HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 08-14Meridian City Council Meeting August 14, 2007
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:45 P.M., Tuesday,
August 14, 2007, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. (Delayed due to Pre-Council)
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Joe Borton, Charlie Rountree,
and David Zaremba.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg., Anna Canning, Kyle Radek, Keith Watts, Joe Silva,
Bill Musser, Bob Stowe, Steve Siddoway, Elroy Huff and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call..
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: I will go ahead and call this meeting to order. We appreciate your patience.
It is Tuesday, August 14th. It is -- I don't have my classes on. I think it's 7:45. And we
will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is our pledge of allegiance and I would like to ask Officer
Scheihing to, please, lead us in the pledge tonight. If you will all rise.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
De Weerd: Officer Scheihing, one of the traditions of leading us in the pledge is to
receive a City of Meridian pin. So, I would like to present that to you tonight.
Rountree: Or candy.
Bird: I don't have any candy.
De Weerd: And the candy part is Councilman Bird's job.
Bird: He doesn't give me anymore.
Item 3: Community Invocation by Bill Nary:
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor
Russ McCrea with Living Grace Community Fellowship. Is the pastor here? He isn't.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 2 of 99
So, in his stead we will ask our City Attorney Bill Nary to, please, lead us. If you will all
join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of
reflection.
Nary: Lord, we ask for your blessings upon our city tonight and our leaders as they
weigh the great decisions that come before them and the difficulties of weighing all the
different concerns and issues that be in front of them. God, we ask for these blessings
upon our city and we are truly grateful to all the many people and the citizens that come
to share their time and share their information and share their concerns with the city, the
Mayor, and the Council, and we ask these things in your name, amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd.: Thank you. Item No. 4 is Adoption of the Agenda.
Bird.: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the agenda we will have resolution 07-573, Item D on the Consent. Item K is
07-574. And item Z is 07-575 for the resolution. We got -- in our regular agenda we
have got ordinance number 07-1330, which is Item 20. 21 is 07-1331. 22 is 07-133.
23 is 07-1333. And 24 is 07-1334. And also Item 17 has been asked to be withdrawn
by staff. That's the variance 07-015. And with that I move we approve the revised
agenda.
Rountree: Second.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. This is not a discussion type of a motion.
Zaremba: I need to ask for a couple of items to be moved off of the Consent Agenda.
Bird.: We do that when we do the Consent coming up.
De Weerd.: Yes.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay.
De Weerd: We are doing adoption of the agenda. All those in favor of the motion
please say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 3 of 99
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes for July 17, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of July 10, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting:
C. Approve Minutes of July 24, 2007 City Council Special Meeting:
D. Tabled from July 3, 2007: Resolution No.
Adoption of Records Retention Schedule:
07-573
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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-
O zone for Meadowlake Village North by Touchmark of the
Treasure Valley, LLC -Southeast Corner of Franklin Road and
Touchmark Way:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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-O zone for Meadowlake Village North by Touchmark of the
Treasure Valley, LLC -Southeast Corner of Franklin Road and
Touchmark Way:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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
Sports, Outdoors and More by Joe's Sports, Outdoors and More
- 3415 North Eagle Road:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
07-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a
bar, the Busted Shovel, in the O-T zone for the Busted Shovel by
William Kosterman - 704 Main Street:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 07-
006 Request for a Rezone of 4.38 acres from an R-8 to an R-15
zone for Bellabrook by J.E. Development, LLC - 300 South
Locust Grove Road.:
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 4 of 99
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
07-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for multi-
family residential use in a proposed R-15 zone for Bellabrook by
J.E. Development, LLC - 300 South Locust Grove Road:
K. Resolution No. 07-574 VAC 07-008 Request for a
Vacation of the City of Meridian utility easement common to Lots 1,
2 & 3, Block 1 of the Fallon Greens Subdivision for Hampton Inn
and Suites by Tealey Land Surveying - 815 & 875 South Allen
Street and 2870 East Freeway:
L. SHP 07-005 Request for a Short Plat to create 2 office /
educational building lots on 33.315 acres in a C-G zone for Joint
School District No. 2 by Joint School District No. 2 - 1303 East
Central Drive:
M. ~reement for Professional Services for Human Resources
Consulting with BDPA, Inc.
N. Development Agreement: AZ 07-004 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 2.48 acres from RUT to an L-O zone for Locust
Grove Professional Office Building by Ruby/Edwards:
Architecture + Design - 1695 South Locust Grove Road.:
O. Development Agreement: AZ 06-043 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R-R to R-8 zone for Spurwinq
Patio Homes Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership -
Northeast Corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Chinden
Boulevard and west of North Spurwing Way:
P. Addendum to Development Agreement: AZ 06-014 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 20.16 acres from RUT (Ada County) to
R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) zones for Cabella Creek
Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC -northeast corner of East
Victory Road and South Mesa Way:
Q. Water Main Easement Agreement No. 1 for Gramercy
Subdivision No. 1 (Lots 4-5, Blk 1) by Tuscany Development:
R. Water Main Easement Agreement No. 2 for Gramercy
Subdivision No. 1 (Lots 4-5, Blk 2) by Tuscany Development:
S. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement for Retail Building B
(CentrePointe Subdivision) by Blue Marlin Investments.:
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 5 of 99
T. Approve New Beer and Wine Licenses for Sakana Sushi SZ
Steak House by Mina Xina, Inc. at 1718 S. Eagle Road:
U. Approve Standard Form of Agreement with H2 Excavation,
LLC for the Construction of the North Black Cat Pressure
Sewer for $398,376.00:
V. Public Works Budget Amendment. for the Black Cat Trunk Line
Item Number 96162 in the Amount of $3,200,000 for FY 2007:
W. Public Works Budget Amendment for Latecomers Expense
Line Item Number 80150 in the Amount of $3,700,000 for FY
2007:
X. Approve Contract for North Black Cat Trunk and Lift Station
Authorization for Additional Services No. 3 with JUB
Engineers, Inc. for $170,971.00:
Y. Approve New Beer and Liquor Licenses for Harry's Meridian
Grill by Steve Youngerman at 2032 E. Overland Road, Ste.
125.:
Z. Resolution No. 07-575 :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
AA. Public Works Budget Amendment for an additional $310,000
for the Sewer Portion of Broadway Water and Sewer
Improvements:
BB. Public Works Change Order No. 1 for the McMillan Water Line
- Wild Goose to Palatine Proiect (Construction) with Star
Construction, LLC for $3,436.21:
CC. Mayor's Budget Amendment for State of the City Fund
Expense:
De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda. Mr. Zaremba?
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 6 of 99
Zaremba: I have a question about Item H, Item M, and Item N.
those will be short questions, but I would like to ask that they be
Consent Agenda and placed under Item 7, H, M, and N.
Bird: Which ones? H, M, and N?
Rountree: M and N.
Zaremba: Howard, Mary, and Nancy.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Hopefully, each of
moved off of the
Bird: On the Consent Agenda, as stated earlier, Item D is resolution number 07-573.
Item H has been asked to be removed to the regular agenda and will be Item 7-H. Item
N has been asked to be removed to the regular item and will be 7-M. Item N has been
asked to be moved to the regular agenda, which will be 7-N. And also Item Z is a
resolution number 07-575. I move we approve the Consent -- the revised Consent
Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Zaremba: Second.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as changed.
If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Department Reports:
A. Police Department:
1. Recognize retired Police Officers:
De Weerd: Council, under Department Reports tonight we will begin our Department
Reports with Chief Musser.
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm here this evening to present two
of our officers who are retiring this week from the Meridian Police Department. They
have served a number of years with the Meridian Police Department, both of them
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 7 of 99
having distinguished careers over time, and at this time I would like to introduce them to
you. I'll start with Sergeant Dwight Hosford, who started with me 26 years ago on the
department. We both came on the reserves approximately the same time and I ended
up coming on full time about a year before he did, which he's 23 years full time service
with the City of Meridian, but a total of 26 altogether. So, if you would come on up,
Sergeant Hosford. And our second officer that we have is Officer Gary Scheihing, one
of our K-9 officers, has been with the department for approximately nine years. But
Gary has a very distinguished career of 33 years in law enforcement, 13 of which were
served as the chief of police in Emmett prior to coming to Meridian where he decided he
wanted to tackle his life long love of handling and training K-9s and he's done that very
admirably for this department, in addition to also being one of our leads on getting our
K-9 training facility put up and in partnership with the community. So, Gary, if you would
come up as well.
De Weerd: Council, I would also like to take a moment to recognize these two young
gentlemen that will be retiring from our ranks and to give you some information about
them. I know that these are not unfamiliar faces to you, but I do believe that what they
have added to our department are worth noting and so I do have something I'd like to
share with you. Sergeant Dwight Hosford started his career with fhe Meridian Police
.Department in August of 1981 when he came to the department as a reserve officer.
Dwight served as a reserve until July of 1984, when he was hired as a full-time officer.
During his career Dwight worked in parole -- parole. I always do that. But it's kind of
the same, isn't it? Patrol, investigations, and as a school resource officer for Meridian
High School, before being promoted to sergeant in 1998. I know that he has very fond
memories of his time spent at the high school and certainly was a familiar face and
beloved. I know that he has -- since that time he has served as a supervisor for patrol,
the school resource officer program, and our traffic team. In addition he has
coordinated law enforcement activities for parades and other special events in town.
Dwight was awarded a police department unit citation for his help in the Thorngren
homicide investigation in 2003. With 26 years of service to the people of Meridian,
Dwight, we'd like to thank you for that service and for really emphasizing -- everyone
knows that we have an emotional Mayor, so I'm trying to buck it up. But we would like
to thank you for really putting community behind community policing. You really are --
you really symbolize that and we appreciate all your efforts on behalf of the city, the
youth, and the community, the City Council, we thank you for your years of service.
Officer Gary Scheihing started with the Payette County Sheriffs Office in 1974. In 1981
he went to work for the Emmett police department. Gary was appointed chief of police
in Emmett where he served with distinction for 13 years. In 1998 Gary came to work for
the Meridian Police Department. During his time here he was instrumental -- and I think
instrumental is probably not even the appropriate word. It was his passion, his vision,
and his love for our K-9 program that the K-9 training center was up and running.
Without this involvement we would not be where we are today with that. And this center
is recognized throughout the state as one of the very finest. After a career that has
served the state of Idaho for 33 years and the citizens of Meridian for nine years, it is an
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 8 of 99
honor to wish you all the best and to say thank you for the service to our community, for
leaving a mark, certainly a legacy. We appreciate the time and commitment that you
have given to our police department. With that said I do have some plaques I would like
to share with you. Well, it's very rare to find you speechless. Thank you for joining us
here tonight.
B. Fire Department:
1. Recognize retired Firemen:
De Weerd: Our next item is our fire department and if Deputy Chief Silva can introduce
this item.
Silva: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm very honored to be here on
behalf of the Meridian Fire Department representing the fire chief this evening. I'm very
honored to be here to share with you the retirement of Captain Sam McEvoy, who has
served us well for 14 years and has assisted us through the process from transitioning
from a department predominately of part-time firefighters and off-duty staff to a
department today that's predominately full-time staff and some part-time firefighters.
One of the things we oftentimes talk about is the importance of family and we want to
just extend our thanks to his wife and his family for the years that he's come to our
assistance in carrying out the mission of the Meridian Fire Department over the past 14
years. So, with that, Mayor, I (hank you very much for allowing us to honor Sam this
evening.
De Weerd: Why don't we have Sam come on up. Sam, we appreciate you being here
tonight and Sam is already retired and we haven't seen him around, but I do have some
information to share with you on Captain Sam and, you know, most of our community
know him as Fireman Sam. Sam has always been that fireman present in our tours to
young children and he always gives willingly in that duty and, Fireman Sam, we
appreciate what you have done. He began his career in November of 1987 as a
volunteer firefighter. Six years later in 1993 he was hired as a full-time firefighter, giving
him a combined total of 20 years of service to our department. Sam was honored with a
rookie of the year in 1987 and the firefighter of the year in 1989 by the Meridian Fire
Department. In addition, Sam has given back to the community serving as chairman for
the Meridian Fire Department MDA Fill the Boot Fundraiser for ten years and he has
taken this above and beyond. He is very competitive. I don't know how many of you
knew that, but Sam always wanted to make sure that Meridian was the best and that
they always achieve their goals. He has also been a fire prevention educator for the
Meridian Fire Department for five years and served as a community CPR instructor with
the American Heart Association. Sam, thank you for your 20 years of service to our
community and, again, like officer -- or Sergeant Hosford, you do put community within
the walls of the city and I'd like to thank you and recognize you for everything you have
done in the fire department and this community. He's probably dreading the hug.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 9 of 99
Bird: Oh, heaven's no.
De Weerd: Thank you, Sam.
Rountree: Thanks, Sam.
C. Mayor's Office:
1. Follow Up on Pine Street School House Request from
July 24, 2007:
De Weerd: Now, back to business. Item 6-C under the Mayor's office. We do have --
the first item regarding the Pine Street school house, we had asked Councilman Bird if
he would get together with some of the personnel in the school district to take a look at
the list of proposals in moving the school house and bring back a recommendation to
Council on what the amount should be that we are looking at funding. So, Councilman
Bird., I'll turn this over to you.
Bird.: Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. After talking to Wayne Hanners and Dr.
Linda Clark, this proposal was from back in April and they were just trying to get an idea
of what it would cost to have that school moved and set up over on -- well, it's, actually,
919 -- the house at 919 West 1st is the actual house that is going out, it's called the
west wing. As you know, they had -- Beniton had given a price of 65,248 dollars and
what they, basically, want is they are donating the land and they have got the actual
moving of the Pine school taken care of, but they need the -- they thought about moving
the west wing building out, but it's completely sided with asbestos siding, so it has to be
destroyed and go down and you need to put in a new foundation, you need to do all that
stuff. My recommendation to the Council in serving on the 1993 centennial commission
that got this Pine school going, I think we need to take care of it, but I -- my
recommendation is that I get Mr. Watts and myself and maybe another contractor or
something and go over there and see what it would really cost to do this and at that time
see if there is anybody within the city that would like to, but I believe the school district,
with the moving of the building and the furnishing of the ground, are definitely doing
their share and I think that as a city that school is a very important part of our history of
our city and we need to continue to -- I think we can get it done for a lot less than this,
but I would recommend that we can get it done within by -- if it would be okay with you
guys, to have a report back the first meeting in September with some definite prices.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a question for Councilman Bird. What -- what are the
areas we are looking at costs?
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 10 of 99
Bird: What are the areas?
Rountree: Yeah.
Bird;: Well., you're looking at -- you know, you got to disconnect the utilities. You got to
demo the building. You got the asbestos abatement, which is your most expensive part
of it and it is full of asbestos. Then, you have to put in a new foundation, they will move
the school over and.., then, you have to wire it -- rewire it, get the handicapped ramp and
handrails and get the playground equipment all put back in and get it ready to go again,
get the grass planted., and, as you know if you have been by there, the ground is just
bare ground, the building is bare and it's -- so, you'd, basically, be doing everything
other than the moving and buying of the land and I think that -- I think there is a way --
there is a lot of it we could probably work out with donations in kind, service, and stuff
like that. But if we could have a chance for twa weeks get that done, so that we can get
it moved.., because the school district is pushing pretty hard to get that property sold and
rightfully so. So, that's my recommendation. I don't -- I don't think we wil! even come
close to this figure, but you never know.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird., for looking into that and bringing something back to
Council. Mr. Nary, I guess in looking at our agreement with the school district and in
maintaining -- and I agree with Mr. Bird that this was a centennial project and one that
we need to continue that tradition of the significance and importance of the school
building in our community, but I guess my question is do we need to, then, draft up a
new agreement and -- that's more reflective of the new site once it is relocated and how
that partnership would continue?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you recall we had this earlier
discussion about this sort hand shake agreement that we had back in the early '90s with
the school district, so I would concur that once we do move into the new site, if the
intent of both the school district and the city is to maintain it -- I guess a similar
arrangement of the routine exterior maintenance being done by the city and maybe the
internal maintenance being done by the school or however that's done, that we
formalize that agreement in a -- I guess a more current agreement. So, I think that
would make some sense. I don't think you need it to move it, if you're going to hire
somebody with the consent of the school district, so you don't necessarily need an
agreement. But for long term maintenance and continuity of that facility it makes sense
that we have a more formalized agreement than what existed previously.
De Weerd: Council, any other questions for Councilman Bird?
Rountree: No, I have none.
Bird: What's you're direction., ma'am?
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 11 of 99
De Weerd: We would appreciate -- I think we are all very interested in being a lead in
this and having you and Mr. Watts look at this and see maybe how we can make it more
affordable, but certainly the commitment is there to be a full partner here.
Bird: I agree.. And I think that Mr. Nary is a hundred percent right, once we get it set
down, then, we set the rules aside, so that -- and I don't see as we would ever have to
move it again, but -- and, actually, this is really a nice location. It's a nice big lot and the
school district is giving up quite a bit of money in land -- you know, just in land. So, we
will do that and we will report back to you the first meeting in September.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Sound good?
Bird: No, they don't have a time table, I just made this time table myself.
2. Introduce Interim Parks Director
De Weerd: Well, I'm sure they are anxious to have it done. Thank you. Item No. 2. It's
my pleasure to introduce to you our interim parks director. He is no stranger to any of
us, as he was a planner, with a huge passion for pathways, for parks, for open space
and he's going to lend us his time -- not lend us, but he is willing to dedicate his time to
be a part -- interimly of this parks department to help lead and help us until we fill a
permanent position. So, I would like to introduce you to our interim director Mr. Steve
Siddoway.
Siddoway: I will be brief. But I just want to say that it's an honor to stand before you in
this roll. It's something that's always been a passion of mine and as I have been getting
a jump start on things in the last week or two, have been meeting with staff and a lot of
good people there and a lot of -- getting a lot of good feedback on ideas to make it even
better. I believe parks are a tremendous asset to this community in general, not only for
their recreational value to the citizens of Meridian, but a great park system goes a long
way in attracting economic development and just all kinds of benefits to the city and
hope to be able to communicate some of that for the -- during the time that I sit in that
chair. But, again, thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to working with you.
D. Parks Department:
1. Budget Amendment and Change Orders for MYB:
De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. We look forward to working with you, too. And I see
since you're already on our agenda, we will be hearing from you like this next item.
Council, did you have anything for Steve before we move into the parks department
report?
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 12 of 99
Bird: No, I don't.
.Rountree: No, not yet.
Bird.: Welcome back.
De Weerd.: Okay.
Siddoway: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Siddoway: Does everyone have a copy of the budget amendment request?
Bird: Not to my knowledge.
Siddoway: I have copies. The Meridian Youth Baseball Complex is a facility that I
believe all of you are familiar with and aware of. There was a dedication of it recently
on July 29th and many of you attended. It's a wonderful new facility over in Settler's
Park. It is in the process of being finished currently and as I've been looking into the
project and the budget and meeting with Mr. Watts, what I found was a two million
dollar project with no -- with zero contingency. And., typically, on a project of this size
you would have a five or -- five to ten percent contingency and we have -- what's before
you tonight is an appropriations request for a total amount of 487,000 dollars. Those
amounts, if you look in the box over to the right, they are spelled out there. We do -- the
city is not responsible for that entire amount. The Meridian Youth Baseball has
committed 315,000 dollars of that amount to the city. We have received a check just
today from Meridian Youth Baseball for 225,000 dollars, which is the 315, minus the
90,000 dollars which they have -- there was an agreement to move forward -- advance
construct some of the phase two improvements in the park, including the restrooms, the
clubhouse concessions, and some electrical work, that was not scheduled to be done
for several years. So, part of the reason for this budget amendment is because we are
advanced constructing some of those improvements, about 100,000 dollars worth. You
can see over on the right-hand side the net effect to the budget of the city is 171,452..22
and of that amount about a hundred thousand dollars is due to the -- adding the phase
two improvements. We have got a small portion, about 8,000, that I have some
questions about and we are looking into some potential offset credits for that amount.
But what we are bringing to you tonight is because these expenses are -- either have
been incurred or are being incurred in this fiscal year, we need to have that
appropriations request taken care of now before the end of the -- the fiscal year. So,
what we are asking for tonight is approval of this appropriations request. I have met
with the finance director and the funds are there. This will allow us to complete the
Meridian Youth Baseball Complex and keep it moving forward ahead of schedule, with
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 13 of 99
the phase two improvements and as we work through the details and possible credits
we can return and reconcile those details with you also. I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yes. Steve, tell me on change orders, 64,686.96 for benches and cables and
trash cans, is that the benches in the dugouts or -- I mean are they gold inlayed or --
Siddoway: No. It is -- about half of that, Mr. Bird., is in change orders, including
redesign and installation of the parking lot drainage bed. I believe that was already
previously approved --
Bird: So, it's not those three items?
Siddoway: No.
Bird: Okay.
Siddoway: There is a portion that is in typical park amenities that are needed to finish
out the park, including those things, but, no, there is a list of change orders that includes
things like --
Bird: Well, when it just lists those three as change orders, I'm going just a second.
Siddoway: And I agree.
Bird: There is not -- and why did -- why did we have to redesign the drainage in the
parking lot? The topo didn't change.
