66
material within it. And, again, what we are going to do is our plan is to put one park for
older kids and one park for younger kids to have a playground. Again, this was a
request of P & Z that we did not argue, we will go along with providing them both. We
think that's a good idea. I think some clarification down here along -- this is I-84 down
here, as far as the berm goes, and what I'll do here is pass these out again. I think a
picture is worth a thousand words. This is a side view of the berm on I-84 and we spent
a fair amount of time on this. The original staff report talked about along the berm -- this
berm being 50 feet long -- for 50 feet wide, I'm sorry, and the situation we had is that
you had a berm, as you can see on that, the top of the berm is not at 50 feet. In other
words, the apex of that berm would be at approximately 25 feet, so the dilemma you
have is you have a fence at the top of 25 feet, then you have the property owner's fence
further north of that, so you had what they talked about is a tunnel vision. What we
wanted to try to accomplish here is to create a berm of between six and eight feet and
put the fence at the top of it. So my understanding at P & Z and what was approved is
that the berm would be 35 feet tall, the fence would be at the top of the berm, which
would be at 35 feet. In other words, you would have a 35 foot buffer between the fence
and the freeway. And then the landowner, the homeowners, their fence would basically
be the fence that we are putting up. So the intent was without that what we wanted try to
do is achieve putting the fence at the top, that gives you as much of the berm, as well
as the fence for both sound and also visual barrier. So the discussion at P & Z was that
was approved in the Findings. So I believe that's already been addressed, but we are
certainly free to talk about that. A couple other things on that berm down there. What we
are also doing is another thing in terms of the quality. And, again, I'll stress this with
Winston, that what he is trying to do, I think, is accommodate the needs of the city to
develop a quality project, is that we are going to go in it and put vinyl fences in and,
again -- I think I have enough of these. You know, if you look around the community, a
wooden fence is about half or less than half of what a vinyl fence is. A vinyl fence would
run you somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 dollars a foot we figured up on Magic
View, for example. The beauty of a vinyl fence is -- even though it's substantially more,
is five or ten years from now it still will look nice. It doesn't get the faded and weathered
look that we sometime see. Again, a cheaper way to do it would be to stick up the wood
and it would look nice for a couple years, we would move on, but then you've got
something that you're looking at that over time deteriorates. These fences are
guaranteed for life. They may be -- they will probably be a beige versus a white, but,
again, I think it's an attractive thing. I think it will enhance the project. It's quality and
that's what we are trying to strive for. Even though these are entry level homes, it
doesn't mean that we have to play on the cheap side. So we are going to -- the fences
are not only going to be along here, but then the vinyl fences will also be come along
there. So, again, I think it's going to be attractive, it's going to be a long-term
investment, and I think it's going to enhance the quality of the project. Another thing
along here -- and you can see it -- oh, you can see it over here a little bit. And, I
apologize, these are not terribly big pictures, but our intention is to landscape this and
also put a small berm along here and the idea is just to put a vinyl fence on the sloping
part, the back sloping part of the berm. Again, the neighbors to the west will see more
than six feet of visual barrier, the fence will be higher than what will be grade level,
maybe a foot or two, but, again, what we are trying to do is give that barrier, so you're
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 50 of 66
just not seeing a residential community. They have mentioned down here, P & Z also
asked for -- or staff asked for more trees as part of the ordinance and we are going
along with that, too. A couple other things to mention. Also we did have a neighborhood
meeting before P & Z and I know there is a couple neighbors here and I certainly won't
speak for them, but I know one of their concerns was access from Linder to Franklin
Road. The concern is that there was, for example, an accident or something up in this
area, how they could get out. One of the things, again, P & Z asked for is would we take
Verbena all the way through to the subdivision with phase one. Phase one for --
basically will end right here. Again, we agree to that. What that will enable, if you look
on this -- and, again, that's takes Verbena -- it enables people that if there is some
blockage in this area, to be able to get up into this area and again get back onto Linder.
