HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 07-17
Meridian City Council Meeting
Julv 17. 2007
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M., Tuesday, July
17,2007, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Joe Borton and David
Zaremba.
Members Absent: Charlie Rountree.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Tracy Basterrechea,
Mark Niemeyer, Matt Ellsworth, Keith Watts, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
o Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I'll go ahead and start tonight's meeting. Thank you all for being
here with us tonight. It is Tuesday, July 17th. It is a few minutes after 7:00. We will
start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item 2 is our pledge of allegiance. Tonight we will be led in the pledge by
our regular citizen Ralph. Would you lead us in the pledge? All rise.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
De. Weerd: Now, Ralph, you know the process here. I do get to give you a City of
Meridian pin. So, if you will, please, come forward. After all these weeks or months,
thank you for --
Zaremba: And usually there is some candy that goes with it.
De Weerd: It usually comes from Bird.
Bird: He doesn't look like a kid to me.
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Darrell Taylor with Cherry Lane Christian
Church:
De Weerd: Okay. Item NO.2 -- or 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be
led by Darrell Taylor with the Cherry Lane Christian Church. If you will all join us in the
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 2 of 77
community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Thank
you.
Taylor: Heavenly Father, we just truly thank you that when we get together like this we
are reminded of what a wonderful country we have where we can come and express
our thoughts and our ideas and, Father, we just ask now that you will be with this
meeting, that you guide and direct those who are involved. Father, we just thank you
for your love and care upon us throughout this day and always and we pray this in
Jesus name.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Darrell, I don't know if I have given you a City of Meridian pin. Thank you
for joining us. Ralph, he must have been younger. Item No. 4 is adoption of the
agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We do have a couple requests. Under Department Reports, Item B, Fire
Department, the update on fireworks has been asked to be tabled to July 24, 2007.
Item No. 14, variance 07-008 for Meadowlake Village North, the variance, has been
asked to be withdrawn by the applicant. Item 19, 20, and 21 are ordinance numbers 07-
1326,07-1327 and 07-1328. With that I move we approve the agenda.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as noted. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of June 19,2007 Pre-Council Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of June 26, 2007 Pre-Council Meeting:
C. Approve Minutes of June 26, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
07.010 Request for a Variance to landscape the surplus right-of-
way and decrease the required street buffer along Eagle Road from
35 feet to 20 feet for Gatewav Marketplace by Landmark
Development Group - 3205 East Ustick Road:
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 3 of 77
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
07-011 Request tor a Variance to UDC 11-3B-7C2 to count existing
right-ot-way tor Eagle Road towards the landscape street buffer
width in the C-G zone tor Sadie Creek Promenade Eagle Road
Landscapina by Landmark Development Group - Southwest
Corner ot Eagle Road and Ustick Road (Sadie Creek Subdivision):
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
07-012 Request tor a Variance to UDC 11-3B-7C2 to count existing
right-ot-way tor Eagle Road towards the landscape street buffer
width in the C-G zone tor Bienville Square Eagle Road
Landscapina by Redcliff Development - west side ot Eagle Road,
south ot Ustick Road (Bienville Square Subdivision):
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 07-
009 Request tor a Rezone ot 24.69 acres trom I-L to C-G zone tor
Jabil Southeast by Joint School District No.2 - 1303 East Central
Drive (Portion ot Lot 1, Block 1, of the Jabil Subdivision):
H. Development Agreement: AZ. 07-005 Request tor Annexation
and Zoning ot 1.46 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone tor the property
located at 1205 West Overland Road for Pfost Property by
Thomas & JoAnn Pfost - 1205 West Overland Road:
I. Development Agreement: AZ 07-008 Request for Annexation
and zoning of 3.32 acres from R1 to C-G zone tor Zamzows
Overland by JR LLC - 3620 and 3650 East Overland Road:
J. Approve New Beer and liquor Licenses for Rudy's Beveraae
Concession by Dave Edmark at 2310 Overland Road:
K. Water Main Easement Agreement for Paramount Properties on
Meridian and McMillan Road:
L. Approve Indemnification and Limitation of Liability Agreement
with Idaho Power Company for installation of transformers at
New City Hall Building Project:
De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 4 of 77
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest on all papers.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Berg,
will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A. Legal Department:
1. Presentation of Consolidated Plan for CDBG with Kay
Frances I Emily Kane:
De Weerd: Item 6 under Department Reports, we will start tonight's meeting for
Department Reports with our Legal Department.
Kane: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council. I'm
Emily Kane; I'm a Deputy City Attorney in the City Attorney's office. I'd like to provide
you with a brief overview of three documents that you have before you regarding
Meridian's entitlement to Community Development Block Grant program application.
You have before you three documents that must be submitted to the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development by August 15th in order to obtain a five
year grant for the city, which is projected at this time to be about 1.15 million dollars.
This PowerPoint looks long, but I'm going to breeze through it very quickly, so that you
can get on with the rest of your agenda. If I go too quickly, please, stop me and we can
review. There are the three documents that the city must submit to HUD, the five year
consolidated plan, the annual plans for 2007, which is the first program year, and an
analysis of the HUD housing in Meridian. So, we have contracted with Kay Francis,
who is also here tonight and you're familiar with her, to prepare these documents on the
city's behalf and she's done that and, actually, done a beautiful job. The 1.15 million
dollar amount is based on a projection -- is a projection based on the 2007 allocation for
__ excuse me -- for the City of Meridian. There are, of course, federal regulations
regarding what the city can spend the money that they do receive from HUD and Kay
Francis is familiar with these regulations and has been helping us navigate that. The
most important one is that 70 percent of these funds must address the use of low and
moderate income persons within the city. So, the draft plan contains priorities for how
we will spend the money. It sets forth a proposal for how we can allocate these funds
and the first priority that we have identified is economic development, basically, to assist
low and moderate income persons by creating jobs and encouraging commercial growth
near their residences by revitalizing downtown and we would do this with -- in
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 5 of 77
cooperation with the Meridian Development Corporation. Priority number two is that we
would invest in affordable housing, creating new affordable housing, preserving and
promoting existing affordable housing, and, finally, working with existing agencies to
improve and promote housing resources in Meridian for homeless persons, special
needs persons, and elderly persons. The third priority for these funds would be
community development. We would use them to directly improve the living environment
in the Old Town neighborhood that's been identified as containing 51 percent of low and
moderate income homes. So, again, you have before you the three draft documents
and on August 7th, which is the last City Council meeting before August 15th, I will
come back and I will ask you to give me the green light to submit these documents to
HUD on behalf of the city. So, with the -- the rest of this presentation might be a good
jumping off point. It summarizes what the documents do and what they need to contain
and, then, I guess you just need to slog through the -- they look thick, but they, actually,
go pretty quickly and they are kind of interesting, actually. There was a public comment
-- or rather a Public Hearing on June 27th and that kicked off a month long public
comment period, which ends on July 27th. So, between now and then public comments
are being solicited and I'm accepting them. So, please, forward any and all comments,
questions, concerns, anything that you'd like to say about the proposed plan to me by
the 27th and Kay Francis is prepared to incorporate those into the draft. Are there any
questions at this time?
De Weerd: For those that might be interested in the audience, can you tell them where
they can find the documents.
Kane: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the documents are available on the city
website. They should be -- there should be a hot link that goes directly to them or they
are available in the searchable database. I also have some with me tonight and I'll
leave some hard copies in the back.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Kay, did you have anything you wanted to add? Thank you for being here.
Thank you so much.
Kane: Thank you. And I will see you August 7th.
2. Discussion of Draft Ordinance for Garage Sales:
De Weerd: Item 6-A-2. Mr. Nary. No, not Mr. Nary. Ms. Kane.
Kane: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of Council. The draft ordinance before
you is -- was drafted in response to a code enforcement concern. They are getting a
number of complaints and noticing a number of problems with the -- sort of perpetual
garage sales around the city. Folks are having a garage sale that's open all the time,
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 6 of 77
not just for a weekend, not just the situation where folks are cleaning out their attic, but
it's sort of a business. So, this ordinance was drafted in response to a concern that
what we do have on the books is difficult to enforce, because it's actually an exemption
from the mobile vendor license. So, there is not a prohibition in the City of Meridian and
no regulation regarding garage sales. So, this is an effort to fix that and address that
concern.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Mr. Nary, anything to add?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what I'd like to do is if you have an
opportunity to review this, we'd like to bring it back to you within the next -- either your
next meeting or your subsequent meeting for approval, if there is other -- if you'd like to
have a number of public readings or some other type of form, we can certainly do that.
But as Ms. Kane stated, we have had a number of complaints that have come through
code enforcement about some ongoing perpetual garage sales that seem to be never
ending and those can be problematic and this was just a way to address that.
De Weerd: Questions from Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Ms. Kane, this doesn't require a license for a garage sale, does it? Or does it?
Kane: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, it does not require
licenses, it's simply an effort to regulate them.
De Weerd: Anything else? Council, when would you like to see this again?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I read through it and, surprisingly, have no comments, other than good job.
So, I would be ready to see it next week.
De Weerd: So, we will put in on the Council agenda next week.
Nary: Thank you.
B. Fire Department
1. Update on Fireworks: Table to July 24, 2007
De Weerd: Okay. Item B-1 was to be tabled to July 24th.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 7 of 77
C. Planning Department
1. Update of Transportation Improvement Program
Comments from the Meridian Transportation Task Force
by Matt Ellsworth:
De Weerd: So, up next is our Planning Department.
Ellsworth: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Idaho Transportation
Department and the Community Planning Association are in the process right now of
updating annually their Transportation Improvement Program, as well as the statewide
Transportation Improvement Program, the TIP. The first one I mentioned there is
relevant local component.
De Weerd: Hey, Matt. I'm sorry. Just to interrupt you. Emily? Emily? Before you
leave the room, we want to make sure that we have a line item to accept the entitlement
funds and make sure it is in next year's budget. I don't remember seeing that and
Councilman Borton had raised that. So, we may want to make sure when the budget
comes to Council next week that those numbers are figured into the total.
Kane: Madam Mayor, I'll take care of that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Kane: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Sorry, Matt. I didn't want to lose the opportunity.
Ellsworth: No, not at all. Not at all. So, both statewide -- regionally and statewide
transportation planning entities are in the process of updating their shorter range plans,
these have a horizon of five years, and the comment period is open for both at the
moment. For the Transportation Improvement Program, the local component of the
statewide transportation improvement program, that comment deadline ends on July
24th. The statewide version ends on August 3rd. So, at last Thursday's transportation
task force meeting that was the topic of conversation. The task force members
reviewed the document and suggested several -- several comments that they felt -- felt
were important enough to forward along to Council for your consideration prior to
forwarding them to Compass and ITD respectively. High points are two project specific
comments. One pertains to the Meridian interchange rebuild, which, as you recall, was
removed from the GARVEE program during the cutbacks that were incurred through the
legislature. The comment from the task force is simply to -- to do what you need to do
to get that back into the program. Some very important pieces of the puzzle, the local
and regional transportation network. So, that's one. Another one is to reiterate support
for a Ten Mile interchange and keeping that project on track to begin construction in
Meridian City Council
July 17. 2007
Page 8 of 77
2009. The third comment that the task force wanted to get in front of you to consider is
kind of a higher level suggestion that they would like ITD to consider and that pertains to
-- to pursuing creative solutions to remedy the immediate challenges that are facing the
transportation department's funding shortfall. Part of what that comes down to is the
possibility of shifting funds between programs, which is steps that they have taken to
small degrees in the past, something that the task force felt it might be time for them to
reconsider. So, again, that's just a very brief overview of the comments that they felt
were important for your consideration. Once, again, the transportation improvement
program is the local component of the statewide transportation improvement program,
so two comment letters, which will have the same content, and those were the two
items that I was hoping for you to consider this evening.
De Weerd: Thank you, Matt. Council, any questions, comments?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Matt, did you get a -- or present any preference with regards to the Meridian
interchange and the Ten Mile? Was it -- were they presented in order or both equal
considerations, at least from the committee's perspective?
Ellsworth: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, Members of the Council, there was no
priority order attached to the projects. In the letter, the way that it's written, the Meridian
interchange rebuild is presented first, followed by Ten Mile interchange, followed by the
shift in program funding.
Borton: Okay.
Ellsworth: But there was no priority attached to any of those.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: I guess the priority is to keep the Ten Mile, which is in the program, on
track. The second item was -- was also raised during the value engineering of the Ten
Mile in questioning why they would take that out. In order to fit all four lanes for 1-84 you
need to rebuild the Meridian interchange and where it exists today they will have to
choke down the traffic at Meridian interchange and they will lose that fourth lane until
that interchange, whenever it's funded, is built. So, you're going to have a fourth lane
that the public won't even get to use and the public, that's you, I would be upset. So, we
are upset. I would encourage you to also comment to Idaho Transportation
Department, because this is a real system flaw that we found, so did the engineers that
evaluated it, and the Meridian interchange should have been rebuilt ten years ago. It
has not only system flaws, but if you see kids crossing that bridge when there is a great
deal of traffic on there, it brings the fear of God right up in your throat, that some day it's
going to take risking a life to get their attention. And I hope it doesn't lead to that to get
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 9 of 77
some of these system improvements. Unfortunately, it's a very expensive project and
that is one of the reasons the legislature did cut it out to fit it within the available funding,
but it is a critical need ten years ago, but -- and I hope that answered your question, Mr.
Borton, and also I know it was a soap box that I took the opportunity to stand on for a
moment. Any other comments or questions? Okay. Thank you. I think the letter looks
good and we will get it signed and mailed out for the comment.
Ellsworth: Thank you, Mayor, City Council.
D. Finance I Purchasing Department
1. Bid Results for Meridian City Hall Project Phase 3
includes Tenant Improvements and Mechanical,
Electrical, Plumbing:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item D is our Finance Department. Yeah. Anna, you
might as well just hold on there.
Watts: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. On Thursday, July 12th,
the city received bids for phase three of the tenant improvements of the City Hall project
and we have invited our contract manager or construction manager Petra here to review
the results with you and talk over any exceptions there are. Wes.
De Weerd: Okay. I didn't know who drew the short straw. So, Wes, I see you"re it.
Bettis: Always me. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council President Borton, distinguished
members of the Council and staff. For the record, my name is Wesley Bettis, Petra,
Incorporated, 1097 North Rosario Street here in Meridian. I'm going to pass out to you
here the recap from our bids. The bid packages for the phase three tenant
improvements for the new Meridian City Hall were received until 2:00 p.m. on July 12,
as advertised and as posted. We received a total of 44 bids in the 18 bid packages.
We have one noncompliant bid that was a low bidder. Pacific Steel Fabrication did not
have an active Idaho Public Works contractor's license at the time they submitted their
bid. That rules the award for this package to the second bidder, which is an additional
3,087 dollars, which is included in that recap sheet, and that contractor is B&B Steel, a
long time company in this valley. We also received one bid late. It was not opened. It
was recorded as being received by the city clerk's office at 2:14 p.m. on the 12th. That
bidder is planning on filing an appeal, because the bid was delivered late by Fed Ex.
They believe that is just cause to appeal the decision. They believe they are the low
bidder, but their bid has not been opened. In researching their background, they are a
well-established company out of Salt Lake. However, their current Idaho Public Works
license is a B rating, which is less than their total bid on this project. So, based on that I
would have to invalidate their bid, regardless of its value. At this time I would ask you to
look at that recap sheet. There are four items in there that are listed as budgets. Those
have not been bid yet. That bids July 26th and includes not only the incidental interior
caulking, but as well the telecommunications, audio-video, and security service. At this
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 10 of 77
time I would ask the Council to review these numbers and make recommendation for
acceptance of these bids, so that a design team, your construction manager, and the
low subcontractors may move forward with looking at value engineering options to
present back to Council for decisions in the final construction of this project. I will stand
for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Wes. There is a couple of these packages that you see the low
bid is substantially lower than the high. Have you gone through these and do you feel
that they are reasonable and we are not going to have a bunch of change orders to
bring them closer in line?
Bettis: We have reviewed the bids with the low bidders and at this point we have not
been able to identify any items that might have been left out or misinterpretation of the
plans. The one bid in particular that was particularly low of concern was the plumbing.
We did review that with the contractor. It was a very important project for him and he
was willing to take the risk and take a shorter margin or lower margin on that scope of
work.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Wes, do you have the same comfort level with the doors, frames, and
hardware?
Bettis: Councilman Borton, yes, we do. That is Architectural Building Systems. They
are also the low bidder on phase two with the exterior doors and frames, so in this
sense they had a bit of an advantage already understanding the project and having
systems that will work together very effectively.
De Weerd: Ceramic tile as well?
Bettis: Ceramic tile, yes, Madam Mayor. Schumacher Tile, they believe they made a
mistake, but they are standing by their bid. It's not a major mistake, it was simply an
interpretation of mud set tile in one area versus thin set tile. They are still comfortable
with their bid and they want to proceed with it.
De Weerd: Okay.
Watts: Madam Mayor, Council Members, we would also ask to -- for approval to enter
into our standard AlA contract that we have been using for the CL projects, along with
the award.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 11 of 77
Zaremba: One question on item number 22, security, which you have identified as
budget, which I think you said means the bids are coming in next week.
Bettis: Yes.
Zaremba: The security system would have some impact on doors, frames, and
hardware and electrical. Are those bidders able to make adjustments if security says
there needs to be some electrical work on the doors to make the security work?
Bettis: Council President Borton, Councilman Zaremba that has already been designed
in and factored in. What we are looking at for the security system is merely the
components and the wiring to go with the security system. The raceways have already
been designed in, the strikes are already designed into the door frames, all of this is a
complete package.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else? Thank you, Wes.