Siddoway: It had to do with the ground water. If you'd like the details I can call Elroy
up, he was involved with it then, but there were some test pits out on site that had
already been tested a couple years prior. They used the information from those prior
tests to design the original drainage beds. When they went out to begin construction
they found the level of the ground water to be higher and they had to go into a redesign.
Bird: Who had determined the ground water level., the engineers that engineered the
parking lot or --
Siddoway: I'll have to turn that question over to Elroy.
Bird.: -- or us or somebody else?
Huff: Mr. Bird, Members of the Council, a year and a half or so prior to that we had
opened some test pits on that site, let those sit and determined the ground water.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 14 of 99
When we went into design on that project and got further into that, I was asked by The
Land Group if we wanted to do another survey of that. It's my choice to say no, I felt like
the data that we had taken. ourselves was good enough to be provided. I didn't have
any idea that the ground water would have been that much different. We couldn't get
the one foot separation. The only way to get that was to redesign it and build it
differently to push -- make the water when it's in the drainage pit go a different way so it
would gradually seep in and that was my decision.
Bird.: Thank you, Elroy. So, what we are -- Steve, is we need 487,000 dollars and we
might get 8,000 back?
Siddoway: Well, plus the 315. It's the -- it's 315 minus the 90.
Bird.: So, in other words, your change order, then, is only --
Siddoway: The 170 --
Bird: Was only 100 -- if we are getting 315 back is only 172,000.
Siddoway: That's correct, sir. But since those -- since those costs are incurred by the
city, we need spending authority for that amount and, then, we will' be reimbursed as
well.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Steve., does the other 90 come at the completion of phase two? You indicated
you had 225,000 paid.. Where does the other 90 get reimbursed? Or when I guess?
Or am I reading that wrong?
Siddoway: The --one second.. I need to refer --
De Weerd.: The net effect is the 171,452.22. The amount that we were to be
reimbursed by Meridian Youth Baseball was first offset by the amount that we owed to
the phase two additions of 90,000 dollars.
Borton: Oh. Okay.
De Weerd: So, the net effect is the 171 and with realization that we had all phase two
additions at very minimal cost -- and we will come back once -- staff is going to sit down
with McAlvain Construction and start calculating the donated value that also was
received.. You have seen the cash donations in the 315,000, but what you don't see is
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 15 of 99
all of the in-kind and we will. bring that back at a later date. Right now finance needed
this to wrap up things for the budget that we need to get approval on, so --
Siddoway: And that's right. If the amount's reduced from 315 to 225, we should not
have to pay out as a city the 90. Meridian Youth Baseball should cover that as the rest
of their 315.
Borton: Thanks.
Watts: Council Members, the -- I believe the 90 has already been incurred by Meridian
Youth Baseball. That work has been done and paid already, so we have already
received the benefit from that.
De Weerd: Any other questions. from Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: It's not really a question, it's just a comment. As was said earlier, many of us
have seen the complex and even watched as it progressed. It has already turned out to
be a benefit to Meridian and as we learned earlier we are excited that the Meridian team
actually initiated it by winning the first contest there and -- but that just proves what the
current and future benefit will be to this entire -- from this entire complex to the City of
Meridian and my feeling is its value is well beyond what we are being asked to spend
here.
De Weerd: Thank you. Anything else, Council? I will need a motion approving this
amendment.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we approve the budget amendment and change orders for
Meridian Youth Baseball Complex.
Bird: What amount?
Zaremba: For an amount not to exceed 487,000 dollars.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page T6 of 99
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the amendment in front of you
with the caveat that it was offset with the 315,000 in revenue from MYB, with a net
effect of 171,452.22. Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRFED: ALL AYES.
E. City Council President:
1. Meeting Format Discussion
De Weerd: Thank you, Council. Item E is City Council President on our meeting format
discussion.
Borton: Thank you, Madam Member -- Madam Member? Madam Mayor, Members of
the Council -- mumble mumble. It's not necessarily one for discussion right now, but I
want to throw it out -- an idea that we will bring back to discuss, maybe at the end of the
month, because I want everyone to get a chance to think about it, and that is -- and
today's a great example. It's the idea of making the fourth Tuesday of every month --
and it might be reverting back to the way some things might have been done in the past
-- making the fourth Tuesday of every month sort of like one big Pre-Council. V1/e are
more often than not, three to four times a month, we are doing these 6:00 o'clock or
5:30 pre-Councils and at least for me I had some concern and our city clerk actually
sparked the idea. You don't have a chance to kind of digest and ruminate some of the
broader policy topics that come up in some of our pre-Council discussions. So, the idea
would be to change our formats to have that fourth Tuesday be where those pre-Council
slash workshop discussions are had. There is really nothing more specific to the idea
than that, other than it might give us a chance, one, to be consistent in how we start our
meetings. Today, again, a great example, so the public knows when a 7:00 o'clock
meeting starts at 7:00 o'clock and it also gives us a greater chance and more flexibility
to dig into issues that might come up in some of these Pre-Council topics which are
more and more frequent. So, that was the idea. There is a delay cost to developers
and applicants of a week to the extent we wouldn't be completing city business on that
fourth Tuesday. The cost benefit I think might help Council -- at least me make some
better decisions in the big picture and might also be beneficial to the department
directors who can get some more consistent and clear guidance from all of us. If it
doesn't work, then, we can switch back, but that was the idea that everyone needs to
chew on and tell me if it makes sense or not and we can bring it up at the end of the
month.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 17 of 99
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a comment, just for thinking purposes. Might add to that
concept that, you know, we are -- on any one evening, any one Tuesday night, we don't
necessarily know what the outcome of the public involvement is going to be, but
occasionally we do know that there is going to be issues that have very strong opinions
on both sides and we usually have an opportunity to hear those for several hours and,
then, are given 15 minutes to make a decision. I would like to consider that if we are
going to do a workshop that part of that workshop be an opportunity to work through
some of those tough issues with the folks that are closely involved with it, the public, as
opposed to a room full of people that might not even be interested in it, and spend more
time in the decision making process on some of those, as opposed to being put in a
position where you're making a quick decision based on a lot of information that at 1:00
o'clock in the morning sometimes just is probably not the best way to do things. So, just
add that thought to something that might be added to those meetings.
Borton: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: Members of the Council, President Gorton. I don't know if -- I don't know how
-- historically how it was divvied up and perhaps the clerk could help me, but I was only
wondering if instead of the fourth Tuesday, if it were the second Tuesday, in that if it's
the fourth Tuesday and, then, you have a fifth Tuesday, then, you're in a situation like
we are in tonight where we are catching up for three weeks, which makes it a long
agenda.
De Weerd: Actually, if I remember correctly, Mr. Berg, it was the second Tuesday that
we had a workshop.
Bird: No.
De Weerd: No? It was the fourth?
Bird: We only met the first and third.
Rountree: The first and third.
Bird.: The second we took off and the fourth one we had our workshop. And we didn't
take nights -- we didn't take -- we didn't deviate from the first and third. If we did -- if we
had to take the first off we -- or the third, we made it up the second. And, then, we went
to three nights -- three meetings a month, with the workshop on the fourth and, then, the
other -- the only thing I caution is I think -- I think we are okay at this time, because our
projects and our applications are back in the early '90s in volume right now, they are not
Meridian City Council
August t4, 2007
Page 18 of 99
like they were two years ago. If they go back like that -- I don't know about the rest of
the Council, but at 12:00 o'clock at night -- I don't have the sharpest brain to start with
and it gets a lot duller at that time and I've spent -- I've spent probably more time here,
other than maybe Mr. Rountree, until to 2:00 or 3.:00 o'clock in the mornings and I'm
telling you it's not good for the public and it's not good for the Council. You don't make
good decisions. So, I'm for looking at it at this time. I think it's probably a pretty good
time to do it, because of the volume, and see if we can't do something. I like the
workshops. We can -- as a Council there is lots of things that we need to do in
workshops. We -- we have let policies and stuff slip because we haven't had time to do
it or the time that we took to do it and that's something that we always worked out in the
workshops. So, I'm with Mr. President, I agree with you wholeheartedly and I think we
need to have a discussion at full and see what we can do.
De Weerd: Well, since three of us have sat on planning and zoning -- oh, four of us.
Mr. Nary, Mr. Rountree, Mr. Zaremba and I. You don't even know how late things can
go until you're on planning and zoning. So, Mr. Borton, what are the next steps? Do
you -- I believe that this is by resolution or is it by ordinance?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the current ordinance -- if you're not
changing the meeting date or time, the current ordinance is sufficient. If you want to
either add a specific regular meeting -- and Iknow -- again, you didn't want to fully
discuss this tonight -- currently when we have a fifth Tuesday we don't normally meet.
That might be an opportunity for you to consider whether to have a meeting at. a
different time, whether to have it in the daytime and allow other folks that maybe don't
get down here at night unless there is a specific topic, to see what other business you
have. Not to have our hearings, necessarily, but to have, again, some of the
discussions you're talking about, whether it's department reports or workshop topics and
things like that. That might be an opportunity to do something like that. If you wanted
to, then, we would need to amend the ordinance, if you were going to regularly meet on
a certain date. But right now your ordinance is sufficient, if all you were doing was
changing the subject of the meetings, then, the ordinance is fine, so --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: The latter was what was intended by the suggestion is only change the
substance of the meetings, not the times and dates. So, I don't think there is any action
at this point, other than to let everyone sort of think about how it might work, comments
like Mrs. Canning's on making it on a second versus the fourth. Things like that I want
us to have a chance to chew on and I might bring it up again at the end of August and
say what does everybody think. And maybe circulate a proposal before then and
discuss that. But nothing for tonight.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 19 of 99
Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
07-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a
bar, the Busted Shovel, in the O-T zone for the Busted Shovel by
William Kosterman - 704 Main Street:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 7. We did have items removed from the Consent Agenda.
So, I'll turn this over to Councilman Zaremba on 7-H.
Zaremba: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Item H is a CUP 07-004 relating to Busted
Shovel and it is our approval of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for
approval. Since we had a heavy discussion and one of the items that was important
was that they remove their sidewalk presence, I'm happy to say that in driving by it they
actually have done that, but I was checking this particular item to make sure that the
CUP facts and findings did say that and I don't have any findings in this, so --
Bird: Get on your computer.
Zaremba: Uh?
Bird: It's on your computer.
Zaremba: When I -- when I bring it up nothing happens. Oops, I just lost the -- it's
blank.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, I looked at
that when you brought it up and there should have been findings -- and, actually, I
thought they were transmitted, but I could be mistaken, because there should be
findings with the appeal findings, because of that specific requirement that was put into
the CU. So, what you should have in front of you is appeal findings and a CUP with
those modified conditions and somehow that either didn't get transmitted -- I know it was
completed, because I did review it and somehow it didn't get transmitted. So, I would
simply ask that you vacate Item H tonight and, then, we will put that on next week and
have both of those so it's clear. Just to clarify for the record, those -- the chairs have
been removed, there is no license agreement that they were able to secure, but
separate and apart from that, it does need to be included in their CU requirements for
them being a bar, they are required to have a CU and the Council's direction was that
they would not be allowed to have outside seating regardless of whether they had a
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 20 of 99
license agreement. So, somehow that got --didn't get transmitted correctly. We will get
that taken care of for next week and we can vacate it off tonight.
Zaremba: My concern was the current and future possible owners --
Nary: Correct. Exactly.
Zaremba: -- will have that on record.
Nary: Exactly.
Zaremba: And that's a good solution to me is to put it until next week and see the
findings.
Nary: Okay.
Zaremba: Thank you. On Item M, an agreement --
De Weerd: I'm sorry, Mr. Zaremba. Just a moment.
Zaremba: I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg.
Berg: Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. As far as this -- what the item on the agenda
says, CUP findings, that is listed in the documents under CUP, not under appeals.
Nary: Right. But is -- I didn't -- did I miss it? I didn't see in there the specific
requirement to not have outside seating. I think that's -- that's the only thing that we
needed to amend those findings. What I thought I could find on the laser fiche was the
CUP findings are transmitted from the Planning and Zoning Commission without that
amendment and that's what I'm saying is the appeal and the amended findings is what
we should have and somehow we didn't get that transmitted to your office to have it on
the laser fiche..
Berg: So, what is on the CUP that we have --
Nary: It's the CUP that was granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission that
doesn't include the outside seating.
Bird: That's right.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 21 of 99
Berg: And Iguess -- sorry, Madam Mayor. I'm just looking at the second paragrapfi
that said findings approved on August 14th. So, the assumption was that these were
updated. So, you're saying they are not updated? Right?
Nary: Correct. And we should still have an appeals order as well and that isn't here
either, but, like I said., when I read through it when Councilmember Zaremba raised the
question, I didn't see that specific requirement. All I saw was that this was the findings
that were prepared and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Zaremba: Sorry to be so picky, but I -- just for the benefit of future owners they need to
know that.
De Weerd: Uh-huh. No. Agreed. Anything further on this?
M. Agreement for Professional Services for Human Resources
Consulting. with BDPA, Inc.:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-M.
Zaremba: This is an agreement for professional services for human resources
consulting and the actual agreement that we have in our file is a fairly typical boilerplate
that refers us to Exhibit A for the scope of work and for the compensation and I have no
Exhibit A that I can find. So, the actual meat of it is not there.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- and that would be -- and I know we
transmitted that one, too, so I don't know why it's not there. This was a renewal
agreement. We had a prior agreement last budget year. They did perform a new
service for us, they have completed it, they sent the contract, but the scope of work I
thought was included and transmitted to the purchasing department, so -- if it didn't get
to Mr. Berg's office, again, I'm sorry, I apologize, we will just take -- if you wouldn't mind
vacating it, we will just put it on next week.
Zaremba: Okay.
Nary: We have already paid them, so --
Zaremba: Well, this is a clean up, I'm sure, and --
Nary: But you, obviously, wanted it to be reflective of what it is.
Zaremba: -- boilerplate typical stuff.
Nary: So, I apologize., I thought it had been done, so we will just make sure that gets
taken care of for next week.
Meridian city council
August 14, 2007
Page 22 of 99
N. Development Agreement: AZ 07-004 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 2.48 acres from RUT to an L-O zone for Locust
Grove Professional Office Building by Ruby/Edwards:
Architecture + Design - 1695 South Locust Grove Road:
De Weerd: Okay. And 7-N.
Zaremba: N is a development agreement AZ 07-004 with Locust Grove Professional
Office Building and this is more of a question. On page five, paragraph 14 says that
they shall provide either bollards or cemented pipes opposite the driveway and it's --
that's an unusual request and it's not apparent why or -- or what would cause them to
be in compliance with it. So, I would like to ask that we add to paragraph 14 -- it begins
that the applicant installs either bollards or cement posts in the southwest corner of the
.lot parallel with the entrance to the site and I would add: In a manner that shall prevent
any runaway vehicle on the entryway slope from penetrating the property line to
adjacent property. I'm just concerned that the purpose for it and how they would comply
isn't -- is not evident from the request.
De Weerd: That is why those requirements were in there, so --
Bird: That's right.
Zaremba: I'm afraid that would be forgotten years from now if somebody -- well, either a
compliance officer that wants to see if they are put in right, they need to know that and
years from now somebody .needs to know not to take them out and why.
De Weerd: So, your recommendation is to add the additional language in there?
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
De Weerd: And, Mr. Nary, that would be something they can still approve with the
suggested language and you can --
Nary: Yes, Madam Mayor. They can -- we can do that and insert them --
Zaremba: Just call them an amendment and --
Nary: Right. And I guess to make sure it's clean, it might be easier to make that
direction and, then, bring it back next week, so that's cleaner.
Bird: I was just going to say, I'm not voting on it.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 23 of 99
Berg: Madam Mayor, just -- the applicant did sign this agreement, so they need to
probably, in turn, look at it and sign the amendment or insert the page and they are
okay with it or whatever direction, but we have them sign it before we bring it to the
Council.
De Weerd: Okay.
Berg: And, thusly, we don't approve an ordinance until the development agreement is
signed.
Zaremba: In that case, Madam Mayor, it would also affect Item 24 on our agenda,
which is the ordinance that approves that. I'm done. I have caused enough trouble.
De Weerd: I'll remember you saying you're done for the rest of the meeting.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Then, I understand that Item H, M and N will be redone and brought back to us
and anything that's been signed by the applicants will be taken before them and okayed
before it comes here.
Nary: Right. And, then, Item 24.
Rountree: And Item 24.
Bird: Well, we will get to Item 24 when we get to it.
Rountree: When we get there.
De Weerd: So, there is no action required on these items?
Bird: We need an action.
De Weerd: Do we need official action from Council?'
Nary: Madam Mayor, all of them -- if you would simply -- they don't require re-noticing,
so if you would move -- if the Council would move to vacate Items H, M and N, we will,
then, take them back, get them done, bring them back.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would make that motion.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 24 of 99
De Weerd: Please.
Zaremba: I move that we vacate from this week's agenda what was originally Items 5,
H, M, and N and are now Items 7, H, M, and N and have them returned to our agenda
at a later date.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to vacate Items H, M and N from the Consent
Agenda, as well as Item 7. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8: FP 07-022 Request for Final Plat approval for 28 single-family building lots
and 4 common lots on 10..57 acres in an R-4 zone for Sundial
Subdivision by Gemstar Properties -west of North Linder Road and
south of West Ustick Road:
Item 9: FP 07-023 Request for Final Plat approval for 6multi-family building lots
and 5 common lots on 5.17 acres in an L-O zone for Waverly Place
Subdivision by Vacation Villas, LLC - 2510 Magic View Court:
De Weerd: Items 8 and 9, FP 07-022 and FP 07-023, are final plat approvals. We do
have agreements from the applicants that they agree with the conditions as presented
by staff. Anna, any additional comment? Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion?
Bird.: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve FP 07-022 and FP 07-023.
Rountree: Second.
Zaremba: Second..
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 25 of 99
De Weerd: I have a motion and two seconds on approval of eight and nine. If there is
no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: VAC 07-010 Request to vacate the existing right-of-way of Magic View
Court for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Villas, LLC - 2510
Magic View Court:
De Weerd: Item 10 is VAC 07-010. Anna.
Zaremba: And nine.
De Weerd: Pardon?
Zaremba; Aren't there two things on Waverly?
Canning: You have already acted on the final plat, Madam Mayor, Members of the
Council.
Zaremba: I'm sorry.
Canning: The vacation -- we do have the necessary relinquishments and staff
recommends approval.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: There are no outstanding issues that we know of before Council.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, if there are no questions, I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird,.
Bird: I move we approve VAC 07-010.
Zaremba: Second..
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10. If there is no discussion,
Mr. Berg.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 26 of 99
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 07-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.56
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Amar Cad Wapoot by LandPro
Development, Inc. - 2400 West Wapoot Drive:
De Weerd: Item 11 is a Public Hearing on AZ 07-007. I will open this Public Hearing
with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Amar Request @Wapoot
and it's located at 2400 West Wapoot Drive, which is generally north of McMillan Road
and approximately a half mile west of Linder Road.. It's on the -- as shown on the site
here and I think it will help if you see the aerial photograph, you will notice that this is
served by a flag lot for Wapoot. There we go. And it's a larger parcel in the middle of
the development and you will see it has -- it backs up towards Goddard Creek Way. So,
the application before you tonight is for annexation and zoning of 1.56 acres to R-8 and
that's to be consistent with the surrounding properties. The site is currently approved
with a single family residential home and accessory outbuildings. There is no further
development proposed at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission has
recommended a DA with a couple of provisions. One would be that the applicant be
responsible for the cost of the associated water and sewer installation, which is the
primary purpose of this proposal before you tonight. And, in fact, they already, I believe,
received those services from the City of Meridian. And the second one would be that all
future development of the subject property shall comply with City of Meridian ordinances
for the R-8 district in effect at the time of development. The applicant is also going to
request that there is -- there is an accessory structure located in this corner and he will
-- Mr. Amar will have additional information on this, but he's requesting that that be
allowed a side setback from this west property line for the purpose of expanding that --
that outbuilding in the future. And that would be consistent with the setback all along
Goddard Creek here. Both these properties to the north and south of him would have
side setbacks along that west property line as well. We would want to include that as
part of the development agreement. The reason we need to include it is because this is
an unusual shaped parcel in that it's a very large flag. It's a little unclear -- they,
obviously, have a huge front setback, either whether you measure it from the home to
the east property line or whether you measure it from the lot to the flag, it's a very large
setback, but the development is kind of clustered in this rear corner and it's difficult to
provide the rear setback with that outbuilding. The applicant has some elevations.
don't have any in this -- in the presentation, though. The Commission did recommend
approval at their July 5th Public Hearing. Kevin Amar spoke in favor of the application.
No one spoke in opposition or commented or provided written testimony. There were
no key issues of discussion by the Commission and no changes to staffs initial
recommendation and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before City
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 27 of 99
Council.. We do need to have you add that development agreement regarding -- or the
development agreement provision regarding the west property line setback, if you
choose to do that. With that I'll answer any questions Mayor and Council may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You mentioned elevations, but I don't see any lots. I see two points of
access and no mention whether one or both will be requested.. It appears that the lot on
the -- I assume north is to the top -- on the west side of this lot, at least in the current
subdivision, is a common lot --
Canning: Yes.