I understand that that does not -- that's not a direct route to Linder -- or to Franklin,
rather, that many people would prefer, but, again, I think it's a mitigation and I'd also
mention that ACHD -- we did track it, of course, for ACHD. They did review it and they
passed this project. In fact, it was on the consent agenda. I think, finally, and just very
quickly on this -- and I will try to keep this short, we have had several homes builders
that approached us about buying all these lots all at one -- they would come in and
they'd write us a check and we would be done with it. Our desire, again, is -- and Nick
Kuntz is here who does the marketing, is we want to be selective in the type of builders
that come in here, because there is builders out there that will throw up homes left and
right, they do a big volume. That's not the kind. We are going to try to be selective on
the quality of the builders, because, again, we think they should be quality homes. They
may be entry level, but they don't have to be poor homes. So we are going to be
selective in that process. I think with that, that's really all I have to say. We have read
through the staff report that was provided to us prior to the hearing. We are in
agreement with that and I'm certainly pleased to answer any questions that you might
have.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Okay. Is there anyone from the public that would 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?
Gorton: Yes, it is.
Bird: Name and address, please, for the record.
Gorton: My name is Tara Gorton. I live at 1155 South Linder Road in Meridian, Idaho.
Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it's very evident that I don't want the 154 homes
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 51 of 66
across the street from my house. The fact that this land is going to be developed is
pretty much irrelevant to you. This subdivision, the people that are planning this
subdivision have, I think, taken great care in the amount of quality that they are going to
place, they are going to place nice fencing in front of the homes and stuff like that. Just
for the record, my house is directly on Linder Road, it's directly across from the
subdivision. We don't have anyone else from our area here right now at this time, but
they are all acre lots and they are currently zoned in the county and I just want to bring
to your attention that if we have R-4 across the street from county property and all of the
lots do have livestock. My goats and horse go down the road daily and I just don't want
to have future conflicts with anybody who is going to put a home over there with all
those kids and my other concern is with the school. Now if you will notice, there is -- and
we talked about the access. Is that going to be -- well, I don't understand the stages
about the access road through the extension of Verbena. If you look on the road, even
though there is a road that goes through the entire subdivision, it goes out to Linder
Road to Franklin and that is at this current time the only access out of there. That's
already been addressed. As long as that promise is kept I don't see a problem with that,
but they put a brand new school there two years ago. It's already 80 children over
capacity. Now they said that they'd only have about 126 kids in that subdivision if they
go by the school what is provided through the school district of Meridian. What I'm
saying is these are low level homes, they are going to be new families, there will be a lot
more children overcrowding that school and I just want to bring that to your attention.
The major problem I have with that is there is one crossing guard right there at the
school to take all those kids across the street. Not only do they cross there for the
subdivision, but all of the children from The Landings Subdivision are all directed down
the sidewalk and every single child crosses at that one crosswalk. And adding all of
those other students to that one crosswalk, it's overrun. So I wanted to bring that to your
attention. There is a present speed of 20 miles an hour through there, but everybody
knows that's not kept. So putting more homes right there, right past that school, so there
is no other outlet -- they say there will be an outlet eventually. We have one outlet, all
those extra homes right passed the school. So I'd like to see something changed about
that if we could. I really don't have any other concerns. But I just wanted to make sure it
was safe for the school was my big issue.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else from the public that
would like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, Jonathan, do you have any
comments or questions?
Seal: Jonathan Seal. This is zoned R-4 and, actually, under this PUD we are less than
four homes under the R-4. So, in essence, with the PUD we have actually come in with
a lower quantity than we could have with an R-4 zone. So I think we have tried to
reduce that and, again, I emphasize I think with the parks and everything, you know, we
are creating homes, but we are also trying to address your need for parks, which I know
it's an ongoing challenge and problem for everybody and I think they will be nice parks.
And just one thing very quickly, I think we also did -- if you come in here we have
altered it so that as you drive in you're going to see this open area, you're not going to
drive in and just simply see a series of homes, it's going to be an open area. And, again,
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 52 of 66
I think it will be attractive and think it will be appreciated by everybody within the
community. That's all the comments I would have.
Corrie: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Seal, could you show me again where that connection to Verbena is?