Bettis: One last thing for the Council. I have brought for you this evening some
information regarding Lead. I do not anticipate discussion on that this evening, but I
wanted to give you the opportunity to begin reviewing this information and, hopefully,
invite us back to discuss this in more detail, so we can come to a final decision on how
you want to approach potential certification of the new City Hall as a Lead building and I
will leave that with you as I part this evening.
De Weerd: Wes, when do you need to have that discussion? I would imagine the
sooner the better and perhaps even in some of the budgets or bids in front of us the
Leads consideration is built into these numbers, I would imagine.
Bettis: Council President Borton, Madam Mayor that is correct. The specifications
included specific Lead oriented components and products that are part of this building.
As we move forward through the value engineering phase after your approval of the low
bidders, we will be able to identify for you what these potential costs are associated with
the Lead design and the total certification.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Wes, one of the materials that you presented shows a points available current
design. Does the current design reflect those lead categories that are already
incorporated into the design of the --
Meridian City Council
July 17. 2007
Page 12 of 77
Bettis: Council President Borton, yes, those are reflective of the building as it is
currently designed.
De Weere!: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, is that subject open for discussion at this time or --
De Weerd: Yes. Well, it would certainly be at your pleasure, but we can either have it
now or schedule it for next week after you have had a chance to read through it.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor, I think that would be -- that would be better.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird, does that work for you?
Bird: That's my preference, only I'd like to see it go another week, because I don't think
we are going to have -- we are not going to have a full Council again next week.
Berg: It will be two weeks after --
Bird: Mr. Rountree won't be back for another--
De Weerd: We don't have anything on the 31 st or the 7th. So, that's putting it pretty far
out.
Bird: I think it's pretty well into the -- I don't think it's pretty well -- we can discuss that.
just -- I'd like everybody to be here.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I think you need to articulate, please.
Bird: Oh, I think I'm --
De Weerd: Because Dean is--
Bird: Oh, you're trying to hear me?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Okay. I think I'd like to see it when all the Councilmen are here and everybody
has had a chance to look it over and, then, we can look things out and look things over.
De Weerd: Council, since we will be here for the HUD discussion for the entitlement
city, perhaps we can do it on August 7th.
Bird: That would be my preference.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 13 of 77
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: If we can get through that, we can get through this.
De Weerd: We will just bump the time up a little earlier.
Borton: Does that work, August 7th?
Bettis: That will work.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bettis: Thank you.
De Weerd: So, Keith, I would imagine you need a motion to approve the bids in front of
Council.
Watts: Yes, ma'am.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Keith, I take it the motion excludes the four items yet to be bid, the budget
amounts incorporated?
Watts: Yes, it does, President Borton. We will be bringing those back I believe in about
two weeks. Well, it will be your next meeting.
Borton: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'll make a motion. We will just go through it individually. I move we approve the-
- or accept the bids as apparent low bidders and enter into negotiations, contracts, with
the following: B&B Steel for handrail miscellaneous for 73,265 dollars. American Wall
Covering for 112,000 dollars. ICWP for millwork and cabinetry for 464,000 dollars.
Custom Glass for interior store front and glazing, 68,678 dollars. Architectural Building
Supply for doors, frames, and hardware for 277,230 dollars. Overhead and coiling,
Crawford Door Sales, for 5,590 dollars. Drywall fireproofing, acoustical tile or ceiling
tile, American Wall Coverings, 1,038,550 dollars. Ceramic tile, Schumacher, 110,953
dollars. Flooring -- and I think this is designer floors, not diner -- designer floors,
182,354 dollars. Painting and wall covering from Color Craft for 95,600 dollars.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 14 of 77
Specialties from SBI for 110,000 dollars. Access flooring, Tack West Interiors, 528,800
dollars. Window coverings, Integrated Interiors, for 11,900 dollars. Operable petitions,
the Masonry Center for 20,850 dollars. Fire protection, SimplexGrinnell, 412,879
dollars. Plumbing, Bus, for 953,385 dollars. HVAC, Hobson Fabrication Corp,
2,060,000 dollars. Electrical, low voltage, fire alarm, Tri-State Electric, 2,749,895
dollars. And I don't know what the total is, but I think it's right at nine million --
Watts: It should be on your cover sheet.
Bird: Oh, you've got the budgets added in.
Watts: Okay.
Bird: So, it isn't -- and I don't have a calculator and my brain isn't that -- strong enough
to add it in my head.
De Weerd: Well-- and it also, then, includes a change from the--
Bird: Well, we went up to 73,260.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Anyway, that's -- this is individual and it's total about 9,400,000 dollars I would
say. Anyway, we got it individual. I move we approve those.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Did the motion incorporate also utilizing the standard AlA contracts?
Watts: As modified by our legal.
Bird: It isn't the standard AlA --
Watts: As modified by our legal department.
Bird: -- it's done by Frank Lee and Mr. Baird from our department. So, I don't consider
it an AlA, It's a revised AlA in the owner's and our favor I hope and it's the same one we
have had on all the rest.
De Weerd: But your motion includes the --
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 15 of 77
Bird: But my motion includes that, yeah.
Zaremba: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
E. Mayor's Office
1. Impact Fee Committee BCA Representative Joe Kunz:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6-E under Mayor's office. I brought to you about a
month ago the impact fee committee. We did not have a representative from the BCA
noted at that time that name of that representative is Joe Kunz and so I'd like you to
approve that name as a member of the impact fee committee.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: If there is no discussion, I would move that we approve Joe Kunz as the BCA
representative to the impact fee committee.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation on
the impact fee committee that's in front of you. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will
you, please call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
Item 8:
MFP 07-005 Request for Modification of the Final Plat for Bellingham
Subdivision, Phase 3 to eliminate Condition 11 and modify Condition 10 to
allow development of Final Map, Phase 3 which requires a Letter of Map
Revision from FEMA prior to development of the site for Bellinaham
Subdivision No.3 by Bellingham Park, LLC - east of South Locust Grove
Road and south of East Victory Road:
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 16 of 77
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item NO.8 is MFP 07-005. We do have a letter from the
applicant agreeing with the conditions from staff. So, Council, do you have any
questions? If not, I would entertain a motion.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I do have questions.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Just reflecting on the discussion when this item came through Planning and
Zoning Commission when I was there, this and I think two other similar ones came
through at about the same time and I forget which one was first, but the first one
generated a considerable amount of discussion and several continuances while Bruce
Freckleton did quite a bit of research into FEMA's requirements for the letter of map
revision and it took us quite awhile to work out the wording that ended up being
conditions ten and eleven and the distinction is that even though -- whether this was the
first one or the second or the third one, we did the work on one of them and, then, used
the same assumptions on the other two. But the applicants were at the time asking that
they be allowed to build when they had submitted their letter to FEMA and the
distinction of not allowing them to build until the letter was actually approved by FEMA
was an important topic of discussion at the time and the distinction, according to Bruce
Freckleton, is a significant one, so I guess I do need some discussion from staff about --
I guess without support I'm -- I'm not comfortable -- as difficult as it was for us to work
out the wording that currently exists as the old conditions, I'm not comfortable changing
it without some support.
De Weerd: Okay. Len?
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, during the last year or so we have --
we have been going through a learning process on a lot of this FEMA stuff and you're
exactly right, we were scrambling to get up to speed, but all of the stuff we have learned
has been rolled into the FEMA flood plane permit that you obtain through Public Works.
Once that permit is obtained, all of that stuff is in that permit, so the people actually sit
down with Kyle Radek, our staff engineer, go through all of the procedures, go through
the requirements that the city puts onto them, including how they go about applying for it
and that type of stuff. So, it's all been wrapped into that permit. So, all we ask is that
they not only apply for, but they obtain that permit. So, once that permit's in hand, we
are good to go.
Zaremba: The new wording, though, would only ask that they apply for it, not that they
actually have the approval.
Grady: It should say that they obtain it.
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 17 of 77
Grady: Just the application -- it means they come in and try to apply for it, but once it's
negotiated and finalized and they actually obtain the permit, we are good to go. I'm
sorry, it was my understanding that it did say obtain. Actually, I should have checked
that.
Zaremba: My recollection is that what generated most of the discussion and the reason
that we were so picky about it at the time was when you make changes in a flood plane,
it affects people downstream, you prevent the water from flooding where it's supposed
to flood and slow down, it makes changes and we wanted them to have to satisfy all the
requirements to make sure that nobody downstream was going to get a problem with
their water. So, you're saying that is actually all part of the process.
Grady: It's all part of that process and depending on how they want to go about
modifying that flood plane, it may -- it may involve excavation to increase areas that
they have filled in other areas. So, it's all part of that process.
Zaremba: Okay. That helps.
De Weerd: So, does that language reflect--
Zaremba: Yeah. I think we may want to change one word -- and now I'm trying to find
it.
Grady: It definitely should say obtain. I'm not sure whether submit is adequate.
Zaremba: The quote in -- the quote that is being suggested is the developer shall
submit a flood plane development permit and I would like to suggest that we change
that to obtain.
Grady: I'm okay with that.
De Weerd: Okay. I see the applicant is here. Would you like to comment? If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Kinkela: Chad Kinkela, Bailey Engineering, 1472 Iron Eagle Drive, Eagle.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Kinkela: Madam Mayor, Council Members, the reason why we requested the wording
of may issue building permits atter the developer submits to FEMA is the process with
FEMA can take a considerable amount of time. We have hired Mr. Kunz, who has done
a whole bunch of flood studies and he works very closely with Kyle. We have shown
that the flood plane is all in channel and previously the way the condition was written,
the developer would have to go out and effectively build the entire subdivision and wait
an unknown period of time until FEMA actually approved this and logistically that just
wasn't going to work. So, we sat down with Kyle and Bruce Freckleton and we went
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 18 of 77
over all that and everybody had a very high comfort level that once it was in process
that everything would work out adequately. Mr. Kunz is doing an upstream and
downstream of this project and so that's why we approached staff to make an alteration
of this condition.
De Weerd: Len.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's, basically, what we are saying, is
part of that permit process will nail down all of those procedures. By obtaining the
permit you don't necessarily have the -- well, you won't have the LaMAR in place, you
can't, that -- so, that permit process, like I say, will nail all of those procedures down to
make sure that everybody is on board with how that will push forward. So, I don't think
we are -- I think we are in agreement.
Zaremba: Let me see if I can distinguish that the developer would need to obtain the
flood plane development permit, but, then, the second sentence you would only need to
submit the LaMAR.
Grady: Correct.
Zaremba: So, we are not changing both words submit, we are just changing only the
first time of the word submit.
Grady: I'm okay with that.
Zaremba: Okay. So, submitting the LaMAR is okay as that doesn't need to be
approved.
Grady: That's correct. And that would be part of that permitting process is to layout
those procedures.
Zaremba: Okay. But we do want to change submit in the first sentence to --
Grady: To obtain. Correct.
Zaremba: Very well.
Kinkela: I agree with that. I apologize for misunderstanding.
Zaremba: Well, it actually says submit several times.
De Weerd: No. It's good to get that clarification.
Kinkela: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, I would appreciate a motion.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 19 of 77
Zaremba: No further comment, Madam Mayor, I would make the motion that we
approve Item 8, MFP 07-005, with the change of one word in the first sentence where it
reads: The developer shall submit a flood plane development permit application and
that sentence will be changed to read: The developer shall obtain a flood plane
development permit. And, then, continue on for the proposed construction.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay, I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8 with the change as
noted. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from June 26, 2007: CPA 07-003 Request
to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map by adding and
amending pathway locations for the Pathways Comprehensive Plan
Amendment by the City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department:
Item 10:
Continued Public hearing from June 26, 2007: Parks Master Pathway
Plan:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 9 is a continued Public Hearing from June 26 on CPA 07-003.
And it looks like Matt, you have the ball. Would you -- okay. And Item 10 as well.
Ellsworth: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the -- these are
the two items that you last heard on June 26th. The reason is, as I'm sure you recall,
for continuing the items was some concern that was raised by residents who live
adjacent to Nine Mile Creek. They were concerned about the potential impacts of that
pathway on ~- on their land, on their existing uses, which are all residential, and cross
sections necessary for the pathways in this neighborhood would cause a considerable
impact to these -- to these residents and at Council's direction staff took a step back to
more explicitly state the intent of the -- of the draft pathways plan narrative and to come
up with several different ways to convey the same message on the future land use map.
So, starting first with the draft proposed plan, which grades out a fine grain of detail
each pathway segment throughout the proposed network. As you can see on the
overhead over there, the current language in the draft plan states from Ten Mile to
Cherry there are two pathway options, a long term vision and an on-street network. It
goes on to describe the long range vision. So, staff recommends elaborating on that
and, like I said, more expressly stating the intent of it, which is -- boils down to the last
sentence, there is a long-term pathway is intended for construction upon redevelopment
of adjacent properties. And, then, it goes on into the specific pathway descriptions.
Accompanying that, within the pathways plan itself, which will be a separate document
from the Comprehensive Plan, this segment of pathway is isolated in the revised map
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 20 of 77
that's before you here. This is the zoomed in version. You see Ten Mile, Ustick,
Cherry. Nine Mile Creek runs along the dotted green line there and, I apologize, it is
kind of tough to see at this scale, but there is a paralleling off-street route, that is the
one in red, and that's referred to as just both the on-street route, it's a proposed
pathway route, and, conversely, the long-term route, which would -- which would
coincide with the description that I just read. So, that's on the side of the proposed
pathway plan. Now, diving into the -- the future land use map, which is the second part
of this application. Again, Council directed staff to come up with several different
options of how that could be displayed to clear up any misconceptions that there may
be, any confusion that would result from the way that it was previously proposed. So,
the first option here does not graphically display the long-term creek route for the on-
street network route as proposed, instead, if you take a look at the legend over here,
multi-use pathway with an asterisk, down below in the notes the asterisk reads: Multi-
use pathway locations are illustrative and approximate. For actual pathway
specifications and locations, please, refer to the Meridian Pathways Master Plan. So,
right off the bat that refers any potential users to this more detailed document that will
really get into the nuts and bolts of the plan. Option number two does graphically
display differently the on-street network and the long-term vision. The long-term vision
is a blue hashmark, as opposed to the gray hashmark for the on-street route. They are
separated accordingly over here in the legend and, in addition, another pOSSible note
expressly states the same language that was shown previously in the draft plan and that
is that long-term multi-use pathway segment is intended for construction upon
redevelopment of adjacent parcels as described in the Meridian Pathways Master Plan.
So, moving along to a third pOSSible option. This one, like option number one, does not
distinguish between the on-street route and the creek side pathway. It does, however,
distinguish in the notes and isolates the Nine Mile Creek pathway, just to let folks know
that there is something else going on there, the creek side segment of Nine Mile Creek
pathway between Ten Mile Road and Linder Road is intended for construction upon
redevelopment of adjacent parcels, as described in the Meridian Pathways Master Plan.
And that could be included along with the other notes that are on the future land use
map. And, finally, the fourth option -- and that is to entirely remove the pathways
network from the future land use map and to include a note, along with the others on the
future land use map that states the future pathway network, including segment
alignments and details, is incorporated by reference into the future land use map and
that's the option that staff is recommending at this point for several reasons, the first of
which is because to include that much information with gray hashed or blue hashed
lines implies that there is a greater level of detail than -- than what that map is intended
to provide. The reasoning behind putting together the pathways plan in the first place
was to get to that higher level of detail. The concern of staff is that the public take a
look at that, think they know everything there is to know, and move forward from there.
Another reason is pure clutter on the future land use map. There is a lot going on there.
There is an enormous amount of information and we were concerned that trying to
make that sort of distinction between a long term and an immediate pathway route
might, again, be overkill. Now, so that everybody is aware, I did sit down with some of
the residents who came before you on the 26th on July 11 th and at that meeting I
presented them with these four options. There was no discussion at our meeting, I just
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 21 of 77
wanted to make sure that they were aware of what I would be presenting to you, so that
they had time to collect their thoughts and prepare any testimony that they -- that they
would want to bring forward this evening. I also had a conversation last evening with
another resident who was unable to attend that meeting on the 11th and, again, there
was -- there was relatively minimal discussion about the plan itself, although that
resident did encourage me to -- and if you take a look at the overhead over here --
consider the feasibility of routing the proposed creekside pathway over to an
undeveloped piece of land over here and I did my best to explain that this alignment --
there would need be a connection from Ten Mile over here to Cherry in the south before
it picks back up with the creek side path. Wasn't an option, just due to the
developments that are already in place to the south and to the east of that undeveloped
piece. But I did want to bring that to everybody's attention to make sure that we were all
on the same page and, hopefully, that resident is here this evening and she can -- she
can restate her position to Council if she feels it would be beneficial. So, with that I
would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Matt. This is a Public Hearing and I did have -- Anna,
did you have a comment or a question?
Canning: Yes, please, Madam Mayor. I wanted to add one other clarification on why
we are kind of suggesting that the pathways plan be removed from the land use map at
this point. One of my concerns is that if we point out the detail just on the Nine Mile
Creek, that if someone goes to one of those other areas where there is more detailed
information in the pathways plan, but it isn't shown on the land use plan, that they will
say, well, wait a minute, you showed Nine Mile Creek as having the more detail, but not
this one. Therefore, you didn't really mean that this one was important, because it's not
included on the land use map as well. Does that make sense? I'm worried about
having more specific information for just one portion of that pathways plan and I was
always a little bit uncomfortable about putting the pathway plan back on the land use
map when we had the more detailed information, but because we were leaving it very
general, I had some comfort level. But since we are going to the more specific, I would
very much like to move it just to the pathways plan and incorporate that by reference.
Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I did have several sign up on this item. When I read
your name and indicate how you signed up, if you would like to provide testimony,
you're sure invited forward at that time. Jack Gann signed up against. Okay. Would
you like to provide testimony? Okay. Kevin Barkell signed up against. If you will,
please, state your name and address.
Barkell: Kevin Barkel!. 2181 North Maxie Place.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 22 of 77
De Weerd: Thank you.
Barkell: According to all these options, I hear one word. Redevelop. Actually, two.
Future redevelopment. What exactly does that mean? What does that mean to us
homeowners along there? Can a developer come in some day and decide he wants to
buy up places and ask for a rezone and go ahead and buy it up just so that pathway can
go through? I would like to have that clarified. What does that mean? And also why is
it that the stretch between Cherry Lane and Ustick is being considered and nothing
else? There are a lot of other homes, not only on Nine Mile Creek, but on a lot of other
drainages or creeks throughout Meridian that entail private property. That needs to be
taken into consideration. And not just -- not just our section, but every section needs to
be taken into consideration on this. I find it kind of frustrating, too, that I drive by the
Busted Shovel down here and there is sign posted on Broadway and a sign posted on
Main Street that they are going to consider that -- a proposal to change it from bar
status -- or from restaurant status to bar status. Why don't we have these signs posted
on Cherry Lane, on Chateau, where the parks are at, where the pathways are going
through, so the general public will know what's going on? When I read -- first read on
this in the paper a year or so ago, eh, whatever. And, then, one day read on it, oh,
pathways, park, city -- wait a minute. I stepped out my back door and I went there is the
park, that direction leads to the city, this is my backyard -- huh-uh. Wait a minute. This
is private property. A lot of homeowners don't -- they don't see this. They don't know.
Because it's not posted. It's not out there. Planning and Zoning and parks and rec has
not let everybody know. It's stuffed on the back shelf, it's stuffed in the bottom of the
file. Do you realize how hard it is to get this information off the internet when it's -- the
City Council doesn't post until after 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon what the next week's
meeting agendas are, so it makes it really difficult for us to plan these things. I had
trouble -- I have had trouble getting the Adobe to download from parks and rec or
Planning and Zoning to get these agendas a week or two in advance to find out what's
going on. You need to let these other homeowners -- not just on Nine Mile Creek, but
throughout the city. You got Nine Mile Creek right there cut off at Cherry Lane. What
about the other homeowners right there from Cherry Lane that go over to Linder? Are
they in consideration on this? There has not been a word said. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Matt, could you, please, go over the publiC participation, how
notice was given, and kind of how -- how the city approaches that.
Ellsworth: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes. Throughout the planning
process there were two public meetings held to gather input on the draft plan and to sort
of make revisions as it works towards a draft. That was prior to any application being
submitted to -- to parks and rec, Planning and Zoning, or City Council. Each of those
publiC meetings were advertised on the city's website through media release. I don't
have the full outline in front of me right now for the public involvement. The avenues
that were available we certainly used. Like I said, it was online, immediate release. I
know that the Statesman picked up on it. I know at the parks and rec hearing there was
more media coverage here as well. And as I understand it -- I may defer to Mr. Nary on
this, but the noticing requirements are different for an area of impact wide application,
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 23 of 77
as opposed to a site specific, a parcel specific request, and I don't know, Mr. Nary, if
you have anything to add there.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Ellsworth is right, I mean as most of
you know, when it is a larger type of change such that we are looking at, that's the
general type of notice that's expected by the state code is public service
announcements, general publications in the newspaper, you know, sometimes if -- in
larger cities you may have public service announcements on television or radio or things
like that, but signs aren't the method used to notify folks. You know, I think maybe
some of the discussion that was had is maybe some of the misunderstanding. The
entire plan is not just for this one section of the city, it's the entire pathway plan, and so
all of those homes mayor may not be affected. Some of them don't have private
property rights that extend to those particular areas where those pathways are, some
do. That's why this particular location we have spent more time in testimony is because
there is specific areas that have private property that actually extends to the middle of
the ditch. Many of them don't. Many of them already have easements, they no longer
have a private property interest in the area where the path is proposed to go at some
point in the future. The other question that was raised was whether or not a private
developer could purchase that property and private developers can purchase any
properties. I mean that's what redevelopment simply is, is that -- because I think the
prior discussion was based around where these properties are located and narrowness
of the pathway along the ditches, then, realistically, the only way a pathway could be put
through there is either through public or private dedication of the ground or purchase by
someone else, redevelopment of that, whether it's another home or some other use,
that could be done in this particular area -- again, all those things are just factors that
could happen. But that's all that redevelopment was intended was that right now the
way the houses are configured and where the location of the pathway is, it is not likely
to build there and that's why there is an alternative. So, I think a lot of that information
was had at other meetings and the last meeting for prior to this one where it was set
over, the June 26th meeting, that was discussed. So, that probably got lost in some of
the discussion, but I think that would have answered most of the questions that were
raised.
Ellsworth: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Ellsworth: If I may. Relating back to the original question, the noticing and so forth that
I mentioned a moment ago, was all pre -- pre-formal application. Once the applications
were submitted they moved through hearings at the Parks and Recreation level, also
the Planning and Zoning Commission level and, then, prior to the 26th at City Council
level. At each of three hearings notice was given through the papers and so forth per
Idaho Code. So, that's -- that's how it had been noticed for tonight.
De Weerd: Matt, when the consultant went through, there were not very many
situations like this where you had anything that had the private property that the
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 24 of 77
pathway would have fallen on. Most of those were all on existing easements and ditch
right of way.
Ellsworth: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I can't one hundred percent answer
that. I don't know the level of on-the-ground surveying and on-the-ground property line
research that went into -- into this plan. I do know that along the Nine Mile Creek in this
segment -~ this is the only piece in town that does have a paralleling alternate route on
roadway, which was in recognition of the impacts that that Nine Mile Creek pathway
creek side would have on adjacent land owners. I don't think that the intent of this plan
was to get into the implementation measures and understanding that each of these
segments is different, property lines are different along different segments and, then,
even along the same segments there could be different property ownership throughout
those. I don't think that the Meridian pathways plan attempted to get to quite that level
of detail. I think it was an interim step between the network that currently exists on the
adopted future land use map and those implementation steps. It's tightening the screws
on the level of detail that is available. It's getting to the grain of detail of, for example,
creek X will ultimately be constructed on the west versus the east side of the drainage
facility and things of that nature. But I don't know the level of detail they got into
researching property lines and so forth.
De Weerd: It seems like that came up in a parks commission meeting on this pathway
plan, so I didn't know if you could comment on that or not. Okay. Council, any further
questions for staff before we continue?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Just a comment on -- is it Mr. Barkell? Mr. Barkell's questions, which I think
are great questions, when we talk about noticing provisions in general, while the city
does everything and did everything in this case fully compliant with our rules, this could
be one of those situations where we can try and venture out and more in the unique
circumstances, provide some additional notice, take some extra effort. Also, this is,
again, part of the public process. You're here tonight, which is great. There really
haven't been any final decisions on any of this. So, it feels like your input is late, it is --
it's timely and I think what you bring up is a valid concern we need to be mindful of, not
only with this type of application, but as further comprehensive changes to our land use
map as we go fOlward and try and focus on individuals that might be greater impacted
than others. Maybe that's not feasible, but it's a good idea to keep an eye out for. With
regard to -- you asked the question on the redevelopment phrase and I think our city
attorney answered it very well and maybe we need to put in additional language that
says if any or if ever, the general idea is, should it eventually redevelop at some point, if
ever, maybe it never does, maybe there is not the private developer that comes in and
purchases the homes, which would, then, allow for the pathway. There is a lot of ifs that
goes in and it sounds like some of your concern was that the redevelopment is some --
some plan as soon as we approve this, to come in and buy a swath of land behind your
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 25 of 77
house. That's not the intent. And the way we want to make sure it's worded doesn't
convey that. Should private developers come in and buy a whole bunch of houses,
Lord knows what they might want to do, but that would be a location. So, I hope that
gives you a little more concrete answer. You wanted specific, I wanted to give that to
you. Okay. That's alii have.
De Weerd: Thank you. And we appreciate that.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. I would only add to that comment that this is -- this is an
issue with all planning efforts. When we try to plan for what a vision may be way down
in the future, we are often talking about a use that is not the existing use, and as
Councilman Borton pointed out, it is not Meridian's intention to go out and force anybody
to do something, but if some day somebody comes along and offers you a bundle for
your property, which you mayor may not be willing to take, but this is just putting them
on notice that if they did, they need to consider that if they are going to change the use,
we may want some changes as well. So, in all planning efforts it's difficult to draw the
distinction between whether somebody is going to come out and force you and I'm
confident in saying that answer is no -- or whether we just say this is a vision for
sometime in the future whenever and that's true with any planning efforts. Just a
comment.
De Weerd: Thank you. We have Phyllis Pervis that is signed up against. Good
evening. If you will pull that microphone down. Thank you.
Pervis: I'm Phyllis Pervis and I live at 2217 North Maxie Place and it is on the Nine Mile
Creek and at the other meeting I had suggested an alternative and the options came out
and they all -- there was nothing even showing on the options of the alternative plan that
I had suggested, which was west of the street Man of War there is a -- a lot that is being
__ or acreage that is being farmed there and the area is also from Chateau to Cherry
Lane and people are using that as a walkway now and it's not by a creek, but it is
undeveloped right now and if it would be developed, then, they could work with the
contractor that developed that land and make a path there, instead of using the Nine
Mile Creek area. And so I think that that should be considered. Also, there have been
a signed petition of between 85 and 90 people saying that they are not in favor of the
path by their house and along the creek and that has been documented and I think that
that should be taken into consideration. And I'm also very concerned about the wording
on the redevelopment area there. I think that that could be reworded to something
besides redevelopment, because it makes it look like, well, somebody could just
redevelop and, then, they move, you know, and buy our land and -- or they'd have to
agree to sell your land, but I think that that could be reworded. And so that's alii have
to --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes. One of our Councilmembers has a question for you.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 26 of 77
Zaremba: For clarification, could I ask you to use the light pointer that's there -- or if it's
not there I have one you can use and identify on the map the pathway that you were --
just use the light and run it along the map to show where you're --
De Weerd: She's suggesting to go down -- down Ten Mile, down West Chateau right
here and connect that way. Is that what you were suggesting? It's to eliminate this area
and just go down Ten Mile and over. Okay. Sir--
Nary: You can't testify from there.
De Weerd: You can just show it. Okay. Okay. So, you're suggesting coming down
here?
Pervis: Uh-huh. There is undeveloped farmland they have right there by Chateau and -
_ by the Chateau park, right straight, and Man of War is the one street and, then, the
area just west of Man of War and it goes straight through the area and that would
eliminate the creek area.
Zaremba: Maybe that arrow cursor is helping, but I'm still not understanding how you
would get from this undeveloped property to Cherry Lane.
Bird: Right down that --
Pervis: It goes right straight down.
Zaremba: There is a pathway here?
Bird: Right through the -- there is a pathway there.
De Weerd: I think there is an easement. There is a ditch easement that they buried the
pipe in there and so it is just a weed patch. But it's not wide enough.
Nary: Yeah. I was going to say, it isn't -- I live right there, too. It isn't wide enough. It is
buried behind it, but it's behind that small office complex on Cherry Lane. It runs behind
the west side of the buildings on the west part of the property and, then, winds behind it
and, then, connects to that farm that's in the county. It's -- I would be surprised it's six
feet wide. It may be eight feet wide at the other end, by the end of where the farm is by
Chateau, it's a little wider there, but it's not as wide as it gets down to Cherry lane.
De Weerd: And, ma'am I'm sure that's probably one of the reasons why staff didn't
include that as an option, because it was not wide enough.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 27 of 77
Bird: You mentioned that there was a petition signed by how many people?
Pervis: Between 85 and 90.
Bird: And it was turned in?
Pervis: Yes.
De Weerd: It was in your packet.
Bird: It is? I can't find it.
Pervis: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, ma'am. Patsy Kern signed up against.
Kerns: I'm Patsy Kern. I live at 2151 North Maxie. I just have two things.
De Weerd: Okay.
Kerns: First of all, you asked Matt if they had checked out whether there was private
property along this pathway. When we asked him about that, if it had been checked
out, he said he had not walked it, but one of his --
De Weerd: Colleagues.
Kerns: -- colleagues had walked it and, then, they had not walked it, he had admitted,
they just used the aerial, like Google or something like that, to check it out. So, they
never actually walked it and checked out what was private property. That's just one
comment I wanted to make. The other thing is -- and maybe this is kind of a naive
question, but suppose someone comes in and offered Kevin and Phyllis a whole bunch
of money for their places or even more than that and there is two or three of us that hold
out, can the city, then, use eminent domain to come and buy those easements from us?
De Weerd: Ma'am, we love pathways, but we don't like them that much.
Kerns: Okay.
De Weerd: I can't even see us paying that kind of money, so--
Kerns: So, when I talked to John over at Nampa-Meridian and he said that unless the
homeowners agreed to sell -- or to grant you the easements, they would never consent
to it. So, that was comforting for me, too.
De Weerd: That's correct.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 28 of 77
Kerns: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: There is a lot more intricacies to getting a pathway done than--
Kerns: Good.
De Weerd: Okay. Those were the members that were signed up from the public on this
item. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay.
Staff, any further comment?
Ellsworth: No, Madam Mayor, Mr. President. No. There are no further comments from
staff .
De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would comment for my own clarification a restatement of what I think both
Mr. Ellsworth and the director said, that the idea is to keep the Comprehensive Plan
amendment to something that's fairly simple and straight forward and make sure that in
the Comprehensive Plan there was reference to the separate parks master pathway
plan. If that's what you said, I certainly would support that approach. Am I interpreting
correctly what was said?
Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, that's correct.
On Option Four here, like I said, it entirely removes what is currently graphically
displayed as a gray hatched line that represents the proposed pathway network. It
entirely takes that off the map and, instead, it addition to the existing notes on the
corner of the future land use map, an additional one would be added that states the
future pathway network, including segment alignments and details is incorporated by
reference into the future land use map. So, it automatically refers anybody who is
looking at the map to the master pathways plan, avoids any confusion that would result
from a lack of detail on the future land use map. Excuse me.
Zaremba: So, that would make the Comprehensive Plan more consistent with itself
throughout and be much -- to me it would be easier to administrate and to explain when
somebody does bring up a question, yes, there is a separate master plan. The
Comprehensive Plan is general, which is true of all the subjects in the Comprehensive
Plan. So, that sounds like a fair request to me.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 29 of 77
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? If there is no further information needed, do
you feel comfortable in moving forward or do you need further information? Okay. If
there is no further comment, do I have a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move that we close the public hearings on Items 9 and 10.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 9
and 10. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: A question for legal. Is the -- the moving action of the Council separate as to
nine and ten or -- they seem to be wrapped into one single action.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, if your desire is
to do what was recommended -- suggested by staff is to separate them, you probably
want to incorporate that into separate motions. If you're going to make basically
reference in the Comprehensive Plan and, then, if you have specific recommendation
for a specific direction on the pathway plan, it would probably make more sense to
separate those two, because we will have to bring you back a resolution on the Comp
Plan amendment anyway.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we approve CPA 07-003, the pathways Comprehensive Plan
amendment, selecting specifically Option Four that has been presented to us and
insuring that there is reference in the Comprehensive Plan to a separate parks master
pathway plan.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 30 of 77
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Option Four as noted
by the motion maker. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Berg, will you, please,
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Will Berg. Okay. That was Item 9. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the parks master pathway plan and
in its relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, that the parks master pathway plan be in
more detail and include the options and alternatives that have been discussed, some of
which are able to be implemented much sooner than the long range plan identified in
the Comprehensive Plan. Is that too general? Do I need to be more specific?
De Weerd: Anna, did you have comment?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, I believe
that the proposed rewording is not in the document that's actually before you, so you
would have to include that in your motion, if that's what you intended. And if there is
other changes to that that you wanted, if you could let staff know what that is, that would
be most helpful.
Zaremba: I would propose to include in my motion the staff proposed rewording. That
appears to cover the subjects.
Nary: And Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor. And you will -- Councilmembers, you will see this again, because
we will bring -- since we are separating these out, we will bring a resolution that
approves the parks master pathway plan separately from the Comp Plan amendment.
So, we will include that wording with -- we will work with the planning department and if
there is other additional changes, you always have the opportunity to make that
amendment as well and bring it back, so --
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba, let's try that motion one more time.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 31 of 77
Zaremba: Okay. Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the parks master pathway
plan to include the staff proposed rewording that is currently displayed on the screen.
And if that's sufficient reference, I'm through with the motion.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg,
will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from June 26, 2007: AP 07-004 Request for
City Council Review of an Appeal of approved CUP 07-004 to allow for the
operation of a drinking establishment in an O-T zone for the Busted
Shovel by Sherer & Wynkoop, LLC - 704 North Main Street:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 11 is a continued Public Hearing from June 26, AP
07-004. It was continued to post -- for proper posting. Council, I would have a question
for you. Councilmen Borton needs to recuse himself from this item. That leaves two
Council members and I apologize to anyone who is here, but since I don't know what
Council's decision is, I will ask the question. Do the two Council members feel
comfortable moving forward on this application? And we will apologize, we didn't know
we would only have two present on this. It is your choice.
Bird: I don't have any problem making a decision, but I don't think it's fair to the
applicant to have half a Council, personally. Period. We should have known this -- we
should have known this ahead of time, so these people didn't show up and had it
scheduled when we had a third person.