Rountree: -- and a landscape lot. Would that be continued on this parcel? And if that's
the case who would have jurisdiction and be required to maintain it? Just a few little
details like that.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this -- there is a landscape lot
between this lot and Goddard Creek and I believe the subdivision does take care of
that. And to be truthful, I'm not quite sure which subdivision this is in these days, so --
so, the applicant may need to help me on that one. They are not proposing any further
development. So, this is just the one house in the middle of the subdivision. They are
not proposing a plat to subdivide it at all. This is their family home.
Rountree: And if you would take me back to the beginning slide, surrounding land uses.
Canning: Okay.
Rountree: Not enough time.
Canning: They had six days. No. Sorry.
De Weerd:: Oh, I know whose lot that was. This was Mr. Moss's lot.
Canning: Yes, it was. So, this was -- this was an outparcel. It had access from an
easement, so it was not required to be included in the original subdivision.
De Weerd: So, it's kind of in the middle of Lochsa Falls and Kelly Creek, then?
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 28 of 99
Canning: Yes.
De Weerd: So, yeah, what will it belong to? That's a good question. Nothing.
Canning: Yeah. I don't believe it's subject to any of the homeowners associations at
this time, although they do have an access easement -- I guess I didn't answer that, Mr.
Rountree, I'm sorry. They do have an access easement across that landscape lot. It is
built currently and that's to provide access to that rear -- or corner of their lot. So, they
do have two access points.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: I do have a -- Anna, I do have a question. Now, when we -- when that come
through -- aren't those eight lots that butt up to it, aren't they R-4s? We did that for that
owner.
Canning.: Look -- the ones to the north are R-8. The ones to the south are R-4.
Bird.: Get back on that other deal, then, Somebody's --
Rountree: Sizewise --
Bird.: Sizewise, in that picture, if that's even close to scale, they are the same size,
same width, and maybe the south ones might be a little shorter. I don't think so. I think
-- I recall making -- the owner of that property wanted larger lots there to back up to his
and now we are going to come in with an R-8? I don't think so.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the lot would still certainly meet the
R-4 standards if that's Council's desire.
Bird: But the zoning is going as R-8; right?
Canning: They have proposed R-8.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: It's a request.
Bird: Yeah.
Rountree: That's a request.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 29 of 99
Canning: You can -- you could ratchet that upward if you would like without affecting
the noticing. So, you could make it R-4 without having to re-notice the project.
De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further at this point? Is the applicant here? If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Amar: I will. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Kevin
Amar. Address is 2364 South -- well, 2400 West Wapoot tonight. I'm here -- and I will
try to go back, but not clear to the beginning. I'm not going to go to the six days part of
the beginning, but the beginning as I understood it and how we got where we are today
and why this wasn't annexed or at lease why I understand it wasn't annexed.. This
property was owned by -- as Madam Mayor remembers well -- Tony Moss. We
purchased it from Tony Moss with the understanding that development's going around
us and were provided at that time --along time ago there was an access easement all
the way out to McMillan. Obviously, that had to go away with the development of Kelly
Creek Subdivision, so we were provided this flag lot off of Wapoot. Also an access to
the rear of the property and that rear access is rarely used. There is an RV that we pull
in and out, but it's -- our primary access is off of Wapoot Drive and that's the daily use
access. As far as what was requested with the zoning, (reviewed -- when we made
application for this I simply said we want R-8 zoning, because that was what the Comp
Plan said and I also reviewed it based on setbacks for -- for future construction and for
the use of the property. I do have with me -- and I visited with all my neighbors out
there. And, in fact, I have a signature sheet and a sheet indicating all the neighbors that
we did visit with and we have reviewed with all those neighbors our proposal that we are
doing tonight of setback issues of anything that we are doing and have unanimous
support of all ten neighbors that actually touch the property and even those neighbors
across Goddard Creek. They, basically, say as long as you don't cut down the trees we
don't care. And we are not cutting down the trees. So, the proposal before you is for
annexation and zoning of this property. Again, as I stated, we requested R-8. Two
reasons. That's what was on the Comprehensive Plan and we were trying to be
consistent with that and, two, it was also -- the surrounding area, although they may be
zoned R-4, the setbacks are R-8 setbacks. So, I probably don't care if we zone it R-4
and aNow R-8 setbacks similar to everyone else, I'm just trying to annex this. The whole
reason we are here this evening is the sewer had failed and we requested to hook up to
the sewer, because you can't rebuild your septic tank, so we are hooked up to the
sewer, we have paid those fees, this is just processing the final step to -- for the
annexation. I do have -- Anna, is the overhead ready? I'll show real quick and I'm
going to request to use Anna's microphone if I might. This is the location of the property
with the large parcel in the center. All of the -- all of the lots surrounding it have names
and, then, the two X's we have discussed with all of those neighbors this proposal and I
have a signature sheet that I'll hand to Mr. Berg that gives their unanimous support of
the project. They are all aware of what we are doing. There was some confusion -- as
you're aware there is an apartment complex -- I'm sure you guys haven't heard of that --
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 30 of 99
that's going out in this area. So, there was a little confusion that they thought we were
putting apartments here at one time -- we are -- I would be divorced. My wife's right
here. She can attest to that. So, we are not putting apartments out here. And we have
discussed it with the neighbors. I'll also give you one more aerial photograph that gives
an idea of what the current setback configuration of the surrounding houses look like.
And, again, the house in the center is our parcel. As you look along -- if I do this right.
In talking to city staff we, basically, said, okay, so what -- what's our front yard, what's
our side yard, what's our rear yard, because it's a pretty unique project -- or unique
property, whereas we just kind of have a yard. So, our access is off of -- off of Wapoot
and we decided., the staff and myself, that this would be considered the front yard and.,
then, these would be the side yards and this would be the rear yard. All that being said,
we are still requesting that our -- what is, quote, unquote, the rear yard would be
allowed to have a side yard easement similar to what is allowed by the housing to the --
to the north and to the south and across the street. There is a common lot there. I think
that question came up. That common lot is owned and maintained by the Kelly Creek
Homeowners Association. We really don't propose any changes to that. We have no
right to change that. There is -- other than it's a common lot there and we are not part
of any subdivision, we are just right now a lot in the middle of the county. Or a county
lot in the middle of the city. So, with that I have other pictures if you'd like to see. I have
got -- and I'll pass them through as far as what you see from the street as you drive by.
There is a number of large trees. This is looking to the southeast. Probably upside
down. But that is looking to the southeast, so behind those trees and that willow tree
and -- is the shop and the house and -- and you can see why the neighbors said we
don't care, as long as you don't cut the down trees. There are other pictures and we
can certainly show you as many as you want or as few as you want, but I think you have
the general idea of what it will look like. Yes. Well, that's the house --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Kevin, the -- did I hear you right that strip along -- and I forget the name of the
street -- on the west edge.
Amar: Goddard Creek. Yes, sir.
Borton: 1s that -- is the common area homeowner maintained and, then, a strip of
private county and, then, another -- does this -- do you recall this being incorporated
into the maintenance and design of --
Amar: No. I will try to explain it with this picture. Here -- and it's difficult to see -- okay.
So, it's difficult to see. But along Goddard Creek you can basically see a strip all the
way along Goddard Creek.
Meridian city Council
August 19, 2007
Page 31 of 99
Borton: Okay.
Amar: It's basically within the subdivision. So, there is no private land along Goddard
Creek, there is only an access easement from Goddard Creek into my property. But it's
already made -- owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Here is one
last picture to get the other perspective. This is looking to the -- to the southeast. The
other was looking to the northeast, but that's, really, what you see from the -- from the
street and you can see the RV there. So, with that I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Well, I guess I have one. If you're keeping the house and you're not
intending to subdivide it, why are you not just requesting an R-2, unless staff wouldn't
allow that. My concern is -- is maybe that's not your intention, but if you sell it and
someone else buys it, they can come in and do a preliminary and final plat on that
without having any public comment and that's my concern. I guess we could put some
stipulation on this, but that would be my concern.
Amar: I think I can answer that concern. Sure. And I understand that concern. One
issue with this -- our public access is 25 feet wide. So, the ability to come in and do any
sort of final plat, additional lots, anything, we don't have the width necessary to -- to my
understanding, to build any other lots. So, to be honest with you, you can zone it R
whatever you want, as long as I get the side yard and the rear yard setbacks that I
need. I only chose R-8 because that provides the setbacks, the R-8 may allow
additional duplexes or anything you want to do, but because of the configuration of the
property, because of the access to the property, it restricts it from any further
development anyway. And, quite frankly, I can't put another house on the property. So,
even if I zoned it as R-2, I still get what I have. It's a house on a piece of property,
unless we provide somebody a helicopter.
De Weerd.: Council?
Amar: So, with that being said, really, you can zone it anything you want.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Gorton.
Gorton: Just thinking out loud here, is it -- this access -- and maybe it's just me. This
easement access seems to be some cause for concern. I guess when there is future
redevelopment -- you can't own it forever -- on this parcel, is there a means to have that
easement be vacated upon development of the property -- I'm just trying to see how this
property could and would develop eventually. I presume this would be the single point.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 32 of 99
Amar: Yeah. As I stated, that's only access for -- there is no public right of way access,
so in order to get public right of way access we'd have to get the Kelly Creek
Homeowners Association to relinquish their rights for that portion of the common lot and
although that might be possible, I don't think it's probable, so -- the whole homeowners
association would have to agree to, then, give or I'd have to buy or somebody else in
the future would have to buy that portion of the property to get public access. That is a
private access for --
Borton: Madam Mayor. Couldn't you -- can this be redeveloped and still maintain that
private access, though?
Amar: It can't be -- I mean as much as I know of the code, it can't be developed at all,
short of having one house on it. And Mr. Silva is here, he can probably address that
even better, but I have got a 25 foot wide access and for any future lots you need more
than 25 feet wide to provide any additional lots.
Canning: Madam Mayor? Maybe I can help Mr. Amar out on this one. The only
scenario I can think of that -- for further redevelopment of this would be a shared drive
on the 25 feet, but that would only allow one additional parcel, because it says any
properties adjoining the shared drive have to maintain access from it. So, you can only
have four. So, there is one, two, here is three -- you could maybe have one house out
in the front, which makes four, but that's a real maybe. In order to gain -- and that would
require approval by City Council for that plat. It would not be an administrative plat. No
residential plots are administrative. To gain access from Goddard Creek would not only
require the owner of this property securing the rights to purchase that from the Kelly
Creek Homeowners Association, but you as a Council would also have to vacate that
subdivision note on that plat that says it's a common lot. So, you have control over that
access ultimately. So, it really is just off that 25 foot driveway. You know, conceivably
somebody could want to put one more house there and there is enough room, certainly,
for one more house.
Amar: There is a pool there now and my kids would skin me.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Director Canning, on that same subject, that's assuming that the current
house stays there. Would the -- would it, essentially, be the same situation if somebody
were willing to clear the land and start from scratch?
Canning: Yes. Because our requirements say any properties that adjoin the private
drive need to take access from it. So, you have got one, two, already. So, you could
only have two up here regardless --
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 33 of 99
Zaremba: Even if they took that one out and stated --
Canning: Yeah.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: I mean you could buy -- you could buy the house that's here now and tear it
down, but you're talking redevelopment schemes that aren't likely to happen and --
anytime soon, so --
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
De Weerd: Well, this is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Anything further, Mr. Amar, that you would like to add?
Amar: My only request would be that in the development agreement -- and I
understand that to include one, but to add that wording that the west property line would
be treated with a -- as a sideyard setback also. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Well, in the scheme of things that really was the side setback,
because it did face Ustick, so -- Ten Mile? But accessed off of Ustick. McMillan. Yes.
Well, somewhere south.
Rountree: Some road out there.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: I would move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-007.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 11. All
those in favor say aye. Very united in that. All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 34 of 99
MOTION CARRLED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any discussion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: Oh. Discussion.
De Weerd: No? Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we approve AZ 07-007, to include all staff comments and that
includes a provision for a development agreement, two bullets which already exist, and
we would add a third bullet to that, that the setback on the west property line can be
considered a side yard. Did we want to change it to R-8 or --
Rountree: R-4.
Zaremba: R-4 I mean..
Bird: R-4.
Zaremba: I'm comfortable changing it to R-4 as well, so --
Rountree: Is that your motion?
Bird: Is that your motion -- part of your motion?
Zaremba: I'm changing my motion to say -- well, let me start over. I move that we
approve AZ 07-007 with all staff comments and two changes to the staff comments.
One is that the zoning shall be R-4 and the second is that there be a third bullet in the
development agreement that says the setback on the west property line shall be a
sideyard setback.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 35 of 99
De Weerd: Mr. Amar, this -- this item passed, but I do need to talk with you on a couple
of other items. Since I have this as --
Amar: Do you want to do it right now or -
Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 07-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.67
acres from an R1 zone to a C-G zone for Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway
South by Ahlquist Development, LLC -Southeast Corner of Franklin and
Eagle Roads:
Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 07-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
lots on 6.67 acres in the proposed C-G zone for Gardner-Ahlquist
Gateway South by Ahlquist Development, LLC -Southeast Corner of
Franklin and Eagle Roads:
De Weerd: No. I don't want to do it right now. You don't want me to do it right now.
So, if you would -- I never see you, so I took that as a point of order. Thank you. Item
12 is a Public Hearing AZ 07-010. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, we are to the Gardner-Ahlquist
Gateway South project and this is located near the southeast corner of Franklin and
Eagle Road,. The applications before you tonight are for annexation and zoning and
preliminary plat. The area outlined includes the Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway North
portion. The portion you're actually considering tonight is as shown in red, but you
recently approved the area just to the north.
De Weerd.: Okay. Anna, I did open Item 13 as well, so feel free to comment on that,
too..
Canning: Good. Thank you, ma'am. The project includes the annexation and zoning of
6.67 acres to C-G and preliminary plat approval of five commercial lots and one private
street lot. The applicant intends to develop a large office and retail center on the site
that would include several office buildings and some smaller scale commercial
structures. I'm sorry, ma'am. As I mentioned earlier, Council did recently approve a
request for annexation of the 22.3 acres and preliminary plat for 11 commercial lots on
the Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision and that's as shown in the blue. Originally
the application, that first one, did include this, but they -- they, for various reasons, the
applicant chose to divide the annexation area into two parts. So, the subject application
wil{, again., be complete with this application. The proposed commercial square footage
-- the concept plan proposes between 492,000 and 674,000 square feet of combined
office and retail space for the site. Approximately 327,000 to 466,000 square feet of
that space would be located on the phase one and, then, between 165 and 208
thousand square feet would be in phase two, this south project. So, what we are talking
about here is 165 to 208 thousand square feet. The applicant is in the process of
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 36 of 99
submitting a development modification on phase one and that would clean up that
development agreement and would combine this with it. So, that is in the process.
That's okay. Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. The applicant is concerned.,
because this is an older drawing, but that's okay, we will get to the newer one. I'm
trying to explain the DA, because this is the only place where this -- the application gets
tricky is that we -- we had a combined property, we kind of split it, the north half went
through, the south is now coming up to it, and we have got a DA coming that will
combine the two again, so that it will be one development agreement. But you don't
have that before you tonight as a specific item. It will be coming before you and there
are specific provisions in the staff report to be included in that. So, we will clear up that
and we will move on with the preliminary plat, so that the applicant doesn't get so
nervous with the outdated site plan up on the board. The -- actually, I may not have a
revised site plan. I do not. So, I'll have the applicant present the revised site plan. So,
as I mentioned before, they are in the process of bringing in that development
agreement. The unusual provisions of that would be that -- to specify the square
footages, as I mentioned before, that the -- to tie them to the elevations -- we have a
heated discussion going on over there. Sorry. It's been distracting me. Any buildings
located adjacent to Eagle Road shall have architectural elements and enhancements
consistent with the submitted elevations on all facades that face Eagle Road. That they
locate a minimum of two buildings, five buildings total, including the north phase,
abutting the landscape buffer .along Eagle Road. So, the idea is to bring some of those
buildings up to Eagle Road. No direct access to the Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South
shall be allowed from Eagle Road.. That access is on the northern property, as you can
see there. And the applicant shall obtain a recorded agreement which allows the
Gardner-Ahlquist property's access to and through the private property located on the
southwest corner Montvue Park Subdivision. So, that's in this corner down here. Said
document must also reciprocate access to the property to and through this property as
well. So, it would be reciprocal. And that they have a continuous 35 foot wide
landscape buffer along Eagle Road and the applicant shall be responsible for the
construction of a ten foot wide multi-use pathway with a public use easement and the
installation of street lights and landscaping along Eagle Road, State Highway 55, that is
consistent with the Eagle Road corridor study. I do have some elevations. I flashed
through them before. These are the office elevations and some of the retail elevations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at their July 5th, 2007,
Public Hearing. Pamela Hall and Brian Foote spoke in favor of the application. No one
spoke in opposition and no commented and there was no written testimony. The key
issues of discussion by the Commission were that the Council had approved aright-in,
right-out, and cleft-in with the Gardner-Ahlquist Subdivision phase one on Franklin
Road, not in keeping with the Commission's recommendation for aright-in, right-out
only. That the applicant will be submitting. for a development agreement modification to
ultimately combine the separate development agreements. I already spoke to that. The
existing and proposed landscaping along St. Luke's Street, which is just to the south of
this property. There it is. And that staff did obtain from the applicant a recorded
agreement which allows the Gardner-Ahlquist properties access to and through the
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 37 of 99
private property located at the southeast corner of Montvue Park Subdivision. So, there
was no key changes to staffs initial recommendation. To our knowledge there are no
outstanding issues before Council, other than, apparently, we need an updated site
plan. So, with that I'll answer any questions that Council may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none right now.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I do have one.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Do you have an aerial view or something that would show the property
directly to the east of this? Yeah, that's what I'm looking at. When this property
developed there was a lot of discussion that they were connecting a public road to a
private road essentially with a driveway. The redesign of the roadway -- are they going
to have access anywhere other than St. Luke's, the property that is to the east of this?
Canning: Yes. That is the recorded reciprocal cross-access agreement that I have
been talking about. It is with that piece of property right there. So, they are -- the folks
on the Gardner-Ahlquist property will get to travel along that commercial drive aisle
connection to get to St. Luke's Drive at the light and vice-versa. The folks in -- using
that Montvue business or what used to be Montvue business, will be able to access
through the Gardner-Ahlquist property up to the new road that will connect east-west
and connect to Eagle.
Zaremba: That's the explanation I needed. I thought it was two separate subjects and
they were -- the old people were being cutoff, but -- yeah. They are being included.
Canning.: No. No. Just the opposite. We wanted to insure that they were included.
Yes.
Zaremba: Yeah. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Good evening. If you will, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Ahlquist: Tom Ahlquist, 13901 West Wainwright, Suite B, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 38 of 99
Ahlquist: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Councilmen. Appreciate coming back
before you again. I will make this as brief as possible, because we will be coming back
through with an amended development agreement from phase one. Things got a little
messy. Even the slide tonight showed -- it wasn't that it was not an updated slide, it was
that the orientation of our property was wrong, which could lead to even more confusion
in an already confusing development agreement. What happened when we came the
first time is because of land acquisition we had to phrase this into two phases, which is
probably the wrong terminology. We brought forth one subdivision and, then, a second
subdivision to match our land acquisition. By doing so we presented to the Council
what we were going to do per Council's request on the entire project. The development
agreement ended up reflecting some requirements for the entire project, some for just
for north and some just for the south and the square footages were all over the place.
Rather than address those tonight, we were -- it was requested that we submit an
application to amend that development agreement, at the same time incorporate items
from tonight's meeting into that development agreement. So, we will go through those
exact square footages and some of the items that we need to clear up then. They are
fairly minor. Most of them are just errors in square footages that we want to make sure
are clear. There are two items that we would like Council's discussion on this evening..
One is we want absolute clarity on the St. Luke's Drive issue, even though we have
explained this multiple times, with changes in staff I want to make sure that we are very
clear. When Med Properties, LLC, or Verska and Jorgenson brought through their
building, at that time there was an agreement and a settlement with St. Luke's between
all of the Montvue owners and St. Luke's. One of the Montvue owners was that small
parcel -- Anna, just -- it's noted that little triangular piece to the -- if you head north with
your pointer. Right there. That piece was sold to and St. Luke's helped. purchase that
piece to provide a permanent easement and connection between their private drive and
between this development. That will be used as an access point. We have been
working closely with St. Luke's, they do not want any major access point or a road tying
into their private drive and it's actually illegal to hook a public road into that private drive.
So, with our traffic engineers we have -- that will be an access point with our current
road built to ACRD standards, but it's a private road into our development and that --
that easement -- that agreement is in place. That same easement and agreement give
us the right to go over Med Property, LLC's, property to get to St. Luke's Drive and it's
one agreement. In the staff notes there are -- there is a paragraph on page nine that
says that we turned in evidence of an agreement with St. Luke's, but we needed an
agreement with Med Prop, LLC. It's the same agreement. So, we would just like to pull
that out and make sure that it's clear that same agreement addresses both access
across their property and with St. Luke's, because that is a key issue. Otherwise, the
development agreement would state that we needed another agreement with Verska
and Jorgenson. Other questions we have tonight -- at our last City Council meeting
when we came through it was requested that we landscape along Eagle Road in
accordance with the Eagle Road corridor requirements that were out there. As we have
investigated that and tried to get clarity on what that means and what is desired of
Council -- and we met with staff several times and tried to understand what exactly you
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 39 of 99
want, that's a little more up in the air than I thought it was that night. The requirements
for trees in that Eagle corridor study, we would really only be required four trees all the
way down Eagle Road, which is clearly not sufficient for what we want to provide there
in landscaping.. The other requirement is for a ten foot meandering sidewalk. There is
already a five foot sidewalk that runs along Eagle Road. So, we turned in a drawing to
staff that showed a -- as part of our final plat for phase one, our subdivision one,
showing a meandering sidewalk, including that five feet, which has trees with tree
grates that I think will look very nice with the lights that were approved or desired
through that Eagle corridor study and we feel will actually be better than what was
required, but it was still very vague how many trees and at what distances those trees
and lighting should be. And so know that that was another requirement in this
development agreement, so I just wanted to see if there was any other clarification we
could get tonight on those plans.