Seal: Yeah. Mayor, Mr. Nary, right here is Verbena and this goes through and right now
this road -- this ACHD road stops right there, so we would connect to that and then, you
know, obviously, that offers people the opportunity to travel up here and, again, it does
not get them up to Franklin, but I think it does address some of the access concerns
and that's the best we could do. Our first phase which we submitted, as I mentioned, will
be somewhere right there and so under normal circumstances we could simply dead
end this road, but, again, Winston Moore has agreed to go ahead and extend Verbena
to phase one and that's a condition that's in there, we have agreed to that. We are not
arguing with that.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: You know, Jonathan, I think you have done a nice job, like the neighbor
said, you have really upgraded a lot. I think the only thing I would like to see that's
probably too late is a detached sidewalk, because I, like the neighbor, those kids in
walking on the street to school and Linder, with it going to be an overpass, it's going to
be a busy road and it would be nice to see detached sidewalks and that's my soap box
comment.
Corrie: Any comments?
Seal: Well, Mayor, Mrs. de Weerd, as you probably know, residential is not an area we
have done, it's an area that's new to me, but my experience has been most of the time it
has been attached sidewalks. It makes it -- I guess it comes down to, quite honestly, I
think part of a cost element and the difficulty of trying to maintain that area between the
sidewalk and the curb. So I think our preference is just to keep it as an attached
sidewalk in this project. We are -- you know, we are coming in and we are trying to
accomplish a lot of things and offer a lot of things and there is a point I guess where we
are considering costs and I understand that's not your not concern, but I guess our
preference would be to go with an attached sidewalk. So that's my soap box.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 53 of 66
De Weerd: I understand that soap box.
Seal: Yeah.
Corrie: Thank you, Jon. Anything else that the Council wants to do for the public
record?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on 16,
17 and 18.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move to close the Public Hearings for 16, 17 and 18.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Numbers
16, 17 and 18, on Marlin Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in
favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. All right. The Public Hearing is now closed. Discussion? Comments?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I was noticing on the ACHD recommendation -- and I just saw this now after Mr.
Seal finished, but it does say a five foot detached concrete sidewalk on Linder. The
ACHD recommendation was to construct a five foot wide detached concrete sidewalk
on Linder Road located two feet within the new right of way. It's detached. Yeah. I mean
I didn't notice it before, I just happened to notice now. They said -- they wrote them
down. That's what it says.
De Weerd: Good thing we closed the Public Hearing.
Seal: I think I misunderstood what street you were talking about. I agree with you.
Corrie: Okay. Let the record show that the applicant does agree with the ACHD. Okay.
Okay. Any other --
De Weerd: You were just better than you thought you were, Jon.
Seal: I didn't see that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 54 of 66
Bird: I didn't see it at all.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: You know, maybe I didn't have my Wheaties this morning or something, but I'm
looking at the recommendations and it's just a pet peeve of mine, I really appreciate Mr.
Seal and Mr. Moore's -- the information we were just provided, the six foot vinyl fence
on the buffer is excellent. I mean it will look very nice. It's going to be a real amenity to
the city. I like the parks and the playground equipment they are willing to provide, I
think, again, that's a real plus to the city. But I look at these recommendations and at
least according to Mr. Seal, that discussion of the fence was done and it's not in these
recommendations, so it's very frustrating to me to get these and they don't have the
proper information for us to deal with, so now we have to add it and I think that's very
frustrating. The other thought, in looking at these recommendations -- and I think it was
the ones on the CUP that I was looking at. Again, looking at these recommendations, I
believe it was number five, it's kind of a mixed bag, again, of the staff report, something
that happened at the P & Z Commission, and some recommendation in there and some
of it's just cut and pasted out of the staff report, but it doesn't have any relationship to
what the recommendation is. If we are going to have these, then they should be
reflective of what was done, so that we can use it. Otherwise, if we have to rewrite it,
why get it. It doesn't help us to have to do that on every one of these and cut and paste
it more when we don't have the benefit of the minutes that reflect exactly what was
discussed at Planning and Zoning. So it's just a pet peeve. We can deal with this, it's
just annoying to me to get this type of information and it's not usable for us and it's just
frustrating and we will have to add in the findings one for the vinyl fencing on the 35 foot
buffer. So, anyway, it's just my pet peeve. I like this project, I think Mr. Moore -- it is a
nice project and I think the information he brought is just very good. I recognize that the
school district is going to have to address those concerns as well. I think the neighbor
has brought up concerns about crossing that road, I don't see an overpass anytime
soon, so I can't imagine there would be an overpass there anytime soon. That dead end
is going to be a dead end for at least a number of years. So I don't think we have that
type of concern, I think the concern we have is what was brought up, was crossing that
street, and making sure it's done safely, that is something either the highway district for
the roadway or the school district for the crossing guards, so I think those will get
addressed.