De Weerd: Well, it was scheduled for last week and Council Rountree was here, so this
is not --
Bird: But we didn't have a full Council last week. I have no problem going on with it, but
I don't think it's fair to the applicant, period.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the fact that Councilmember Borton
recused himself doesn't prohibit you from going forward. If the appellant -- and in this
particular case we have an appellant who is not the applicant for the CU. The CU was
granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The appellant that has brought this in
front of you is not the applicant himself. Certainly if either party objects to going forward
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 32 of 77
and would prefer that three members of the Council be here, they can certainly request
that. If they don't have an objection, there is certainly no reason not to go forward
otherwise. But you can certainly ask either party if they have an objection and make
your decision on whether to continue this matter, based upon that, if they want to voice
to you what that objection is.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would like to have that question asked.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor, I'm going to step out.
De Weerd: Okay.
Sherer: Madam Mayor, Honorable Council, my name is Steve Sherer. I do represent
the appellant in this matter and we are perfectly satisfied with the representation of the
Council here this evening and would like to proceed forward.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: I have no problem with that.
De Weerd: Okay. Do we hear from both parties?
Nary: You certainly can. You certainly can ask the applicant -- the property owner if he
has any objection.
Kosterman: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I'm Bill Kosterman with Busted Shovel
and I'm comfortable with moving forward with this.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Answered my question.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sherer: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Honorable Councilmen.
De Weerd: If you will just restate your name and address one more time.
Sherer: Okay. My name is Steve Sherer. I represent the appellant Sherer & Wynkoop,
LLP. We are appealing from the Planning and Zoning Commission decision that
granted Conditional Use Permit -- thank you.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 33 of 77
Canning: Madam Mayor, this is a new Public Hearing. Generally we start off with the
staff comments.
De Weerd: I thought since it was an appeal that they stated their -- so --
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, normally on even appeals you have
generally had staff at least to lay the groundwork of why you're here, what the basis of
the appeal is, that stuff. It's not really -- it's not your traditional application, but certainly
that is the standard that we have.
De Weerd: Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. Yes. Staff.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the first time we have had
before you an appeal of a Planning and Zoning Commission final decision and that's
why this is a different process. But I did want to go through -- what the Council review
says in this case is that you hold a new Public Hearing on that original Conditional Use
Permit. It's not just an appeal hearing, it is a new Public Hearing and, therefore, I
wanted to go through my usual Public Hearing notes for you all.
De Weerd: Thank you. And we love hearing your voice.
Canning: Yeah. I know. Okay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the
Busted Shovel project and it's located at 704 Main Street on the northeast corner of
Main Street and Broadway, as you are all aware. The application before you tonight is
Council review of the Planning and Zoning Commission decision to approve the
Conditional Use Permit for a drinking establishment in an existing OT district. The
findings for that approval were -- they were approved on May 3rd, 2007. The Busted
Shovel was approved as a restaurant use with an accessory bar. The Busted Shovel
would like to operate as a bar for purposes of the smoking laws and are, therefore,
requesting this conditional use approval for the drinking establishment. Furthermore,
the Busted Shovel does not allow admittance of persons under the age 21. So, the
classification as a drinking establishment fits with their use better than the restaurant
with the accessory bar. This application -- as you know, Harry's Bar and Grill was in
that same spot for a number of years. They did receive conditional use approval in
1995 for a sidewalk cafe consisting of five small tables and ten chairs as an extension of
the existing use. Those -- that outdoor cafe was only allowed for 10:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. We have not been able to find any other planning department documents or city
conditional use approvals for that site. Therefore -- I'm sorry. Moving on. Harry's Bar
and Grill received yearly renewals of their liquor licenses and those state liquor licenses
have a box that you can check that says restaurant certificate and if it says yes, then,
they are a restaurant with an accessory bar. If it's not checked, then, they are a full
drinking establishment. And we did pull the last five years of the liquor license and in
January to April of 2002 it was listed as a restaurant. In May of 2002 to April of 2003 it
was a restaurant. In May 2003 to April 2004 also a restaurant. In May 2004 to April
2005 it switched to a bar. And that was continued in 2005 to 2006. So, because it was
a renewal I didn't catch the fact that they had changed it from a restaurant use to bar
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 34 of 77
use without going through the conditional use process and, then, the busted Shovel
folks, the Kostermans came and they asked is this a bar or is this a restaurant and our
understanding was that it was a restaurant. They were looking at the liquor license as
they saw it to be a bar. So, there was a -- there was some confusion, partly as an error
on my part, but they got a zoning verification letter and we said the site was approved
for a restaurant with an accessory bar. So, that's how the Busted Shovel was able to go
in there. We have been working with them, hopefully, to get them approved as their --
as their drinking establishment, because that is the direction they wanted to take the -- I
have a photo of the existing facility, as you know. Okay. Now, the Planning
Commission heard this item on April 19th, 2007, and they did approve it at that time.
They were all in favor of the application. There was one absent. William Kosterman
spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented. There
was written testimony from David Wynkoop and Carol Gabrielson. Excuse me for that.
The key issues of discussion by the Commission were parking for the site and the
license agreement with the Ada County Highway District for chairs and tables within the
right of way. There were no key changes to the Commission recommendation. There
has been written testimony since the staff report and that's in the form of a request for
the Council review and that was filed on May 18th, 2007, by Sherer and Wynkoop, LLP.
The request for the appeal was based on the following information -- and I will read it
and, then, I will give a -- just a brief explanation from staff. The applicant was not -- has
not applied for a license agreement with ACHD for outdoor seating and tables within the
right of way. We did speak to ACHD. They have applied for that license agreement. It
has not yet been fully processed, so they have not obtained it, but they have applied for
it. The previous license agreement and Conditional Use Permit for Harry's required the
sidewalk cafe to allow for a seven and a half foot walkway. A walkway at most is three
and a half to four feet wide. Required railing, tables, and chairs to be moved inside
every night at 10:00 p.m. The applicant does not do this. Also required table, chairs,
and railings to be located within five and a half feet of the building. These have been
extended further by the applicant. I'm just paraphrasing the appellant's statements
here. To be truthful, the planning department, because it's the jurisdiction of the Ada
County Highway District, didn't really consider the outdoor cafe and area in their staff
report. It's really part of the Ada County Highway District's decision on whether or not to
allow that there. But I think that the Planning and Zoning Commission did consider that
and did address some minimal sidewalk width standards for those. The third bullet
point. There are already three bars in this block. Another bar would provide an
negative appearance as vehicles enter Old Town from the south. And the fourth bullet
is the lack of off-street parking. As you know in Old Town, the code is designed to allow
for some alternative parking allowances within Old Town and we have been working
with the Meridian Development Corporation to get an in lieu fee to address those issues
as well. This particular site does have five on-street spaces in front of the building and
we have counted those in the past toward kind of an alternative parking plan. It also
has four off-street spaces behind the building through a signed agreement with Robert
Malagon, owner of the Comfort Zone located at 706 Main Street. So, it does have four
off-street spaces as well. With that I will answer any questions Council may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 35 of 77
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I do have --
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: -- I guess more of a process question. The items that are listed as issues --
the fact that there are already three bars, those actually came in the -- the other bars
along this block actually came into existence after Harry's, I think, so this particular use
has been fairly similar for a long time. I'm not sure how that becomes an issue. The
other items appear to me to be things that would be handled by our compliance officer
or ACHD. So, I guess my question for our legal Council is a process one. How does
somebody establish standing to make this appeal?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, we don't have
a requirement as to what specific standard you have to appeal. You have the right --
the right to appeal the granting of the Conditional Use Permit. This Council has the
decision on whether the testimony and the evidence as presented to you is adequate to
either uphold that appeal or deny that appeal. So, all of those questions you just asked
were probably more appropriate for the appellant to be able to answer in your mind
whether or not they have brought enough information to you to, then, make a decision
on the underlying permit that was already previously granted. I'd like to add one more
thing that sometimes comes up in these types of discussions regarding outdoor cafes.
We don't have an ordinance in the City of Meridian that either regulates outdoor cafes,
establishing what they mean or what they are supposed to be. We don't have any
standards in our -- in the general ordinances about how they are to be conducted. We
do have an ordinance regarding open container and the law in the city regarding open
container basically makes it a violation to allow any alcoholic beverage off your premise.
And what it defines as your premise is -- is your premise is is what you tell us it is, which
it includes anyplace that you are legally allowed to have alcohol. And that's the reason
the license agreement is an issue. If they have a license agreement, then, they can
legally use that area of the sidewalk as an extension of their business, they can
establish that as their premise under the license and, therefore, it's not an open
container violation. We don't have any other regulations of that type of activity on the
sidewalk, because, again, it's the jurisdiction of the highway district, not the city. But
that sometimes comes up and I just wanted to clarify that before we started, that that's --
that's the only analysis that my office was asked in regards to the use of the sidewalk for
this purpose and that's the only ordinance we have that deals with this open container.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, a follow up, I guess. Just wanted to clarify that I interpret the
answer to my first question is that anybody can appeal a decision and the process is it's
not limited or specified who is able to appeal.
Nary: Councilmember Zaremba, that is correct.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 36 of 77
Zaremba: Okay.
Nary: And, again, whatever the evidence present to you, it's the decision of this Council
and within the discretion of this Council as to weighing that, weighing the -- whatever
the weight that you wish to put on that to make your decision.
Zaremba: On the other part of what you said, time takes over what has become part of
the Meridian downtown marketing plan and our intent for the heart and sole of our city to
become a pedestrian friendly area, to have boutiques and sidewalk cafes and things in
the long range future, I would suggest that we should work on having a part of the
ordinance that does address those, because we are hoping to encourage more of them
I think. Separate issue, but just a comment. I'm done.
De Weerd: Thank you. The appellant.
Sherer: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Honorable Councilmen. Mr. City Attorney and Mr.
City Clerk. Again, my name is Steve Sherer. I represent the appellant Sherer &
Wynkoop. Staff, thank you for your comments. They were timely and included some
information that I -- of which I was not aware. But I would again state that this is an
appeal of a granted Conditional Use Permit to create another bar and not only another
bar, but this bar would be created at the entrance to Old Town from the south, where we
generally consider the beginning of Old Town. We believe there are five very good
reasons you should deny this application. First, the proposed use is not compatible with
the Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Zaremba, you made the point that this is
supposed to be a pedestrian friendly, family-oriented environment. With a restaurant
that would be the case. With a bar it's clearly not the case. It's simply a matter of
drinking in the public right of way, where drinking is the stated and primary objective and
activity. I believe the Council has reference to Harry's Conditional Use Permit and on
page three of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in that Conditional Use
Permit, Harry's indicated that it was -- the intent is not to sell cocktails, but to do
lunches. This will add friendliness and community to downtown Meridian. Okay. The
idea was not to do cocktails. That was specifically stated in some of the comments from
some of the publiC departments. The Meridian police department was not in favor of
drinking in the public right of way. And it's one thing to have a beer with lunch with a
sandwich, but it's another thing to sit and drink when people are trying to pass,
especially -- especially, you know, family friendly people, a husband and wife with small
children, it is definitely an uncomfortable environment and, additionally, there is -- as the
Planning and Zoning noted, there is not sufficient room to walk very many wide -- there
is definitely a squeeze, you get pushed up next to the railing next to the bar. If the
Council will permit, I will provide some pictures that I copied of the current view. This
picture was taken last --
Zaremba: Could we have one for the clerk also?
Sherer: Oh, sure. The picture was taken last Friday and shows the -- shows the setup
and the situation there. It's clear that the people using the -- using the sidewalk will
Meridian City Council
July 17. 2007
Page 37 of 77
come in very close proximity to those sitting and drinking. The second reason we don't
believe this is a good idea and that the Council should deny this conditional use
application is that it tends to provide a skid row environment in the middle of the
downtown area. As we mentioned in our -- in our written statements, there are three
bars already on this block. One more is planned for Idaho Street, as I had seen, and
another is planned for 2nd Street between Idaho and Broadway. That's a considerable
number of bars in a single block area and this particular premises is a block from the
new City Hall and approximately a little more than a block from the Boys and Girls Club.
I would say a particularly inappropriate place to establish another bar, unless we are
creating a waste block in downtown Meridian and I don't think that -- that is the desire of
any of us. I mean let's look at what the legacy of bars are and I will be frank with you, I
don't care for bars. They serve alcohol and I have yet to see something that alcohol
does for our society. I understand it's legal and we are going to have situations where
we deal with it, but it really doesn't provide any benefit to society at large. Some of the
problems we have addressed in the past in this block: Broken bottles all over the block,
including the parking lots of the bank building and our own parking lot. Our dumpsters
and other independent dumpsters filled with bar trash, because they run out of room on
the weekends and so they use ours. Foul leftovers on ours and other premises and if
you want to use your imaginations you can. If you insist for me to be descriptive, I can
do that, too. We have had patrons from these bars passed out at the rear of our
property and we have had to escort some of our office personnel out of our offices if
they happen to leave after 5:30 at night, which because we are so demanding
sometimes they do. And these issues are rising within -- within a block of the new City
Hall, where we are trying to project a positive image of downtown Meridian. Third issue
is the parking issue and I was aware that in the Busted Shovel's original application they
had stated that they had five parking spots. It turns out that the five parking spots they
were referring to were public parking on the street and they had also alleged that they
had a parking agreement with -- with one of their neighbors and they again stated that
they didn't have that agreement. Now, apparently, this is new information to me that
they have an agreement. I have not seen it. We checked with the city -- with the city
offices this afternoon to see if there were any new documents added to the -- added to
the packet and we were informed that there were no new documents added to the
packet since the day of our -- of our previous appeal was to be heard on June 26th. So,
I'm a little surprised to hear this information and also not have -- not have been made
aware of it. If it's true that's a positive step for the Busted Shovel and I have to admit
that. But as far as waivers and alternate compliances, that's just another way of saying
we are not going to enforce our own code regarding the five required parking spots. If
we are not going to enforce it, shouldn't we just wipe it off the books? But if we are
going to enforce it, we need to start enforcing it sometime. Now is a good time,
because parking is getting very tight and it's only going to get tighter with the new
development that's planned for downtown. And in conjunction with this parking issue
there have been several acquaintances of mine who have received parking tickets when
parking in front of the Busted Shovel. There has never been any enforcement of the
parking ordinances downtown and maybe there should be, but it seems that -- that the
Busted Shovel has carved out a nitch of its own on the public property and they are now
claiming ownership of that. The parking places are one instance. The use of the
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 38 of 77
sidewalk in front of their -- in front of their operation is another. The fourth -- the fourth
point is the issue of having a sidewalk bar. Now, when Harry's applied for their
Conditional Use Permit, people ate food outside and occasionally they would have a
drink with their food. Harry's stated the idea was to do lunch. It was not to -- not to sell
cocktails. Well, the focus has changed to being a bar, then, we will have patrons sitting
outside doing nothing but drinking in the public right of way and in the public and this is
the image that people are going to see of Old Town Meridian when they drive north.
Again, the image of Meridian is not going to be enhanced by having this type of
establishment. If you feel like you have to approve the Conditional Use Permit anyway,
then, you should remove the sidewalk cafe or the sidewalk bar, which it really is. There
is no reason to have public drinking of alcohol in the right of way. There is no reason to
have it in a pedestrian friendly downtown city, which is trying to support wholesome
family values. It does not square. It just does not. The fifth reason that we think that
the Conditional Use Permit should not be granted is because of past noncompliance.
The owners obtained -- the current owners obtained an accelerated liquor license by
allegations of some confusion. I haven't checked into those, but I assume they are
legitimate. But this Council granted them a city liquor license on an accelerated basis
due to that confusion. But when they took over possession of the premises
approximately 14 months ago, they no longer had a license agreement with ACHD to
operate any kind of sidewalk bar, much less the one under a Conditional Use Permit
that Harry had. They continue to operate, as Mr. Nary noted, in violation of open
container laws, because they don't have a right to be out there, but they continue to be
out there. They have not maintained the walking widths that are required by the
Conditional Use Permit. They have not maintained the walking widths that are required
by the ACHD license agreement that Harry's had with them that expired 14 months ago.
As of June 26th, the date of our last scheduled hearing, the Busted Shovel did not even
have an application before ACHD for a license agreement and, again, I got new
information and I confirmed that this afternoon that they do have an application pending
now. In other words, they have only been operating for 14 months in violation of the
open container laws. They have not taken the railings down. They have not moved the
chairs inside in all of the times they have been operating. These are requirements for
Harry's Conditional Use Permit to operate a sidewalk cafe and these were basic
requirements. These were conditions that Harry's had to agree to or the conditional use
would have been denied. It states in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. In
essence, the owners of the Busted Shovel have shown they are not concerned with
some areas of civic responsibility, for following the proper procedures and requirements.
If you approve this Conditional Use Permit, you're encouraging this applicant to ignore
the city's requirements. You're encouraging others to do the same. If you deny the
CUP and let the premises remain as a restaurant with alcoholic accessories -- I think
Harry's did very well. They had very good food. I ate there several times. I've eaten in
the Busted Shovel. I thought the food was pretty good, then, too. That was some while
ago. But if you decide to grant the Conditional Use Permit and allow this to change to a
bar creating yet another bar on this block, please, don't let them drink in the public right
of way. Please take away the sidewalk bar that is going to be a blight on our city.
Thank you.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 39 of 77
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for the appellant?
Bird: I have none at this time.
Zaremba: Thank you. No.
De Weerd: Thank you. I do have a couple of people signed up. They have changed
their mind if they were for or against. Moe Aldijani. He scribbled his out.