De Weerd: Anna, do you have any further clarification on that topic?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was going to look through the file.
know staff brought the -- basically the five and five proposal to my attention and Iwas --
it looked fine to me. It looked like an inventive solution to the issue, but I don't know
exactly how it was resolved in the staff report, so it may take me just a moment to look
that up.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: Generally on a preliminary plat we would have made very specific conditions
as to what was deficient on the landscape plan if there were concerns, so -- so,
suspect that good -- no news is good news in this case and perhaps the applicant just
isn't aware of that, but Iwill -- I will look it up quickly, so --
De Weerd: No news is good news.
Ahlquist: Okay. And, Madam Mayor, the only reason I bring it up -- it was a significant
request at our first Council meeting, I wanted to make sure we were complying. It is a
main corridor into Meridian and wanted to make sure that was something that was
acceptable to Council. That's really all I have. I think that we will come before you
again in a few weeks with our -- with out development agreement and gives us a
chance to take care of some of the square footage issues that were in error in the
development agreement, but we are very excited. We are moving forward., we have
signed several very impressive tenants that I think the city will be very pleased with and
we will have some more information on that when I present again. We have our hotel
signed up. It will be the only four diamond hotel in the state of Idaho and it should be
very very nice and kind of anchor our site. We have several other tenants that are very
excited and we are excited to get rolling here. Get through all of this process.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 40 of 99
De Weerd: Great. Thank you.
Ahlquist: With that I stand for questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
Canning: Madam Mayor? The conditions of approval state that the landscape plan
prepared by Edwards Landscape Architecture labeled Sheet L-1 is approved with the
following conditions -- and it just simply states construct a 35 foot wide street buffer
along the entire frontage of Franklin and Eagle Roads. All required landscape buffers
shall be exclusive of the ultimate public right of way, exclusive of impervious surfaces
and conform to the design and construction requirements. I think the reason it
emphasizes ultimate is because there is some question as to who owns portions of the
property up here along -- this is Eagle Road, to orient you, and, then, this is Franklin --
and every time I get my mouse up there it clicks off, but these two little properties -- but
-- the last update I heard from ITD is that you are resolving that and --
Ahlquist: Yeah. That has been -- it's taken way too much time. This piece of property
right here, we have gone back and forth with ITD who owns it. They each claim they
don't own it. We needed' to gain some sort of way of licensing it to even landscape or
use it and., then, at the end of the day there was a small sliver in there that was in no
man's land. That, is all worked out through very very complicated agreements that
don't even understand that my consultants are taking care of. But through the
exchange process and licensing process with ITD and ACRD it will be landscaped to
the street, the buildings will all be uniform along the street, and it will all fit in very nicely
at the end of the day.
De Weerd.: Thank you. Mr. Rountree:.
Rountree: I just have a question. Which is easier, surgery or going through this
process?
Ahlquist: I'll take a heart attack any day.
Rountree: Thank you, doctor.
De Weerd: Well, you asked.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd.: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Cownsil
August 14, 2007
Page 41 of 99
Borton: Anna, is there sufficient clarity as requested concerning the pathway and the
lighting and -- as we had made earlier references about Eagle corridor or landscaping
and --
Canning: I believe there is. To my knowledge my staff didn't have any concerns going
into tonight's hearing, so I think those issues have been resolved.
Gorton: Great.
De Weerd: Well -- and I think we have dusted off the Eagle corridor study to get to
know it a little bit better anyway, so they should be up on that.
Ahlquist: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to
provide testimony on this application? Seeing none, Council, any further questions for
the applicant or does the applicant have any further comments? Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird..
Bird: Nobody seems to need to hear anymore public testimony or anything, I move we
close AZ 07-010 and PP 07-012.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings Items 12 and 13.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRfED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Is there any discussion, further information needed, or do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd,: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 12, AZ 07-010, with the clarification on
landscaping and sidewalk that meet the standards -- have met the standards and that
the five plus five sidewalk is acceptable.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 42 of 99
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second.. Discussion? Staff?
Canning: Madam Mayor, does that -- the maker of the motion, is that to include the
proposed development agreement provision as stated in the staff report as well?
Rountree: Yes..
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Always.
De Weerd: Is there anything further from Council? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRLED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 13.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 13, PP 07-012.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. If there is no discussion,
Mr. Berg., will you ca11 roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree., yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 1.4: Public Hearing: PP 07-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 18
commercial building lots on 18..5 acres in a C-G zone, for Paramount
Commercial Southwest by Ustick Marketplace, LLC -Northeast Corner
of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road:
Item 15: Public Hearing: MI 07-007 Request for a Miscellaneous application to
Modify the Development Agreement to remove the Conditional Use Permit
requirement for all commercial development in the C-G zone and instead
require design review approval of all commercial development in the C-G
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 43 of 99
zone for Paramount Commercial Southwest by Ustick Marketplace, LLC
- Northeast Corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Items 14 and 15 are public hearings on PP 07-011 and MI 07-007.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Paramount Commercial
Southwest Project. It's located at the northeast corner of Linder Road and McMillan
Road and the applications before you tonight are preliminary plat and a miscellaneous
application to modify the development agreement in place for Paramount. The
preliminary plat includes approval of 18 commercial building lots on 18.5 acres in a C-G
zone. They do already have the zoning. The proposed lot sizes range from 27,.800
square feet to 72,000 square feet and the applicant also requests to amend the
development agreement to remove the conditional use permit requirement and to,
instead., require design review of approval on all commercial development in the C-G
zone. So, as you will recall, Paramount came through as a planned development and
they didn't have any specific designs or concepts for the commercial development at
that time, so a condition was placed upon all the commercial properties for Paramount,
that they obtain conditional use approval before any -- for any use. The design review
process would allow a more relevant and efficient evaluation of each proposed
commercial or retail or office building in the development. Under the current CUP
requirements the owner would be required to know all the potential users and designs of
all the buildings and layout in the development before applying for the CU and that was
always one of the big problems with the CU requirement was on shell and core uses,
which they didn't know what the uses would really be at that time. Or, two, they could
apply for the CUP for each and every building one by one, which, as you may recall,
was a burden on staff, as well as Council at that time, but now just the planning
commission. By approving a modification to the development agreement that would,
instead, allow design review approval, the intended objective of both processes would
be met, but with greater effectiveness and savings in time and resources for all parties
involved. I have some elevations. The next one doesn't want to come up. The
applicant has also included several examples of architectural details in existing
buildings in Paramount that may be used in this commercial development. The
applicant states in the narrative that earth tone colors, timber, cultured stone and roof
pitches are examples of some of the architectural elements that will be used and which
are consistent with the existing Paramount buildings and facilities. Further, the
applicant states that strict architectural design guidelines and CC&Rs will govern the
development of each parcel to insure compatibility with the Paramount design theme.
Staff has reviewed the details submitted with the application and is supportive of the
conceptual elevations submitted and the building materials listed as they are consistent
with the existing Paramount development. There we go. Now they are coming up. So,
we even have the updated Walgreen's elevations and --
De Weerd: That was for someone's benefit.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 44 of 99
Canning: -- and some other conceptual buildings. This is the next item.
De Weerd: Wow. That looked like an old Walgreen's.
Canning: The change to the development agreement is fairly straight forward. It would
just remove the word -- it currently states that all future commercial townhouse and
multi-family uses obtain Conditional Use Permit. We would remove the commercial at
that location and add a sentence that says all commercial uses in the C-G and L-O
zones shall obtain design review approval in accordance with design standards in effect
at the time of the development. The L-O zone refers to other areas of the Paramount
development -- Paramount -- subject to the Paramount development agreement that are
about a mile away from here. So, there are other commercial properties involved in that
development agreement modification, not just the subject one. The Commission
recommended approval at their July 5th, 2007, Public Hearing. Michael Marcheschi
and Jay Walker from Brighton Corp spoke in favor, as did Scott Stanfield, who is the
project engineer on the plat. No one spoke in opposition. Brad Multon commented, as
well as James Durst. And there was no written testimony. Key issues of discussion by
the Commission were the inconsistency between the proposed preliminary plat and the
conceptual site plan. I can go over that briefly. Here is the plat. Here is the landscape
plan. There is the concept plan. You know, when these commercial subdivisions go in
we pretty much know that we are going to be moving lot lines around. I have to admit
that usually the concept plan and the plats aren't quite as far apart as these two seem to
be, but we do know that they will be moving lot lines around and having to reconfigure
properties as they find specific tenants. Another issue of discussion by the Commission
was the extension of the stub street as a public street from the east property line to the
west property line and that's this stub street coming out of Paramount. We wanted to
make sure that it somehow maintained a public street status from going east-west,
whether it takes the northerly route or the southerly route, but that it does maintain the
public street status. And the proposed access points to Linder and McMillan and the
ACRD approval of access points and at that point the comments were not received from
ACHD prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. The key Commission
changes to staffs recommendation were to allow northern right-in, right-out access point
proposed on Linder Road. Oh, let's see. And the outstanding issues for City Council
was that ACRD did not approve the northern right-in, right-out access points proposed
on Linder Road. So, the ACRD comments are now included in the staff report and I
didn't notice that as an outstanding issue before tonight, so it may take me awhile to
read up on that if Council wants more information, but I will do that quickly. There has
been no additional written testimony since the staff report and to my knowledge there
are no outstanding issues before City Council. And with that I will answer any
questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions at this point?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 45 of 99
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Would you change back to the preliminary plat as they are proposing it?
Canning: The landscape plan is a little easier to see.
Zaremba: And they are not indicating any streets on that --
Canning.: Correct.
Zaremba: I need to think about that.
Canning: And that's why the -- that's why the condition was put in to require that road.
And Mr. Silva would like to comment as well.
Silva: Mayor, Members of the Council, one of the concerns that both the police and fire
departments have is just the addressing within this and those streets should be at least
named streets, so we can facilitate the addressing process and emergency response to
that area. What we have experienced in other subdivisions that front major arterials like
Linder, they will want to put the back of the building -- depending on what occurs on the
lot, they may put the back of the building up against Linder and expect an address on
Linder and that's very confusing for emergency response and the addressing issues.
So, we would just like to make sure that these properties are conditioned in such a
manner that they are required to take their address at the point where they have access
from a public or private road..
De Weerd: Would the applicant like to come forward. If you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Marcheschi: Good evening. My name is Michael Marcheschi and I'm at 12601 West
Explorer Drive, Suite 200, in Boise. And you can see we have submitted a preliminary
plat and at the time we submitted that preliminary plat this was the -- the most efficient
and best configuration that we felt for those parcels and we have been exploring
conceptual plans -- site plans and the conceptual plan that you saw is -- is the most
recent in terms of street private and public layout. After we submitted the preliminary
plat application we received comments from staff and from ACRD recommending the
installation of the public and dedication of the public road to the stub street there. The
development on the -- to the east is also preliminary platted.. It's the Paramount South
60 Subdivision, but is not currently installed. And so the stub street connection does
need to align with two existing streets to the west of Linder, either Apgar or Deer Crest
on the west. So, that's the current jog in the public street configuration there, either to
the north or to the south. If you go back to the landscape -- or the preliminary plat, we
anticipated that there would possibly be lot line adjustments or changes in this
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 46 of 99
preliminary plat as we went to final plat per recommendation from ACHD and from staff
and the exisfing location of the -- the lot lines, for example, along the access points on
McMillan and along Linder are positioned in such a place where -- where parcels could
be -- or streets could be added that would be both shared on a -- on a parcel or publicly
dedicated. So, the only real changes that we see at this point going forward with our
submission of a final plat would be simple lot line adjustments to allow for the public
road, allowing access to the stub street and aligning with the north -- the north full
access point and we also are in agreement with other staff recommendations, as well as
ACHD recommendations that the .north full -- or north right-in, right-out access be
removed from the preliminary plat. There was some question originally whether or not
we would have -- can you go to the conceptual, Anna, for me? The reason that we had
included that north right-in, right-out is because we did have the necessary setbacks,
the necessary distances from the full access points. Linder Road., as you know, is being
widened to five lanes and, thus, you know, we felt that that north right-in, right-out, was
acceptable, but ACRD has come back and is not in agreement and -- but because of
the public road dedication on the north we were concerned that first possible access
into our commercial retail parcel to the south of that public road wouldn't be until back
on the -- you know, pretty far back from the intersection, because it's a public road. But
ACHD has come back and allowed us to align the first access point coming in off of
Linder --
Zaremba: Excuse me. Would you use the pointer -- the light pointer
Marcheschi: Sorry. So, originally, the access -- the first potential access point to this
commercial retail site was way back here, because of its public nature, but with the
removal of this they have allowed us to place a full access -- or an access point here in
line with that one and the parking field to the north. So, we are fine with that -- with that
recommendation and change in the preliminary plat. And I stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Bird.: I have none.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. Madam Mayor, I'm still trying to get the relationship between the
concept plan and the actual plat. And, Anna, would you put the plat up, please. And,
then, if you would, using the light, indicate where the roads go through that.
Marcheschi: Sure. So, again, this is an access point, full access off McMillan. This is a
right-in, right-out off of McMillan. This full access would continue up the -- up here and,
then, with our final plat submission we will be changing this configuration, the lot lines,
to indicate the road going to here. This is the stub road coming in and this road will -- at
staff recommendation and ACHD recommendation, now continue up to this point and
align with Deer Crest. The other -- the other road will come this direction. So, we will
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 47 of 99
be doing a little bit of lot line adjustment here, but -- but the number of lots should not
change..
Zaremba: Thank you.
Marcheschi: You bet.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: Maybe if I could -- we are still in the applicant's .presentation, aren't we? If
Council would like, I have an idea later, so we will wait until his testimony is done.
De Weerd.: Thank you. Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: You know, I -- I guess I'm kind of struggling with this one. Usually when we
approve a commercial multi-family we ask for elevations, locations to those homes, and
now I know why we don't have a full house, those homes are not occupied, which, then,
raises another question is how would those people when they buy those lots know that
there is multi-family behind them. So, it raises a lot of concerns and --
Marcheschi: Right. I think -- I think the conceptual plan and the development
agreement calls for conditional use approval of any multi-family in that northern section.
That was put there as a possible option. But in all reality and at this point we intend for
all the lots to be commercial or retail in nature. It is a C-G zone and the approval for the
preliminary plat is for 18 -- 18 commercial parcels. So, if we were to come in and
actually do any multi-family, we would have to come through a separate CUP at that
point and, then, you would have to review that separately.
De Weerd: Well, I think that comes as no great peace of mind to neighbors, even with
the CUP, so I --
Marcheschi: Right.
De Weerd: And this is all from experience.
Marcheschi: Sure.
De Weerd: So --
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 48 of 99
Marcheschi: To the north, obviously, we have --
De Weerd.: -- if you really don't plan on multi-family, I guess, you know, it would be nice
not to even say it on the plat.
Marcheschi: Right. Again, it isn't on the plat, so it's only on this conceptual --
De Weerd: Conceptual.
Marcheschi: Right. A conceptual site plan. To the north is Rocky Mountain High and
so -- it's quite a name. But it is the high school to the north and so in terms of
residential uses on that side, the multi-family -- not to get into that issue right now, but it
may not necessarily be an issue like you might think it might be.
De Weerd: Sorry. Every time I hear that name Rocky Mountain High I laugh. My
daughter is going to go there, so, you know, it's really -- I need to get over that.
Marcheschi: Do they have a theme song yet?
De Weerd: Council., any other questions at this point?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Was it correct that you had indicated there was two accesses on McMillan?
Marcheschi: Correct. There is a --
Borton: Aright-in, right-out?
Marcheschi: -- right-in, right-out here and a full access here., both of which have been
approved by ACHD and are part of the design in the road widening, which is already
taking place and along that area. One right-in, right-out access here on Linder, a full
access, and a full access there. All of which are well within the distances allowed by
ACRD for those access points.
De Weerd: When is that intersection improvement supposed to go in?
Marcheschi: So, it will be completed by May of '08.
De Weerd: And it's --
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 49 of 99
Zaremba; Madam Mayor, is that similar to the Locust Grove overpass being completed
before Mountain View High School was in?
Bird: No. A private's doing it.
Marcheschi: If I could, I'd like to turn the podium over to Jay Walker, who is actually
helping ACRD with the widening and the intersection designs.
De Weerd: Thank you. And I trust they won't have the same delays that we are having
at McMillan and Meridian; right?
Walker: Hey, watch it. Jay Walker with Brighton Corporation. 12601 West Explorer
Drive.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Walker: Suite 200, Boise, Idaho. To answer your question regarding the project at
Linder-McMillan, no, we won't have the same delays. And, actually, we are -- we are
close to on schedule on McMillan-Meridian. It was just started late and so we should
have the north leg completed before school opens in a week or so. This one is planned
to be completed. It needs to be done before the Rocky Mountain High School opens,
obviously, or else there is going to be gridlock out on Linder. That is a definite
completion date and agreement we have with the high school. So, a cooperative
development agreement that I have in place with ACHD, we are set to bid this out
September, November, and be under construction early spring as soon as thaw occurs
and currently we are working with the PUCs to relocate any utilities that need to be
relocated in that project impact area. So, we will -- I think the reason why ACRD wants
that completed by May is so that they can complete the Ten Mile -McMillan intersection
project shortly thereafter. Not being able to close the two at the same time or
simultaneously.
De Weerd: I guess, Jay, an additional question I would have, since you mentioned the
high school to the north, at this point, not -- not knowing what kind of access points they
have, I don't see anything through this development and so that leads me to believe that
the access points for Rocky Mountain High School will be only onto Linder. We have a
similar issue at Mountain View High School that there is one way in and one way out
and this is a possible alternative to get them to McMillan or to have some other access.
Walker: And I need to clarify that, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Walker: If I can just help you --
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 50 of 99
De Weerd: That would be excellent.
Walker: We do -- if you can see on Cayuse Creek, we do have an access onto Cayuse
Creek within the Paramount development and as a part of this project and in
coordination with the Rocky Mountain High School and Wendell Bigham, we are also
installing a signal at Cayuse Creek and Linder. So, all high school students driving to
and from the school will have protected movements onto that five lane facility at Linder.
There will only be bus, staff, and parent drop off directly from right-in, right-outs onto
Linder on the frontage of Linder Road in front of the high school. Does that make
sense? So, there will be three access points. And there is also pedestrian access
provided not only on Cayuse, but through South 60, you know, the pre{iminary platted
residential development to the east of that commercial property that we are --
De Weerd: Mr. Bird..
Bird: Jay, on that one -- going back through Paramount, they also can go out and get to
-- and get to Chinden, can't they, by that -- through the stub there?
Walker: Yes, they can, we would --
Bird: Prefer they didn't, but --
Walker: Yeah. We'd prefer they didn't. We have provided traffic calming measures, no
direct path, to try to calm traffic, keep lower speeds, and make it more neighborhood
friendly.
Bird.: But kids are going to find shortcuts.
Walker: Possibly. A few. We hope that only those residing in -- in Paramount that
choose not to walk that mile and they drive to the high school.
Bird: Come on now, you know better than that.
De Weerd: Kids. We are talking kids.
Walker: Yeah., we are.
De Weerd: Teenagers.
Walker: Status. Car status.
De Weerd: Well -- and you may want to put some kind of a traffic or choke or
something going to the east to discourage that cut-through traffic.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 51 of 99
Walker: Yes. Good point, Mayor. And we have placed strategically traffic control,
including stop signs -- or primarily stop signs at the intersection of Cayuse and
Valentino and, then, also one at Valentino and Fox Run Way. So, it -- it will be a pretty
difficult maneuver through the subdivision for any high school students to access
Chinden through the Paramount Subdivision., because of the stop controlled
intersections.. I guess we see it as a freer movement to come off of Cayuse and make
that right turn movement onto Linder and head directly, you know, half a mile to
Chinden and, then, take another free right movement onto Chinden and head
eastbound down to the Boise area.
De Weerd: Thank you. I know this is unrelated to this application, but it is trying to find
other routes for kids to get out of that, so it doesn't overwhelm any one option.
Walker: Very wise. I think that's a great idea.
De Weerd: So, this -- this access through the subdivision that is in front of us today
would not be an option for at least a southern route?
Walker: You mean right back here in the corner?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Walker: The school has already -- they are under construction and they have a practice
-- two practice fields. It was not a part of their site layout to include that and they were
far in advance of our concept plan and layout here.. So, I guess that was never
approached and we are kind of behind the eight ball on that one.
Bird.: I think the high school prefers just one.
Walker: For safety purposes.
Bird: For safety purposes. It doesn't always work out right, as we know, but they do
and it's too late now.