Bird: Is that a motion?
Corrie: Any other discussion? Okay, Mr. Nary, I'll entertain a motion.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, I would move the approval of AZ 02-007, request for annexation and
zoning of 40 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for proposed Marlin Subdivision by
Winston Moore, north of I-84, east of South Linder Road, to include all staff comments
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 55 of 66
and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and I believe the ones
for the annexation are just fine the way they are.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded.
Nary: I guess I need to add for counsel to provide Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law and Decision and Order and all the other appropriate papers.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion on the preliminary plat.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of PP 02-008, request for preliminary plat approval of
152 building lots and five other lots on 40 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed
Marlin Subdivision by Winston Moore, north of I-84, east of South Linder Road, to
include all staff comments and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,
Decision and Order and I don't think there were any changes to that either.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of the preliminary plat.
Any further discussion?
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion on the preliminary plat approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 56 of 66
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion on the Conditional Use Permit.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd move the approval of CUP 02-010, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
planned development for single family residential lots in a proposed R-4 zone for
proposed Marlin Subdivision by Winston Moore, north of I-84, east of South Linder
Road, to include all staff comments and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, that counsel prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision
and Order pursuant to those, as well as cleaning up number five of the
recommendations for the Conditional Use Permit to reflect the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, which I think would just delete the language regarding
-- the language of presenting it to the Planning and Zoning Commission and that an
additional finding be made that the applicant shall provide a six foot vinyl fence on a 35
foot buffer berm between this property and I-84.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any other comments?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess it was probably more appropriate under the preliminary plat, but is
there -- I didn't notice any notations of the Right To Farm Act.
Nary: It's the law anyway.
De Weerd: It is the law, but --
Nary: It's the law anyway, so that -- but I certainly think that -- I don't know if they
standardly include that in the conditions, but it certainly --
De Weerd. Do you standardly include that?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, Counsel Member de Weerd, typically it shows up
on the final plat as a note.
De Weerd: Okay.
Gary: As a recorded note.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 57 of 66
De Weerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19: Public Hearing: VAR 02-006
Request for a variance to city ordinance to
allow an off premise sign at the southeast corner of E. Fairview Avenue
Locust Grove Ltd., LLC
and N. Locust Grove Road by :
Corrie: Thank you. Number 19 is a Public Hearing for a variance request to the city
ordinance allow an off-premise sign at the southeast corner of East Fairview Avenue
and Locust Grove Road by Locust Grove Ltd., LLC. I will open the Public Hearing and
invite staff's comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a property that is a remaining lot in the
subdivision that created these four lots. Winger's is on this lot. Hollywood Video on this
lot. There is a portion of the property -- this has been turned into an Eddy's -- not the
bakery, but the store and all of these were developed separately as Conditional Use
Permits. The Conditional Use Permit for this property included another half that would
be developed in the future, so it would basically -- it originally was proposed to duplicate
the existing buildings. Can be attached. The applicant has requested an off-premise
freestanding sign that would be located immediately adjacent to the sidewalk on D&B
Supply's property. It shows this -- this would be the right of way line. It shows the
sidewalk here and the sign location is shown immediately adjacent to that sidewalk. The
applicant had requested whether he would be eligible for a sign program. We indicated
that he did not, that it would involve a major modification to all of the signs on the site in
order to be considered a center that would be eligible for the sign program. Proposing a
six foot wide by approximately a little over a six foot high sign. I can't quite read what
this is. It is proposing some illuminated frame with a back lit fixture and then the block
foundation. The staff has done a review of the findings that are necessary to be made in
order to grant a variance and did not find that it met the requirements to grant such a
variance and we do recommend denial of this application.