Aldijani: My name is Moe Aldijani. I reside at 6880 West State Street.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Aldijani: Madam Mayor and gentlemen Council, Counselor Nary and Mr. Will Berg, I'm
really grateful you allowed me to speak a couple of minutes. I have discussed this issue
which you have on the agenda with the owner of Busted Shovel. I have been in his
shoes a few years ago when I owned 127 Club. At that time the state of Idaho passed a
law to ban all the smoking in certain areas. By law in the state of Idaho the only place
you can smoke now is in a bar and also in the bowling alley. All restaurants are --
cannot be smoked in. After a lot of discussion and a letter to ABC, Alcohol Beverage
Control, I came to the conclusion with them and look at their law is are we a restaurant
within a bar or are you a bar within a restaurant and these are the law of the state. And
to explain that simply is a restaurant such as Applebee's is a restaurant and inside they
have a small bar just for the convenience of their people. On the other hand, Busted
Shovel is a bar. Within that bar is a restaurant. They have all the right to have the bar
that they have. Our plan -- just before me Mr. Sherer has said several -- five items. I
believe it is not against your image to drink outside. Go to Europe, travel a little bit.
You see how people can be as a human being, enjoy themselves, have a few drinks,
have their dinner outside. What is wrong with the image? Unless you are against
alcohol period. And if it is, then, let's line up all the bar owners and shoot them and,
then, have after that put everybody in prison. And I guess I will be one, because I do,
too. I will be the one dead first. He brought the issue against our applicant that the
garbage dumps are full. Well, after 18 years being a trashman in Meridian I have a
good idea of what garbage looks bad and what are good. Go look at McDonald's, go
look at some other restaurant, I think they are doing a great job. As a matter of fact, I
have agreement -- verbal agreement with Jerry Madison at Idaho Bank and Trust. I go
there every morning and clean the parking lot if I have some customers that are not
doing their job. But don't they do that at Albertson's parking lot? Somebody park their
car, grab their ashtray out of the car, dump it out in the parking lot and leave. So, what
do you do? Close Albertson's? You can't do that. There is always good guys, bad
guys. That's why the jails are full. He mentioned parking. I wish one of you would ask
him how many people are in his office and how many parking spaces does he have?
And you want me to give you an example. I have been here since 1974 and I believe I
have seen a lot of changes. And I believe a man has a right to make a living, as long as
he is following the rules and he has followed the rules. He is not breaking any rules.
What did the sign on Harry's says for 11 years. The owner was Mr. Steve Youngerman.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 40 of 77
Harry's Bar and Grill. It doesn't say it's a restaurant. Didn't say Grandma's Cafe. It was
a bar and grill. I proved to ABC a few years ago it is a bar and grill. If I have a bar and
grill. If I have a kitchen. Some nights I cook prime rib and I sold them all, but it was a
restaurant. The majority of my income was from bar. And as I said, some people are
against drinkers. That's fine. It's just their opinion. But just because people don't have
parking we should run them out of town. And you know where you guys should start,
Joe's office. I used to have a restaurant in that basement called EI Zocalo. I counted
167 people come through that door in one day and how many parking spots I got? The
town is growing. You have to have adjustments and our ordinances are a guideline.
Some of you may know, some of you do not, I was a Planning and Zoning
Commissioner for 12 years. I have worked to build those ordinances. But just because
somebody doesn't have adequate or short of a parking space, one or two, you can't run
them out of town. You shoot them. You got to promote them. Get people in. Bring
them in. You want to close them one by one is against what you want to do. I have
said two or three minutes. I appreciate your time. Thank you for listening to me and I
believe this gentleman should have a bar as long as he's following the rules. And looks
to me you already granted it and he has not broken any rules. He has followed every
step you have asked him to do. And that's what the CUP means. The Conditional Use
Permit. In the '80s me, as one of the Commissioners, Bob Spencer, he passed away,
was our chairman, we put that together for protection of the citizen that they live in this
area, have actually a residence, so somebody does not come in and start something
brand new. We were trying to protect the citizen, so whoever has something against it
or for it, they can talk and we can have the law of the state, we can all live together
happy and I hope that's what that's what you do. And I hope that the man has a bar.
My time is up. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Aldijani: Oh, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Bill Kosterman.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: Since Mr. Kosterman is the affected property owner, I would recommend that you
give him a little more time than three minutes.
De Weerd: I'm sure Mr. Berg will.
Nary: Okay.
Meridian City Council
July 17. 2007
Page 41 of 77
Kosterman: I'm Bill Kosterman. I live at 3048 Cobble Way in Meridian. And I own the
Busted Shovel. Boy, it's hard to start after Moe's little speech there. He pretty much hit
on everything. I guess what I wanted to really start off with was what has already
transpired and that was that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously in
favor of me getting a Conditional Use Permit to be a bar and I'd like to read from the
transcript there. Commissioner Rohm. My only discussion on this is that establishment
has been there for a long time and the fact that he's come forward and requested a
CUP to operate -- operate it as has always been operated seems to be almost a moot
point. But, nevertheless, it's best that he be in compliance and I think that the CUP
should be granted without question. Any other comment? Okay. Can we get a motion
to forward? No. To act on this application. Commissioner Moe. Yeah. Mr. Chairman,
after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve. It's, then,
seconded and four ayes. One absent. If I could address some of Mr. Sherer's
complaints. The one thing that he seems to be adamant about is that there be no
sidewalk cafes. Well, Harry's came to the table claiming to only serve food on that patio
and, basically, that was Harry's and I don't know why that applies to me. I'm coming
forward under a completely different premise and it's up to ACHD and they will either
approve or disapprove that. I don't think that the cafe is germane to today's discussion.
I think this is all based on whether I'm allowed to smoke in the bar or not smoke in the
bar and that's what it comes down to. I have a very heavy smoking clientele, they like to
smoke when they eat, they like to eat when they smoke, and, basically, it comes down
to I would prefer not to have children in there and I would prefer to be allowed to smoke
in my establishment and the law says that you're now a bar, if you're going to smoke, as
opposed to a restaurant, which can't smoke. It does not change the way we have
operated, it does not change the clientele. What it will actually do is if we go to a non-
smoking environment and we lose our patio, what that will mean is that my clientele will
get up, they will be eating in there or drinking in there, they will walk out the back door,
they will stand on the sidewalk, which is public domain and they are perfectly allowed to
stand out there, they will smoke, there won't be tables and there won't be ashtrays,
therefore, they will just flick their cigarettes into the street and what we will actually
encourage is more people standing on the sidewalk smoking and flinging ashtrays at
those innocent women and children who keep walking by and complaining. I would like
to see the picture he took of the patio, if that would be all right. This picture shows the
patio exactly where ACHD told me to put it. There are actually lines painted where the
patio has to sit and if you look carefully at the near end you will see that there is a pin
going through the last rail, it's actually wired to the building. So, that's what ACHD told
me to do. I'm in compliance. ACHD tells me that they need a five foot sidewalk. If Mr.
Sherer thinks that's crowded down, he should look at the corner by his building where
the corner of his building juts out to exactly five feet from the very edge of the sidewalk
before it falls into the parking. And that's a sharp corner where someone could easily
hurt themselves. So, if he wants to debate the sidewalk with me, I'm fine with that,
because he has five feet also. I have a long list of things that I would debate with him or
would try to counter, but I think -- I think most of them seem to be so trivial and so his
opinion that there is just -- there is just no reason to even debate them. He cites a lot of
examples and I can -- in his own letters I can prove where in one letter he says one
thing, in another his employee contradicts him. The only three letters that were
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 42 of 77
submitted in protest were all from Mr. Sherer, his partner, and their secretary. No one
else on the block seems to care and it's a little suspicious that the secretary also
cowboyed up. Maybe there was coercion there, I can't say. But five bars on the block
is clearly a gross exaggeration. There are two, with me being an applicant as the third.
So, he is prone to exaggeration, because there are not five. That's just a fact. He
referenced -- or he refers to the Boys and Girls Club being a problem, because they are
one block away, and everyone I'm sure on the City Council knows that the Boys and
Girls Club is moving, because we are developing that next block and they are putting in
two new restaurants and a jazz club. I have not seen Mr. Sherer's protest to that
development yet. I'm sure they are coming. But the Boys and Girls Club is moving and
like he said -- and I'd like to read one line from one of the letters here that his secretary
wrote, which is kind of funny, because she says -- and I quote: When we moved our
business to Main Street we knew that there were three bars in the area. We were
aware of the problems associated with these types of businesses and now, apparently,
they are upset about that. Harry's Bar and Grill operated a bar for ten years. Before
that it was numerous other bars back to 1937. But now that Sherer & Wynkoop are on
the block, apparently we are going to change all that history. That's all I have to say,
unless you have questions.
De Weerd: Council, so do you have questions? Mr. Bird.
Bird: What did you say about how long there has been a bar there?
Kosterman: That building was built in 1937 and I believe --
Bird: There was not a bar there. It was Pat's Cafe.
Kosterman: She was, actually, in the basement. If you go into my basement --
Bird: I have -- I had a lot of meals there. I can give you a history on when the bar went
in there.
Kosterman: Okay.
Bird: And it's been since 1965.
Kosterman: Is that the exact date that the bar went in?
Bird: No. No. It's been since then. Since I have been here. But, anyway, that's
neither here nor there. I just -- it has not always been a bar. It was made a bar
because the liquor license come open in the '70s and it was -- went there and they
made a little room in there and I'm kind of -- it was called the Navajo Club or something
like that. And I got a question, though, to ask you. What -- what -- does ABC determine
bar or restaurant by percent of sales?
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 43 of 77
Kosterman: The way it works -- and this is my understanding of the reasoning behind
the law. If you are a restaurant, you must show that you have 40 percent food sales to
maintain a restaurant status. If you're a bar, obviously, you can sell food in the bar, but
there is no requirement for a minimum amount, and 1 think the way I kind of have gotten
the understanding of why the rule is such is that it's always a lot easier to get permission
to open a restaurant. So, what they -- 1 think what they were trying to prevent is
someone taking a small house in a neighborhood and saying I'm opening a restaurant,
yeah, 1 have got a grill, and, then, what they are really doing is opening a bar, but under
cover of a restaurant and, then, they just stop having food or, really, their purpose was
to be a bar. I think that's the reason that they have that 40 percent requirement. I don't
meet that 40 percent requirement. I haven't since I opened. We are -- on a good month
we are a little over a third. Typically we are less than that. I can't tell you as -- from
personal experience that Harry's has always operated as a bar, it was always a smoking
establishment. Why he changed the liquor license from a bar liquor license to a
restaurant liquor license and back is beyond me. But I will tell you that he did not own
that liquor license, so if he had -- I don't -- he didn't necessarily have even permission to
change that. So, 1 guess Planning and Zoning's proof that I was a restaurant and
changed to a bar is the same evidence that I had that I was a bar when I took over,
because I bought the place and I bought the liquor license with a bar liquor license.
And, yes, we did have some discussions on that and the argument ended up with me
applying for the Conditional Use Permit. 1 lost the argument.
De Weerd: Do you have any other questions?
Bird: No.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba?
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: I kind of liked to eat there when there wasn't smoking, 50--
Kosterman: We don't smoke until 2:00 in the afternoon out of courtesy to our business
patrons. We don't let anybody smoke until 2:00. So, during the lunch crowd it's non-
smoking. So, welcome back.
De Weerd: Thank you. John Forsberg, signed up in favor of the CUP and against the
appeal. Is that correct?
Forsberg: That's correct.
De Weerd: Okay.
Forsberg: John Forsberg. 2320 Cadillac Drive, Meridian, Idaho. I'm here in favor of the
Busted Shovel. 1 believe that a business should be able to operate as they so please
and with the law that changed at the state to make it a non-smoking restaurant in a
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 44 of 77
restaurant and all the rigmarole that goes along with that, which messed up my
business as well, I really think that it's totally their program. If they feel like they want to
be a restaurant, then, they should work that direction. If they feel like they want to be a
bar, they should work that direction. Everybody has the right to make a living. That's
about alii have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any question? Thank you. Dave Wynkoop for the appeal.
Wynkoop: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members. My name is Dave
Wynkoop, 730 North Main. Moe and Bill have done an excellent job of presenting their
position. I commend them. But I would urge you to consider three -- what I think are
really important policy issues that are raised by this appeal. And so if I can go through
those issues with you. First, I think those of you who know me, I try to be positive. So, I
-- you know, I want to say how many good things are happening in downtown Meridian.
I think it is tremendous. I think we have a wonderful vision. I'm so happy that we have,
hopefully, on the road to improvement of our road system and so I think there are some
really positive issues. And so I want to draw your attention to what I think are these
three critical policy issues, which -- which risk some of the very positive things that we
are doing as a city, in my opinion. First, I will refer to this as the skid row problem and
that is there are currently with -- if you count -- count the Busted Shovel as a bar, there
is four bars within a block, with three more on the drawing board also either contiguous
to or within that same block. So, we risk having seven bars within that block, which is
virtually across the street from the new Meridian City Hall. And so I would ask the city
to determine if that is really in the best interest of this core wonderful downtown
pedestrian family friendly that we are really trying to accomplish. A high class
restaurant would be wonderful. Even if they serve some alcohol. That's okay. Harry's.
I viewed -- that was a great place to go to have lunch. But in our -- in my opinion,
anyway, there has been a change and this application simply is trying to formalize that
change that might occur, which I regard as fairly sinister, and that is changing it from a
primary restaurant purpose to, really, a bar. And so we -- we don't believe that that is
compatible with a family friendly environment. The second major policy -- and this is a
very major policy issue, I submit, and that is the issue of sidewalk cafes or should I say
sidewalk bars. Previously Harry's had a license agreement to operate a restaurant on
the sidewalk. Now, the Busted Shovel wants permission to operate a bar on the
sidewalk. Having been a part of the original policy team at ACHD that developed that
policy, it was never the intention of ACHD, at least at that time, to allow bars to use --
the public property to expand their operations. So, I would have no problem, again, if
it's a restaurant that has an accessory bar, but having a bar -- a full fledged bar serve
drinks on the right of way I suggest is a very poor policy and we can't just say --
because I talked to ACHD about that and they say, oh, we just defer to the city. And,
yet, I hear the city saying, well, we defer to ACHD. So, that isn't going to resolve the
issue, Council. It is up to you to decide whether you want to allow a bar on sidewalks,
because ACHD defers to your judgment on that issue. Finally, I urge that you do
require parking. With the scarcity of public parking spots in downtown Meridian, to
require all of the patrons and employees to tie up parking -- public parking spaces is --
is not reasonable. Now, in our case we have volunteered much of our own private
Meridian City Council
July 17. 2007
Page 45 of 77
property to allow the public to park on. Those spaces in front are our own private
property. We have opened them to the public. But I submit to you that on the parking
issue, the Busted Shovel should be part of the solution and you should not allow them
to be part of the problem. New information tonight was that they have an agreement.
Well, I found out this afternoon that the Comfort Zone has made a decision to leave.
But they don't own that land. They were simply a tenant. Their agreement to allow the
Busted Shovel to use spaces behind there is not worth anything. But at a very minimum
we should at least have that written agreement as part of the record. Finally, just one
last correction --
De Weerd: You do need to summarize, please.
Wynkoop: They kept saying that the only testimony was from our business. That is
simply not true. There was an office manager by the name of Carol Gabrielson, who
submitted written testimony. She is not connected with our business. She is office
manager of another business. Her testimony was speaking for herself, not speaking for
the firm of Sherer and Wynkoop. I respectfully request that you do the right thing and
encourage this to be a quality restaurant with an accessory bar use, but not a pure bar,
especially on the sidewalk. And I'll stand for questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Those are the people that signed up for this application. Is
there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did have some discussions today with
Mr. lnselman from ACHD about the license agreement. If you'd like to have information
about that, certainly -- and I'm not trying to disagree with Mr. Wynkoop, but if this
Council were to grant the CU, you certainly have the ability to address in that CU
whether or not you would be in favor of extending the premise of the building. But if
you're silent on that, it really is the ACHD that grants that. Even if you grant them
permission to extend their premise of their building into a sidewalk cafe, set up in
whatever rules you set to that, it still is contingent on ACHD's approval. So, you may
want Mr. Inselman's testimony as to what -- where that is in the process of what issues
or concerns they may have in regards to how it's being used or how it's been used.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Bird: I was going to ask for Mr. Inselman to give us his take on this.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 46 of 77
Inselman: Madam Mayor, Council, Gary Inselman, representing ACHD, 3775 North
Adams, Garden City. We are reviewing a development -- a license agreement
application. We have not finished our deliberations or approved it or issued it yet and I
can tell you as being the one that has the ultimate say on that, I would not issue it
without some statement from the city regarding if you want alcohol on the sidewalk or
not. So, I would very much appreciate you addressing that with the conditional use,
including the hours that it would be allowed.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you, Gary.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the agreement from the Comfort
Zone individual has been part of the record since April 19th. It's been stated that it's not
been made available as part of the record, but it was stamped by the clerk's office on
that date.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: If there is no further testimony from the general public, I --
De Weerd: Well, I don't know yet. I asked that and, then, Mr. Nary said something, so -
- is there anyone that would like to provide testimony on this application? You will have
a rebuttal. Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Sherer.
Zaremba: In that case, Madam Mayor, I do have a request before the rebuttal.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: And that is the man we have entrusted to deal with all of downtown, Mr.
Shaun Wardle, is in the audience. I would put him on the spot and ask for an opinion of
his vision of how this is going and --
De Weerd: I tried to save you, Shaun.