Walker: Right. And we did provide a quite large curb cut and curb returns to
accommodate --
Bird: What the Mayor's getting at is, even though that is far out from the school grounds
to Linder Road., it's the same concept we have at Mountain View with -- onto Overland
Road, you got one road out and it -- it is a real mess and those guys -- you know, they
got lights there and it's -- and it's kids finding shortcuts through and parking and walking
in neighborhoods and stuff has caused a lot of trouble and it's something that we -- we
need to look at and I understand why the schools would want -- for safety reasons want
one entrance and exit, but for traffic movement -- you know, in the old days you might
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 52 of 99
have got away with it when ten percent of the kids drove. Now 90 percent of the kids
drive, so --
Walker: Right. It certainly is a problem and if the Mayor and Council have any further
ideas on how we can assist this -- we have, as you can see, widened this section. of
Cayuse Creek to provide that storage capacity, as well as the free flow as much as
possible and coordinated and worked simultaneously with the school to make sure that
this signal is in place and that the widening on Linder extends clear through the length
to McMillan. Now, I need to tell the Mayor and Council that we have -- we don't have
plans in place to widen Linder north to Chinden as of yet. That is still a two lane facility.
De Weerd: Yeah. Is there -- and I'm sorry to continue this, but -- and I see a county
pocket between the school and your piece of property. Is there any chance to have
some kind of a public stub there so that if that RUT were to redevelop they would have
some connection from -- I just see a real nightmare with that high school.
Walker: You know, a good point. Currently their -- their deceleration lane for their bus
access, faculty and parent drop off commences right at the edge of that RUT. It's Don
Struckman's place. And it extends to their loop route that goes approximately like this,
with a widened frontage. As far as allowing another access to coordinate with -- are you
thinking of one that coordinates with Mouse Creek -- is that Mouse Creek? Moose
Creek. Or Divide Creek. I`m sorry. Divide Creek.
De Weerd: I don't know. I just see all of these are going out to Linder and if there is an
alternative to get them to McMillan without going out onto Linder -- it's -- it's just going to
overload that system and if there is any alternative that you can build into this plat for a
possible secondary route -- and I don't know, Jay. This is probably not the time to be
trying to design that, I just don't understand why this -- when they place a school why
they don't look at how they can connect to the various streets in that area.
Walker: Point well taken.
Bird: The parking lot's on the north, isn't it?
Walker: The parking lot is on the north and west. I think this is primarily for staff and
this is more the drive-thru.
Bird: Yeah. And drop off.
Walker: And, then, they do have a ring road that goes back to their football field
stadium, baseball field., tennis courts, that, then, connects and I guess I will bring up as
well, Mayor and Council, that there are a few micro-paths connecting into the
Paramount Subdivision. You see one right there and one right there as well. And, then,
this Fox Run Way that comes from Chinden through will also connect to -- to McMillan.
Meridian City CounciF
August 14, 2007
Page 53 of 99
And there will be a micro-path into this South 60 development here, but we were -- we
were directed pretty strongly to not allow any other access points into the high school.
They wanted it controlled. And so maybe we need -- maybe that's somewhat of a
training issue that we need to help with the school districts, because I see your point. If
we have everybody discharging onto Linder Road, whether it be here at Cayuse Creek
or into the bus access points, either way it's going to -- it's going to overload Linder.
De Weerd: I don't know how this discussion, either Mr. Nary or Mrs. Canning, can look
at maybe a future connection and for our police department, if we can have our traffic
safety commission start looking at even those micro-paths and parking in those -- on
those neighborhood streets and -- I think we have learned a lot through Mountain View
High School and -- I do, too. So, if there is anything we can do in advance of the
opening of that school and if you have some flexibility in this plat in -- in working some
alternative -- and I don't know if there is one at this point.
Canning: Madam Mayor, we actually have a suggestion, if I can -- if I may. I spoke with
Mr. Marcheschi and Mr. Stanfield and I think one thing we did miss -- I'm not quite sure
how -- but we generally require across-access to undeveloped single properties, so that
when this property eventually wants to come in the city and develop that they'd have
cross-access through the proposed lot. So, we can get a drive aisle stub access to this
northern property and continue that through at the time that redevelops, so that we have
access to that -- the bus parking facility, there would be access across -- eventual
cross-access through there. So, that's one way to get to that appropriate place. It
doesn't help with not having full street access through Paramount residential
neighborhoods, but the stub street -- the stub access is appropriate regardless of the
high school for this property, so that it's not isolated and you can make the decision
when that one requests annexation whether it's appropriate to stub that to the high
school property.
Bird: Anna, go back to the site. No, the --
Canning: That one? That one?
Bird: Yeah. That one there. That one there. The concept. How are you going to --
without -- you know, you're really -- you're killing a project by making them have across-
access up there and, you know, that -- they can stub in something in like that and that
place might not develop for 20 years and they have got dead ground up there that they
can't do a thing with. This is going to be commercial or even multi-family up in the north
end., I'm not sure I want high school kids running through it.
Canning: Sir, generally -- I'm sorry, did you finish?
Bird: Go ahead. Go ahead..
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 54 of 99
Canning: I'm sorry. Generally the drive aisle stubs aren't that onerous for the
developers on these commercial properties, especially if we give them latitude as to
where they want to place it, so -- because, basically, what happens is they generally
locate the building and they will have a parking drive aisle and it's just a matter of
extending that drive aisle for five to ten feet, usually. So, if we give them enough
flexibility and don't mandate exactly where it is, usually, it's not a very onerous
requirement.
Bird: I agree with the flexibility. Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stanfield: Jump right up here, Mayor and Members of the Council. Scott Stanfield, 314
Badiola, Mason-Stanfield Engineering, project engineer. Anna and I and the developer
Michael did talk when Jay was up here speaking and it is not burdensome, as Anna
said, to put a private drive with an ingress-egress up to that north parcel. We have to
put anorth-south drive aisle in there anyway. You have to have a parking bump or pull
out for the last stall to back up anyway, perhaps it wouldn't be developed yet, there
would just be a five foot grassed area with a curb such that when the northerly parcel
does develop and if this body sees fit to extend that through that parcel and reciprocate
the same easement on his side, then, that could be developed, because he would have
a full access to his frontage and that could potentially benefit both parties. You know,
we are not connected to the school and the school is there now and we can't go back on
the school, but we can at least do that to -- as things develop you have control of what
happens in the future. With that said, I will kind of jump right into that preliminary plat
and the history. I will somewhat hopefully calm you down on the gridedness of that
preliminary plat. We had to start somewhere. Commercial developers and buyers don't
come in with a tenant and with a building in mind.. Typically you have to provide them
with a plat and., then, they do their site designs from there. So, this was a place to start
and., then, as Mr. Marcheschi pointed out, then, the comments came from the city staff
and the highway district to have a connection running east to west after the initial plat.
That's when the concept plan is generated. At that point we still were uncertain as to
which east-west route we desired., the northerly one or the southerly one. So, we kept
the preliminary plat the same, however, we added some notes in the note section and
think it's on the lower right-hand side of the full preliminary plat, that we -- by wording we
described an east-west connection to either one of the two full accesses to the west,
again, not knowing which one we would put in, but we wanted to note that on the
preliminary plat. We also noted shared ingress-egress on all the internal drive aisles to
support the concept plan's north-south private internal driveways. So, if you're able to
read the notes, you can see somewhat that it does mirror and Michael did point out that
the really only area that's changing is that upper third and presently it's looking like that
the northerly access is the one that's most desirable for marketing. Brighton
Corporation wanted to create a focal point in that center section and so they have kind
of been doing some marketing studies to determine which is the best location. So,
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 55 of 99
hope that explains some of the preliminary plats and gets you up to speed today. We
have been trying to revise the preliminary plat the best we can with the notes, because
this has been a very dynamic process. And I will add, Mayor, that the residential ground
to the east is -- doesn't even have a final plat yet, I believe. So, there is no lots for sale
there, so this one should be established by the time any lots are even for sale to the
east. It just has preliminary plat approval.
De Weerd.: When -- when you sell those lots, though, do they get a view of what is
being proposed in that area, so -- I guess we always assumed -- and you know what
that means -- is that people got that whole thing, especially if it was one subdivision,
and what we have learned is that's not always the case. Sometimes it's only the phase
that they are buying into. So, if you can tie this -- this piece to any closings on -- on the
residential to the east of it that would be certainly preferred.
Stanfield: Mayor, Members of the Council, I can definitely stress to Michael -- and he's
hearing you now that in their marketing maps they do present the full picture, because
you're right, Mayor, more often than not the sales team will just cut off at that rear
boundary to those easterly lots. So, I think Michael, with his internal staff, can share
that and, then, obviously, I share my drawings with them and create one master picture.
Now, you know, Brighton really enjoys creating communities, not just -- not just a
residential neighborhood, so I think they probably already planned on doing that, but we
can definitely stress that to them.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant at this point?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Stanfield,: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Just one final comment as part your presentation?
Marcheschi: You bet. Michael Marcheschi again. Again, we just want to stress that
Brighton does look at Paramount as an overall development and that there is a
residential component and from the very beginning there has been the intention of
creating commercial, some multi-family, some office within that overall picture and if we
had an image which showed that, I think you would see very clearly how this
commercial component is supposed to be supportive of the Paramount project and the
connections that we are making with the stub street, with the micro-path, with the
access off of the widened Linder and McMillan, all are meant to encourage using this
commercial corner for local services, which the residents out there currently don't have.
And so, you know, our intention at this point, with all development on this particular
parcel -- and as you have seen with the size of the parcels that we are describing is
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 56 of 99
smaller commercial development, service oriented and -- to service that local
community. So, with that, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. I do have some people that have
signed up. lf, when I read your name and indicate what you checked on the sheet, if
you'd like to come forward and provide testimony at that time, I would invite you to do
so. Marjorie Matthes signed up as neutral.
Matthes: Thank you very much. My name is Marjorie Matthes. I'm at 2229 West Kelly
Creek, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Matthes: We are neighbors of the Paramount and we do appreciate the things and the
value that they are bringing. to our neighborhood. I live back side on Kelly Creek to
Apgar Creek and I'm with my neighbors here, who live on Dove Creek and the other
neighbor also who is on Kelly Creek. We have had a lot of attention in our
neighborhood because of the Selway apartments, so I don't think people are paying
attention to what's happening across from us and how it's going to impact us. Linder
Road and McMillan are already impacted. We have a high school opening there, we
have a junior high school opening up on McMillan. We have another grade school
opening over in Paramount. And we have Hunter on the other side of us. We commute
this road. We commute Linder to Chinden every day in our business. It is already
impacted. The ingress and the egress -- one of our major concerns as brought up in the
Selway apartment complex discussions was that the Selway apartments are going to
open up to Kelly Creek on the back side of Apgar Creek. We are now looking at a
commercial endeavor that's going to be on the other side of us on Linder, which is also
going to align with Apgar Creek. Selway is going to be 171 apartment buildings as
proposed with 342 parking spaces, with multiple family dwellings. There are going to be
three and four bedroom houses there. It's not going to be two drivers in a household,
there is going to be multiple drivers in a household and thank you, Mayor, we appreciate
it: We are also concerned about the teenagers here with a high school. So, when we
are talking about the Brighton -- the Paramount kids and the kids in Paramount, we are
not talking about Kelly Creek's commute across Linder, we are not talking about the
apartment buildings that's going to be over here and that impacted area on Goddard
also gets a lot of traffic in the morning, because people don't want to go out on McMillan
with the kids coming into Hunter, nor do they -- are they going to want to go anywhere
near the high school, so they go -- they either go back to Ten Mile down to Chinden, the
people in the back are going to learn that Apgar is going to be a straight shot through to
Linder that's going to get them quickly to McMillan as an alternative to going out on
McMillan if they can't go the other direction. Apgar Creek goes on our -- it goes right by
our park in the afternoons. There are three to four major bus stops of children in there.
I know there are. I drive in the morning. There are kindergartners, little children. We
have a multitude of very young kids in our tract and this problem is going to exacerbate
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 57 of 99
everything that we are anticipating from the traffic coming up from Apgar that's going to
shoot through Kelly Creek to get off of McMillan in the morning time. I appreciate
ACHD. We have gone to their meetings. We have listened as business owners as to
what is going to be happening down Chinden, what's happening near our area. You're
now talking about Linder being widened from McMillan to the high school, which is
going to do nothing but congest the rest of the way, because if it's not widened from
Linder to Chinden, where are they going to back up to? They are not going to choose to
go to Chinden on a two lane highway when they leave schoo{. They are going to come
down the wider portion of Linder and this is going back up right back up to McMillan
when all the buses are coming out for the junior high, they are coming out for the grade
schools, and we are already in gridlock. You are talking gridlock now. Come talk to the
members of our community in Kelly Creek, we -- you know, we realize that -- and we
are not one of the adamant groups that go out and just scream to Selway, we realize
that this is zoned apartments. I knew it was zoned apartments. We knew that this was
zoned commercial. We are asking for reasonable controlled growth in our
neighborhood that is going to allow us to commute daily to our jobs and not have to live
with this for two to three to four years as you as a city cope with the problems with
ACRD funding, as we as neighbors and drivers are coping with that same exact
problem. We are stuck. We are. We have nowhere to go. And now we have a high
school, a junior high, and two grade schools and it all funnels in that area. All four of
those corners are going to be zoned commercial. You're just not talking to them. They
are all commercial. So, how is this going to come into play, if we are going to widen it
just 500 feet down the road, that's not the solution and that's not the answer. Putting a
light down by the high school isn't going to alleviate our problem leaving Kelly Creek
when we can't get out on Linder. When we can't go left on Linder to Chinden, because
there is no controlled traffic or timing of lights. So, I know that this is the beginning of
this process and we feel as neighbors and are concerned about it, we felt we needed to
be here at the beginning to address it with you.
De Weerd: Appreciate that.
Matthes: Thank you.
De Weerd: Connie Reeves signed up neutral. Thank you. Barbara Garcia signed up
neutral. Okay. And Henry Garcia. Thank you. Those are the names that signed up. Is
there anyone else who like to provide testimony? Thank you. Council, any further
questions for staff before I ask the applicant for a response? Anna, anything?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did find the overall illustration of
Paramount for your ease of reference with regard to the high school. It is shown on that
property. And I think that was it. And., you know, there was some concern about the
preliminary plat not being consistent with the final plat -- or with the concept plan. If
Council wants to make that a requirement within the development agreement that would
be fine. Normally what I look for is that the lots that bound the -- the site don't change
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 58 of 99
significantly, so that we wouldn't go from four lots along the west side to 20 lots along
the west side. But if that's -- if it's otherwise consistent, if they are just making changes
to the interior of it, I would generally deem it to be consistent with the approved
preliminary plat. So, with that I'll answer any questions you may have, especially with --
there seems to be some interest in the overall Paramount site plan at this point, so --
De Weerd: Does it show how this connects to the neighborhood across the street,
Anna?
Canning: I'll have to go to the zoning map for that. I had to reboot. Sorry. It froze on
me.
De Weerd: Oh.
Canning: The Selway apartments would be further south here. No. No, they wouldn't.
They are over here. There we go. They are right here.
Birds And that's Kelly Creek right next to it.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Would the applicant like to come forward with wrap-up comments or --
Walker: Thank you. We are doing the juggle act here, but just to respond to the
neighborhood concerns, ACRD has made it a priority to widen Linder to Chinden to a
five lane consistent with our cooperative development agreement, what we are doing for
the properties adjacent that we have control of. The party north of Paramount on Linder
is owned by somebody else, otherwise, we would be continuing that widening to
Chinden. Now, to the south we are -- Frank Variel is one of the participants in this
cooperative development agreement with ACRD. We are widening down to the
widened section that already occurs on South Linder and, then, we are currently
widening McMillan to a three lane section to its ultimate build out. With these
improvements you will see a substantial capacity -- the bettering of capacity being
provided for these -- for these arterial streets adjacent to these developments and the
reason why we are making these improvements in a joint effort with all these adjacent
developers, including ACRD as a government agency, is through our traffic impact
studies we have seen the need for this to happen prior to the school coming on line,
prior to our development -- the commercial development, as well as the residential
development. It's all part of a -- a general plan improvement to accommodate the traffic
and, yes, the two lane has been insufficient and, yes, stop control is very limiting and
most of the delay occurs at those stop controlled intersections. I think there will be a
great improvement with the five lane section and the intersection signalization that's
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 59 of 99
occurring. Traffic flow will be much better. And I appreciate Mayor and Council and
their recommendations and hearing our plat today. Thank you.
De Weerd: So, Jay, I guess what you are saying is the intent is that if you could you
would do the road improvements from McMillan to clear north to Chinden? Can you do
that up until the point of the property that you don't own and that can be a condition if
and when that -- that would develop?
Walker: Part of the problem is we don't -- ACRD doesn't own that right of way. All three
of those parcels that --
Bird.: Show the overall map.
Walker: If you show the overall map -- well, let me just -- can we go back to that overall
Paramount map?
De Weerd: Well, even as far as -- if you look at it in terms of the intersection
improvement that you're already doing, if you brought that road up as far as the property
that you do --
Walker: We are. It's a five lane section --
De Weerd: Oh, you are doing it up until there?
Walker: To here and, then, Mr. Molton, who you heard last time, and Doug Stewart,
who resides here on this three acres, and, then, this is owned by Hewarts, Joe Hewart,
and we don't have any control of this right of way from this point to Chinden and that's --
ourtransition is ending at this point right here.
De Weerd: So, what you're saying is when you do this intersection improvement at
McMillan and Linder, you will be bringing that improvement clear up to where
Paramount ends to the far north --
Walker: To our frontage.
De Weerd: -- of your --
Walker: Yes.
Bird: And, then, they are also bringing it south of the -- Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 60 of 99
Bird: As I understand, they are also bringing it south from McMillan with Mr. Variel
down -- what is it, a half mile, quarter mile, or --
Walker: Yes. About a quarter of a mile.
Bird: Where their property is, where they can get the right way.
Walker: And, then, we are taking it west, the extent of Jim Durst's property, and, then,
we are taking it east to our Fox Run Way tie in and deceleration lane requirement that
we have as part of our Conditional Use Permit.
De Weerd: Okay.
Walker: And I will just point out that those two outparcel properties of -- are both listed
on the MLS. They have those up for sale. And, then, I think you're well aware of the
Hewert's desires and their preliminary layout that they presented to the neighborhood
meeting just on last Thursday evening.
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we received that application
this afternoon, so --
Walker: So, I think that's a priority and they would love to have that five lane section
completed prior to '08 August when the school comes on line.
De Weerd: Do you know on the other developer driven intersection at McMillan and
Ten Mile, what year that is --
Walker: That would be shortly following -- I think plan to --
De Weerd: Is that immediately following this intersection improvement?
Walker: Yeah. That's why they have set the deadline of completing this intersection
and widening project by May of '08, because shortly thereafter they will commence that
Ten Mile -McMillan.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I think we were told fall of '08 for McMillan and Ten Mile right after
this one.
Walker: Right.
Bird: I think it was going to go Meridian, Linder, Ten Mile.
Walker: Right.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 61 of 99
De Weerd: Yeah. I'm just not seeing that on a plan, so -- and that always concerns me.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I do have one question for Jay. Jay, your west boundary, you do
have a nice meandering sidewalk to get to the school; right? From the intersection?
Walker: Yes.
Bird: Okay.
Walker: We have partnered up -- there are a couple of outparcels that we are still -- one
of them is -- is Mr. Struckman right here and, then, there is the Lukeharts that are
currently right here that we are still in negotiation with, but other than those two parcels
we have pedestrian amenities planned for the extent of the project.
Bird: Because there is some freshmen that don't -- aren't able to drive that might have
to walk.
Walker: Right. And, obviously, pedestrian -- ped buttons will be included at both
intersections and crosswalks provided for any of the pedestrians.
Bird; Thank you.
De Weerd.: But on the RUT you just said that you would be doing the road improvement
clear to that north of Paramount.
Walker: Right.
De Weerd: So, apparently, right of way is --
Walker: We are bagging 13 feet from him. He hasn't agreed yet. Close. ACHD is
dealing with right of way acquisition on that parcel particularly.
De Weerd: Anything further from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just a comment and, if I understood, I think it was a question that Director
Canning asked. I understand that lot lines have the potential of moving as you find
tenants or other stuff. I'm uncomfortable with a plat that doesn't establish firmly where
the roadways are or where the common areas are, which would be the landscaping.
Meridian City Council
August T4, 2007
Page 62 of 99
And at the moment we are presented with three uncompatible -- there is a plat that
shows no roads or landscaping. There is a landscape plan that doesn't have things in
the same place. And a concept plan that has something else. And I would rather at
least see a plat that establishes where the roads are, where the common areas are,
understanding that the lot lines may not stay there, but these aren't even close, because
once you put a public road in, those lines aren't going to be square and that's
uncomfortable for me and I don't know if that is the question that Director Canning was
asking, but I would have to say I certainly understand and expect this -- it's already
zoned C-G, so it's not a surprise what you're talking about going there.. But I would like
to see a preliminary plat that has the roads and has the common areas defined, then,
where ever you draw the lot lines doesn't really bother me, because I understand they
like to move. I'm just -- I'm uncomfortable with having to interpret from three different
pieces of paper what the plat's likely to be.