Corrie: Okay. Council, questions? This is a public hearing. I did open the Public
Hearing, so if the applicant -- is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Gyer: It is.
Corrie: Name and address, please, for the record.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 58 of 66
Gyer: Bill Gyer, 967 East Park Center, Boise, Idaho. I'm the owner of the Locust Grove
Ltd., LLC. Well, I know it's late and I will get through this as quickly as I can. I guess the
best way to address this would be just to go through staff's findings point by point. I
would like to --
Corrie: You're limited to five minutes, if you can.
Gyer: Okay. I'll go as fast as I can. You know, by way of history, when this property was
developed, both D&B Supply, which I brought to the City of Meridian, Winger's,
Hollywood Video, the Eddy's Bakery Store, and now what I refer to as the orphan lot,
when this was all developed there was no sign ordinance in the City of Meridian. All
there was two pages. That was it. There was no -- there was no -- there was nothing to
go on. It was in process, it was being developed, but ultimately didn't get adopted, I
believe, until -- I think it was February of 2001. By then all four buildings had been
developed. So with that as background, let me just -- and I realize there has to be -- I
have to meet the standards of the four required findings. A, that there were such special
circumstances, conditions affecting the property, that strict application of the ordinance
would be impractical or impossible. Again, it was all developed. We didn't have the
benefit of the current sign ordinance and that leads into the fact that I have provided
photographs to help you see what I have proposed. Clearly, if anything, sure, we could
go back to that -- and given the fact that the developed requirements -- and we have
been good citizens in developing in the City of Meridian. I don't think there is a condition
that has been asked of us over the years that we haven't agreed to. Is that a fair
statement, Shari?
Stiles: You have agreed to them, yes.
Gyer: Okay. But given the fact that -- and, again, we could not control the exact siting of
the buildings when they were bought. We had to pay attention to the marketplace.
Hollywood Video was adamant that they be located where they are when they bought
the lot and they wanted individual ownership. That was the driving force behind this
when this was done, is provide the individual ownership and the people own their little
piece of the pie, their own business. Boyd Deeds, when he bought the lot for Winger's
restaurant, same thing, I want to put my building here. Well, as it's turned out, the
combination of Hollywood Video and Winger's restaurant, along with all the planning --
and, again, I have provided photographs, I'm happy to hand these out, pass them
around if you like -- has created a situation where I'm screened off, I'm walled off by my
own development, I guess, and I think it clearly demonstrates the fact that there are
special circumstances here and I will just try and move along. It says in one of the
comments: Staff does not find that strict compliance with the requirements with the sign
ordinance would result in an extraordinary hardship to the owner or developer, because
of unusual topography condition. Honestly, I don't even know if Mr. McKinnon read my
application. I had to prepare a 22 point presentation on -- or why this should be
developed, but clearly I have demonstrated that. I will tell you that that property has
been continuously marketed for four and a half years now. The sign I have in the back,
which you may or may not have ever seen, is probably two-thirds again bigger than the
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 59 of 66
one I'm asking for. It's on 12 foot poles and they really is very little visibility. And, again,
I'm not asking for the city to guarantee me a tenant or a buyer or anything else, but I'm
simply asking for the right to put a sign up that may -- that may result in the successful
development of this project. I don't want a used car lot. I don't want some -- and I told
Dick I wouldn't do that. Dick from D&B Supply. I discussed that with him way back. So,
again, I want to do something that's quality, but quality retail tenants -- oh, boy. Am I up
to five minutes already?
Corrie: Getting close.
Gyer: Okay. I guess that, in short, I would tell you that I believe that we absolutely, if
you have read our application, we have met the requirements for the granting of a
variance and I respectfully request that I be granted a variance to put up a sign.
Corrie: Okay. Questions from Council? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else here want to
issue testimony? Okay. Council, questions for the Public Hearing?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mrs. Stiles, at least the copy of the city code that I have on my laptop here
doesn't have the sign ordinance in it. At least it doesn't have the section that is cited
here, 11-14-6. Is there anything this gentleman could do, besides market to somebody
that doesn't need a building on Fairview Avenue or anything in the sign ordinance that
would assist him, other than just marketing it to something else?