Zaremba: I realize that there is -- there is a balance. It's to the benefit of downtown to
have the store fronts not be empty. How much choice we make on what is there and
what else is coming, if you have an opinion or insight, I would appreciate that.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 47 of 77
Wardle: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Shaun Wardle, 2239 East
Greiner in Meridian. I'll just do some general comments, Councilman Zaremba, in terms
of downtown. Anna stated that one of the alternative compliances that we have utilized
without an in-lieu-of fee has been to accommodate some of those spaces within the
public right of way and spots adjacent to that. That's not a practice that has been
specific to this application, it's been utilized in other areas of the downtown. We believe
that we have that -- MDC has adopted an in-lieu-of fee and so we have addressed
some of those issues. This application, obviously, was filed before that fee was
available. So, MDC is, obviously, working very diligently on increasing downtown.
Some of the issues addressed are prevalent within the downtown core and that is
parking for both patrons, as well as office workers and those are important issues that
we continue to address. I can tell you that the master plan visioning does speak to
sidewalk cafes. Does speak to establishments where people can congregate. Bars are
a portion of that that have been considered. I'm not here to make specific comment on
this application or any additional uses. Both of the parties have suggested that there
are additional developments coming in and we do see that. The one thing that I can tell
you that future developments will be different than some of the specific areas here, is
we are requiring higher uses in terms of you will see some ground level retail with
second story office buildings and potential condos on top of that. So, you will have an
integrated environment and not just a single story retail or restaurant use in the future.
And so those are -- those are some of my specific comments in relation to that. I can
say that Mr. Inselman's comments in terms of ACHD's applications; they are currently
required to process every license agreement in their right of way. The Meridian
Development Corporation is working closely with the Ada County Highway District to
find a way that we can -- we can maybe have a process that the specific entity, meaning
the Meridian Development Corporation, and, in turn, the City of Meridian, has some
specific say in what happens in those right of ways and those are just preliminary
discussions, but we know that there is some issues there and we are working to
address those. So, I'd stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Did that answer your question, Mr. Zaremba?
Zaremba: Thank you. That helped.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. If there is no further testimony or requested testimony Mr.
Sherer?
Sherer: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Honorable Councilmen. And, Anna, I will apologize
to you, I got the entire record from the internet and downloaded it and it's not in my file,
so whether I failed to download it or whether it wasn't there at the time, I don't know.
But I did not have that agreement. Mr. Aldijani in his statements talked about cigarette
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 48 of 77
butts in the Albertson's parking lot. And I will tell you that -- that our issues are worse
than cigarette butts in the Albertson's parking lot. We have excrement, we have used
condoms, we had other issues that are left on our premises that we find on Monday
mornings. It's not cigarette butts. Now, ironically, Mr. Aldijani was on the Planning and
Zoning Commission when Harry's Conditional Use Permit was approved back in 1995. I
saw his name on the signature line. And I guess it would be tough for any of us to
figure out what the intent was, but I know what the representations were made by
Harry's in his application and as restated in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and that was not that he was -- he was going to be serving alcohol out in the public right
of way. Mr. Kosterman cited a Planning and Zoning Commissioner statement that here
he was applying for a Conditional Use Permit, so he must be doing things the right way.
Then, at the end he stated that he -- that he had lost his argument with the planners and
that's why he filed for the Conditional Use Permit. Well, they knew about him by then.
There is not much choice. He kept talking about the letter of someone he identified as
our secretary and I want to make sure that that's clear for the record, that this letter was
from a woman named Carol Gabrielson and, again, she is not a secretary, is not
associated with Sherer and Wynkoop. She's not our secretary, let me say that. He
brings up our sidewalk and, again, our sidewalks are not at issue. We have not applied
for anything. He states that the cafe is not germane, but I think it's -- I think it's
becoming the focal point of what we have been looking at, the sidewalk bar. Are we
going to -- are we going to have unlimited amounts of alcohol served -- served in the
public? And, again, that's your decision to make. Mr. Kosterman also -- or Planning
and Zoning stated that Mr. Kosterman purchased this property under the idea that this
was -- this was a bar and not a restaurant with an accessory bar. But in his application,
in his letter of April -- I'm sorry. His letter of April 3rd stated that -- he's in need of a
zoning verification letter regarding 704 North Main. I am purchasing the building, as
well as the liquor license and he wants -- Alcohol Beverage Control needs the letter to
further process my liquor application. So, he was asking for information. He said I am
purchasing that, I have purchased. I think that implies that he hadn't completed the
purchase and the city wrote a letter back to him on April 7th, 2006, stating that the sale
and consumption of alcoholic beverages is allowed, but only as a secondary use to a
restaurant. A drinking establishment would require a Conditional Use Permit in the OT
zone. So, I would submit to you that Mr. Kosterman bought this property knowing that it
was zoned as a restaurant with a bar accessory and he's simply attempting to change
the use. Now, that's fine, he can attempt to change the use, but let's see it for what it is
and let's not create a situation where we are going to have a sidewalk bar. They
mentioned cafes in Europe. Well, this is not a cafe in Europe. We don't have the
drinking and the social problems that they have in Europe and this is the City of
Meridian and the City of Meridian has the right and the duty to decide what we are going
to allow on our public streets and this is not a sidewalk cafe, this is not like 48 Degrees
North or 49 Degrees North, where they have a nice enclosed area, they serve food, and
they serve alcohol as an accessory. That's a nice place. I like that place. But that's not
what you're being asked here by approving this Conditional Use Permit. You will be
saying, sure, go ahead, sit out there and drink and smoke all you want and, you know, if
the police happen by and check somebody's blood alcohol and they are over the limit,
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 49 of 77
then, they can get carted away. But do we really want that activity in downtown in Old
Town on Main Street. Thank you. I'll stand for any questions.
DeWeerd: Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sherer: Thank you.
De Weerd: Unless Council would like some clarity on something. It's for your
information. But Mr. Sherer would have the last word. Council?
Zaremba: I think I understand the issues well enough.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: I do, too.
De Weerd: If there is no further questions from Council, I would entertain a motion to
close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 11.
Bird: I'll second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 11. All
those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE ABSENT. ONE ABSTAIN.
De Weerd: Any discussion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I can understand the reasoning behind a shift from being specifically a
restaurant with a bar to being a bar that may serve food, for the purpose of enabling
their patrons to smoke in there. And my feeling is that it's up to each individual business
owner to do their own business plan and for anybody else that may be moving into the
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 50 of 77
area to determine whether that area can support anymore bars or this shift. I don't see
this use as being greatly different than what was already going on there. However, the
change to officially a bar, which I can go along with, I do not couple with that continuing
the use of the sidewalk. I feel, in my personal opinion, that a bar should be contained
within the building. Smoking should be contained within the building. And my opinion
would be that I could approve the CUP, but I would want to remove any possibility of
using the exterior of the building or the sidewalk. That's my opinion.
De Weerd: Okay
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe as was stated that -- I think by the gentleman from Kahoots, that, you
know, we invest and we have a right to carry on our business same as attorneys do or
anything else and I don't see any problem with that being a bar, but I also agree with
Councilman Zaremba if they are going to serve drinks and smoke, it's not going to be
out in the public right of way. I have no problem with it being a bar, approving it, and
letting them smoke all they want inside, but being a citizen of Meridian, Idaho, I don't
want to be walking down that street and have to put up -- even though I inhaled it for 40
years myself, I don't think I want to bring my grandkids and stuff and I don't like to see a
bunch of drunks standing out there and we don't allow it anyplace else and I don't want
to see the police officers there handcuffing people and hauling them off all the time. So,
I have no problem with them being a bar and I agree with the CUP, but outdoor goes
away, in my opinion. That's my statement.
Zaremba: That being the case, Madam Mayor, I would make a motion.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: And I could be corrected if I phrase it incorrectly, but on the subject of AP 07-
004, I move that we deny the appeal and reassert the approval of CUP 07-004, with one
change, and that being to remove any permission and encourage ACHD not to give a
license for use of either right of way or sidewalk or property outside of the enclosed
building for any use.
Bird: I'd second that.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second on Item 11. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess just to clarify what you'd like in
the extension -- or in the CUP's, that they would not -- they would not be allowed to
extend the use of their premise outside the physical building.
Bird: Outside the walls.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 51 of 77
Nary: So, onto the public right of way or any other portion of -- surrounding the building;
is that correct?
Zaremba: That's a good way to phrase and interpret what I was thinking.
Nary: And the reason I make that clarification isn't just some lawyery thing, but in case
they wanted to extend it to the rear of the building, is that also the Council's direction
that wasn't on the public right of way, is that what you're decision is granting the CU, is
that it has to be contained within the building.
Zaremba: My intent is that it be contained within the walls.
Nary: Okay.
Bird: And second agrees. Madam Mayor, could I make a statement? I -- Mr. Sherer, I -
- I realize that we have problems in parking lots, but I don't think we can blame it on this
one particular establishment. Having lived in Meridian a lot longer than probably most
of you people and being downtown a lot, you have some every place and so we just
can't say this one establishment's doing that. And while it's not nice, don't get me
wrong, I hate it, it's something -- we just can't -- because everybody uses your parking,
whether they go -- whether they are going to the 127, the Frontier, or to the Busted
Shovel, so -- and, you know, one establishment doesn't have all the dates that come out
of there with their -- with the alcohol and stuff. So, it does -- it isn't -- we just can't blame
it on one establishment and the parking and stuff downtown, we know that at every
downtown's got parking problems, so -- anyway, that's my statement on the deal.
De Weerd: And, Mr. Bird, I think that's why the MDC is trying to find alternatives, so that
there will be places to park for the public.
Bird: Let's not get on that.
De Weerd: So, if there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, we do have a motion to
approve Item 11.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, abstain.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE ABSENT. ONE ABSTAIN.
De Weerd: And I guess to clarify, we had a motion to approve the CUP and Deny the
Appeal.
Zaremba: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 52 of 77
Zaremba: And remove the--
Bird: Yes. With restrictions. The CUP is restricted.
DeWeerd: Thank you.
De Weerd: Item 12 is a continued Public Hearing from July 3rd on PP 07-009.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, would a five minute break be --
De Weerd: A five minute break would be wonderful.
(Recess.)
Item 12:
Item 13:
Item 14:
Item 15:
Continued Public Hearing from July 3, 2007: PP 07-009 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots, 2 office/commercial lots
and 10 common lots on 19.80 acres in an L-Q zone for Meadowlake
Villaae North by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC - Southeast
Corner of Franklin Road and Touchmark Way:
Continued Public Hearing from July 3, 2007: CUP 07-008 Request for
a Conditional Use Permit approval to create 52 residential lots, 2
office/commercial lots and 10 common lots in an L-Q zone for
Meadowlake Villaae North by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC -
Southeast Corner of Franklin Road and Touchmark Way:
Continued Public Hearing from July 3,2007: VAR 07-008 Request for
a Variance to UDC 11-6C-3B4 which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum of
450 feet for Meadowlake Villaae North by Touchmark of the Treasure
Valley, LLC - Southeast Corner of Franklin Road and Touchmark Way:
Continued Public Hearing from July 3, 2007: MI 07-006 Request for a
Miscellanous application to amend the previously approved Development
Agreement for Touchmark Living Center Annexation (AZ 99-021) by
amending the approved phase boundaries and various other provisions for
Meadowlake Villaae North by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC -
Southeast Corner of Franklin Road and Touchmark Way:
De Weerd: Council, we will go ahead and get this meeting back to order. It was so out
of order. Item 12 is a continued Public Hearing from July 3rd, PP 07-009 and 13 is CUP
07-008 and 14 is VAR 07-008.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Zaremba: And 15 as well.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 53 of 77
Canning: And--
De Weerd: And 15.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: You only listed 14, Anna, so --
Bird: We don't want to -- we don't want to open 14, do we? We need to close it and,
then, the applicant has asked for a withdrawal and, then, make a motion to withdraw, is
that -- do you accept that? Would you accept that if I did that?
De Weerd: So, Mr. Nary, do I open all of them and, then, request the -- the motion?
Nary: No one is going to care.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: But if you want to, just go ahead.
Bird: It is a continued Public Hearing.
Nary: If you want to just open it and, then, accept their request, that's fine.
De Weerd: I will also open 15, MI 07-006. All these items are open for Public Hearing
and I would entertain a motion on Item 14 to approve the withdrawal.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that -- in one motion that we close the Public Hearing on VAR 07-
008 and also accept the withdrawal as asked by the applicant.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the closing of the Public Hearing
and accept the withdrawal of this item. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Staff, Items 12,13, and 15.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Meadowlake Village North
project. It's located on the south side of Franklin Road off of Touchmark Way. This
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 54 of 77
property is currently zoned L-O and C-G. The applications before you tonight are a
preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit, and a OA modification and, as you know, the
variance application was just withdrawn. The development includes -- excuse me.
Here we go. The applicant has applied for a conditional use approval to modify the
conceptual planned development for the Meadowlake Village development. He's also
requesting preliminary plat approval of 52 single family residential lots, ten common lots,
and two office commercial lots on 19.8 acres. The applicant has also applied for a
modification to the existing development agreement in effect for the site. And just to go
back and give a little bit of a history reminder, Touchmark was approved with a fairly
detailed conceptual PO as far as the look and the layout of the homes, but it left a very
wide range of number of allowed residences and none of the residences were on
individual lots, they were all on a -- basically done as multi-family, because they were all
on a single lot. They are now asking for this portion of the property to have actual single
family homes on single family lots. So, that's the difference and that's the need for the
development agreement modification and the Conditional Use Permit modification, is
because that was never part of the original approval was to have lots. So, that original
approval was done in 2001 and also with that original approval each of the phases
required detailed conditional use approval and that's one of the reasons they are here
before you tonight as well. I have some elevations. This is the original concept plan.
You will see the subject property highlighted. Here are some of the elevations for the
residences. Okay. The Commission recommended approval at their May 17th hearing.
They did not favor the variance request at that time, so they recommended denial on
that. Based on the Commission's recommendation and also the conditions they placed
on the preliminary plat, the applicant has resubmitted drawings and the staff prepared a
new staff report based on those new drawings. So, you have a staff report that solely
addresses this layout and the difference was they added a private street connection to
the public street that allowed emergency access. That was the primary difference.
Okay. At that hearing Megan Johnson, the applicant's representative, spoke in favor, as
did Bruce Oalrimple for Touchmark of Treasure Valley. No one spoke in opposition.
Welcome Adamson spoke in -- or commented and he's a Meadowlake Village resident.
There was no written testimony. Key issues of the discussion by the Commission were
the connectivity within the Meadowlake development, the existing portions of it. The
applicant's desire for the development's residents to have a private and safe no cut-
through traffic neighborhood. That was the primary reasoning for the cul-de-sacs and
the variance request. And, then, whether the request for the variance passes the
findings test. The applicant did not provide the site plan with building elevations for the
proposed commercial lots as requested by staff. However, during the Public Hearing
the developer proposed that each lot still be subject to the Conditional Use Permit
process, in lieu of staff's request. And, then, there was discussion about cul-de-sacs
are not conducive to emergency vehicles. The key changes to staff's initial
recommendation -- the Commission did require that prior to the development of either of
the two commercial lots in Meadowlake Village North, that the applicant procures
conditional use permits, so that the Commission can evaluate the respective site plans
and building elevations. And they also required that neither of the commercial lots take
direct lot access to South Touchmark Way. Those commercial lots are located at this
entrance road to the subdivision. The outstanding issues before Council -- they are not
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 55 of 77
so much issues, I think that it's fair to say that the applicant has really addressed all the
issues, it's just that we always bring to you the Commission's recommendation, but
because there has been an interim plan in between, if you decide to go with this new
plan, there is some things we need to ask you to do. But let me go through these in
order. The Commission did support not having the variance request regarding the cul-
de-sac length and they wanted to see greater connectivity by means of making this road
a through street. So, on May 29th the applicant submitted the revised plans to planning
staff, which depict a private street connection at the south property line, instead of at the
northeast corner where the emergency access was required. Also at the time the
applicant formally submitted a letter for withdraw of the requested variance, as the
proposed street eliminates the need. Staff has evaluated the new plat against the city's
regulations and supports the applicant's revisions and has updated the staff report to
reflect the revision. So, the Council needs to modify the following: Condition 1.2.3
should be removed from the staff report, as a public street stub at the northwest corner
of the property is no longer required by staff. Condition 1.2.4 should also be removed
from the staff report as an emergency access is no longer warranted with the proposed
construction of the private street. Staff requires that the applicant complete a private
street application and we have asked that you, please, add a condition 1.2.13 requiring
the applicant to submit that application. And Condition 1.2.10 should be removed from
the staff report, as the applicant has provided documentation that a 48 inch or larger
pipe would be required for covering the Ridenbaugh Canal. So, we do ask if you're in
favor of this application and in favor of the new layout that that -- those items be
addressed in the motion, either by reference or reading them again. The applicant also
showed me -- when she arrived this evening showed me a list of minor changes that
she felt were important to the conditions of approval just for clarity sake. We have had
a chance -- all of us have had a chance to review that. There was one for Planning,
there was one for Public Works, and several for fire. And we are all in agreement that
those modified changes to the conditions of approval still meet the full intent of the
conditions of approval. So, we are all in favor of those. With that I will answer any
questions Council may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions?
Bird: I have none at this time, Madam Mayor.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, just one. The newly revised plat, is there a date that we
would reference?