Walker: Councilman Zaremba, wouldn't -- wouldn't the staff condition of approval to
dedicate the public right of way connection of the roadway be sufficient? I mean as long
as that's in there, then, we are required to do that and Iwould -- I guess -- I would hope
that -- Mayor and Council, that you would provide us the flexibility to place that without
knowing the tenants at this point and nailing down that specific --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor -- and this may be a hold over from my time on the Planning
and Zoning Commission, but as much as I trust you and trust the staff, I like to see it.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I don't disagree with Mr. Zaremba. I'm sitting here trying to figure out words
to say about my feelings on this and I guess. my feelings are, well, conceptually I can
approve it or conceptually I could deny it. I don't know what I'm approving. I think staff
is somewhat comfortable that they can make it work, but this is a first for me that you --
you approve a preliminary plat and a grid and you have a concept that doesn't follow the
grid -- I don't disagree that it's commercial, I don't have any problem with that at all.
just would be way more comfortable if you would have done your concept and, then,
done your preliminary plat, because at least with the concept and a preliminary plat,
you'd probably do some traffic engineering to find out whether or not those right-ins and
right-outs are going to work or whether or not those street accesses are going to work.
So, I guess I'd like to see something more concrete in terms of a preliminary plat, as
opposed to it's kind of conceptual. And, again:, it's -- it's kind of a -- do I trust you? Yes.
Could you flip the property tomorrow? Yeah. Have I had that happen to me as a City
Councilman? Too many times. And it's not you and it's not your company, but, you
know, we could do this conceptually tonight and we could see a developer that hasn't
got the foresight that you have, hasn't got the depths of design detail that you want,
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2Ql)7
Page 63 of 99
come in and build something that when we drive by three years from now and look at
that and say that isn't what we approved.
De Weerd: And that's happened.
Rountree: And I just did that. Just.
Walker: Well -- and I think that's why we presented the somewhat conceptual plan and
we have some letters of intent and are moving that direction. It's hard at this point to --
to secure everything to that detail for us at this point and maybe I can let Michael -- he's
done a lot more of the research and if you wouldn't mind him just responding to that,
Councilman Rountree, if that's all right.
Marcheschi: Thank you. They are great questions and I think they are great concerns.
Again, we have submitted this preliminary plat showing the required landscape. There
aren't any common lots necessarily in the development. There is the required
landscape easements around development, as we are showing. The landscape plan
that you see and the preliminary plat are consistent in terms of where the access points
are to private drives and the private drives internally would be, obviously, placed either
in the final plat that we submit and any internal landscaping would be done by individual
parcel when they come into -- for approval and permit for building and through
compliance with the zoning and through design review, which is what we are asking for
tonight. So, in terms of inconsistencies in the -- the only inconsistency that I see is what
was originally submitted as our preliminary plat and staffs and ACHD's
recommendation and requirement to include a public road through the development and
so what we have done with the conceptual plan -- and by submitting that conceptual
plan to you tonight is to show you how we think that could be achieved. You know,
coming off of that stub road, there isn't a straight street across to line up with Apgar or
Deer Crest, so there needs to be some adjustment in that road, some curvature to it to
align with Apgar or Deer Crest. Other than that, all the lots that you see in this
preliminary plat in the conceptual plan would fit -- would fit, other that those adjustments
just to these lots, you know, again, off of the stub street, you know, that could easily
come over and just move that direction, this -- these two lots and those lots would adjust
to allow for the public -- the public street. So, our intention I think has always been to --
you know, per staff and ACRD recommendation, to add those, you know, as a
requirement going forward in our final plat application. So, again, Ithink -- and also if I
may address some of the neighbors' concerns just quickly.
De Weerd: Uh-huh. Please.
Marcheschi: Development -- commercial development around residential is a sensitive
topic and rightfully so and I think at Paramount we are especially concerned with that
and so the nature of development in this particular commercial area has always been
smaller scale and we had included in our application images from the Paramount
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 64 of 99
Professional Center, which is just north of Cayuse Creek, also one of our developments,
to show you the type of architecture, the scale of the architecture, the per capita of the
architecture, which we intend in this particular development. And the access points
along Linder, the access points along McMillan, the proximity and connection to
residential neighborhoods, as one who helped write the neighborhood center guidelines,
you know, we are very aware of the -- of the need to make those pedestrian and
immediate connections to residential and commercial developments. And so I think that
in the design of this whole development we have been sensitive to trying to place, you
know, access to residences. What we are essentially doing is providing services to the
high school students and services to the residents, so they don't need to drive up to
Chinden and out to McMillan or down Linder into downtown Meridian. We are providing
services very close to the needs and so with the widening of the road, both at Linder
and McMillan, with the access points on Linder and McMillan, we are providing I think a
very efficient flow of both pedestrian and vehicular access within close proximity of the
needs. So, you know, as we talk about traffic and traffic calming and trip generation, if
anything, I think we are helping in that immediate area to reduce generation and bring it
closer to the residents. So, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Questions?
Zaremba.: Madam Mayor, I would. Am I understanding that including the landscape
buffer that would be along McMillan and Linder, the individual property owners will be
responsible for their portion of that?
Marcheschi: The landscape buffer around the property is a landscape easement for
which those particular owners would be responsible, but as part of the easement --
mean there would be, obviously, a development agreement and CC&Rs in place and an
organization in place to maintain all the landscape areas and each parcel would pay pro
rata, you know, shares for the maintenance of those areas as per most developments.
Zaremba: They would not have the option not to do that.
Marcheschi: Correct.
Zaremba: It still seems to me it would be easier to put it in a separate common lot, the
business owners association handles that. That's pretty much what we have been
doing everywhere else, isn't it?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, on
commercial properties we found a lot of times that they wanted to just put it in an
easement, instead of in a separate lot. Generally, the homeowners -- or the business
owners association still maintains that or has specific provisions for the maintenance of
that landscaping, but it hasn't appeared to be a problem on commercial properties as of
yet. On residential properties it's avery -- very much is an issue and we actually require
Meridian City Council
August T4, 2007
Page 65 of 99
it be in a lot in those instances. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in recognition
of both -- some of the concerns I have heard expressed by Council and that were also
expressed by the Commission, there was a lot of discussion about the inconsistency
between the plat and the concept plan, but ACHD hadn't taken a final action on this
project at the time of the Commission hearing. I think we moved it forward through the
planning commission because it had been Ithink -- I believe stalled at ACRD for a little
while. So, in recognition of that they did try and move it through. It may be appropriate
to continue this item for three weeks to allow the applicant to revise the preliminary plat
to be consistent with the concept plan or the approvals of ACHD and staff and to show
the major drive aisles and the public street dedication as well. That way we have a
more -- a less conceptual item for Council to take an action on.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Council?
Rountree: I have no questions.
Bird: I have no questions, Madam Mayor. If the applicant wants to take it on three
weeks -- I have no -- I have no problem with -- with their concept or -- and I understand
that ACRD hadn't made up their final decision on it, so I'm flexible either way.
Marcheschi: Just so I'm clear, tonight we have a preliminary plat before you and as
conditions for approval of the preliminary plat one of the requirements would be for us to
insert a public roadway, which would alter the configuration somewhat. So, I don't know
if it's necessary to continue this for three weeks or if it's okay to do it tonight -- I mean
we have to do it anyway, right, before we would submit a final plat, but --
Canning: Mr. Marcheschi, I thin
preliminary plat right now. I'm just
because I think that you need it.
Zaremba.: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
k that Council is really reluctant to approve the
proposing the continuation., really, for your benefit,
Zaremba: The director has interpreted correctly. I would not approve this plat. That
doesn't mean I can't be out voted by others who would., but, frankly, I need to see
everything combined on one plat. The elements that I expect to see on a plat are the
roadways and the accesses. I'm satisfied that it being a commercial project, if it doesn't
have to be common area, I can live with the landscape plan and your promise that there
will be CC&Rs that require everybody -- I need to at least see the roadways and where
they access and the final decisions about that.
Marcheschi: So, you'd like to see the public roadway; is that correct?
Meridian city Council
August 14, 2i)07
Page 66 of 99
Zaremba: Well, I would like to see the public roadways fixed and anything that's going
to be a private roadway at least concept --
Marcheschi: Right.
Zaremba: -- you know, even if it could move and a decision made about whether the
public roadway is going to swing north or swing south -- actually, I hadn't realized until
you said that that it was a choice. I was assuming the public roadway was going to be a
Y --
Marcheschi: One or the other.
Zaremba: -- and both of them would be public. So, those are the kind of things that I
want to see nailed down on the plat.
Marcheschi: Okay.
Zaremba: Forme. I may be the only one, but --
De Weerd.: I believe --
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: -- I have heard similar things from Councilman Rountree in his comments
and saw nods or heard nods from the others. Or at least maybe not him.
Zaremba: So, Madam Mayor, if we are going to continue it, then, we need to give the
reason for the continuation, I think. If it isn't obvious, what I need to see -- I don't have a
problem if you're going to tell me the property lines are going to move --
De Weerd: But how much time?
Zaremba: Uh?
De Weerd: How much time would you need to do that?
Marcheschi: We could do it before your next Council meeting.
Canning: Madam Mayor, in consultation with the engineer that needs to make these
changes --
Zaremba: Ten days. Staff needs to see -- have ten days --
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 67 of 99
Canning: Right.
Zaremba: -- at least.
Canning.: Three weeks.
Rountree: Three weeks. The 4th of September.
Bird: The 4th of September. Is that okay?
Marcheschi: Sure.
Zaremba.: Is there anything else we are looking for besides roadways and --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Councilman Zaremba and Councilman Rountree certainly hit it on the head and
I think Director Canning's guidance is well taken. I think how the landscape plan
incorporates with the -- with the road placement as well and also the drive aisle issue, if
there is any way to show how that might actually line up when I look at the Paramount
block as a whole and, actually, it looks like there might be an opportunity to line up
straight into their loop. Whether or not that's ever an option, but how that -- we might be
able to preserve that potential later on, would be helpful.
Marcheschi: Thank you, Councilman.
De Weerd.: Anything else, Council?
Rountree: I have nothing.
Borton: It's not a requirement, but I probably speak for the whole Council that we
recognize as we kind of been through the process and you have listed a laundry list of
item and things that you have done to try to improve the roadways and make the best of
really difficult challenges, so I commend you and your company for doing that. Those
are not small items that you list and not small minor improvements, so it should be
recognized and appreciated that those are big efforts to try and improve these difficult
places.
Marcheschi: Thank you.
De Weerd: We'd like to turn over all north Meridian roads to you all to get it done.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 68 of 99
Borton: Second.
Rountree: Put in a bid for that.
Gorton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move that we continue Items 14 and 15, PP 07-011 and MI 07-007, to
Tuesday, September 4th.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Items 14 and 15 to September
4th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16: Public Hearing: VAR 07-01.4 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3D-7a
to exceed the 4 square foot area maximum for a public service information
sign to allow a 19 square foot LED reader board sign for Meridian
Elementary School by Meridian Elementary School - 48 West State
Street:
De Weerd: Our next item is Item 16. It's a Public Hearing for VAR 07-014. I will open
with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, sorry, I turned the page too early. I
was confused. The application before you tonight is for -- I apologize, I need to find my
notes. The application before you tonight is for Meridian Elementary School and it's
located at Pine and Northwest 1st Street and this is a variance application. The
applicant is proposing a reader board that would be a public service identification sign
for Meridian Elementary School and it would be nine feet wide and two feet two inches
in height for a total of 19 square feet and it's roughly illustrated here on the -- before
you. And it would be right above the main entrance going into the school. The UDC
allows public information signs to be no greater than four square feet currently and no
more than four feet in height. So, its location above the ground is not anticipated -- or
was not anticipated by the code, nor was the size. In calling it -- or in suggesting to the
applicant that we deal with this as a public service identification sign, they did agree that
they wouldn't change the message on the reader board more than once a day, so that it
wouldn't become -- it would be more like a static reader board that you see at schools
typically, instead of a dynamic rolling one where it changes text constantly. Staff is
recommending approval for the variance for a couple different reasons. We feel it can
meet the findings. Specifically two of the findings are in question. The third one is not.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 69 of 99
And I will go through. this. So, the first finding is that the variance shall not grant a right
or a special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. Staff felt that granting
a variance in this location for the proposed public service information sign would not
grant a right or special privilege to the applicant, mainly because the old zoning that it
currently enjoys would allow a wall sign to be up 18 percent of the wall elevation. But
because it's not a commercial use, it's not allowed that wall sign. So, it really is kind of
a unique situation where it -- because of its use as a school it's not allowed signage.
The other reason is that the public information signs are allowed without a permit
currently and it does not exceed the height limit allowed for public information signs and
is small in comparison to standards of wall signs as I mentioned before. So,
theoretically, you could have a maximum of -- or you can have a maximum of 75 square
feet in the Old Town district and they are only proposing 19 square feet. So, again, the
special privilege is not to the size, really, it's just to the size of a public information sign.
The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site. This
property is located on Northwest 1st Street, so it's right at the end of that -- which is a
dead end cul-de-sac off of Pine Avenue. The school is less visible to pedestrians and
motorists than typical elementary schools, which are out along the collector or arterial
roadways. And the school building is buffered by the playground area and ancillary
school office buildings. So, this sign is solely oriented to parents dropping off children
and children arriving in buses. There are no residential homes in close proximity to the
front entrance that would be affected by the reader board and staff finds that it does
constitute a hardship because of these characteristics. Again, it's kind of an isolated
school., they need the ability to communicate with the parents quickly. For instance, if
school is closed and someone's dropping off a child, they need to be able to
communicate that school is closed.. So, it's just a quick way for them to relay
information to those parents dropping off children. The third finding is that the variance
shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and staff could find no
instance where this would be detrimental to the public safety or welfare. So, with that
we are recommending approval of this sign.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba.: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd.: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just for clarification, the normal use of the public service identification signs,
if I'm remembering correctly when that portion of the UDC was being written, wasn't that
really -- we were thinking about applying it to signs that said church two blocks or park
two blocks this way.
Canning: Hospital.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 70 of 99
Zaremba: That the roadside signs that would be two feet by two and that's really what
that was designed for, wasn't it?
Canning: It is really what that was designed for and when the applicant originally came
in for this application we discussed a number of ways that they could achieve this
reader board.. One of them was to do a text amendment for elementary schools to allow
them to have a reader board, but it seemed to have far more reaching implications than
I felt comfortable recommending them to take forward.. This is a public information sign.
Those school signs are public information signs. We have specific allowances for
middle school and for high school signs that aren't necessarily on the property, but we
didn't have one for elementary schools, either on the property or off the property. So,
because they are more neighborhood oriented, this one's closer to a commercial district
than any other elementary school that I'm aware of, so this was kind of a special
hardship related to the site and we felt it was better to take this route than some others.
But I do recognize it's a stretch.
Zaremba: Sounds close to me, but I was just defending why it -- why it was written the
way it was written.
Canning: Yeah.
Zaremba: But I think you made the right choice.
De Weerd.: Is the applicant --
Lantz: You get your own pictures. And for the sake of time --
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address.
Lantz: Oh. Laura Lantz. L-a-n-t-z. 1420 North Crestmont Drive. And am the president
of the PTO at Meridian Elementary School and staff did an exceptional job and any
questions I'm here for you. And so I'm not going to add to their presentation. They did
great.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Am I remembering correctly -- I believe we had a discussion on this before.
Lantz: Yes.
Zaremba: Is this the one where the PTO had volunteers --
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 71 of 99
Lantz: Yes.
Zaremba: -- contribute and --
Lantz: Yes. You granted avariance -- excuse me -- a waiver of the variance cost and
we did discuss that all of our monies the kids and parents and teachers through
fundraising raised the money for the LED board and that's why we had asked you to,
please, waive the variance cost, because that was all of our geranium fundraiser
money. So, we can now use that for books for reader of the month. So, we have
earned it for the last year and a half, we have been saving it, it's in savings earning very
little interest, and we'd love to spend it.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Lantz: You bet. Thank you.
De Weerd.: Any other questions from Council? Thank you.
Lantz: Thank you.
De Weerd: This Is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Council, hearing no further testimony, I would entertain a
motion to close the Public Hearing on this item.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird.: I move we close the Public Hearing on VAR 07-014.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 16. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve VAR 07-014 with staff and applicant comments
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 72 of 99
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion -- oh, I'm sorry. I have a motion and a second to approve
Item 16. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17: Public Hearing: VAR 07-015 Request for a Variance to allow 15-foot
wide street side setbacks to be measured from property line instead of
back of sidewalk for Crossfield Subdivision by Heron River
Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. We look forward to seeing your sign. Okay. Item 17 was
requested to be withdrawn.
Canning: Madam Mayor, may I briefly discuss that?
De Weerd.: Yes.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the Crossfield project originally had
a variance approved for the front setbacks to be ten feet, instead of the required 15.
This was before we had the TN-R district. But the design was very much consistent
with what ended up being our TN-R district. So, it was approved for the front setback
and, then, we changed the UDC. Well, we don't have front residential setbacks
anymore, we have street setbacks. So, they came in to request a street side setback.
It did get -- in the process we did notice it, so it needed to be on the agenda, but my
interpretation would be that that front, since we changed it to street, that they didn't
need to really ask again to have the same setbacks. So, what I would like to do is just
write a letter to them explaining my interpretation of that previous variance and the
change in the UDC and, then, we will record that so there is a recorded document for
the record that extends that variance, essentially, into the new code. Does that make
sense? I'll answer any questions Council may have related to that, but that's why I
asked the applicant -- or encouraged the applicant to go ahead and withdraw it,
because I didn't really believe it was necessary to have that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 73 of 99
Zaremba: Maybe you were going to ask the same question. Would it be appropriate to
give them a refund if they paid a fee to do this or -- should we discuss that?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we were going to refund anything
that we hadn't already used. We did need to notice it, so there are some hard costs
associated with that and we were going to refund the remainder. There is a fee for a
director's determination. We weren't going to charge them for that.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- and I discussed this with Mrs. Canning
earlier today, too. My only concern is that we have a recorded variance previously
issued and so what I was going to recommend or suggest is that her director's
determination also be ratified by this Council. We can put it on your Consent Agenda
and, then, we can record it. And that way there is no question from anyone that what
was done and that's the interpretation of the city and that's been confirmed by this
Council and, then, we have it recorded and there shouldn't be any issue.
Bird: I agree wholeheartedly.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: It's a little unusual, but it's a way to at least avoid any other issues in the future.
De Weerd: So --
Rountree: Do we need a motion to the effect?
De Weerd: Do we need a motion. to reflect that?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, all you need to do is I guess --
Rountree: Withdraw their --
Nary: Yeah. Accept the withdrawal of this variance and, then, Mrs. Canning will
prepare her letter as she would have if they hadn't of brought it forward this way and we
will put it on the agenda for approval.
De Weerd.: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd.: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 74 of 99
Rountree: I move that we accept the withdrawal of Item 17, VAR 07-015 and direct
Director Canning to prepare a memo to the applicant and provide that to Council for
Consent Agenda for consideration.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second on Item 19 to accept the withdrawal of this
item. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES..
Item 18: Public Hearing: MI 07-010 Request for a Miscellaneous application for
Modification of the existing Development Agreement for Hampton Inn &
Suites to allow all principally permitted uses within the C-G District for
Hampton Inn & Suites Addition by Hotel Developers -Boise, LLC - 815
& 875 South Allen Street and 2870 East Freeway:
De Weerd: Item 18 is a Public Hearing on MI 07-010. I will open this Public Hearing
with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Hampton Inn and Suites
Addition. The application before you tonight is a development agreement modification.
The property is located generally northwest of Eagle Road and Interstate 84. It's in this
general location. This project is only complicated in its history, so I will try and go
through and -- I'll try and go through it quickly and if need be I can fill in the gaps, but it
started in 1999 and the Council approved C-G zoning for the Fallon Green Subdivision,
but restricted the use to one 60,000 square foot medical office building. In 2002
following annexation of the property the Council approved a planned development on
that site that established three build-able lots on 4.34 acres and, then, Lot 1, Block 1,
was approved for a three story, 92 room hotel, the Hampton Inn. The other two lots
were to house two office buildings and they were specific square footages allowed for
that time. And so you did a modification to the original development agreement at that
time to reflect those office buildings. So, that was the first addendum to the
development agreement and, then, you revised the first addendum to the development
agreement in 2003. That revision allowed the hotel and office uses under the C-G
zoning, however, with some minor changes and that primarily -- it added specificity as to
one three story, 80 room, hotel and one or two office buildings. So, that was the first --
that was the revision to the first addendum. Now, the applicant proposes amending
Section 4.1, uses permitted by this agreement, the recorded development agreement to
immediately begin construction of an addition to the existing hotel. Per the existing
development agreement the hotel is currently only allowed 80 rooms, so that is what
necessitates this development agreement modification. So, right now they are asking --
they are held to an 80 room and also to some restrictions in the office use that were in
the original DA. But the site is currently zoned C-G and staff believes that the
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 75 of 99
applicant's request for removing the hotel and office restriction to the site and allowing
all C-G principally uses is consistent with the existing zoning. And., apparently, I do
have some elevations. No, I don't. Sorry. So, they have not submitted a conceptual
site plan showing how future office or retail buildings may be constructed on the site.
However, there were some elevations for the proposed hotel addition. I had thought
that they would make it into my presentation. They did not and I apologize. But staff
did evaluate those elevations and believe that the addition meets the city's design
requirements for structures located on entryway corridors. So, the change that they are
proposing tonight is to just state that uses allowed pursuant to C-G zoning -- all
principally permitted C-G, general retail and service commercial uses, shall be allowed
on Lots 1 through 3, Block 1, of Fallon Green Subdivision and removing the previous
restrictions on the specific use and square footage. With that I'll answer any questions
Council may have.
Borton: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Borton: Is the applicant here?
Ensz: Good evening. I think it's still evening, not morning. My name is Derek Ensz.
Address is 875 South Allen, Meridian. Just so you don't think we are a bunch of flakes
with all the change in development, we came in after all of those development things
were done, we purchased the property to build the hotel from the people that originally
wanted to do it, they lost their nerve or funding or something, we stepped in, built the
hotel, we didn't own the property in back of the hotel, which was originally intended for
office space. About a year later the people that were going to do the office backed out
and came to us and said, hey, do you want this property and, you know, we, basically,
sell out quite a bit of the time and so we said, well, we will take it. I'm not an office
developer, but we will put an addition to the hotel there. So, that's, basically, what we
are here for. We, actually, already have a building permit for the building and maybe
have a little bit of the cart before the horse, but we need to get this development
agreement modified just to allow us to do the hotel there.
Borton: Derek, did you bring elevations?
Ensz: I didn't. No. It's basically -- if you're familiar with the building, it's, basically, just
another -- you can see it there -- I guess I can use your little laser pointer. There is the
hotel right there. There is a wing that's going to go right out the back and it will be -- it
will look pretty seamless. It will look just like another wing of the --
Canning: Sorry.
Ensz: Did I do that?
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 76 of 99
Canning: No, you didn't.
Ensz: It will look like another wing, instead of just being the shallow U, it will look -- it
will have a wing going out the back and the only reason that we want a general use is
because we still own this section here and it's not really a good space for an office
space. It's back behind our hotel and what we would do, instead, is probably put a
conference room there or something like that that compliments the hotel. So, we'd just
like to keep those uses -- uses open for the future. In #act, they are already out there
moving dirt and putting in the fire -- fire hydrant lines and everything, so -- I'm open for
questions.
Borton: Council, any questions?
Bird.: I have none.
Zaremba: I would wait to see if there is other public testimony and, then, I would
reserve a question or two.
Borton: Okay.
Ensz: Thank you.
Borton: Thank you, Derek.
Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, I did find those elevations.
apologize. Here is the site plan and there is the existing facade.
Borton: Can you scroll down? No, the other down. There you go.
De Weerd: The other down.
Gorton: Right (here. Thanks.
De Weerd: We have one other person signed up. Rusty Landen signed up for. He's
with you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this
application? Council, any further questions needed?
Bird: I have none..
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, just a comment.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 77 of 99
Zaremba: Just acomment -- one comment and one question. Some of the restrictions
that were put on this were put there because the tone of the neighborhood had not yet
changed from being rural. The accesses to Eagle Road were not established the way
that they are now. And some of the restrictions that were reasonable at the time have --
would not be necessary now. So, seeing that there are no neighbors here who say this
is right next to my house and I object, which we did get before, I'm comfortable with the
change. The question is one of the issues with this particular property because of the
shape of it was the fire department had issues with access and how they were going to
get around and sanitary services also did -- and I guess my only question is is the fire
department comfortable with the addition and is that going to mess up the turning
radiuses and stuff like that.
Silva: Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, and Members of the Council, we did have initially
some concerns about that. If my memory serves me correctly on this project, I had that
-- I had identified that as a concern and I believe the sprinkler system was modified to a
more substantial fire sprinkler system to compensate for -- for the issues pertaining to
the turning radiuses and so I believe we are fine with it now, so -- if that answers your
question, sir.
Zaremba: Thank you. It does.
De Weerd: Anything else? Any final comments from the applicant? If there is no
further testimony or information needed, Council, I'd entertain a motion to close this
Public Hearing.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird.: I move we close the Public Hearing on MI 07-010.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 18. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRLED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve MI 07-010 with staff. and applicant comments.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 78 of 99
Rountree: Second..
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 18. If there is no discussion,
Mr. Berg, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird., yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19: Public Hearing: AP 07-005 Request for City Council Review of an
Appeal of the Director's Determination to deny a request for a sign permit
for Primerica Sign by Todd Mendel - 1640 West Cherry Lane, Suite 100
(Lot 2, Block 1 of Cherry Lane Crossing Subdivision):
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 19 is a Public Hearing on AP 07-005. I will open this
Public Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Primerica Sign project.
The application before you tonight is an appeal of the director's decision to deny the
sign permit for Primerica. You are hearing this upon reconsideration. Generally I do not
give a presentation for appeals, but I feel it's important to refresh your memory on where
we have gone to and you asked me to specifically respond to a letter -- a detailed letter
that the applicant presented., so I will make that presentation. The applicant requested
a permit for an existing Primerica sign that was erected without a permit and that permit
was denied for the following reasons -- there were three. The primary one was that the
proposed sign meets the definition of an off-premise sign and is that the sign that is not
related to the property upon which it is located or to the activity being conducted
thereon. The Primerica sign is above the store fronts for two other businesses. Their
actual store front is to the -- to the left of what is shown on the picture before you. Per
the UDC the wall area, which is where this sign needs to be, shall mean the wall surface
of a single tenant structure or the store front of amulti-tenant structure. So, clearly, this
is not the Primerica store front area, it is to the -- to the right of that as shown on this
drawing. There was a third reason. The third reason states that under the UDC the
planned sign program standards for a wall sign would only allow it to be nine percent
and that is correct and staff made an assessment of the Primerica sign and an estimate
of their existing store front and felt that it did not meet the nine percent maximum
allowable. In preparing for tonight's hearing, staff pulled the CZC for the structure.
They measured the store front exactly. We have never had an application to put the
sign up above their store front, so it's never been an actual request of ours and that first
assessment that it didn't meet the nine percent was an estimate and it was wrong. We
have recalculated what their sign area is. They had overstated it by four inches, which,
actually, made a difference in this case. So, given now what we know, should they
choose to move it across their store front, it would be allowed under the nine percent.
So, I needed to make that clear at the beginning of this hearing that the first assessment
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 79 of 99
was incorrect. So, it would meet the nine percent. There is also other options for
Primerica signage. They could do a monument sign, but that has never been the
question, so in Mr. Mendell's letter received on July 3rd, it had four main points. The
first one being that the Primerica sign meets the nine percent rule for the elevation.
They are correct. And I'll go and address these in more detail, but the second one was
sign's in violation of the nine percent standard. I'll go through those that they claim
exceed that nine percent. The third was atenant-landlord agreement of exclusive
rights. And the fourth is Mr. Mendell feels singled out for noncompliance when other
signs in the city appear to be in noncompliance. So, I'll address those one by one. With
regard to the nine percent rule, again, this current sign was computed for actual tenant
store front. It was an approximation of the elevation. The Cherry Crossing Subdivision
planned sign program has approved center signs and free-standing monuments. Wall
signs have subsequently been approved. When a combination of signs exist for a
planned sign program, the wall signs are reduced 50 percent for 18 to nine. But this
would be allowed as the nine percent on this site with the free-standing sign. With
regard to signs in violation of the nine percent standard, they provided several -- have to
find all my notes. I don't know if you want me to put all the signs that they provided in
your letter up on the screen or if you want me to address it just by discussion, but we
did go through every single picture that they have called out. Some of them we no
longer had sign permits for, they either were -- they were presumably old enough that
they hadn't received a sign permit.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. Presumably that would mean they were also old enough that
they weren't done under the current ordinances.
Canning: Yes. And there are a couple I have a question on that, you know, quite
frankly, we don't have any record of a sign permit. It could be because they didn't pull
one. We are not sure. We'd have to research exactly when the building was done. So,
a couple of them I'm not quite sure, but they are old, so they are right on that border line
and we assume that they were done before the 2004 sign permit -- or sign changes.
Zaremba: And some of them would actually be examples of why the new code was
written the way it was.
Canning: Yes, sir. Very much. A lot of them are examples of that. If you look at their
attachment 1-A that has the Rossia Coffee House up at the top, all of those do meet the
nine percent rule. If you look at the next page, which starts with Evergreen Chiropractic,
the Evergreen Chiropractic does not have afree-standing sign -- or the -- largely the
ones shown on this page do not have an additional free-standing sign, so that the -- the
standard is 18 percent, not nine percent. So, all of those signs meet the code. Again,
Evergreen Chiropractic does meet the standards. If you start looking at attachment 2-A,
can go through individually if you want. We checked all of them. Some of them, like
Rehab Authority, is okay at the 18 percent, because that does not have free-standing
sign. The others are okay at the nine percent. Some of them like the -- may be older,
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 80 of 99
like the liquor store one. Going to the next page that has the Mongolian Grill and the
Great Clips, a lot of the ones on this one page are older ones where it was not in
existence -- the signs weren't there before -- or the buildings went in before the sign
code was enacted. And, again, on the other page, there are a mix of older ones.
Obviously, Corona Village. Bermuda Tan. Hepper Homes. lt's a very much an older
building, as are the Pay Day Loans. The Avante sign is okay by current standards. it
does meet our current standards. So, that's a fairly quick assessment of those. But we
did go through each one. We didn't find any instances where we had approved one in
error of the nine percent or 18 percent requirement. Moving on to the third point. The
tenant-landlord agreement of exclusive rights, the agreement between Mr. Mendell and
Mr. Storey does not exempt either of them from meeting the UDC standards.. With
regard to the fourth item, Mr. Mendell feels singled out for noncompliance when other
signs in the city appear to be in noncompliance. Again, many of the signs are old -- in
the pictures they presented are older and are nonconforming. We checked all the ones
that we could -- or we checked them all and they appear to be -- we have not issued
any in error, so -- with that l'll answer any questions Council may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I know the applicant is here.
Mendell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Todd Mendell with Primerica
Financial Services. 1640 West Cherry Lane, Suite 100.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Mendell: I had one question. that staff came up with Evergreen Chiropractic you did say
had no free-standing sign. was allowed the 18 percent?
Canning: With regard -- Evergreen Chiropractic and Preferred Physical Therapy signs
do meet the nine percent rule for the wall elevations. The south side Evergreen Sign is
at five percent and the combined signs on the east are under nine percent. All other
signs in the Cherry Crossing Subdivision shown are on lots that do not have a center or
monument sign on the same lot. They are subject to the 18 percent. So, I didn't -- I
wasn't specifically clear. Thank you for clarifying that.
Mendell: Okay. Thank you very much. Because Evergreen Chiropractic's in the same
building as we currently occupy. Well, since the nine percent rule is not a concern any
longer, then, we won't address that rule, if our sign meets that rule. And the other two
reasons for the denial of our sign as given by staff planning is that we are an off-
premise sign. Our concern here is -- is that under the definition of an off-premise sign is
stated in the UDC as a sign that is not related to the property upon which it is located or
Meritlian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 81 of 99
to the activity being conducted thereon. As I have previously explained to Council, we
occupy 40 percent of the building of which that sign is located. The UDC is not specific
about the location of the sign, other than in UDC Section 11-1 A-1, which specifically
states a sign that is not related to the property upon which it is located -- I'm sorry, let
me restate that if I may. City Code 11-3D-9 Section, which states: Wall signs are
permitted in any number, location, or orientation, except towards an adjoining residential
property, provided that the total square footage essentially meets the nine percent rule.
So, since our sign meets the nine percent rule, we occupy the building therein, and
conduct business thereon, we are in a position, based on that particular section, to be
able to put in any -- as it states -- number, location, or orientation, which would tend for
us to believe we can make those arrangements with our landlord at the time of leasing
the property prior to obtaining occupancy. My landlord and the owner of the property
has come here today to identify the fact that we made these arrangements prior to any
other occupants in that building for which our sign is now over. It was contracted with
us legally at that time within the code as it reads, if it's under the nine percent rule it can
be in any number, orientation, or location on the building where we conduct business
thereon. I'm not really sure -- and I may need some clarification from staff or planning
on why they would consider this an off-premise sign, when simply put throughout the
city there are many signs located throughout the city as presented to the Council before
during our appeal process that are over other businesses, specifically in the Fred Meyer
Shopping Center, specifically in Idaho Athletic Club, and the Mountain Land Real Estate
area. These all are directly over other entrances and other businesses. We haven't
had any complaints from anyone within our business or within that area. We were there
prior to -- there was another business that was placed there at the -- which is the choice
of the landlord, obviously, to have rented a small space that we did not occupy and we
have met the code as read. We have had review of the code, we have had review of
our signs, both by Constructional ESI, as well as project managers, and we don't see in
any fashion, based on the code as it reads, how we have violated any code. And that is
our major concern here. It's not that we feel singled out, we wish no ill business
towards anyone, including the person who is in that location now. He at this time,
Bibbs, who rented that spot, has five front signs. We have one. He has afree-standing
sign facing both directions. He has an automobile with a bicycle on top of it and he has
a rack in front of his building with a Bibbs sign on it and he has a banner directly below
our sign: Now, I'm not here to cause ill will to them., nor am I here to judge how they
obtained that signage and what manners they went through.. I'm here to strictly state
that by the code and the UDC as written, we haven't violated any of those code issues.
And, again, I would like further explanation on why we are considered off premise
simply because it's not over our doorway. That's a somewhat distorted photograph as
we -- from where the handicap sign is right there on the left is the beginning of our
interior wall and it goes to the end of that building. I'd like to have the landlord talk a
little bit about why we were put in this position and what the situation of the building was
at the time we negotiated our lease, as well as the ability to have the sign there as
negotiated in our lease, as well as the location of that sign because of expansion of our
business.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 82 of 99
De Weerd: Good evening.
Storey: Well, we are getting close. I have got a long speech here, so -- my name is
Chuck Storey. I reside at 4565 West Quail Ridge and I'm the lucky owner of the
building. And Todd is right, we negotiated that signage out front when -- when we built
that building we didn't know exactly what tenants we would have and what the makeup
was. So, we had four store fronts and ended up with two main tenants and when I
rented to Todd he negotiated to put the Primerica sign out to the front, which Ididn't -- 1
wouldn't have ever imagined that being in violation due to the fact that there is Taco Bell
buildings, there is Bannock buildings, there is Chrysler buildings, and, you know, I would
hope that we could put signs on our buildings if they meet all the other size, dimensions,
colors, and everything else -- you know, as long as we are not interfering with someone
else that would be in hopes that we could put them -- place them anywhere on our
buildings. His -- his office space actually goes behind this small area. There was only
750 feet left of the building that I leased out and he knew that when he leased that.
There was no reference in the lease or anything with signage. We would have been
more than glad -- and I'd still do it today -- put some signs over to the left there, which
would -- but we can't do that, because that would be near someone else's doorway.
And., unfortunately, you're going to face growth here and I think you're going to probably
come up with a lot of buildings that's going to have big signs on them and not
necessarily over somebody's front door. But, anyway, we'd like a little consideration
there to leave that sign there. Any questions?
De Weed: Council, questions? Thank you.
Mendell: I apologize for going on a little further, but I would like to finalize it with this:
Again., we are willing to work within whatever we can with our landlord and with our
neighbors.. We have obtained information from the other two tenants that they had
made other signage arrangements with the landlord and they are happy with their
signage as it is currently displayed and, again, we don't wish ill will towards any
business regardless of when they come in and they have certainly found their way to
advertise their retail business in our center. We are a banking institution, as well as a
securities and investment institution. We have another vacant lot going in front of us
whenever the Council gets around, I suppose, and it's presented to approving that when
they present it and we assume from who owns that -- it's owned by a banking firm, that
there is going to be more buildings going into those lots. That sign was directed by us
before we moved in for the one reason that we have one sign facing a major
intersection of Linder and Fairview that we wanted some way for the people to find us.
And it is our major source of the signage for that particular structure. And, again, we
don't feel that based on the way that the code has been interpreted that we have
violated any portion of the code and it hasn't been specifically saying that we have. So,
I appreciate your consideration., Ithank you for your time:
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 83 of 99
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions?
Bird.: Anna, go back to that last elevation. Go back to the elevation, would you, please.
If I look at the floor plan they are to the left there.
Canning: Yes, sir.
Bird: Bibbs is right there.
Canning: The sign that you see is centered before these two.
Bird: Is right in that area and they are down on the floor plan.
Canning: And they are over here. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: May I say one thing? You know, the sign code anticipates having multiple
uses inside a building and allows for those -- similar to like the new Fred Meyers where
you often have a Starbucks and a Washington Mutual and a hair cutting place inside
Fred Meyers and allows you to sign those on the outside. It addresses wall area to
specifically call out these multi-tenant structures so that you don't have one tenant using
up the whole allowed wall area for signage and it states wall area shall mean the wall
surface of the single tenant structure for the store front of amulti-tenant structure. So,
that allowed wall area from Primerica, by staffs interpretation, is this store front and
that's where the sign needs to be done, otherwise, it's an off-premise sign. And that
was the basis for the determination.
Mendell: In reference to the staffs interpretation of store front, we had two legal
departments interpret that part of the code. That actually applies to the entire front wall
space. They both came up with the same interpretation. Both our legal department in
Atlanta, as well as Huntley Park here in Boise, Idaho. So, that would provide for major
shopping centers, Home Depot, et cetera, to have their percentage signs where ever
they wanted within the store front and keep within the percentage of those individual
cities. As interpreted, the store front is a guideline for the percentage of the nine
percent or the 18 percent as the UDC code explains. However, not being an attorney,
only a former criminal investigator, Ican't -- I'm not going to make attorney judgments,
but only provide the information that was provided to me that these -- the store front
does, in fact, from both of the interpretations made, include that entire front area. Our
unit goes all the way through the back. The little section up front -- we actually cover all
three spaces, except for the one section to the right of Evergreen Chiropractic and
Bibbs, in fact, was rented by the landlord, which was an expansion area for another
office space for us, but at that time we were not involved in a lease agreement for that
particular spot. Ultimate{y, the bulk of that building still remains as stated. I would bring
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 84 of 99
your attention again specifically the Fred Meyers complex in Idaho and Mountain --
these are not interior entrances, these are exterior businesses that are directly below
the Fred Meyer sign. So, they are in direct violation of staffs interpretation of that and
we didn't see we were doing anything different with our expansion of eventually having
to take over that whole building, which is what our initial goal was and at this time it is
causing some issue on our lease agreement with this particular situation. Thank you.
De Weerd: Council?
Zaremba: I still agree with staffs interpretation. I think the sign's out of place.
De Weerd: Council, any further information needed?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: There is some sficky sort of legal interpretation that you can argue either way.
For what it's worth, when I -- I tend to agree that it's an off-premises sign and the reason
being is the 11.1A.1 definition of the off-premises sign makes reference to a sign not
related to the property upon which it is located or the activity conducted thereon. I think
-- is it property or premises?
Nary: It's property.
Gorton: Property?
Nary: It says property.
Borton: That the read of the property is the specific property at issue, the business
itself, versus the real property or parcel as a whole. But you could probably argue it
either way. So, I think I agree with staff in that regard
De Weerd: Mr. Bird., did you have something?
Bird: Madam Mayor, I just had a -- 1 can't figure it out -- you know, it's definitely not all
Primerica now and I don't think that sign -- I don't know why they can't move it down
over their store front personally. I mean -- you know, I -- I will be truthful with you, I
don't know how the owners convinced these other guys to lease their area when they
got a sign that says they are Primerica and I think they need to do that. I mean it looks
like it's a very nice sign and probably would fit real nice right over that entry. I know why
they want it there is because something's going to build in front and they got to be seen
from the road.. But, I don't know, Ijust -- you know, he was stating -- that isn't a
Primerica building. He was saying the Chrysler building and everything else. Well,
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 85 of 99
that's the name of a building. That isn't a business sitting there, that's a -- that's the
owner of a building. And the other ones have theirs off. So, I -- I just would recommend
that they move it down there over their own store front. That's my recommendation.
De Weerd: Anything further?
Rountree: I'm confused. I'm confused by the convoluted language that we have in our
UDC.
Bird: That's nothing new.
Rountree: I mean -- but -- you know, but I mean if it can be interpreted either way,
which way do you flip the coin?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: If it's truly that situation., I tend to flip the coin in this regard in the applicant's
favor. We have set up a situation where we are inviting ambiguities -- I guess that's the
short answer to your question. I think this is -- this is a tough one.