Stiles: He's applying for the variance to the sign ordinance.
Nary: I understand that. Is there something that's already there that would allow him
anything -- it says he doesn't qualify for a sign package, so is there nothing else in this
ordinance that can assist him with the property. I mean, you know, it is fairly hidden and
it is hard for any type of commercial development there that has no visibility to the
street, so is there nothing that we have that could assist him, besides this variance? No
other -- any other language in the sign ordinance that might be of some help?
Stiles: Not that I'm aware of. We did -- the applicant had the choice to retain any of
those lots for himself and the sign ordinance that existed in 1993 did specifically prohibit
off-premise signs, so there is nothing new in the sign ordinance that didn't exist when
the property was originally developed.
Gyer: May I respond to --
Corrie: Hang on just a minute. Let's get the questions out. We didn't close the Public
Hearing, so -- any other questions? Okay. I'll give you some time to say something
about that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 60 of 66
Gyer: In responding to Shari -- well, and I will respond. I'm going back to your sign
ordinance that you have now. It specifically states: The purpose of the sign ordinance is
to identify and enhance businesses, while maintaining the esthetic appearance of the
city. It goes on and it says a sign is recognized as a vital ingredient to the free trade
process upon which the city is dependent. And then in closing, we are supposed to
maintain the identification and individual character of each business. I need that sign out
there. And, again, I have met the criteria, the four criteria that have been -- it is my
burden of proof, I realize that, and, again, I'm not asking for a guarantee from the city of
my eventual success, but I'd sure like the help in not being anymore of a failure than I
already have been. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I did have a question. Can you give us a summary on the four
criteria that you have met? Just in short.
Gyer: I'll try. I believe I have met all the -- this site definitely meets the special
circumstances or conditions, given the fact that we are blocked from view from the
major arterial and I do have a C-G, which is the only zoning allowed when it was
annexed into the city. That strict compliance would result in extraordinary hardship. I
have tried for years. It's been continuously marketed. I need some exposure, every
tenant or potential buyer has told me who has been to see the property. I definitely have
a hardship. The granting of the specified variance will not be detrimental to the public's
welfare or injurious to other property. Obviously, there is nobody here to object and that
the man who is giving me an easement forever, in perpetuity, the man who owns D&B
Supply, he encouraged it. Boyd, he doesn't care. Hollywood Video doesn't care. I'm
surprised, frankly, that Miles didn't come up and have some kind of objection, because
typically do from the people on the other side of Wilson Lane. It's just us chickens here.
I don't think I'm going to injure the public. And then, lastly, that such variance will not
have the effect of altering the interest and purpose of this title in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan. I come back to -- I'm not doing any of that. All I'm doing is trying
to establish a location for some business to be successful and meet the criteria and the
guidelines of the sign ordinance and I could go on, but I know you're tired and want to
go home.
Corrie: Let me ask you a question here. On D it says the applicant stated in the
application that the other businesses in the subdivision, Eddy's, Winger's, and
Hollywood Video, will not discuss removing their existing signs to build a center sign. Is
that true? They won't?
Gyer: That's absolutely true.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 61 of 66
Corrie: The sign ordinance says that the purpose of the sign is not a real estate sign,
nor a billboard sign, the only way the sign could be permitted off premises is to approve
it as a center sign. That's not -- if they won't do that, then you're pretty out of luck getting
a center sign.
Gyer: I understand that, but I'm not asking for a center sign.
Corrie: Yes, you are, because it's got to be part of that center. You've got a piece of
property right behind there that has nothing to do with the center there. So if you want a
center sign, it has to be part of that, the way I read the sign ordinance, and you're not
asking for a center sign.
Gyer: I'm asking for a commercial business sign.
Corrie: But that's not what the sign ordinance allows you to do. It says off-premises
signs are used for real estate, billboards, and commercial center signs. The proposed
sign is not a real estate sign or a billboard sign and the only way that the sign can be
permitted off premises is to approve it as a center sign.