Canning: It is referenced in the findings already in the staff report. I don't have it at the
top of my head, but because you have a brand new staff report it is in there.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 56 of 77
Johnson: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. My name is Megan
Johnson with WRG Design. I am a senior planner there and I'm representing
Touchmark Development tonight. WRG address is 1173 East Winding Creek Drive,
Eagle, Idaho. 83616.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Johnson: And I will just start off by handing out the -- I guess the clarifications to the
conditions that I had showed Mrs. Canning earlier. And I'd also like to thank the City of
Meridian staff, they have been very great to work with. We had some issues come up,
you know, in the process of this development and they have been really great and
responsive to us and we really appreciate everything that they have helped us with. So,
I guess before we get to the condition clarification, I'd also just like to state that our
original application did include a block length variance for this cul-de-sac. You can see
it there with the emergency access. And it was clear after the P&Z Commission and
staff and fire department response that it really -- it wasn't appropriate and we really
wanted to listen to their concerns and try to address them and that was the reason for
this new design with the -- I guess with this street to the south. We felt it was a good
compromise between the life safety concerns that the fire department had and our
concerns for really wanting to keep traffic flow within this subdivision. And with that we
do -- we are in agreement with staff's recommendations to -- to remove condition 1.2.3,
1.2.. and the -- we also are in agreement with the added condition for the private street
application. And also we are still in agreement with the CUP conditions. At the time
commercial properties develop we will come in for an additional CUP application for
that. And now to get to the -- I guess to the handout that I gave to you. They are very
simple. They are mostly just kind of clarification, so everybody knows when we come in
for final plat we are all on the same page. The first one is condition 1.2.6 regarding
setbacks and the original staff analysis had called these out as residential setbacks, but
that did not get translated into the conditions of approval and so we would just like to
add the word residential to that condition. The next condition is 1.2.11 requiring
maintenance of all common areas by a homeowners association. Currently the
Meadowlake Village doesn't have a homeowners association, all the common areas are
maintained by the property owner. So, we would just like to add some language that in
the absence of an HOA the existing Meadowlake Village ownership will maintain the
common areas. It's in the same spirit of the condition, but if there is no homeowners
association, we don't want to have to create one as we haven't in previous phases. The
next condition is in regards to street lighting. Condition 2.30 under the Public Works.
And it calls for sodium -- sodium streetlights and the Meadowlake Village currently uses
a metal halide, which I understand is a yellow light and is considered decorative by the
City of Meridian and I did speak with Public Works staff today and they did say that they
are okay with the use of the metal halide, we would just need to enter into a
maintenance agreement with the city and we are more than happy to do that. Condition
number 3.9, I just struck out the applicant shall provide a stub street within the
development. That just wasn't clear. It just wasn't taken care of in the original staff
report and it's no longer required by staff. The next ones are all really to distinguish
commercial -- I'm sorry, I just had a blank for a minute -- commercial conditions versus
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 57 of 77
residential. These are all for the commercial uses. A knocks box. Dumpsters. They
are all pretty intuitive as to the fact that they are commercial, we just wanted to tack that
on there, commercial only, just so, again, everybody is on the same page. And with that
I'm going to open it up for questions, because it's been a long night and I think these are
pretty minor and, again, we are -- we have had a really great working relationship with
the staff and they seem pleased with the changes we have made to the site plan and,
hopefully, it meets that spirit of the Planning and Zoning and fire department wishes as
well.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: One quick one. The engineering documents probably depict this. When you
talk about 30 feet -- the street frontage in the cul-de-sac, this one lot just really jumped
out at me.
Johnson: Oh. Right. There is -- I believe it's 30 feet on a cul-de-sac, but it can be
reduced with a shared drive, so that would be required to have a shared drive. Is that
was your question --
Borton: Okay. That one does have a shared drive?
Johnson: Yes. It will have to.
Borton: Okay. That answers it. Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further, Council? Thank you. Okay. This is a Public
Hearing. I do not have anyone signed up. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none, does the applicant have any further
statements?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would just confirm two things, if I may, that staff has seen what we have
been presented and I see a head nod. And that on the 2.3.0 one, Public Works is
comfortable with the change there.
Grady: Sorry, I was back in my corner and didn't hear the question.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 58 of 77
De Weent I know. Is there a reason you're back in the corner?
Grady: I got kicked out of the front row.
Zaremba: I guess the main question is whether Public Works is comfortable working
with the applicant on a different street light than we typically require, consistent with the
ones they are already using in other parts of the development.
Grady: I think we are and that's why I think the -- as part of the street light agreement
we would negotiate that. I wasn't quite sure that we had exactly nailed it down, but the
mere fact that we are willing to negotiate with them, we will come up with a standard
that meets our requirements.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: And that's pretty typical of those that have decorative lighting. Thank you.
Okay. No further comment from the applicant? Council, any further information
needed? I would entertain a motion to close.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we close the public hearings on Item 12, PP 07-009, Item 13,
CUP 07-008, and Item 15, MI 07-006.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 12, 13,
and 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Any discussion needed? If not, do I have a motion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Let's do them combined, so that they all refer to the same notes. I suppose
that's okay. I move that we approve PP 07-009, CUP 07-008, and MI 07-006, to include
all staff comments and specifically that condition 1.2.3 should be removed, condition
1.2.4 should be removed, and that we add a 1.2.13 requiring the applicant to submit a
private street application and that condition 1.2.10 can be removed. And that we accept
the clarifications and changes made in the WRG Design, Incorporated, memorandum,
dated July 17th, 2007, addressed to the Mayor and City Council. End of motion.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 59 of 77
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second?
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Items 12, 13 and 15, with
the changes as noted. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 16: Public Hearing: VAC 07-009 Request for a Vacation of the public
utilities, drainage, irrigation easements, a future road easement and a
farm access easement for Lots 3, 4, 5 & 6, Block 1 of Kachina Estates
Subdivision for Cabella Creek by A TM Development, LLC - north of
Victory Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 16 is a Public Hearing on VAC 07-009. I will open
this Public Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, this is the Cabella vacation. Cabella
Subdivision -- or Cabella Creek Subdivision is located on the north side of Victory Road
approximately three-quarters of a mile east of Meridian Road. The applicants are
requesting to vacate a ten foot wide utility drainage and irrigation easements. Those
are shown in the red. A 20 foot future road easement that's shown in blue. A 15 foot
farm access easement that's shown in green. And, then, they are also -- they are also
depicting a North Meridian Irrigation District easement at 60 feet. In 2005 Cabella
Creek Subdivision was approved by Council. However, prior to signature of the final
plat they were required to vacate the easements that were created with the original
Kachina Estates and I just need to point out that although the Ten Mile Drain bisects the
subject property, the applicant is proposing to vacate the drainage irrigation easements
that were established for the waterway, but they are replacing it specifically with a
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District easement that is 60 feet in width. So, they are
removing one and putting another one back on there. As we were reviewing it prior to
the hearing tonight for the farm access easements, we looked at the relinquishment and
it's only for the existing property. We still need it for Lot 2 of Kachina Estates. We did
go ahead and decide to keep it on the agenda tonight for your consideration. These do
require coming back for a resolution, so we would suggest that this vacation be
conditioned upon receiving a relinquishment from the owner of Lot 2, Kachina Estates,
for that 15 foot farm access easement and we would hold the resolution until we receive
that relinquishment. So, that is one outstanding issue. The other thing -- and this is just
for the purposes of the record tonight. The 25 foot future road easement, the applicant
has done quite a bit of research with both ACHD and the county surveyor and we
anticipate that that will not require an ACHD vacation application at this time. However,
should the surveyor determine months or a year from now that for some reason one is
required, we just wanted to make sure that this hearing sufficed for that ACHD right of
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 60 of 77
way vacation hearing. So, again, that was just for the record. We believe we have got
the right applications before you and the applicant has done quite a bit of research. So,
it's a little bit of a confusing project, but I will answer any questions you may have, but it
is -- although it looks confusing, it's a fairly straight forward vacation.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: Just one question or clarification and it relates to the 25 foot future road
easement, which mayor may not -- in their plat I believe they are planning to put a
roadway in here and is that going to be a public roadway?
Canning: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: So, that replaces any need for this easement, whether ACHD owns it or not, I
take it.
Canning: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
De Weerd: Council, anything else?
Bird: No, I don't.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here?
Cronin: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Eric Cronin, I work for the
Land Group on behalf of the applicant ATM Developments. I guess my address is 462
East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. On behalf of the applicant I appreciate you staying out
and allowing me to present this application. As Anna mentioned previously, the
easements were asked and you're requesting vacation of are the ten foot public utilities
irrigation drainage easements, which are noted in red and as far as the 25 foot future
road easement, originally we thought we were going to have to go through ACHD's
process, started filling out the application, and had a conversation with a number of
individuals over there and on May 4th we spoke to Nan Hills over there and she
indicated that as it does not say to the benefit of ACHD or public right of way, then, it's --
technically can claim it, so say vacate it through the City of Meridian was the option that
we are here to vacate it through and speaking with the public -- or the county surveyor,
he indicated that he read it the same way we did. It wasn't dedicated for the right -- or
public use or didn't directly state ACHD. So, with that said, we are going to stand as it is
today and not go through ACHD and that process and like Anna mentioned previously,
it was indicated that the ~. previously in the relinquishment documents -- we never
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 61 of 77
obtained one from Lot 2, which would grant access to Lots 3 and 4 via Victory Road on
the north side of the Ten Mile drain and speaking with the applicant today late, he said
we should be able to obtain that relinquishment letter sometime this week and get that
resubmitted. So, it's not -- does not appear to be an issue at all in obtaining that letter.
So, I guess I'll stand for any questions or clarifications you had.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you so much.
Cronin: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing no further testimony and no questions by
Council, I would entertain a motion to close.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 16, VAC 07-009.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion to close Item 16. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Any discussion? Hearing none, do I have a motion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we approve VAC 07-00 -- I'm sorry. I'm looking at the wrong one.
VAC 07-009, with the additional condition that they provide to staff the vacation of
easement along Lot 2 of Kachina Estates.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 16 with the additional
condition. Any discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 62 of 77
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: And the resolution, as staff has suggested, would be held until that's received
by staff?
Zaremba: Yes.
De Weerd: If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: VAC 07-013 Request for Vacation of the public utility
easement platted on Lots 1-3, Block 2 for Doris Subdivision by Teach
Investments and Seagle Three, LLC - 1330 East Fairview Avenue:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 17 is a Public Hearing, VAC 07-013. I will open this Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Doris project. It's located
on the corner of Fairview Avenue and North Locust Grove Road. The applicant is
requesting vacation of -- the applicant -- okay. I'm sorry. The subject site is Lots 2 and
3 of Block 2 of Doris Subdivision are currently vacant and Lot 1 is currently unimproved
with an automobile oil and lube facility on the southern portion. A record of survey
prepared by Treasure Valley Engineers was prepared and recorded on August 31 st,
2006, and it created two new property lines. The original property lines kind of followed
here. Now they have created ones that the front lots are much larger and the one in the
back is smaller, so that we are dedicating -- with that application they are dedicating
new ten foot wide public utility easements around the entire perimeter of the properties.
They are shown in the shaded area on the right-hand drawing. So, they are now asking
to vacate the shaded areas as shown on the left-hand drawing. Those are the existing
ones on the property line. We have received all the necessary relinquishments and to
our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here?
Mason: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Barbara
Mason and I am a planner for Treasure Valley Engineers. For the record, the address
is 1204 6th Street North, Nampa, and as Anna has explained, this is mostly kind of a
housekeeping pretty straight forward relinquishment. We did hold a neighborhood
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 63 of 77
meeting. Twelve people attended. None were in opposition. And we do have all the
appropriate relinquishment letters from the affected agencies. And so I will be happy to
stand for questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you very much. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would
like to provide testimony on this application? Seeing none, Council, do you need further
information or do you have a motion to close?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on VAC 07-013.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 17. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve VAC 07-013, Doris Subdivision, vacation of public utility
easements and everything necessary for relinquishments is in, so that's my motion.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: And you're sticking to it, uh? I have a motion and a second on Item 17 to
approve the public -- or to approve the application. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg,
will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 18:
Public Hearing: VAR 07-013 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3E-4C1
to exceed the 500 square foot maximum structure size for a temporary
use to allow a 7,056 square foot tent for a parking lot sale for Joe's
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 64 of 77
Sports, Outdoors and More by Joe's Sports, Outdoors and More - 3415
North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 18 is a Public Hearing VAR 07-013. I will open this Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Joe's Sports Outdoors and
More project. It's located on the northwest corner of Ustick and Eagle generally. It's
within the CentrePoint project. The application before you tonight is for a variance and
that variance is to the temporary -- it's -- I seem to have gotten tongue tied about a half
hour ago. I apologize. It restricts temporary structures to a maximum of 500 square
feet. Now, that is what your staff report says and at the time the applicant submitted the
application that was true. Last Tuesday it is now 700 square feet. So, I just wanted to
make that clarification, that it is slightly bigger. But the applicant is requesting approval
to erect a 7,000 square foot tent in the parking lot of Joe's Sports and this is for a
temporary sales event. The time period that the applicant is proposing would be setup
from July 12th to the 19th; sale July 20th through the 29th, and, then, tear down July
30th through August 3rd. The subject -- I'm sorry. We do have an illustrative elevation.
Oh. Here is the -- where it would be located and, then, the hatched area represents
kind of an enclosed area that they would fence off, so there wouldn't be any parking
there. And, then, the tent would be in the center of that. Here is an example of the tent.
Okay. We have received no written testimony since the staff report. The outstanding
issue before City Council is staff could not recommend findings for approval of the
variance and, as usual, I'll go through those three findings. The first one is the variance
shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. As
noted previously, temporary uses are allowed as an accessory use in the C-G zone.
However, the UDC restricts the size of those structures to a maximum of now 700
square feet. The applicant is requesting approval of a 7,000 square foot tent. Staff is
not overly concerned with the size of the tent, as the use proposed will not house
flammable materials. There are emergency exits and there is sufficient parking on the
site to accommodate the proposed use. However, staff finds that if the City Council
grants the requested variance, it will be a special privilege granted to the subject
applicant and, more particularly, that other temporary uses will ask for similar variances.
With regard to the finding that the variance relieves an undue hardship because of the
characteristics of the site, staff finds that there are no physical characteristics of the site
which requires the application to operate with a larger than allowed temporary structure
on the site. With regard to the third finding, the variance shall not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, and welfare, staff finds that allowing the temporary structure over
the allowed square footage would not be detrimental. So, we were able to make that
finding. If Council is inclined to approve the variance request, staff asks that you
provide direction on a couple of items. One, if you would like to see the standard
changed in the UDC -- as I mentioned previously, we recently changed it from 500
square feet to 700 square feet and the reason for that difference was because 700
square feet allowed you to bring like a job site trailer type onto it. They are 670 square
feet. So, the 700 accommodated that use. The second item that we'd ask that you give
us some direction on is under what circumstances you would be inclined to grant similar
Meridian City Council
July 17. 2007
Page 65 of 77
variances and with that we can just provide better information to future applicants. And,
again, that's if you are inclined to approve the variance request. With that I'll answer
any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: This is a general question that would apply not only here, but I have thought
about this in relation to like Home Depot and Lowe's and other companies that move
their retail stock out into the parking lot and take up parking spaces. When we require a
certain number of parking spaces per square foot of retail space and they move product
into the parking lot, what happens to the parking requirements?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when we received a request for a
temporary use, we do review the required parking -- number of required parking spaces.
Our number of required spaces is fairly low.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: But we do look at that.
De Weerd: Councilman Zaremba, did that answer your question?
Zaremba: I think it did. Thank you.
De Weerd: I will note for the record that I did receive an e-mail from Winston Moore on
this item, as did Councilman Bird, and so just for the record. Is the applicant here?
Long: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Jim Long, I'm the store
manager of Joe's Sports at 3415 North Eagle Road. Our tent sale has been a tradition
for the company for over 25 years. We would like to start the tradition here in Meridian
and continue it. We provide quality product in the tent at reduced prices to substantially
provide saving to the consumers in the Treasure Valley. I can assure you that we do
not have any explosives or ammo or anything of that nature in the tent during the sale. I
have personally met with Sonya from the planning department, Brent from the building
department, Mr. Silva at the fire department and have spoken with Harold at -- the
electrical inspector and have assured that I am complying with all their requests and
concerns with the tent. The tent structure is probably one of the more expensive ones
the company has provided for Joe's store, in concerns for safety of our customers and
our employees. It is structure tent, unlike the one that you see right there. It has a wind
tolerance of 75 miles an hour to provide safety in the Treasure Valley and some of our
summer thunderstorms and stuff. So, it will comply with a 75 mile an hour wind
tolerance. Our main concern is the safety of our customers and our employees and to
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 66 of 77
provide additional savings in merchandise for the consumers of the Treasure Valley.
And I stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Mr. Long, are you aware if the company has -- because there is so many
different locations, do they have any scientific studies that would show the conclusion
that you have talked about, wind resistance and some of the safety features of the type
of -- because it's such a large tent -- that confirms some of the data that you have
provided?
Long: I believe we provided that to the planning department from the tent manufacturer,
who is coming to erect the tent, has provided that information to the planning
department as far as the -- that information.
De Weerd: Okay. Further questions from Council?
Bird: I have none at this time.
De Weerd: Thank you. I have one other person signed up in favor. Jonathan Seal.