Zaremba: Well, it wouldn't have been if they would have applied for a sign permit in the
first place, they would have learned it before they placed it where it is.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, part of my concern is if -- if we can't
say that the sign for a store front should be above that store front, then, every building
that comes in the first sign could potentially use up the entire sign potential for that
building and we will see a lot more of these problems. I mean this is -- this sets a
precedent and the sign company is going to be well aware of it, because they are well
aware of every precedent that you may or may not set and I just am concerned that if
we need to tighten it up that's fine, but this is -- this will release a flood gate.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I think your point's well taken and I think fire actually had a comment during the
initial application that it also invites concern and public safety hazards potentially with
trying to locate the entrance to a particular business. My point I was trying to make on
the off-premises sign definition, I missed the language. I was trying to see -- or trying to
cite was -- was my thought it is an off-premises sign, specific use of the word premises,
the property in which you lease is probably defined as a premises and has a specific
legal description defined as a premises. So, I correlate what you have leased to the
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page S6 of 99
same definition of premises within the UDC and the sign at issue is not on the premises
as defined in your lease agreement. So, maybe that's getting --
Mendell: Mr. President, I learned a long time ago if you're not an attorney don't argue
with one and I, basically, have sought other professionals to give me that opinion and
they have taken as you stated their interpretation is is that's the property thereon, which
includes the entire property. We are not here trying to open any flood gates. If the rule
is if it's still under the nine percent rule we don't foresee that happening. We are
somewhat taken back as a company that's opening multiple offices here in the Treasure
Valley with part of Citi Group, that if Fred Meyer is able to put a sign directly above three
other businesses and: it's withheld within the city as being okay, we did not intend to do
that on this building, because Bibbs wasn't even there at the time we put our sign up. It
was a total purpose of putting our sign here is to maintain that percentage in view, as
Councilman Bird stated, that was a major concern of ours, knowing that something
would be put in front of us. Evergreen Chiropractic's has side views -- signs on the side
on the -- on the -- correction, the east side of their building that provides view from
Linder and a major traffic seat, as well as in front of their building. They also have front
signage. We don't have that option. The other side of our building faces inwardly
towards the complex of which we face and the only thing that can see us is Total
Women's Fitness. So, that was the reason we positioned the sign through our
negotiations where it stands today. We have not -- the unit of concern is Bibbs, as
have got a letter that's been presented to the Council from Physical Therapy, which
occupies unit .number three and they have no challenges with us, because they
obtained their own signage on the wall facing Linder. We have no challenges within our
building. Bibbs concern was, again, after they moved in we were already there, they
weren't authorized signage by the landlord., they knew it, and there was -- their short-
term occupation is their choice, but they have five visual front signs now, including the
monument sign which is -- our landlord doesn't even control. The -- excuse me. Not
landlord, but I mean monument -- but free-standing. The free-standing sign on that lot
is owned by someone else and they have two different visuals on that. So, at this point
no one is losing any business and it's not a distraction to anyone based on what we
were originally trying to do and not do and not be a thorn in the Council's situation here.
Ultimately, we just wanted to stay strictly to the interpretation of the code as was
presented for denial of our sign permit, which had been brought up again by staff today,
which was allegedly to be handled by our sign management firm that we hired to put up
the sign, we went there as soon as we found out we were not on a permit. We are not
here to avoid anything. Ultimately, the way the code is written today we do not see any
violation of any of those three specific codes whatsoever.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 87 of 99
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't know if this is of any help, but
based on some of the comments that you have had -- and I guess so that acourt -- if a
court's going to review your transcript and make adetermination -- I think the first
question to answer that Councilmember Borton raised was -- is what interpretation is
the court looking at. Well, it doesn't really matter much what counsel from Atlanta or
counsel from Boise or even what I say matters that much. What you interpret your code
to mean is what the Council -- what the court cares about. That's the deference that the
courts will give however you wrestle with this question. So, your interpretation of what
you believe your code is meant to be interpreted and applied is what a court is
supposed to evaluate. Mrs. Canning has presented to you from the staffs perspective a
number of instances of signs that predate our ordinance and as you have stated in your
discussion tonight and previously, many of those instances and circumstances that are
being raised here by the appellant were ones that are the reasons your ordinance was
created the way it is. So, how you decide on whether or not what a store front is and
what an off-premise sign is, is really what matters. It doesn't make any difference on
whether or not the appellant has a lease agreement for where the sign belongs. That's
not an issue for staff or for the Council. It doesn't make any difference if somebody else
doesn't object to it, that's not the issue. It's how it -- whether it meets your ordinance or
not and your interpretation is really all that matters. But, for example, at least three of
you have raised store front and every one of you said the store front is the tenant space
they are occupying, not the entire building, not every bit of the building, not the whole
front facing the street or what is more visible, but it's the tenant's space they occupy. If
that's your interpretation of what your ordinance means, then, that's what you should put
on the record. If off-premise sign means that it's not in front -- in front of your tenant
space, then, that's what you interpret -- if that's what you interpret your ordinance to
mean and that's how you want staff to apply it, it's that the court should be -- should
evaluate your interpretation and what is reasonable in light of that and how it's applied
elsewhere and the only testimony from staff that hasn't been refuted by the appellant is
since this ordinance was in place they cannot located any instance where they have
issued a sign permit that would be in violation and inconsistent with what they have
presented in this case. So, if you want them to interpret it differently, that's within your
power to do that. But that's the evidence you have, what's been raised by the appellant.
Staff has presented evidence saying every one of those instances either complies with
our ordinance or is -- or predates the ordinance enactment, so it's not applicable to this
situation. So, again, it doesn't really matter what I think or what their counsel thinks as
to what the ordinance means, it only matters what you think.
De Weerd: Okay.
Mendell: I have one question., then, for the Council. City Code 11-3D-9 simply states
wall signs are permitted in any number, location or orientation, except towards an
adjoining residential property, provided that the total square footage does not exceed
nine percent, 18 percent, et cetera. That is a moot issue at this point. We are under the
nine percent rule and if we aren't directly in line with that code, then, please, direct me
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 88 of 99
as to where we went wrong, if it can be any number, any location, or orientation on that
building. That's what we need -- that's what we are looking for.
Bird: Read that again, sir. Would you read that again?
Mendell: Yes, sir. Wall signs are permitted in any number, location, or orientation,
except towards an adjoining residential property, provided that the total square footage
-- and I'm reading it off my own and so, therefore, I just carried it forward. It's actually
on the denial permit itself, so if I repeat it -- wall signs are permitted in any number,
location, or orientation, except toward an adjoining residential property, provided that
the total square footage does not exceed 18 percent of the wall face upon which the
sign is placed or nine percent of the wall if combined with afree-standing sign on the
same lot. Well, since we are under the nine percent, it is specifically -- it doesn't say it
has to be above our entrance way.
Nary: But that is unless it is an off-premise sign. If it is an off-premise sign those are
prohibited by a different section of the code. So, that's -- that's really the crux of your
question, Council, is is it an off-premise sign. If it is it doesn't make any difference if it's
a wall sign and the percentage, it doesn't matter, you can't have an off-premise sign
regardless. So, that section isn't by itself dispositive.
Mendell: So, with that stated, for my own clarification, if it is an off-premise sign
wouldn't all signs not over their entrance way be off premise, if they don't abut to their
interior business? And if that be the case, then, we have got wall signs all over the city
that aren't directly over their entrance way.
Nary: That predate our ordinance. That's what's been already testified to and you
haven't testified in rebuttal to that.
Mendell: In rebuttal to that I believe the signs that we listed in that three mile stretch
that we did our survey included signs fhat were after this ordinance was written.
Nary: No, they weren't.
Mendell: And if we are wrong, then, again, that's something that due diligence will
discover. Ultimately at this point if that particular code says you can't put it in any
number or location or orientation, then, I'm confused as to -- you'd have to have it
directly over your wall and,, then, that wouldn't apply at all. So, my confusion is you're
going to state that we are off premise because it's not over my doorway, but, by the
way, it doesn't have to be over your doorway. I'm confused. And maybe I can get some
clarification here.
Bird: You have -- Madam Mayor, may task -- you brought up the Fred Meyer store a
hundred times here.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 89 of 99
Mendell: That's the most visible, sir.
Bird: But let me tell you something. That whole store has got four entrances which are
all Fred Meyers. Now, that building there has got one entrance that's Primerica. That
isn't a Primerica building in my book. What is your store front and your -- and your part
of that building is that 30 feet, approximately, that you got across there. Now, I don't
know how big your sign is and I don't blame you for wanting it out exposed. I realize
that it's prime to be out there and be seen and if your other people don't bother. But if
we set a precedence for you here, it's going to -- it's going to do it. And you can't
compare to Fred Meyers, in my opinion. And I'm no lawyer either.
Mendell: And why is that, sir?
Bird.: Because that whole store is theirs and their -- if you owned all that and had an
entrance there and an entrance there and an entrance there was Primerica and
chiropractic was inside, they come in your door and, then, went over to another interior
thing like you do in Washington Mutual or U.S. Bank in Albertson's --
Mendell: Yes, sir.
Bird: -- hey, then, that -- that's a different situation in my opinion.
Mendell: I agree, sir. And in the Fred Meyer store --
Bird: And that's what Fred Meyers is. They have got some exterior shops, too, but
those signs are on the shop.
Mendell: And there is actually signs facing the southern most wall that give direction
that would be off premise by this definition around the corner. So, we have a myriad
group of signs and I agree with you, Councilman, that if there is interior businesses
within the business that owns the building and they have the signage out front, there is
no challenge here. Ultimately, it's the determination of -- we are trying to stay by the
code and I understand where the Council is going with this, so appreciate your time.
De Weerd: Mr. Borton?
Borton: No, I --
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. If you received approval to have your sign over your
entrance doorway would you refuse to move it?
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 90 of 99
Mendell: It's not a matter of refusing to move it. We have a re-designation of our
trademark by the end of the year anyway, so we would have to change the existing sign
by trademark. So, we are already up against some changes on the signs that we have
now. Again, it would cause for a possible lease renegotiation or a breaking of our lease
due to the fact that we will lose signage and location of our building and that is
something that doesn't not concern the Council either, that's something that we would
have to determine based on the fact that we were under the impression the landlord
was in a position to negotiate lease space according to these rules or interpreted.
would not refuse to move it. I have to stay in business. I can't shut down for one day. I
have obligations to the NESD, as well as the banking and lending commission and I will
have to fulfill those accordingly. And please do not take -- like I said, I own homes in
Meridian, I have been in business here since I have moved here and the fact of the
matter is I'm certainly not trying to be that thorn. We were -- you know, all of our
attempts trying to bring business to this community and not cause challenges with the
skateboard shop next door that set a bad precedent for the rest of the city and I'm
definitely not in that situation where I'm trying to argue that with any of the decisions the
Council makes tonight. We have maybe wrongly felt picked on for the benefit of a
tenant that came in after we had already positioned ourselves and that's irregardless.
Like I said, I have people I have to answer to as well as to what we are able to
accomplish here and I'm just trying to stay in business. So, the answer to your question
from the long end is, no, I would move my sign. I still have the tenant rights to that
middle of that complex. That doesn't mean someone else is going to put a sign up,
because it's negotiated into my lease.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And I'm certainly not -- being in a retail business for 42 years, I'm not out to hurt
you or harm you or anything else, but we have got to look as a whole at what's going to
-- you know, I feel we have to look at the whole and I -- and I understand why you'd like
to see your sign where it's at. You say you're going to come out with new signage at
the end of the year or a new trademark signage or something; is that right?
Mendell: We have actually already gotten approval to shorten it below the nine percent.
We are dropping the umbrella, we are changing our colors, and we are adding a Citi
company under that, because of the -- because of Smith Barney and Citi and Travelers
all merging into one unit and ultimately what we are going to do with that is I have even
offered my landlord -- although that's up to him, I says, look, I'll take that spot, because
if I had known this was going to arise in the first place I would taken have unit two in the
first place as my entrance way and, then, it would resolve this issue before it got into an
issue, because they could have built out either door forme.
Bird: I think that would be great.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 91 of 99
Mendell: So, you know, ultimately, my landlord is not going to be in a position where --
I'm not going to speak for him, but he's not going to kick out a tenant, he's under his
lease agreements, but I have offered to say, look, that would solve the problem, so --
Bird: I got a question to ask.
Mendell: Yes, sir.
Bird: If that's an updated floor plan, where is Bibbs restaurant -- or restroom?
Mendell: They have a restroom in the far corner.
Bird: Okay.
Mendell: Anyway, I thank you for your time. I understand the concerns of the Council
and I wanted them to know that we are just trying to abide by the rules and we are not
trying to violate anything and trying to pull anything off or change the rule of thumb for
the rest of the community. Thank you for your time.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 19, AP 07-005..
Zaremba; Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. on Item 19. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES...
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Gorton.
Borton: {appreciate the applicant's vigor in pursuing this. Understand the concerns
and the difficulties and hopefully he understands the difficulties of the Council in this
situation that anytime when we are trying to make the transition with the new ordinance
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 92 of 99
-- relative to the new ordinance and there is things -- signs in this case that were passed
prior to and now signs afterwards and we are trying to be consistent in enforcing what
we think is a better ordinance for the community as we go forward and the staff is
challenged with a difficult task of trying to implement that transition. The way I see and
read the UDC and interpret it, I see this to be an off-premises sign. I see the premises
to be the actual leased portion of the structure, store front, sort of the same idea as far
as the scope of how I define it, so I find this one to be an off-premises sign and that's
the reason that I'm supportive of the staff and would be inclined to deny the appeal.
De Weerd: Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd.: Do I have a motion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move that we deny Item 19, AP 07-005.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to deny Item 19. Is there any discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird., yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20: ~ Ordinance No. 07-1330 Citv Council Compensation
Ordinance:
Item 21: Ordinance No. 07-1331 Manor Compensation Ordinance:
Item 22: Ordinance No. 07-1332 RZ 07-009 Request for a Rezone of
24.69 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Jabil Southeast by Joint School
District No. 2 - 1303 East Central Drive (Portion of Lot 1, Block 1, of the
Jabil Subdivision):
Item 23: Ordinance No. 07-1333 AZ 06-043 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R-R to R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio
Homes Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership -Northeast Corner
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 93 of 99
of North Ten Mile Road and West Chinden Boulevard and west of North
Spurwing Way
De Weerd: Ordinances 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24.
Bird: Twenty-four no.
Rountree: Twenty-four we are going to table.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, 24 we need to hold over.
De Weerd: 07-1330, 07-1331, 07-1332 and 07-1333. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read
these ordinances by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Item 20, Ordinance No. 07-
1330, an ordinance amending Title 1, Chapter 7, Section 9, Meridian City Code,
regarding compensation for the City Council Members of the City of Meridian, providing
for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 07-1331, an ordinance amending Title 1, Chapter 6, Section 5,
Meridian City Code, regarding compensation for the Mayor of Meridian, providing for a
waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Item 22. Ordinance 07-1332, which is an ordinance that we are approving again,
because of a duplicated ordinance number, if anybody is listening. An ordinance finding
that Joint School District No. 2, the owner of certain real property, has made a written
request for rezoning of the zoning classification for the real property being a portion of
Parcel A of the record of survey number 6631, situated in the southeast quarter of
Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, 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
C-G 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.
Berg: Ordinance No. 07-1333, an ordinance for annexation of property being a portion
Lot 2 and 4 and all of Lot 3 of Block -- of Spur Wing Subdivision as filed for the record in
the office of the Ada County recorder, Boise, Idaho, in Book 69 of Plats at page -- pages
7104 through 7108, and a portion of the southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 4
North., Range 1 West, 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
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 94 of 99
of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said
lands from R-R to R-4 and R-8 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.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd.: Mr. Bird.
Bird.: Would you make your statement about anybody wanting it read in full, so I can
make motions.
De Weerd: Is there?
Bird: Madam Mayor, seeing how nobody wants them read in their entirety, I move that
we pass ordinances 07-1330, 07-1331, 07-1332, and 07-1333 with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve ordinances numbers 20 through
23. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 24: Ordinance No. AZ 07-004 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 2.48 acres from RUT to an L-O zone for Locust
Grove Professional Office Building by Ruby/Edwards: Architecture +
Design - 1695 South Locust Grove Road:
De Weerd: And Item 24.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we table AZ 07-004 ordinance until the rest of the application has been
taken care of.
Berg: Madam Mayor, if we could just have it withdrawn off the agenda, because it will
be until that development agreement is signed and put on the agenda.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 95 of 99
Bird: Withdraw it from the agenda.
Rountree: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion and second to withdraw Item No. 24. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 25: 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):
De Weerd: Item 25 is an Executive Session and we will just move this to next week
and --
Bird.: If we need it.
De Weerd: -- then we are at the end of our agenda. I would entertain a motion to
adjourn.
Bird: I thought you wanted to talk about --
Rountree: Want to talk about Overland?
De Weerd: Oh. Yes. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We have been working with ACRD and the
developer and we have already approved a development that will extend Overland to
Ten Mile and there is some confusion as to how the city is going to participate in that
extension in terms of providing infrastructure along that alignment, sewer and water
specifically, and how we are all going to team up and get that done. We have also been
pushing ACHD to get that on their agenda, so they will do what action they need to do
to legitimize that alignment, approve that alignment, and agree to the relocation of
Overland. That was scheduled for this week. They have postponed it until the end of
the month. Hopefully they won't postpone it until October and that's where they had it.
But we need to get some direction in terms of getting staff to work with the developer on
are we going to look at partial reimbursement for sewer and water or are we going to
look at a hundred percent -- Kyle, I don't know if you can address that and I'm not really
looking for an answer tonight, but I think the developer needs to sit down with the city
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 96 of 99
and get a plan in place and I just bring that before Council to get some idea of where
you all are thinking in terms of the importance of that particular realignment.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would say it's of utmost importance to me. I think that whole area of the city
will function better now and far into the future with that realignment. {'m surprised at
ACHD dragging their feet, since they participated in the charrette where it appears that
that was the end result that was happy for everybody. I mean the problems of leaving
Overland where it is are -- there are a lot of problems with leaving Overland where it is
and to have a developer willing to be part of the solution to that is not something that I
take lightly and I'm disappointed that ACRD is not buying into something that I felt they
had already agreed with.
Rountree: Well, we think they are, but they are just going through their process.
De Weerd: Well -- and, Council, I guess to really show the importance and that sort of
thing, it is important to see that you empower staff to sit down and talk with them about
an arrangement and a reimbursement and I think that --
Rountree: Kyle's got a comment to that regard.
De Weerd: -- Len has looked at not the hundred percent, but 72 -- 70, 72 percent. I
guess we just need to -- to get behind the priority of this road by coming up with an
agreement that we can live with and help move this along. And I think that would send
a strong message to ACHD that we are committing and you need to.
Radek: Madam Mayor, Council Members, we actually have three reimbursement
agreements in concept in place. We were just about ready to take them to Council last
week and Ted was doing some review and he told me that he was going to have those
reworked this week and we are pretty much ready to rock and roll on those where
that's --
De Weerd: Rock and roll.
Radek: -- going to -- it's going to take care of the alignment -- the realignment of
Overland and the sewer to the east as well, the Black Cat trunk to Linder and, then, to
Stoddard.. So, we are already working with the developer on that.
De Weerd: But that's to the east. This piece would be to the west.
Meridian City council
August 14, 2007
Page 97 of 99
Radek: Yes. I was saying in addition to the piece that goes to the west on the Overland
realignment.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: About a month ago was -- Mr. Grady and I were in a meeting with both the
developers to the properties to the east, as well as the developer that you're talking
about for this western piece and that was when they first finally agreed to separate
those into separate agreements. The stumbling block had been is that both of the
different developers did not want their parcels separated into two separate agreements
and that was problematic. They did agree to do that. If you recall, I think Mr. Grady
raised that to you all a few weeks ago, saying we are still in negotiation trying to get this
done. Mr. Radek is correct, we have -- we have the reimbursement agreements -- I'm
not certain that Mr. Jewett's still in agreement completely with it. I think -- I think the
property owners to the east are, but I don't know that we have completely finalized that
or not, but I do think we would anticipate bringing that back in front of you within -- either
next Tuesday or the following Tuesday and hopefully we will have it finalized. If not, we
will be able to bring that in front of you to -- I think as we discussed it -- that meeting
with Mr. Grady, he didn't want to negotiate the entire agreement here with all of you,
but, rather, if there were a few issues as to when the reimbursement schedule would be
and those kinds of things, then, we would bring that back to you, if that was where the
disagreement is.
De Weerd: There would be entertainment value if they negotiated here.
Nary: I don't think Mr. Willis could keep up on his stenography with it.
Zaremba: Is there any further confirmation that ACHD needs that this is something we
want to have happen?
De Weerd: I think that our proof would be coming up with that agreement and moving it
forward.
Bird: The agreement isn't on the road, though.
Rountree: Correct.
Bird:: The agreements on the infrastructure and I -- we got -- we got a problem of going
under the canal up there. Has that ever been cleared?
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 98 of 99
Rountree: Mr. Jewett is well aware of those issues and that's why he wants to get some
of this stuff rolling., so he can turn his contractor loose, because he's apparently
awarded the contract --
Bird: He has.
Rountree: -- to do the construction, so --
Bird: But has Nampa-Meridian given permission to go under it?
De Weerd: That's -- that's what the time frame constraints are about.
Rountree: Yeah.
Bird: Let's get going.
De Weerd.: So, I guess in negotiations, Kyle, for tomorrow, you know, continue on and..,
hopefully, we can get this resolved.
Radek: Madam Mayor, we are going to do this as quickly as possible.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: With that I move to adjourn.
Bird: Second..
Zaremba: Second..
De Weerd:: All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd.: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 99 of 99
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:20 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
MAY R T de WEERD (/,,~.~`~~'~ ~ ~gg~~~~,~,
r~~
~~
$~~L
ATTESTED: ..
~% ~' P -~ . ~ lal
1 ~~~/ ~,~, ..
'lllrlullll~n"`
~ ~ 28 ~ D 7
DATE APPROVED
G. BERG JR.,