Gyer: Well --
Corrie: I don't want to argue the question, but I'm just -- that's what the ordinance
reads.
Gyer: I understand that, but I just respectfully disagree with that statement.
Corrie: Well, you can't disagree with it, it's an ordinance. You can disagree with it, but
we have to go by what the ordinance says. I'll let them decide. I just wanted to bring that
point to you, because it is in the sign ordinance. Any other questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I have one for Shari. Shari, I understand that -- I think -- I don't know if it
was you or one of your staff members at one time said there were a couple of items in
the sign ordinance that need to be cleaned up. Is this one of those areas? You know, I
didn't ask them specifically what it was, but as we adopt a new ordinance and try and
find out all the kinks and that sort of thing, is this one area that has been found to be a
hardship?
Stiles: Staff has not considered the off-premise sign part of the ordinance to be
changed. I mean, like I say, it was in existence in '93 and possibly before that, that
made those prohibited signs, so, you know, people all the time want to get an
easement, I mean any number of people are willing to grant a ten by ten foot easement
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 62 of 66
out on the freeway so somebody can say, well, I've got an easement, therefore, I can
put my sign out there. But, you know, if we don't stick to the ordinance on this, we will
have them everywhere.
Corrie: I'm not going to get in this back and forth stuff. If the council wants to hear it, it's
up to them, but -- Council, do you want to keep the Public Hearing open, go back and
forth yet or do you want to hear what he has to say? I mean it's entirely up to you.
De Weerd: If anyone has anymore question, we could get all those out and then give
him a chance to wrap up.
Bird: I have no more.
McCandless: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Well, then, if it's the majority of the Council, I will entertain a motion to
close the Public Hearing.
McCandless: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: I'll second it.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Any further
discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed no? The Public Hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Discussion now?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think this is a difficult decision here, because I think there are -- I mean I think
there has been some good evidence that they have got a problem here in some regards
and I don't know if we can -- I don't know but for this variance if there is any other
method to deal with this, but I don't know that it -- other than the fact that different
people were marketed for this site when it was developed, Hollywood Video, Eddy's,
Winger's, D & B, all of those -- all of those sites, other than the fact that those people
chose the way they wanted their property marketed at the time, which they couldn't
have done -- just because we didn't have a sign ordinance doesn't mean they couldn't
have done a center sign. They could have done that. They didn't want to do that. So I
don't think there is some impossibility to this having been done even when they
developed, it's just that was their choice to do it that way. I understand there is a
hardship. I think the hard part I guess I have in looking at the findings that we have to
require is that although I think the staff's comments are kind of conclusory and doesn't
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 63 of 66
really tell us what was the reason for that, I do think three of these four, that there is
some evidence to support that, because I don't think there is certainly anything that's
going to alter the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, which is D. I don't think it's going
to grant some special right or open the flood gates to have these all over the place as
Ms. Stiles said, I just don't see that that's the case. I do think there is some strict
compliance here today, because of the nature of the setup of the building that this
development has come and because of some of the things in regards to topography and
the like, that there is at least some evidence in regards to D of the findings that we have
to have that I just can't find -- at least for me I can't see that there is special
circumstances. The reason they don't have a center sign is because these properties
chose to develop in that way and that was the way they chose to do that and I feel very
strongly for the developer that he's got a problem with his property and he has gone
over the history saying he can't market to the type of property where it's located, but not
every property that we have in town is necessarily visible from the main street and they
have to find other ways to do that and they don't all do it through off-premise signs.
They find other ways to market it or they look for the types of businesses that don't
require that and I just don't know -- I don't know the answer for it. I think there is -- I
think there is certainly plenty of argument either way, but I do think that the problem
here was that was the decision made at the time of the development was to not have a
center type sign, because those businesses didn't want that. But they could have done it
and they didn't have a sign ordinance, the sign ordinance didn't prohibit them from doing
that at the time, so I guess I have a hard time making -- we have to find all of the
findings, we have to find all four of them, not just one of them, and not just three of
them, but we have to find all of them. I guess I'm struggling with at least finding all four.