Seal: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council members. Jonathan Seal. W.H. Moore
Company, 1940 Bonito. I'll keep it fairly short. I think Mr. Long has stated it well. The
only other thing that I would add to it, if possible, I, obviously, would encourage you to
approve this. I think it's an excellent use. It's an opportunity to bring more people to the
shopping center to make it a more successful product for us, obviously. But I think also
what strikes me in this is that we are -- quite honestly -- and I mean this in due respect,
that we are even here in front of City Council on something like this. As it says in the
staff report, the exits are there, parking is there, they have no concern with it. And I
really believe that this should be something that you should allow staff to make
determinations in the future. This is not going to be the only tent sale in the City of
Meridian and I find it difficult that you restrict it down to 700 square feet and, otherwise,
someone has to go through basically a variance, which is, as you well know, is
neighborhood meetings and all the other stuff. So, I would encourage you to trust staff
to make the judgments and say is there no combustible materials, is it not going to put
the public at risk, is it going to be put up safely, at least to limits certainly greater than
700 square feet, which is not a great deal. Joe's -- and he didn't get into this -- was in a
real dilemma, they have their -- they have their trucks on their way right now and they
had to make their decision before this variance came up. But as you well know, the
timing it takes from the application to the hearing is fairly long, so they put themselves in
a very difficult position. But they had no choice. So, I think oftentimes if these things
are planned, the timing and the commitment they have to make puts them in a difficult
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 67 of 77
position like it does here. So, if you deny it tonight, obviously, we -- we have got to take
some pretty drastic actions out here and that's -- when I say we, also ourselves. So, I
hope you would and, again, I hope you would look at the fact that maybe allow staff, as
your professionals, to make the decisions on some of these things. I don't think
personally this should be something that should be taking your time. So, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony on this application? Any further
information from staff?
Canning: No, ma'am.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Zaremba: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, it was brought up a little bit and talked about -- either the
combustible -- and maybe Deputy Chief Niemeyer has a different perspective. The fact
of whether or not combustible material is in a tent is certainly relevant. The problem I
have from a legal perspective is trying to define what your target is. It's difficult to be
able to establish a target based on combustible versus noncombustible materials in
trying to establish an outdoor structure of this temporary nature and that's why our
current code doesn't define what's in it and what they are selling, but rather simply the
size of it. We had an original standard of 500 square feet. We moved that standard up
to 700 square feet, again, to try to keep these temporary structures limited in size. So,
they brought up combustible materials a couple of times, but I don't have a magic
crystal ball to figure out what's a better size for combustible materials. Again, I don't
know if Deputy Chief Niemeyer has a perspective, I don't know if Chief Anderson does.
Whatever you set that target at, I guarantee you the people that sell other products,
whether they be combustible or not, will, then, look at that as a target. If you want to
make it 7,000 square feet, recognize you will get requests until you change the code for
every single structure between 700 and 7,000 and I don't know that we can legally
distinguish very clearly as to which ones should be allowed at a thousand, two
thousand, three thousand, five thousand square feet, just based on whether or not they
have fireworks in them or firearms or weapons or ammunition or anything of those
things. I don't know that we are going to be able to establish that very clearly and I just
wanted that to be in front of you, since that's been brought up, that that is sufficient to
allow this, simply because there is not combustible materials. I don't think that's enough
from a legal standard for us to be able to establish something. Again, I don't know if
Deputy Chief Niemeyer has even a thought of that. I know that's not really his area he
deals with, but I just -- I'm not aware in our discussions with the fireworks ordinance that
there is a safe size temporary shelter or temporary structure just because it has
explosive materials in it.
Niemeyer: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Nary, I can probably speak to
that a little bit. I was highly educated today on this subject. When we look at this type
of issue, as far as combustibles go, there are many things that are combustible, whether
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 68 of 77
it be clothing or furniture or what have you. In the case of the fireworks, we looked at
that as a Classic C explosive and that was the difference that we made between a tent
of that nature and a tent of this nature as far as the contents of that. I understand what
you're saying, Mr. Nary, but as far as our explanation goes on, when we evaluate that,
a Class C explosive is certainly going to be different to us than bats and clothing.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I, too -- yeah, I have -- Winston Moore from W.H. Moore Company faxed me a --
I'm back in the old days. E-mail. I recieved an e-mail from him, so publicly you can
state that. But I -- and I realize that -- that everything is combustible. I mean there isn't
anything in this room, excluding those mirrors -- the mirror over there, that won't burn.
And it will bust because of the heat. But I know that legal's worried about the difference
between fireworks and a sale. Well, I think there is a lot of difference there. Fireworks
is an explosive that is sitting there ready to go off. And it's -- and I'm not taking anything
from staff. This is our fault and I say we -- four Councilmen on this UDC, we thought we
really had everything taken care of, but evidently we didn't. We do not have -- we
wouldn't have a circus in here. I can remember when tents were put up at the
speedway for circuses. Our Bronco Billy had a -- I don't know how many thousand
square foot tent put up and I realize that's before we decided that we had to, as
government, make all these stipulations, so that we could live to be 66 years old. You
know, tell us what was right and what was wrong. So, I don't see any problem. I think
it's like we said earlier, this is a business, they pay a lot of taxes to us, we keep, as
elected officials -- and I include myself the most -- we keep wanting more money in,
more revenue and stuff, but, then, we tie their hands. I mean, you know, we just -- just
pay us the revenue and we will -- you know, we don't get any part of that sales tax, that
sidewalk sale or that parking lot sale is going to produce. So, that's my soap box. And I
__ and I don't want anybody to get down on the staff, because they have got laws to
work by. The three people that are sitting here and Charlie when he's here, are the four
that can change it. They have to go by what it is. And I know she gets kicked in the
teeth all the time because of it and it's not fair. So, anyway, that's my soap box.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would support what Councilman Bird is saying. I was a member of the
process improvement group that helped write the UDC. When we were discussing the
size of temporary tents and so forth, the things that came up in the conversation were
Christmas tree lots and fireworks sales. I don't believe anybody mentioned this kind of
a sale, which I think we should be encouraging. It's an event for the city, as well as a
business for Joe's. What I would propose is that we have two different standards and I
would ask the fire department to be involved in establishing what those two different
standards are. If it's a general retail product that is not explosive or inclined to do some
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 69 of 77
serious danger and -- let's see, you mentioned Class C explosive as one item, but
maybe there is a list of items, and if any of those items are going to be in the tent, then,
the new 700 feet is still the limit. If those are not going to be in the tent -- and I don't
know whether you consider batteries too explosive. I don't know what we need to list.
But I would propose that there be two lists. That if it has those kind of items, 700 feet is
it. If it doesn't have those kind of items, then, we need to pick a different size and if it's
7,000 feet, that doesn't bother me, if it's well designed and there may need to be some
design criteria for it as well, that would be my suggestion that we have two different
standards.
De Weerd: Is there a reference, Mark, in the building code as to size?
Niemeyer: There is and it's somewhat general in that the class that this would fall under
is mercantile and so it gives us a maximum square footage that would be allowed under
the building code and this particular applicant falls under that.
De Weerd: And can that help in this in setting those side boards, as Councilman
Zaremba suggested, that this would be a retailer using their own parking lot, assuring
that parking was adequate with this additional square footage and that it's temporary in
nature. So, it has a window so you won't have a fruit stand showing up on one of our
big lots that is 7,000 square feet and it exists there all summer long. I guess, you know,
there are differences and right now the reason we have these variances is to consider
things that no one thought of when they were doing these ordinances. But you do have
certain findings you have to have for these. I guess we have a code rewrite need here
and it's being able to distinguish those characteristics to show the differences.
Canning: Madam Mayor, along that line can I query you all a little bit, because we have
been working on rewriting this whole section. It is deficient and we recognize that it is a
very difficult subject to accommodate all the different kinds of temporary uses and it has
been a very challenging task and Mr. Hood and Ms. Kane have been working on it. And
I'm not asking you to establish standards, but I'm just going to ask you a couple
questions and maybe if you could nod your head about whether or not it makes a
difference.
De Weerd: Nodding your head for the public record is not sufficient.
Canning: Oh, I'm sorry.
Bird: We will speak out.
Zaremba: Mine rattles when I nod. I think that will work.
Canning: This is not in specific relation to Joe's Sports, so -- does it matter to you that
the retailer is in their own parking lot, to use your own words, Mayor? Does that justify a
larger --
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 70 of 77
Zaremba: I would be in favor of that restriction.
Bird: I would definitely be in favor of that I think that's -- I think that's a reference. It's
their property. Or a shopping center -- I mean a center, you know, that I realize that
sometimes in these centers, Anna -- and you know one person owns the center and
he's got ten different stores or something in there. So, I believe that as long as the
owner and the other people, you know -- but we just need to clear something up that
you can make the decision, so it isn't up here. We have got your hand tied and you get
the black eye.
Canning: Joe, did you want to chime in? I'm sorry. President Borton, did you --
Borton: Sure. I'll chime in. It doesn't really matter to me to the extent that those are in
a tent is relevant as a means to an end. I mean the sole concern or the focus is the
safety of the citizens that are going to be shopping and utilizing that tent If it's a
location on or off the parcel that's close to the event, it doesn't really matter. What
matters most to me is which is the safer alternative for those that will be utilizing it It's
the same broad based concerns -- I think Mr. Seal's comments about removing the
temporary structure variance and putting it more in your court makes sense, so long as
we give you guidance. The guidance that I would provide are the type of things that
have been presented here as the public safety features, the accessible parking, the
multiple exits, some consideration without bright light rules about the products to be sold
in there, hours of operation.
De Weerd: The length of time.
Borton: Things like that Length of time. All of those are -- all fall under the safety net,
which I don't think you're ever going to get a checklist that clearly defines each and
every application in the future, but if we can give you some overriding principles and
give you the discretion, a thumbs up or thumbs down on an application by application
and if -- with those overriding safety concerns you deny a particular request, there is
always an appeal to Council and we have a variance now, so if there is anymore -- so,
that's a very long answer to your question.
Canning: No. I understood it, but if I might -- two more questions. Would it matter --
would Council be looking for different standards for fully developed properties, such as
the one you're seeing today versus undeveloped property?
De Weerd: I would.
Zaremba: Only that the parking be dust free and -- the same as in the current
temporary use.
Bird: I think Councilman Borton hit a good subject about -- we have to have a time limit
We have -- we have these -- you know, things that you can decide, but there -- yeah, I
mean you don't want to see something like that out in a parking lot for six months and I
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 71 of 77
don't think any business wants to. They are there to make money and to have a
sidewalk sale for six months doesn't make you money. It's a one time come in and get
out in two weeks deal, at the most. So, I think we just need to have some common
sense and untie your hands. Period.
Zaremba: I could see limiting it to 30 days, including setup and breakdown. This one
fits within that. They have two or three days for setup and, then, run the event and two
or three days to breakdown. That's all within less 30 days. I could see that as the basic
guideline.
De Weerd: I guess the reason I -- I suggested the improved site is because it's gone
through the scrutiny of Public Hearing and you -- generally they have already testified to
commercial uses and recognition that there is going to be additional traffic and those
kind of things. An unimproved lot that's not gone through those kind of public
participation and you have dust mitigation issues, then, you have enforcement issues --
it just gets very complicated and convoluted. So, I -- and that is -- that's kind of why I
said I definitely have an opinion on it, is because it has gone through a lot of public
testimony. They already recognize it as a retail site and I think those are distinguishing
characteristics for these kind of uses.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Madam Mayor, I don't disagree. I don't know if -- we need to give Mrs.
Canning some specific guidance -- if that is something that should be done now as part
of this application -- I mean it's kind of relevant. We could have the discussion, but I
don't think tonight we can tell you 30 days, 25 days, dust, no dust. But we need to do
that.
Canning: Sir, no, I wasn't looking for specific standards tonight. I was taking a -- I was
just riding the coat tails a little bit, so I could know -- we are working on this one and I
just had these questions that I haven't known how you would react to and it's hard to
move forward on it, so -- but I think I have got enough. I had one other one, but I'm not
going to ask it anymore, so I'm done.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- but it might I guess be helpful if the
Council is inclined to grant this request in some form -- and I know Councilmember
Borton said this wasn't important, but at least until we have a different code in place, if
this request is appurtenant to an existing business that's already there, from an
enforcement standpoint that is helpful, because many times a lot of these temporary
uses, whether they be orange stands or whatever, are not -- don't have anything to do
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 72 of 77
with the property. They may have consent to be there, but no one from the property
wants to take any responsibility for the actions of that business that's operating there.
So, if this Council's inclination is that type of extension of their business is different than
what most temporary sales are, then, this is -- you know, I mean the only thing truly, I
guess, that distinguishes this particular request than the extension of the garden area of
some our local vendors -- or local markets that do that and extend their garden shop out
to the parking lot through the summer, is the fact that there is a tent on top of this. So, if
it's an extension of their business and that's something that would help us distinguish it
from the random orange and strawberry sales, Christmas tree sales, whatever, that
would be helpful for staff and enforcement to deal with, if that's something you're
comfortable with.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Since you brought it up, I totally agree, because I think the comment that you --
and the concern that you raise are consistent with -- because there is an existing
commercial use in this context that allows those enforcement issues, the safety issues,
and the concerns that we have got to be more readily addressed and observed by an
occupied property. So, I agree with you.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I agree with that entire summary and what has been said. I
might wonder if we need to ask one more question. In this case we have the
representative of the property owner who has come forward and said this is okay with
them, but might we also want to add the condition that the business owners association
needs to approve this? I mean what if the guy next door thinks he's losing all his
parking spaces? I think there should be some cooperative agreement or maybe they
should all do their parking lot sales at the same time.
De Weerd: Well, unfortunately, right now it's not a consideration, but it should be
considered as we develop those recommendations.
Zaremba: As one of the list.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with just what you said. We are all -- there are a lot of good points being
thrown out right now that we need to keep in the back of our minds when we discuss
this and get it and we need to really not do it overnight, it needs to be sit down and
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 73 of 77
thought out by staff and by Council and Mayor, everybody else, so that we -- so that we
don't have -- and we have got a good guideline for our staff, so they don't have to get
kicked in the teeth every time something comes up.
De Weerd: Well-- and would appreciate user comment, too.
Bird: You bet.
De Weerd: We want to put it in perspective and put appropriate side boards on it.
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have already committed to
the chamber that we will work with them and the applicant just informed me that he's got
a whole stack of codes on temporary uses that he would be happy to make copies for
me.
De Weerd: Oh, yea. Okay. Any further questions from Council? Would the applicant
like to have any closing remarks? Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on No. 18, VAR 07-0013.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item
18. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve VAR 07-013 and to include applicant and staff comments.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Is that vague enough?
Bird: That's vague.
De Weerd: I guess in consideration of the distinguishing aspects that was part of the
discussion, if you can pull those out and fit them into the variance.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 74 of 77
Bird: Yeah.
De Weerd: Is that what your motion was?
Bird: That's what my motion meant. I wasn't going to sit here and listen to all of it.
De Weerd: And second agrees?
Zaremba: Yes.
De Weerd: Any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay.
Borton: No. And, Madam Mayor, if I may just -- just comment for what it's worth. It
goes back to my remarks to Mr. Seal's suggestion that the ultimate resolution of these
types of issues is to remove the temporary structure from the variance process. I'm not
so sure that there is anything unique about the site which requires a tent. My motion --
or my vote is not dispositive on what takes place, but I think going forward that's what
we need to do and put it back on staff.
De Weerd: So noted.
Borton: So noted.
Item 19:
Ordinance No. 07-1326 : AZ 07-005 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 1.46 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for the property
located at 1205 West Overland Road for Pfost Property by Thomas &
JoAnn Pfost -1205 West Overland Road:
Item 20:
Ordinance No. 07-1327 : RZ 07-007 Request for a Rezone of
0.19 of an acre from an I-L to an 0- T zone for the property located at 305
W. Broadway Avenue for Vanbraat Property by Maria Vanbragt - 305
West Broadway Avenue:
Item 21:
Ordinance No. 07-1328 : AZ 07-008 Request for Annexation
and zoning of 3.32 acres from R1 to C-G zone for Zamzow's Overland by
JR LLC - 3620 and 3650 East Overland Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Motion passed. And I will go ahead and move to Items 19, 20, 21,
Ordinances No. 07-1326, 07-1327, and 07-1328 and request Mr. Berg to, please, read
these three ordinances by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 07-1326, an
ordinance for annexation of a parcel of land being located in the northwest quarter of
the northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 75 of 77
Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and
territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate
limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and
determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-2 in the
Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada
County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as
required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a
waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance No. 07-1327, an ordinance finding that Maria Vanbragt, the owner of
certain real property has made a written request for rezone classification for real
property being a portion of Block 6 of Westview Addition to Meridian as shown on Book
Six of the plat on page 68, records of Ada County, Idaho, and being located in the north
one half of the southeast one quarter of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West of
Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A of
this ordinance and rezoning certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho,
and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian and rezoning the land use zoning
classification of said lands from I-L to OT in the Meridian City Code, providing that
copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County
recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a
summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and
providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance No. 07-1328, an ordinance for annexation of a parcel of land being
located in the southeast one quarter of the southwest one quarter of Section 16,
Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in
Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho,
and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested
by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification
of said lands from R-1 to C-G and Service Commercial District in the Meridian City
Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County
assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required
by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the
reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Wow. You have heard these three ordinances read by title only. Is there
anyone who would like to hear them read in their entirety? Seeing none, I would
entertain a motion to approve these ordinances.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Ordinance No. 07-1326, 07-1327, and 07-1328, with
suspension of rules.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 76 of 77
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinances 19, 20, and 21. If
there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 22:
Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67..2345(1) )(a) - (to consider
hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, not to
include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective
office), (b) - (to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to
hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee,
staff member or individual agent, or public school student),(c) - (to
conduct deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an
interest in real property, which is not owned by a public agency, & (f) - (to
consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation):
De Weerd: Okay. Item 21 is Executive Session per Idaho State Code. I would
entertain a motion to adjourn into Executive Session.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1 )(a),
(1 )(b), (1 )(c) and (1 )(f). Man, we are covering everything. How come we don't have (d).
Zaremba: I'll second that.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session. Mr. Berg,
will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: Council, do I have a motion to come out of the Executive Session?
Bird: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 77 of 77
De Weerd: All those in favor.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
De Weerd: And motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor.
MOTION CARRIED. THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:14 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PR
~
ff / 117 tJ7
DATE APPROVED