Corrie: Any other comments?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: It looks like if we could get the other businesses to agree that they could
get a variance to have a center sign, that might be a solution for him.
Corrie: I guess maybe in the long run Locust Grove is going to be maybe just as good
as Fairview once the overpass goes and it's five lanes, but that's in the future, so --
okay. Any other comments?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing no other comments, I'll entertain a motion on the request for a
variance of the city ordinance to allow an off-premise sign at the southeast corner of
East Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road by Locust Grove Ltd., LLC.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 64 of 66
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'm going to move that we deny VAR 02-006, request for a variance to city
ordinance to allow an off-premise sign at the southeast corner of East Fairview Avenue
and North Locust Grove by Locust Grove Ltd., LLC.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to deny the motion for request for
variance. Any further discussion?
Nary: I guess I need to make a request for counsel to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, I'm sorry, pursuant to all staff comments
for this denial.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Second agrees to the amendment, but, you know, I guess I will have my
short comment is that I agree with what Councilman Nary said. If we needed to find that
all four of these items need to be met to grant the variance, it would be a stretch to do
that. So that's why I seconded the motion.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would add more comment and I don't know, but I do -- I think the question
brought up by Councilwoman de Weerd in the discussion was as we have looked at this
sign ordinance and there, obviously, are kinks and bugs that we have to evaluate as we
apply that going forward, I don't think we have evidence to grant an off-premise sign, but
I do think we at least need to look at this situation, because I don't think this will be an
isolated situation, I think we have to find so we can deal with this. Now I recognize what
you said, but there may be -- there may not be on this particular property maybe there
are other methods that we are not aware of as to how to deal with it, but I do think from
the staff's point of view and I know they are very busy, but they have to evaluate how do
we deal with this. We may have this again. We have other properties in town that are
going to have this same scenario where they are obstructed by the building's location,
they are obstructed by vegetation, they are obstructed by trees that we required them to
put there, so I do think we at least have to look at that and maybe an off-premise sign
isn't the way to go, but I don't really want the property to come in, instead, and want a
75 foot sign there so you can see it. So, you know, I don't want that to be the alternative,
so I think we at least need to look at what can we do and this is a good example of a
way to try to address it in our ordinance and we have some very intelligent, creative
people on the staff here to maybe at least come up with some alternative. This is not an
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 65 of 66
isolated situation. There certainly is an opportunity out there to figure out what other
ordinances are existing that can assist in this type of scenario, because we will just
address it again and I don't want to keep denying it, because we just don't have the
means within our variance process to do that. I think we really need to take an initiative
or pro-active approach and say let's go and see if we can find something to deal with
this problem, because I can't imagine it's unique to Meridian. I'm sure there are many
places that have and they can deal with it with something other than an off-premise sign
or maybe something different that might be an off-premise sign that's different than what
we consider to be the traditional billboard type of thing, but something else. So at least I
think going forward we need to at least do that, in addition to just this particular issue
tonight.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Hearing none, Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Thank you. Motion to deny is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: That concludes the agenda.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Just a couple of things. I thought that we would have the lease agreement
for the Boys and Girls club of Ada County on here.
Corrie: We are going to have that hopefully tomorrow. It would be on the consent
agenda with everything.
De Weerd: Okay. And the second one is the Mayor and I discussed the changing of the
name of East 1st Street to Main Street, that the signs have come in and a way to kind of
kick off the Main Street idea and an idea that was discussed and maybe prior the Dairy
Days parade we could maybe do it at the entrance of the parade and having an initial
ribbon cutting on the street sign to kick off the parade type of an idea. We are all going
to be there, so it might be an appropriate to celebrate the new Main Street name.
Corrie: Which are is it going to go?
De Weerd: Oh, and I think the Mayor also wanted to know how big the wagon was and
stuff for the kids.
Corrie: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting
June 4, 2002
Page 66 of 66
De Weerd: So --
Corrie: My question is which way is the parade going this year, north or south?
Bird: It will probably start at the speedway.
Corrie: The speedway? Okay.
Bird: I imagine. I haven't heard, Mayor, but we can sure find out.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we adjourn.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:26 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK