HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 10-23Meridian City Council Meeting October 23, 2007.
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 p.m., Tuesday,
October 23, 2007, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird., Charlie Rountree and David
Zaremba.
Members Absent: Joe Borton.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, John Overton, Mark Niemeyer, Len
Grady, Keith Watts, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba O Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: I'd like to welcome all of you here this evening and thank you for joining us.
We will go ahead and get tonight's meeting started. It is Tuesday, October 23rd. It's
about five minutes after 7:00. Mr. Berg, will you, please, start us off with roll call
attendance.
Item, 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is our Pledge of Allegiance. Tonight we will be led in the pledge
by the Experience Church. If you. will all rise and join them.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Bishop Chiong Tey of the McMillan Ward -
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
De Weerd: Thank you. And thank you for being with us tonight. Item No. 3 is our
community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Bishop Teh. He's with McMillan Ward
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you will all join us in the
community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Bishop.
Teh: Our Heavenly Father, we come before thee at this time and thank thee for thy
many blessings and for thy goodness to us all. We would express our gratitude to thee
for our privilege of being citizens of this great country and for this great City of Meridian
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 2 of 104
and we are grateful for the members of the City Council and we would ask that thou
would bless them with wisdom and integrity as they go forth and serve us in this
capacity to preserve the safety and prosperity of the City of Meridian. We at this time
would also petition thee for sufficient moisture at this time and also be mindful of those
who serve our country in the military to preserve the many liberties and freedoms and
blessings that we enjoy in this country and we ask thee for these favors and blessings
at this time in the name of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, amen.
De Weerd.: Bishop Teh, I would like to offer you a City of Meridian pin and thank you for
joining us. Hope to see you back.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd,: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would like to comment on the agenda. First, a request that we add an Item
4-A for presentation from the Mayor. Then, on Item 5, the Consent Agenda, we have
several resolutions. Item B will be resolution number 07-583. C will be 07-584. D will
be 07-585. Item E will be resolution number 07-586. And F will be 07-587. And we
have a request to remove Item K from the Consent Agenda to the regular agenda for
some discussion. We have a request to table -- or rather continue Item 9 relating to
Canterbury Commons to our meeting of November 6th. And a request to continue Item
11 regarding Quarterhorse. Staff was requesting to the 6th. I believe the applicant
requested to the 13th, which would be a meeting where we would have a workshop.
So, we will -- we will move number 11 on Quarterhorse to November 20th. I'm sorry.
Yes. Back to number nine. We normally have a meeting on November 6th, but since
that's Election Day, our meeting will actually be on November 7th. So, Item 9 will be
continued to Wednesday, November 7th. And Item 11 will be continued to November
20th. I believe those are the only changes. With that I would move that we adopt the
agenda as amended.
Bird: Just before I second,, Madam Mayor, I would request, with the other two
Councilmen's agreement., I'd like to pull Item B off the Consent to -- to the regular
agenda.
Berg: Seven?
Bird.: To 7-B.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 3 of 104
Zaremba: 5-B will become 7-B.
Bird: Yeah.
De Weerd: And., then, you also removed one from the Consent.
Zaremba: K is the one that I wanted to change. From 5-K to 7-K.
Bird.: I will second the revised.
De Weerd: We have a motion and a second.. All those in favor of the adoption of the
agenda as changed say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4-A: Presentation by Mayor to Experience Church for Habitat for
Humanity
De Weerd: I have a check presentation and I want to give you a little bit of background
on this check. Tonight we are awarding a check to the winning youth group in a
cardboard shanty house competition. So, all of the developers in this room, here are
your future builders, because I'll tell you what, they know good materials. They dove
into that dumpster and found the prize, which was this cardboard tube that gave them
great integrity and building stability for their shanty town cardboard house. I mean it
was expandable -- yours was the one that was expandable. I think it had a drawbridge
on it. And I mean the imagination these young builders did was phenomenal. This was
a fundraising project for Habitat for Humanity and we had 13 teams participate and they
had to build it so that the team that stayed for the sleepover that night could sleep in it. I
can tell you that the Experience Church and their group, Teams After God, TAG,
presented their home with great professionalism and they handled themselves
throughout the night very well, too, and we appreciate you joining us here this evening.
I have a check for you, if you will join me up front. And after I hand this to whoever your
spokesperson is, I will ask you each to introduce yourselves and maybe if -- whoever
the spokesperson is, to tell us what you will be doing with this 500 dollars. Again, this
500 dollars came from the Mayor's Youth Advisory Council. We raised extra funds
through the State of the City and the youth had an opportunity to identify projects that
they would like to see this money go to. Habitat was a huge one. This was one of our
fundraisers and so it's with great honor to turn this over to you. Contragulations.
Maile: I'm Audra Maile. Me and my husband run the youth group at the Experience.
We have a great group of kids and I'll let them all introduce themselves to you and,
then, I'll tell you what we are going to be spending the money on.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 4 of 104
Brenham: Hello. I'm Nicholas Brenham and I'm the youth chaplain and president.
Esther: My name's Esther.
Sawyer: My name is Donald Sawyer. I'm the treasurer.
Victoria Ann: Hello. I'm Victoria Ann and I'm the vice-president of our youth group.
Lohen: I'm Eric Lohen.
Maile: These are the kids that participated in the shanty build. We actually have more
kids in our youth group. We were limited to just having them there and they did a great
job. They represented our youth group all night long by sleeping in the cardboard box,
which I thought was wonderful and my great husband stayed with them, because I was
pregnant and didn't want to sleep on the ground., which I appreciated.. But our church
really has a heart for outreach. We like to do things for our community. We really
believe that Jesus Christ went out in the community and he showed people his love by
giving back and doing things and so our youth have really shown a great desire to do
that also.. We do numerous outreaches. We go out into the community and we do
things as little as handing out sodas to people on hot days, just because we know they
are thirsty, to volunteering at the food bank. We have a lot of things coming up into the
holidays that we want to do with the money, like feeding families that are in need and
getting clothes now that it's getting colder. We also visit and do some projects at
nursing homes and things like that. So, all of the money will be going back into the
community. The youth group is awesome. We gave them the opportunity, since they
did sleep overnight in the cold for Habitat, to take some of the money and do a party for
themselves and enjoy it somewhere and they voted on it and they decided they didn't
want to do that, they wanted all the money to go back into the community, so they gave
that opportunity up in order to put back and I just think that that's awesome. And thank
God for a great group of kids.
De Weerd: Thank you. Now, Experience -- the Experience Church, you opened your
doors two years ago? Three years ago. And they hit our community running, I might
add. So, thank you, you have been a welcome new place of worship in our community
and we wish you great success and thank you to the teams -- Teams After God and the
extra. care and what you added to our cardboard box competition. I can say that our
police or our fire department, who were the judges for the stability and the
craftsmanship, were very impressed with it. So, thanks again. And you don't have to sit
here any longer if you don't want to. My kids find it very boring, but -- thank you for
joining us.
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 5 of 104
A. Approve Minutes of October 9, 2007 City Council Special
Workshop Meeting:
C. Resolution No. 07-584 Declaration of Surplus
Property of 2 Kawasaki Motorcycles to Canyon County
Sheriff s Department:
D. Resolution No. 07-585 Destruction of Records for
Finance Department:
E. Resolution No. 07-586 Declaration of Surplus
Property to Donate Computer Equipment to the Meridian Boys
8~ Girls Club:
F. Resolution No. 07-587 VAC 07-012 Request for a
Vacation of the public utility, drainage and irrigation easements for
Montvue Park Subdivision for Gardner Ahlguist Gateway by
Timberline Surveying., PLLC -Southeast Corner of East Franklin
Road and North Eagle Road:
G. Approve Pipeline Crossing Agreement with Union Pacific
Railroad Company fora 10-inch water main crossing the
railroad tracks at RR Mile Post 456.33 for the amount of
$4,800.00:
H. Approve Change Order No. 11 of Contract with Owyhee
Construction, Inc. for additional Type "P" Permanent Asphalt
Repair for Broadway Avenue, Meridian Road to Fifth Street
Utility Replacement Project: for $406,725.00:
Approve New Beer and Liquor Licenses for JMS Services dba
My Caffe at 450 S. Meridian Road, Ste. 15:
J. Water Main Easement Agreement for Meridian Village by A8~H
Investments:
L. Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the
Construction of the Sanitary Sewer for the Black Cat Phase 4
Schedule A Trunk by DBSI Tanana Valley, LLC:
M. Change Order No. 5 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion Project with JC Constructors, Inc. for $86,236.75:
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 6 of 104
O. Independent Contractor Agreement for Demolition of 919 NW
1S Street with Ideal Demolition Services:
P. Approve Contracts for New City Hall Project:
Precision Communications, Inc. dba TTE-PreCom
De Weerd: Item No. 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, move that we approve the Consent Agenda with the following
changes: Remove Item B to become 7-B. Remove Item K to become 7-K and
resolution C is 07-584. Resolution -- Item D is resolution 07-585. Item E is resolution
07-586. Item F is resolution 07-587. And with that I ask that we approve it and for the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second..
De Weerd: We have a motion and a second.. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you,
please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Department Reports:
A. Public Works Department
1. Reimbursement Request for Shepherds Creek Sewer
Extension:
De Weerd: Under Department Reports we will start with our Public Works Department.
Len.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, several -- several weeks ago Council
approved an agreement -- a reimbursement agreement with a group of developers.
They are now requesting a change order for an easement through one of those
properties. This is a little bit odd, because normally Public Works maintains that door
and denies those requests, but they have asked to come to Council to present their
request, so I'd really like to turn it over to Matt and let him present his request.
De Weerd: Well, Len, after he makes his request we will ask what your
recommendation is.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 7 of 1,04
Grady: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Schultz.
Schultz: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz with RMR Consulting, 2127
South Alaska in Meridian, here on behalf of Shepherd's Creek, LLC, one of the
members of a cooperative reimbursement agreement -- was us, Tuscany development,
the developer of Bear Wood, and, then, the city to build approximately 3,000 feet of
large diameter 27 inch trunk line across the Bear Wood project. Shepherd Creek's
about three-quarters of a mile away, 55 lots, 12 acres. Back when we started the
development everybody, including the city, thought that South Ridge and Bear Wood
would develop on time, I guess, if you will, just -- but things have changed, as you
know,and about May my client told me do something about it, so we kind of stepped up
and got in contact with both of those developers to negotiate a reimbursement
agreement, which we have been successful in doing through both the South Ridge
project, which the line is substantially complete through now, and will be continuing
through the Bear Wood project here pretty soon, two separate reimbursement
agreements, which we have negotiated with dollar amounts reimbursed.. The second
through Bear Wood, it was set up such that Shepherd's Creek would pay the 520,000
dollars. City would reimburse. And, then, Tuscany development would pay whenever
they do their first phase, which who knows when that's going to be. They would pay
their nonreimbursable share in the end., about a 65 percent split -- 65-35. Pretty good --
it was a good deal. Well, during that time there has been a fourth party that owns
property within the Bear Wood project, which we weren't aware of when we first started,
but it became apparent that there was some -- anon-developer owner not related to
Tuscany development that said if you want to put that sewer line through here now you
need to pay us the appraised value of that easement, you know, and after much cussing
and discussing, you know, which we thought, you know, that's going to improve the
value of your property, why would you do that, they said, well, look, we are not a
developer, we are just -- we are going to sell the property, that could be this year, next
year, who knows when, so we went out and got an appraisal and it ended up being less
than what prices were last year, which is what you would expect, but the way the
appraisers look at it is they take market value, divide it in half, and that's what they give
for an easement value, 50 percent. I guess that's the rule of thumb they use within the
industry. Well, that came back, that section through the -- the foundation property
ended being 41,000 dollars for that easement, which we are going to pay -- or my client
is going to pay that easement, so we can keep going here in the next couple weeks and
be done here before Christmas with that whole section between the 36 inch line the city
put in last year and Bear Creek and Shepherd Creek will, you know, be all good to go
and everybody will be at least happy. Well, when that came up we looked at the
oversizing ordinance and said, well, off-site easements are reimbursable, theoretically.
Nobody likes to talk about easements. I know. Reimbursing them. They are a touchy
subject. But we decided to come back and ask and instead of asking the city to take all
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 8 of 1.04
that cost or Tuscany Development take all that cost or Shepherd's Creek take all that
cost, we are going to take all that cost up front and just ask for a partial reimbursement
of cone-third, one-third, one-third split. So, the three parties that are part of the
cooperative reimbursement agreement cooperate and get this easement taken care of.
Like I said., regardless, we are paying it. It's going to get paid.. It's just do we get
reimbursed and how much? We are asking for two-thirds to get reimbursed by the city
when we complete the rest of our line and, then, the other third gets added to Tuscany
Development's fee, so in the end the city has one-third of the cost of that, which ends up
being 13,666 dollars apiece.. Not my favorite thing to ask for, easement's are touchy,
but I think it's a -- a fair solution and I'd hope the city would agree to help reimburse my
client who has some 55 lots three-quarters of a mile away in helping get in this very
large regional infrastructure that benefits all of south Meridian for, you know, decades to
come. So, I guess with that I'll stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I don't at this point. I'll wait until Len's --
De Weerd: Len.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, may I ask one before we go -- I understand your request for a
reimbursement of a third of it, but if I'm understanding correctly, the other third of it is --
you want the city to reimburse you and, then, the city to recover that reimbursement
from Tuscany? And I guess my confusion is why do we need to do a third party, why
wouldn't you just recovery that from Tuscany?
Schultz: Mayor and Councilman Zaremba, that's a good question, but that's how the
whole agreement's been set up to where we didn't have to go out and try to get money
from Tuscany Development or try to get money from Jim Jewett or whoever was
involved in that particular section. In this particular section it was we would go out and
have a known entity to help reimburse us and that third-party share, Tuscany
Development, would -- their share would be borne in the form of a fee. In this case
around 190,000 dollars connection fee to -- to do their first phase. Now, I might add that
before this change order request -- this is change order number two. Change order
number one we reduced the length of the whole section that was originally approved
and not that it's related, but we did save -- and we asked for reduction of 39,000 dollars.
So, coincidence in the dollar amounts that we are able to negotiate a redesign, a rebid,
and reduced everything by 39,000, that's change order number one. Change order
number two was this extra easement cost. So -- not that they are related, but just as a
note,. we are just trying to bring everything forward to you as it comes up, whether it be
positive or -- or the other way, so --
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 9 of 104
De Weerd: Len.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Public Works is recommending denial
of this change order number two for a couple of reasons. First of all, Bear Wood was a
signator on the agreement. You know, the idea of those agreements are those -- those
costs .are all -- all brought forward up front, that includes easements, it includes anything
that is known at that time and, again, Bear Wood was a signator on that agreement.
The second issue is that easement is in future right-of-way and we just don't pay for
future right-of-way easements. I know Matt's in a little bit of a tough situation here, but,
again, this particular easement we would be paying Bear Wood for an easement that we
-- it's just never been our policy to do so. And, then, finally Bear Wood really got a
sweet deal in the fact that we are paying the reimbursement to -- particularly Bear Wood
up front. They are not waiting for future hook-ups or payments. So, Bear Wood is
getting a sweet deal and, then, coming forward with a change order after the fact, what's
to keep one of the other signators from deciding now they want payment for some
feature that should have been brought forward in the original agreement? So, that's
why at this time Public Works is recommending denial of that payment.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for Len, Council?
Bird: Not at this point.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Comment?
Schultz: Kind of a little clarification, please. You know, with all due respect to Len,
there is -- Bear Wood was a preliminary plat and there are two different owners
underneath it. One of them is the developer of Tuscany Development, Inc., and one of
them is a foundation whose only sole purpose is to sell the land. And I know it's a little
disconcerting, a little annoying, but legally Bear Wood is not an entity. Bear Wood was
a name of a preliminary plat. There are two owners out there, one of them Tuscany
Development, that's not getting compensation for the easement, they signed the
easement, no problems. They are the ones paying the connection fee. And they
realize it's a good deal or they wouldn't have signed the agreement. You know, it's a
cooperative agreement where everybody got benefits from. There is a fourth party out
there that at the time we did the agreement we did not know what the -- if the cost would
have been a thousand dollars for the easement, we probably just would have paid it and
not had to endure coming back before you and taking care of this, but the principle --
the underlying principle that the foundation is standing by is that this is our private
property, it may not become a road for several years, we don't know right now with this
market. We'd like to get compensated according to a fair market appraisal of an
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 10 of 104
easement. And I really couldn't argue with them and that's why we are paying it
tomorrow, so we can keep going. Or tomorrow or the next day. But we are just asking
for a little bit of a -- you know, sharing that cost. Tuscany Development's going to share
some of that. We are for sure. And we were hoping the city would -- would do that. I
guess with that I just wanted to clarify the ownership.
De Weerd: So, let me get this right. This is future road right-of-way.
Schultz: That's correct.
De Weerd: We will be paying for an easement and, then, they will sell the property to
ACRD at a later date.
Schultz: Most likely, yes.
Bird: You just made the property more valuable by having the --
Grady: And., then, Madam Mayor, like I said, I wanted to emphasize that Bear Wood in
particular -- we went the extra mile to try to get this going and we asked for the -- they
asked for the reimbursement up front, so they are getting cash on the barrel head when
the -- when the project is done, they are not even having to wait for future hook-up fees.
So, it's -- it's really unprecedented, at least in my opinion.
Schultz: I wish Bear Wood was here.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Keith.
Bird: Len, on change orders, in my experience the owner, you can -- as a subcontractor
or something, you can request for authorization, but the change orders usually is started
through the owner, which would -- at this point would be Public Works. Did you start
this change order?
Grady: No, we didn't. And you also raised a really good point. Typically, change
orders are for unknown costs, you know, unforeseen groundwater, basalt creeps
through there, something you didn't anticipate. If you wanted payment for an easement
up front, that should have been built into the original agreement. So, the whole spirit of
the change order is kind of an odd one in this case.
Bird: Thank you. Thanks, Mayor.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Anything further?
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 11 of 104
Schultz: Only that it's only a change order because we didn't know about it at the time
we did the agreement. That's why it's a change order. It is an after-the-fact issue that
did come up, so I just want to clarify that. Thank you.
Bird: Matt, a question for you, then. Did you know this fourth owner owned the ground
that you were going through?
Schultz: In the process of getting the plans done and the agreement done., it came to
our attention that there was a separate owner. Didn't know how forthcoming they would
be on the easement. We thought they'd come easy, they didn't come easy. It's just
kind of --
Bird: Why didn't we -- why didn't we get him to sign on board with it? Or did we?
Schultz: They are not interested in developing the property. They weren't there -- they
are not interested -- and as far as -- that plat could expire next year, it would be reverted
back to farm ground as far as they are concerned. Again, we do not .represent that
party. We are an unrelated third party to that property. In fact, we are probably a
competitor. It's been amazing that we have been able to pull off something this big and
get this sewer line coming to this stage with all the different parties that we do have, I
think. It's been a tough road to get this thing to this point and we are just asking for a
little help.
De Weerd: We know. Our staff has to do it quite often.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, I guess maybe to just make one point clear, in case it isn't, but
our agreement with Shepherd's Creek does authorize them the ability to request this
change order. This is not -- this is not outside the confines of this agreement. They are
allowed to ask. Mr. Schultz does know that that is certainly within the Council's purview
to grant that. But he does have to ask prior to incurring the cost and that is what's
required in our agreement. So, although it is common, as Mr. Grady said, that most
change orders on projects that are managed by Public Works go through the Public
Works Department, we have an agreement that grants the developer here the ability to
ask and the requirement that they ask before they incur it. So, this is not out of the
norm of what we have agreed to, but it's still within the discretion of this council on
whether to grant all of the request, part of the request, or none of it. So, just wanted to
make that clear.
Meridian city Council
October 23, 2007
Page 12 of T04
De Weerd: Thank you.
Schultz: Thanks.
Grady: Madam Mayor, just to follow up. I do believe Matt was unaware of the
easement cost, but, obviously, the money is going to Bear Wood and I -- I -- Bear Wood
was a part of that agreement and, obviously, Bear Wood, if they wanted payment for
that easement, would have known that up front. So, Matt may have been surprised by
it, but Bear Wood being part of the agreement is, basically, the recipient of that money
and that should have been put in up front. I guess that's my biggest concern.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I'll have to admit that I don't remember these plats as they came through, but
was Bear Wood aware that they were missing a piece of the property that they were
talking about? Did they present a plat that covered a piece of property they didn't own?
De Weerd: I don't know. Len, do you have any --
Grady: I have been trying to contact Greg Johnson for -- for about two weeks now and
we have been playing phone tag. It's my understanding that the property may have
changed hands once or twice or whatever, but the reimbursement agreement runs with
the land and that would have come whoever signed that agreement was -- is the owner
of that .land or represented as the owner of that land and if he sells it or changes hands,
the agreement still runs with the land. So, I'm not sure that has any bearing.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, just to clarify, it's your understanding that the original
agreement covered the piece of property that we are now talking about that --
Grady: Oh, yeah. No question. Yeah. No question.
Zaremba: That it was at one point part of that agreement.
Grady: Correct.
Zaremba: That's sort of what my previous question was, but it wasn't clear enough.
Bird: Did Matt understand that, too?
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 13 of 104
Schultz: Madam Mayor and Mr. Bird, thank you for letting me clarify that. My
understanding -- I wasn't involved in that project, but from what I understand, that piece
of property was deeded over into a trust. I think the intent was in a rising market to sell
it back and., then, in a falling market there has been a disagreement between the
partners and they are like we are just selling it. And so this truly is a fourth party that's
not related to Tuscany Development -- is not related to Tuscany Development. Tuscany
Development has signed off on the reimbursement. We have agreed to build the entire
line through both projects, but Tuscany Development was the only party to the
reimbursement agreement, the foundation. The Craig and Rebecca Groves Foundation
was not a party of that original reimbursement agreement. So, essentially, we have
agreed to build this pipe across the full -- both properties, one of those costs being an
easement and along with pipe and manholes and everything else. We would get
reimbursed and Tuscany Development would pay the connection fee and that fourth
party was never a part of that.
Zaremba: I don't know if this distinction is important or not, but I understand that you're
saying the current owner of a piece of this property didn't sign the original agreement.
But at the time the agreement was signed, was this property a piece of the rest of the
property?
Schultz: The agreement was signed at the end of August, a month and a half ago.
believe this property has been owned by the foundation for a couple years.
Zaremba: Okay.
Schultz: The preliminary plat's been done for a couple of years -- I don't know, a year
and a half, two years?
Zaremba: Uh-huh. And that -- the preliminary plat was missing this piece.
Bird.: No. It had it underlined and Ithink -- I don't know the timing of the deed.
Somewhere around the timing, either before or after the preliminary plat this underlying
property was deeded to a different entity.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- and I think that's probably the key point
that Mr. Schultz is making. These are different entities, but -- I have the agreement up
in front of me and it was signed on the 31st of August by Craig Groves as the secretary
for Tuscany Development. So, Mr. Groves did sign the agreement, but a different
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 14 of 104
entity, which he is also a part of, owns this easement. So, I think that's where the issue
is.
Bird.: Can lask a --
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Matt, you might not be able to answer this. Did Mr. Groves -- was this property in
question in his -- in this foundation's name when we did the plat and stuff?
Schultz: You know, that was before my time and I don't know if -- when the preliminary
plat went through.
Bird: I think we platted the whole property. I think everything did and it all came under
one deal and Ididn't -- I did not know there was any distinction. It was never brought
forward to us.
Schultz: I didn't know that until about June myself -- or July myself. And, then, we
didn't know how it was going to end up on the easement. It is an independent trust --
board of trustees. Craig's not on it. It all sounds fishy. I`II give you that. I'm the
messenger. I am a messenger.
Bird: You said that. I want to -- you said it.
Schultz: I wish Craig was here to endure this himself.
Rountree: So do I.
Bird: So do I.
De Weerd: Well, you're having so much fun.
Schultz: I am. It's a great pleasure to be here. And especially with an easement, as we
know. They get interesting. I'm here to disclose our burden as Shepherd's Creek, LLC,
not related to any of these parties -- to pay the full cost. If we get reimbursed, that
would be helpful. If we don't, we are still going to give the easement and get that thing -
- that sewer line through there. So, we are asking fora 13,000 dollar commitment. We
are going to throw in 13,000 just to share the load and asking Tuscany Development to
throw in 13,000 to share the load. So, it will be a three way split. Not asking any one
party to bear it.
Bird: But you're asking us, if I understand right, to give you 26 and, then, we are going
to collect from Tuscany the 13.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 15 of 104
Schultz: I'm asking --
Bird: Why don't you be the collection agency?
Schultz: From Tuscany?
Bird: Yeah.
Schultz: I can do that.
De Weerd: And Craig Groves.
Schultz: Oh, trust me, yeah, we have had discussions already, but, no, I can work that
out with Greg Johnson. Greg's an honorable guy and he will bear the burden on that,
so -- but I just want to lay our cards on the table. Like I said, if we get a savings, we
bring that before you, you know, we are all up front and up above board here. This is a
developer driven turn key project. We finish it, pay for it, hand you over the keys and,
then, there are some reimbursements that happen. So, it is a little unique in that
respect.
De Weerd: Council, this is why you get paid the big bucks to make the decision.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: My comment at this point -- my position at this point would be to deny the
request. My comment is maybe this isn't the right time to make the request. I don't
think we have all the information that we need necessarily as it relates to that original
plat. But my recollecfiion of that original plat was the whole -- the whole parcel and one
developer and if that's the case, I think that they should honor that -- the agreement
should honor that and those folks should honor it. So, I would recommend that -- I know
Matt's in a position where they want to move forward and Mike's back there wanting to
move forward, but maybe now is not the time to make this request and get action
tonight, because I'm not sure you're going to get the answer you want tonight, but I don't
know how the other two feel.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird,.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 16 of 104
Bird: Len, is there -- we have had this before and that. Is there any way that we can
move that sewer line and skip this property?
Schultz: I tried.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, I did offer to Matt, you know, to take a look
into this and see if we can -- you know, if we -- first of all, give me time to talk to Greg
Johnson. I offered to do that and see if there is any way we can waive this. I also
offered that -- to take a look and see if we did have to pay this, if we can, then, tag that
development with that -- those monies in the future, both of those would be palatable to
Public Works, because we are not setting a precedent. And, then, I committed to one
additional -- oh, I also agreed to talk to my liaison and see if maybe I was judging a little
too harsh. Mr. Schultz went away and came back and said, no, he wanted to go to
Council. So, that's what why we are here is -- is he wanted a decision, so that's what
we are going to give him.
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Schultz.
Schultz: Seeing how this is going., I'd ask to withdraw our change order number two at
this time and we are going to pay for the easement and we will assess our costs and
once we figure out ownerships and see if it's more appropriate to bring it back later or
not. And we may just take care of it with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Groves, but just withdraw
the request.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: Are you open to the suggestions of Public Works maybe getting involved in
possibly coming up with a solution?
Schultz: We appreciate any help we can get.
Rountree: Okay.
Schultz: We feel like the Lone Ranger out there sometimes, so --
Bird: And -- Madam Mayor? I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: And follow up on Councilman Rountree, I don't want to set you -- I don't want you
hanging out there in the corner, but in the same token, everybody should pay their
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 17 of 104
share and I have no problem helping from the city if everybody else is, but I think we
have got a person that by hook or crook is getting some other deal and so I'm -- you
know, I appreciate pulling the change order request and why we can't work something
out -- I think we can.
Schultz: I appreciate that and, like I said, we are moving forward regardless. The
sewer's going to be there before Christmas, so --
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the primary reason Mr. Schultz is here
now is because the agreement that we have requires he ask before he incurs it. If this
Council is of the mind set to at least leave that door open, then, he can come back and
request it later and he's not barred from that request by the language of our agreement,
then, I would suggest maybe make that in a motion to allow him the opportunity to bring
it forward later when the project is completed and., then, we are not going to run into an
issue that -- or our contract says he's not allowed to do that and, then, he can still come
back later.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes. Do you want Len to comment before you ask your question?
Zaremba: No. Go ahead..
Grady: Sorry, I thought you were getting ready to ask me a question, so go ahead..
De Weerd: Well, we did just ask you a question. I guess what I would like to hear your
comments on are the recommendations by Mr. Nary and if you think that this is
something -- I think you can work with him to find a better solution, but do you mind that
this Council would leave that door open for you to give that ability?
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe that, you know, we can -- I'm
optimistic we can come to an agreement, but it just -- at this point, because Matt did
bring it forward, it seems a little silly to, then, come back later. It would be my
preference that you rule on it and instruct me to do anything reasonable to help him
work it out, so that we are not back here in two months again with this same discussion.
But I'm willing to go either way. That would be my recommendation.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page T8 of 104
Zaremba: The issue that would hold me up on making a decision is whether or not the
original plat included this piece of property and it's already covered by the agreement.
But we don't seem to have any proof one way or the other and I would support the idea
of leaving the door open for a later time if when it came back -- and by a later time that
could be our next meeting, which is two weeks from now -- if when it came back we had
that answer to whether it has already been obligated under the original plat and there
has just been some shuffle since then and the other piece of it is I would be more
interested in talking about the city only doing the third, not doing the other third and
being reimbursed.
Grady: Madam Mayor, I'll chime in again. I -- from memory I'm reasonably certain that
we dealt with -- with the Bear Wood people to make sure that that sewer ran right
through their property and I remember it coming in at a -- at one block of land and that
sewer ran from one end to the other.
Zaremba: So, Madam Mayor, that being the case, it's already covered.:. Is that correct?
Grady: Well -- and that's my issue is --
Zaremba: If that's the scenario.
Grady: It's in future right-of-way. Now, I would be willing to state that if you base your
decision on that and I'm wrong, then, I will come back and tell you I made a mistake
there and that perhaps you need to reconsider, if that helps.
De Weerd: Council, what is your direction on this?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, see if I can compose a motion here. I move that we direct
staff to work with the requester and the signators of the Shepherd Creek sewer
extension, as well as the potential outlier and work to resolve. If there is no resolve and
the facts of this particular application become more clear, allow the opportunity for the
requester to come back to Council and ask for consideration of compensation.
Bird.: I will second that.
De Weerd.: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Mayors Office
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 49 of 104
1. Appointment of Kirk Morris to Meridian Development
Corporation:
De Weerd: Item 6-B under the Mayor's office. I do have some information that should
be in front of you regarding Kirk Morris, which is who I would like to appoint to the
Meridian Development Corporation. Kirk has experience working with urban renewal
districts and the planning and visioning of urban renewal districts. When we did put this
out for those interested., Kirk did apply during our last opening and he renewed his
interest. We didn't get a -- we didn't get very many people or any others. I did hear
through one of the Council members someone that was interested, but he never
contacted my office. So, I did meet with Mr. Morris and he's got a of lot great ideas and
background that I think will add to the current seated board a new perspective and I
bring his name to you for confirmation.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Kirk Morris to the Meridian Development Board and when is
the -- which seat? He's taking --
De Weerd: Jon Cecil.
Bird: Cecil. And when was the --
De Weerd: It was open seat and I believe it --
Bird..: So, it will be in 2010.
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird.: October -- or August of 2010.
De Weerd: August of 2010.
Bird: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the appointment of Kirk Morris to
the Meridian Development Corporation, with the term to expire in August 2010. Mr.
Berg.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 20 of 104
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Gorton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Finance Department
1. Approval of Award of Citv Hall Bid Packages 16 8< 22.
Amount of Award for Package 16 Audio /Visual is
$204,378.72 to AAtronics, Inc. and Package 22 Security
Systems $84,695.00 to Apex Integrated Security
Systems, Inc..,:
De Weerd: Thank you. Appreciate that. Item 6-C is the finance department. I will turn
this over to Keith Watts.
Watts: Madam Mayor, Council members, I have before you the remaining. two bid
packages from phase three of the City Hall bid. It is for audio-visual equipment and the
security package as well and I'm just asking for award of these two packages and the
authorization to enter into the contracts. Here for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Do I have a motion?
Bird.: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve package number 16 to the new City Hall, the audio-
visual for $204,378.72. I don't know why we can't round them off. To AAtronics,
Incorporated, and package number 22, the security systems, the sum of $84,695 to
Apex Integrated Security Systems and for the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second approving item 6-C-1. Any discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
2. Cooperative Construction and Reimbursement
Agreement for North Black Cat Trunk Sewer with
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 21 of 104
Brighton Development, Inc., Treehaven, LLC, Primeland
Development Group, LLC and the City of Meridian:
De Weerd: Item 6-C-2.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'll jump in on this one. This particular
agreement -- the bids for this particular agreement were opened yesterday. I think --
think it was too quick to get this on today's agenda., so I'm asking this to be delayed until
the next available Council meeting. I believe that's November 7th. I know that the
developers are anxious to get this going, so I have set up a meeting with them tomorrow
to see -- to see what steps we can take to get them -- get them going on their project,
so --
De Weerd: Yeah. We can just hold it over. We don't need a motion.
Grady: Yeah.
De Weerd: Correct, Mr. Berg?
Bird: We are going to the 7th, then?
Berg: We will just go to the 7th.
Grady: 7th. Yeah. Probably under Public Works.
Bird.: But whoever is the -- or whoever you selected can get started.
Grady: Well, actually, the apparent low had some problems with their bid and, once
again, that's the problem with pushing these things too quick is we have to go to the
second low bidder and the intention is to get together tomorrow and see what we can
allow them to get going on and keep the project on track best we can, but I just don't
think at this time we can award the bid.
Bird.: Okay.
Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
7-B. Resolution No. 07-583 MDC Proposed Fees In Lieu
of Parking Policy:
De Weerd: Very good. We did have two items moved from the Consent Agenda and
we will hear Item 7-B first. I believe, Mr. Bird., do you have --
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 22 of 104
Bird: The only reason I wanted to bring that off, Madam Mayor, was I wanted a roll call
vote on just this item. I agreed on all the -- all the Consent Agenda, but this one item I
cannot vote for. This resolution.
De Weerd: Thank you. Then, I would need a motion. to approve and we will ask for a
roll call vote.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 7-B, resolution 07-583.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird., nay; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
7-K. Addendum to Development Agreement: AZ 05-066 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of .50 acres from R-12 to C-G zone for
Meridian Veterinary Clinic by Architecture Northwest - 415 West
Franklin Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bird. Item 7-K. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Actually, I had a question on this one. The addendum to the agreement
removes a paragraph from the original agreement and that original paragraph required
the approval of their building. As I recall, there were some reasons for putting that
requirement in there, some of which I find are not actually written in the development
agreement, but some of the issues for asking that they get approval of their building
were that they -- they presented a concept plan that was not real definitive and some of
the issues were being certain that it was going to be a facility for small animals, not
large animals. There were some other issues on how that building would relate to
alternate landscape compliance, since they were not able to meet the 25 foot buffer that
would be required were this a new building fronting Franklin Road and I guess, in
general, I question the wisdom of just wiping out a paragraph that requires the approval
for any property, not just this one, but I think there are some issues and I guess my
main question is -- is staff comfortable with us wiping that requirement out that they see
-- see the building and approve it? If we take that paragraph out, there is no further
review.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 23 of 1.04
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, perhaps Mr. Nary can help me out.
Was this addendum done as a modification to the development agreement or -- I don't
remember this discussion and I have to confess that sometimes I don't read the
Consent Agenda very closely.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I didn't put it on either, so I don't know. I
didn't do it and I wasn't here for that discussion. So, I'm not certain on this particular
one. So, why don't we just take it off and we will bring it back, because I don't recall this
-- I recall the discussion at Planning and Zoning and when it originally was annexed and
wasn't here maybe the week that -- that would have been two weeks ago, I wasn't
here., so I don't know where the genesis of this comes from, so once it gets off the
agenda it goes through a process that I don't see it again and Mrs. Canning doesn't see
it again. So, why don't we go ahead and pull it off and we will figure it out and if we
need to bring it back, we will bring it back, Madam Mayor, so --
Zaremba: I would ask that if it comes back, it comes back as a regular item, as
opposed to a Consent item.
Nary: Sure.
Bird: I would second that.
De Weerd': So staff can comment. So, Mr. Berg, do I need a motion to continue this?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: I move that we continue AZ 05-006, addendum to a development agreement
relating to Meridian Veterinary Clinic, our current item, 7-K, to November 27th.
Bird: Second..
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second.. Any discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 24 of 104
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8: Tabled from October 16, 2007: FP 07-026 Request for Final Plat
approval for 140 single-family building lots and 21 common lots on 89.70
acres in R-2, R-8 and R-15 zones for Jayker Subdivision No. 1 by
Treehaven, LLC - 4042 West Chinden Boulevard:
De Weerd: We are finally in our agenda. That wasn't too painful, was it? .Item 8 has --
was tabled from October 16 on FP 07-026. We have received an agreement from the
applicant that agrees with staff comments. Council, is there any further information you
need or do I have a motion?
Grady: Madam Mayor, sorry to jump in so quick. Jaykers was put in in anticipation that
the cooperative agreement would be in place. With the cooperative agreement being
delayed, we -- Jaykers would have no viable way to get sewer, so I'm asking that it also
be moved to November 7th, until that reimbursement agreement can be in place and,
similarly, I have been in contact with the engineer and he's also coming in tomorrow to
see what we can allow him to get started on prior to this approval. So, I'm asking for
that to be continued to November 7th.
De Weerd: I need a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we table -- or continue PF 07-026 to November 7th, 2007.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 8 until 11/7. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9; Tabled from October 16, 2007: FP 07-032 Request for Final Plat
approval for 192 multi-family units on 48 building lots and 1 common lot on
13..99 acres in an R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by
Canterbury Commons, LLC -south of West Pine Avenue and east of
North Ten Mile Road:
De Weerd: Item 9 has also been requested to continue to 11/7. Do I have a motion?
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 25 of 104
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we continue FP 07-032 to our regularly scheduled meeting of
November 7th.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 9 to 11/7. All those in favor
say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10: FP 07-033 Request for Final Plat approval for 5 commercial building lots
and 1 other lot on 6.67 acres in a C-G zone for Gardner Ahlquist
Subdivision No. 2 by Ahlquist Development, LLC -Southeast Corner of
Eagle Road and Franklin Road:
De Weerd: Item 10, is a final plat. We did receive comments from the applicant. They
are in agreement with the written conditions. Anything further from staff?
Canning: No, ma'am.
De Weerd: Council?
Bird.: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve FP 07-033.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10. If there is no discussion,
Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird.., yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 26 of 404
Item 11: FP 07-034 Request for Final Plat approval for 14 single-family building
lots and 2 common lots on 5.08 acres in an' R-4 zone for Quarterhorse
Subdivision by M2 Land, LLC - 710 North Black Cat Road:
De Weerd: Item 11 has been requested to be continued.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: I move we continue FP 07-034 relating to Quarterhorse Subdivision to our
regularly scheduled meeting of November 20, 2007.
Rountree: Second..
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 11 to 11/20. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2007: PP 07-014 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval for 34 commercial /retail building lots and 1
common lot on 17.84 acres within the C-G zone for Emerson Park
Commercial by Kuna Victory, LLC - 2910 & 3030 South Meridian Road
and 110 East Victory Road:
De Weerd: Item 12 is a continued Public Hearing from October 2nd on PP 07-014. I
will ask for staff comments at this time.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a continued Public Hearing,
but you have not had a presentation on it yet, so I will give you a full presentation. The
property -- this is the Emerson Park Commercial property and it's located at 2910 and
3030 South Meridian Road and 110 East Victory Road. So, it's the northeast corner of
South Meridian and East Victory Roads. You have seen this as Mussell Corner in the
past. The application before you is a preliminary plat. The proposed development
includes approval of 34 commercial retail building lots and one common lot on 17.84
acres in an existing C-G zone. I have just been informed my screen is not working.
There you go. Thank you. You do have some elevations before you tonight to go along
with the plat. I'll scroll down and find those. And they, actually, consist of the photos
that were submitted with the development agreement modification application and these
are consistent with that one. What that development agreement modification stated
was that principal permitted uses on the subject property are allowed without conditional
use approval provided that all future buildings have sloped metal roofs with overhanging
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 27 of 1D4
eaves that are supported by posts, are oriented toward the public street, front door
facing street, siding visible from the street containing at least a three foot tall
wainscoting constructed of stone, brick, or other similar materials. That each building
will provide a variety of building materials and colors and each building is generally
consistent with the nine pictures submitted. If a future proposed building is not
consistent with the above-mentioned provisions, then, the building and use shall be
required to obtain CU approval prior to construction and operation. So, those are the
provisions that are in place for design review. And there is your concept plan. The
Commission recommended approval at their September 6, 2007, Public Hearing. Chris
Tverdy and Oaas Laney spoke in favor and no one spoke in opposition. No one
commented or provided written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission
were the existence of the buffer along Victory Road within the right of way, rather than
on the property as required by the UDC. The existence of a previously approved
parking lot for the 2M building within the required buffer area along Victory Road and
widening the existing five foot wide sidewalk along Meridian Road to a ten foot wide
sidewalk as required by the UDC along state highways. The key Commission changes
to staff recommendation were they struck the condition 1.4 that required the ten foot
wide pathway along State Highway 69. They modified condition 1.1.66, which required
a 25 foot buffer along Victory Road and, instead, required alternative compliance and
provide a 15 foot wide buffer where there is adequate room available on the site. And,
then, the alternative compliance application shall be submitted prior to a current --
concurrently with the final plat application. ~I'm going to take just a second and talk
about that one before I continue the list. What had happened was that ACHD had
originally acquired sufficient right of way for I think a five lane arterial and had decided
to bring it back down to a three lane arterial, so there was excess right-of-way, similar to
the issues that we have been seeing along Eagle Road in some instances. I was going
to suggest to Council, unless you're opposed to it -- I can take care of those as
alternative compliance and I think what we will do is bring a department report forward
to you stating under what conditions we accept alternative compliance for that, rather
than requiring a variance. So, the requirement you see tonight is for alternative
compliance on this property. Moving back to the list. Strike condition 1.1.6E requiring
the ten foot wide pathway and modify condition 1.17 to require a minimum of 15 foot
wide buffer to be located outside the ultimate right-of-way. So, a lot of these changes
are just getting to the same two ideas here. Modify condition 1.1.13 to allow for the
relocation of existing access to Meridian Road further to the north, if agreeable with the
owners of Double D. A variance is required to be approved by City Council for the
relocation of the existing access point to a state highway. Modify condition 1.2.2 to
allow the pond to remain, but require to have recirculating water and be maintained so
that it does not create a mosquito breeding ground. And modify condition 2.1 to read:
Staff will work with the applicant to draft a reimbursement agreement that will go before
City Council for approval, as outlined in City Code 9-4-19 and perhaps the Public Works
director can give more information on that one if need be. Modify condition 3.17 to
allow for the option of incorporating the required emergency access into the requested
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 28 of 404
stub street along the northern boundary of the property. Construction plans shall be
approved by the Meridian Fire Department. And, finally, modify condition 1.1.1 in
Exhibit B to require that applicant to modify -- apply for a miscellaneous application to
amend the existing DA for the site to reflect the conditions of approval for the subject
preliminary plat. So, there is one outstanding issue before Council that we are aware
of. The applicant wants to modify condition 1.1.12 to allow the northern driveway --
think the aerial shows it best. The northern driveway at the very north end of the
property to continue the use until the third phase of the development is complete. Right
now we have it subject to signature on the final plat with the intent that it be the first final
plat. The original DA allowed for the temporary access to State Highway 69 and, again,
the original development agreement was done prior to our adopting our access to state
highways ordinance, but it reads that that temporary access is allowed until such
properties are redeveloped and this preliminary plat does include that property that is
being redeveloped. So, this is a redevelopment of that property. Furthermore, because
we adopted standards related to access to state highways since the property was
originally annexed and because, again -- because you now have this preliminary plat
request in front of you, staff believes that granting the applicant's request could only be
done with a variance application at this point and was not intended with the original DA
and you do not have a variance before you tonight, just the request. So, staff asks that
you clarify that condition 1.1.2 specifically to say that prior to signature on the first final
plat. And that's a lot of changes without having the description of the proposal yet and
I'll let the applicant do that, but there was a lot of wordsmithing that went on with those
conditions and I'll answer any questions you may have now or if you'd like to wait until
the applicant has presented the project I'll answer them then.
De Weerd: Any questions right now?
Rountree: Not at this point.
Bird: Not at this --
Zaremba: I do have questions, but I'll wait for the applicant.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Tverdy: Good evening. Chris Tverdy. 519 West Front Street, Boise, Idaho. I'm the
project manager for Oaas Laney and specifically working on this project today. Staff
has done a great job in presenting the project and there are a lot of details associated
with the development, but I think in essence of time I will just jump right to the conditions
that we worked on with staff and the items that we would like to bring up for your
consideration today. Getting right to condition 1.1.12, the items that staff has
commented on about the north access onto Meridian Road, the development
agreement that was put in place a couple of years ago I think is perfectly identified, said
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 29 of 104
language such as applicant shall be allowed to use a temporary access onto Meridian
Road until such area redevelops. Currently on this property the Victory Greens Nursery
is operating and that is a very used access point for them. As we have done
improvements, as recently as the -- you know, the middle of this last summer to the --
along the lines of the development agreement, our understanding all along is that that
access is -- is remaining until the development is complete and we really -- this was
really new news to us this week in conversations with staff, we felt that we were in the
same understanding with staff that it was going to be until the end of the development
was complete. However, staff, as has been presented, really wants this to be vacated
at the beginning of our project. Since this is going to be a five to seven year build out,
that puts us in a pretty extreme hardship on the operating business that is -- that is there
and., you know, using the majority of that property and that really is just not something
that we feel like we can accept at this time. Phase one -- and I don't know if you can
see it on -- very well, because that's pretty small print up there on the screen, but maybe
your handouts show it, but phase one is the southeast corner and that really is going to
be the development that is initiated and worked on for the next year and a half and,
then, we really don't intend to be even touching the northern portion of that property for
quite some time, simply because there is a lease -- an active lease and an active
business on that property. But to go through and get this platted we simply are
submitting a preliminary plat to see what the entire development looks like. So, our
proposal is that at the end of this condition -- at the end of this sentence we add: Of the
final phase of the development. So, that sentence would read: The access driveway at
the north end of this site to Meridian Road that is currently being used for loading for
Victory Greens shall be removed and the use discontinued prior to the signature on the
final plat of the final phase of the development. My cold medicine is kicking in. I think
can move onto the next couple of points and we can -- unless you have any questions
on that specific topic. The next item is a small one on condition 1.1.13. This condition
was put in -- can I approach this and just point to the --
De Weerd: Yes. You can grab the microphone right here on the stand..
Tverdy: The next item that we are dealing with is this corner here is the current
operation of the Double D and there is a -- there is a right-in, right-out entrance point
right here. We -- to make this traffic flow work, we are considering talking to the other
folks on the -- that have interested parties in this corner about moving that down here to
make a better access point for the whole subdivision. I think there are going to be
significant challenges of doing that, but what we ask staff for was just the opportunity to
be able to come back and move that if all parties agree. And so the language that's in
there deals with that point. The item that I wanted to mention, though, was that our
attorneys feel as though the term variance is probably misused., in that variance has a
much higher standard of approval and acceptance and we really just would prefer that
condition to say that it requires the approval of appropriate agencies and the -- the City
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 30 of 104
Council. That's all. We want it -- we certainly understand we have to come back and
get it paid for.
De Weerd: Through a variance.
Tverdy: Did I say paid for? I meant approved. The item number three, section 2.1,
relates to the reimbursement agreement and we are in agreement with Public Works
and with staff related to the requirement to extend the sewer trunk line from the corner
of Meridian and Victory the length of our property through a reimbursement agreement.
What I was nervous about in the planning meeting was that we simply have no
understanding of the cost associated with that and desire to engage in some value
engineering to make sure that this is a good plan and a good design. We are still in the
process of negotiating appropriate placement of that and I believe I have a meeting
tomorrow to take this up a little bit further. The heart of our concern is placing the sewer
line right down the middle or, essentially, the middle of Victory Road versus off into the
property that is currently owned by Kastera on the south side of the -- of Victory. It will
substantially reduce the cost to put in that line and that's really what is the hold up to
come up with the engineering and I think staff may have a comment or two on that and,
again, we are not -- similar to the previous gentleman in here, we are in agreement that
we need to put it in. We are certainly wanting to just continue discussions to make sure
that that's done in the most efficient manner. I went through that very quickly, but those
are the heart of the issues that we have with the staff report. Everything else we agree
to. I think staff has done a fantastic job in helping us with this property, because as you
know, it's been through this process a couple times and it has some tricky elements
related to the highways around it. So, anyway, appreciate the work that they have done
to date. So, with that I would stand for any other questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I think I would now ask a couple questions of staff, but while
you're standing there.
Tverdy: Okay.
Zaremba: Can you go back one slide? I think there was a slide before this, depending
on which direction you go. That one.. Yes. Because it shows where other streets align
and so forth. Actually, the first question isn't on the streets. I guess my question is for
some reason the Commission gave up ten foot wide sidewalks in places where the city
would ask for them. Would staff care to venture an opinion on that?
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 31 of 104
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, I suspect
-- I didn't read the minutes, but I suspect it's because we didn't ask for one originally
with the annexation and the -- because the code changed, they didn't want to make
them rip up the five feet to put in the ten feet.
Tverdy: Yeah. I can answer that if you'd like.
Zaremba: Okay.
Tverdy: The sidewalk that we put in is really about seven months old, because we put it
in per the requirements that it be five feet and so the Commission agreed that, yeah, it
doesn't make sense to go up and rip in -- rip up all of that landscaping that we have
done to make that ten feet, rather than five.
Zaremba: And I wasn't totally clear -- when we talk about the access that's at the north
end, we are talking about absolutely north end; right? And my recollection is from
discussing this property across the street, that that's on the quarter mile and I may or
may not be correct about that, but normally at the quarter mile we might look for aright-
in, right-out and I guess the question, again, to staff is does that really need to totally go
away or would it be useful for -- I think there was some thought that it would extend
back into these other properties at some time and be used by all the properties.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, staff is going by code and the code
currently says if an applicant proposes a change or increase in intensity of use, the
owner shall develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the state
highway. The use of the existing approach shall cease and the approach shall be
abandoned and removed. So, with regard to both the requests to relocate one access
to the state highway and to continue the temporary use, even though there is a change
in intensity in the use of the property, both require a variance application and all we are
saying tonight is you shouldn't be making a decision on this, you should have a variance
application in front of you before you make a decision on the matter.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: A variance.
Tverdy: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, I think a key point that staff had -- is not
realizing or taking into consideration is that we aren't developing that corner. We have
submitted a preliminary plat because of the urging and requirement to -- when you start
a venture like this you want to see the entire picture, we don't want to do it one little
piece at a time, we want to plan for the whole development. We are only going to be
asking for a final plat in the coming months on the first phase of our development and
that's why we are asking for that condition to be clarified, so that the -- we certainly
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 32 of 1.04
acknowledge and agree that as we get to final plat on phase three, which is that
northern portion, we will abandon that spot in favor of a through connect to the
properties to the adjacent property and we feel like that's a hundred percent in
agreement with the development agreement that is currently standing on the property.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: But didn't the original development agreement allow the temporary access
that you currently have until any of the rest of that redevelops?
Tverdy: Ithink the language is expanded use, you know, and there is no expanded use,
it's staying in the current existing form., it being used by the Meridian Greens Subdivision
-- or not subdivision. Nursery. So, I mean -- and I hate to play on words here, but
think it's pretty -- pretty key that we really aren't redeveloping that property. These are
separate parcels all owned by one.
Canning: Madam Mayor, my life is all about playing on words and we consistently
review -- if a 17 acre parcel with one use on it is different than a ten acre parcel with the
same use on it, that is a change in intensity of the use. To take the example further, we
would have everybody putting their properties that have access to the highway in their
last phase and, then, never redeveloping that last phase, so that that access could
always stay and these are the reasons we are always trying to get these things up front
to make sure that -- that we address those things and it's very consistent with the
nonconforming use standard that we apply for all properties.
De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further?
Zaremba: Thank you. Not for the moment.
Tverdy: Madam Mayor, if I could make one additional comment there.. The other item
that I don't want to overlook -- and we got through the agenda much quicker than I
thought we would and so I don't know if -- if Tim Mussell, the Victory Greens owners, is
going to be here to testify, but I don't really want to represent him, but he is significantly
worried about the negative impact that closing that entrance has in his business -- on
his business operation and Ithink -- I fully understand and respect the position that staff
has on it, but it puts us in a position where we -- where we either have to shut down the
use on the entire property, because that a current use will not -- will not be able to last in
its current form or we don't go forward with the development. And Ithink this
development has --Ithink has the favor of the surrounding community and the Planning
Commission as well and I think that -- I mean I do respect the position and especially
the comments about the wiggle room that leaving that open leaves for the developer,
but I think in this case there is an existing use and when that existing use ceases, the
Victory Greens business ceases on the property, that's when we will develop the rest of
Meridian city council
October 23, 2007
Page 33 of 104
it and that, really, is the heart of the issue. The access isn't for the development, it's for
Victory Greens business that's operating there today.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: If I remember, part of your earlier testimony was that they have a lease that
has five more years to run. May I ask the city attorney could we put a condition on that
that access would remain until the first of two things, either five years exactly or phase
three is developed? And maybe I should ask the director if she would be willing to have
that happen.
Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- and I guess Mrs. Canning can, I
guess, give -- you can certainly place a condition like that if you want. The problem
always is is -- is enforcing that and trying to assure that when most of the time these
types of enforcements can be done much simpler at the beginning of the project when
they want to start it. It's very difficult to do it in other phases of the project, because it's
counting which phase it is -- I mean, you know, you can place the condition whatever
you'd like it to be, but if you want us to enforce it, it makes it very difficult when it isn't at
the point where a change is occurring. So, I don't know if Mrs. Canning has a different
perspective, but I think that's -- that's really the issue:
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, I think
that would be the kind of thing you could consider in a variance application if it were
before you tonight. I really believe that this decision requires a variance application.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: There is that word again. Any other questions, Council? Any other
comments?
Tverdy: Well, I -- I'm at a school when it comes to the process and the difference in the
decision-making process when we use a variance application or not, but I suspect it's
the same conversation that we just had. And so, you know, I'm not quite sure that we
are moving anything on, but I guess I'm a little out of school, because I'm not sure I
understand the variance process, but I guess that's my only comment.
De Weerd: Well, this is a public meeting and you do have the last word and your client
just got here, so you had good timing.
Tverdy: Perfect. Yeah. So, I guess with that I`II sit down and let the public --
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 34 of T04
De Weerd: Okay.
Tverdy: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Speak now or forever hold your peace. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record..
Mussell: I'm Tim Mussell at 3800 South Meridian Road in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Mussell: Mayor, City Council. Sorry I'm here late, because I was told to be here now.
Anyway, I think one of the main things that -- I had looked at the minutes from the
previous meeting and when I originally met with Lee Sills back in '95 about our property,
we were starting the nursery and they always said that the speed limit would be lowered
and at some point in time access would be available on Meridian Road. When I bought
the property in '92 the previous owner and I had negotiated a deal with the highway
district where we retained deeded title to at least three entrances onto Meridian Road
and sold all the other right-of-ways to the highway district. Through the process we
have always had issues of how -- when that would be vacated or if it would or if there
was an ability to -- to expand that. Through the process of working a joint development
agreement with Oaas Laney we did lose our Victory Road entrance, because we
wanted to help Double D gain an access and it's affected my business quite a bit, along
with the economy, but, still, the entrance that we were -- we have to vacate was a big
deal. I was noticing in the last minutes that you guys are negotiating a deal where
you're going to terminate that north entrance and even through the process the last time
we were with you guys -- or I was looking at the meeting minutes from the previous
application, they had always said as long as it was under development and they didn't
change use, that I was fine. So, I went along with the previous approvals and until now
it didn't affect me, but if they try to close off that north entrance it would just, basically,
kill our portion of the business. We have a five year lease with the five year renewal on
a portion of the property down there. We are willing to let these guys work their way
through the process where we start from the east and work our way across and
eventually have a nice development. We have done the landscaping, we have tried to
really clean the place up to where it's -- it's nice for the city, it was -- it was always kind
of a pioneer for the county, but at this point I guess I just want to plead my case that if
there is a way to -- I think the last time they said as long as under development and the
land didn't change use, that they didn't have a problem with us continuing to use that
entrance and they always gave us the hope that once the speed limit was reduced at
the stop light that access could be gained with an application. At this point if you kill the
access before it's even processed into a plat or a development, it's, first of all, way
premature, because there is no way to properly service the few businesses we have
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 35 of 104
there now if that access is killed and other than that I'm really pretty much in agreement
with their development, I think it's a nice plan. I think they just need to do it in phases
and I hope you guys will work with us on -- a business that's been there for 15 years.
Okay? Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Tim. Any further testimony? Wrap-up remarks?
Tverdy: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, I -- in summary, I think it's important to note that
for the access point and for the northwest portion of the property the use is not changing
and the intensity of that use is not changing. Ironically, at the exact same location we
are being required., as you can see in the notes, to put in an emergency access into the
site. I don't know -- you know, how related that is, other than the road will be
maintained and left there with some sort of control on it, so that their emergency
vehicles can come in that side of the development. So, it's kind of an interesting thing
that we need the access into the property on emergency vehicles, but we are not
allowed to use it for our commercial use. And, again, that lot of the property is not in
phase one and so it seems as though we are being a bit penalized by coming in with an
overall development for the site, when we are really beginning to work on one -- on the
beginning portion of it. But thank you for your attention. I appreciate your time.
De Weerd..: Thank you.. Council, any questions for staff or the applicant?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: If there are no further questions and you don't need any further information,
I would ask for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd,: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Maybe I do have a question. It's possible that I do have a question. There
are a couple of aspects that despite the pleading of the applicant I agree with staff. If
we are going to address them, it should be addressed with a variance, and that would
be continuing this meeting, instead of closing it. And I guess my question to staff would
be how long would it take a variance to be applied for and get back to us if we wanted to
continue this for the variance to catch up?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm not sure that the preliminary plat
couldn't move forward without the variance request. If you did want to wait, they
typically take three or four weeks. I think with the workshop you're having on the 13th,
that would -- we might be able to get it by the 20th. It might be the week after that.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 36 of 104
think the minimum noticing time is three weeks. Unfortunately, Mr. Berg is not sitting
next to you. I mean he would be able to give me a little better idea.
Zaremba: If we are saying that the plat could be approved the way it is, then, that would
be approving it with the requirement that they remove the access immediately and they
would need a variance to get that back, essentially, is that what you're saying?
Canning: Yes.
De Weerd: If at all possible to avoid the 27th -- the 20th, if we can make it happen we
will certainly try.
Zaremba: Since the public meeting is still open, may I ask the applicant?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: I know you have stated that you're not in favor of a variance, but --
De Weerd: But you want a variance and so that's the only way we can consider it.
Zaremba: We define what you're asking for as a variance.
Tverdy: Yeah. And --
Zaremba: Would you apply for it?
Tverdy: And -- we certainly would and I think one comment I think that was made when
you said remove that entrance immediately, it's really not removing it immediately, it's
that we can't proceed with any construction work out there, whatever, on our
development until the variance has been approved.. I don't want -- I want to make sure
we are not committing to something where tomorrow we have to shut off the access
point out of Victory Greens Subdivision, because we -- we absolutely cannot do that.
Am I understanding the point correctly?
Zaremba: I may not have asked my question correctly. Let me ask for a staff
clarification.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the condition currently reads prior to
signature on the first final plat associated with the preliminary plat.
Tverdy: So, in that event, yes, we will apply for a variance.
Zaremba: I asked my question incorrectly.
Meridian city Council
October 23, 2007
Page 37 of 104
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, we are asking you to clarify that the condition read prior
to the first final plat, so --
De Weerd: Anything further from this Council? A motion is in --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would move that we continue Item 12, PP 07-014, to our
regularly scheduled meeting of November 20th, in the hopes that a variance application
or perhaps two variance applications will catch up with it.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Bird.: Oh, I'm going to second it so I can have discussion.
De Weerd.: Discussion.
Bird: I will second. Why do we want to continue this? If we go ahead and pass it they
still got to come back in. They have still got to come back in. But this gives them -- they
can get started and that north road stays -- stays open until they -- which staff is asking
that -- this says the first final plat comes forward, which I don't know when that -- surely,
the variance would be there by the time the first final plat. So, I don't see why we want
to carry this one -- not get this out of the way and, then, just have to deal with the
variance, if that's the way you want to go. I personally have no -- I personally have no
problem with what they want to say, the final phase of the development. I just have no
problem with it, because I don't think that north entry is going to get anymore use than it
gets right now and they have had no problems out there.
De Weerd.: Okay.
Bird: But I can go either way.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. I could accept that explanation and change or withdraw the
motion. I might -- rather than just say final phase, I might suggest that we say phase
three, in case they decide to make ten phases out of it or something between now and
then. I have no problem with that.
Zaremba: But, then, that -- that addresses the issue of the north driveway, which we
have all agreed is going to go away eventually anyway, but does that address the issue
of wanting to move the one that's by Double D? Does that still need a variance?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think both of these need a
variance. I think Mr. Bird was asking the maker of the motion to instead make a motion
to approve, rather than continue, is what I understood. I would prefer that Council not
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 38 of 104
give a decision on a variance application that is not before them, so -- does that clarify
anything at all? Sorry.
Bird: Madam Mayor. Anna, all I was stating is if we pass this with the -- the language of
on the third final -- or plat or whatever, there would be no reason for a variance, then, on
the north one. What Councilman Zaremba is asking is that moving the existing one
from Double D up, I don't know, a hundred feet or two hundred feet, whatever it is, does
that need a variance or is that part of this application?
De Weerd.: Mr. Bird, they both need a variance, because they go against our ordinance
and that is why the variance is needed..
Bird: Okay.
Zaremba: I'm confused enough to stick with my original motion.
De Weerd: Of continuing. Just to get us all out of our misery. I will go ahead and ask
for the vote and -- to continue Item 12 to November 20th. All those in favor say aye.
Zaremba: Aye.
De Weerd: Those opposed nay.
Bird: Nay.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Nay.
Bird: Let's get on with it.
De Weerd: Don't get to break a tie with three of you.
Rountree: Never.
MOTION FAILED: ONE AYE. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird,.
Bird: While we are still under --
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 39 of 104
De Weerd: You're still under 12, because we need a decision.
Bird.: No. While we are still under Public Hearing, I want to ask what is -- what is the
difference in the saying, Anna, from prior the signature of the first final plat to prior to the
signature of the final plat?
Canning.: Madam Mayor, Members --
Bird: Or is that different to have a variance for one and not the other?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, I think that the
-- the first -- signature on the first final plat is when the city gives its final approval to say,
okay, this is going from a 17 acre parcel to a ten acre parcel or whatever it may be,
because you're excluding that portion of the first final plat and that's when it becomes a
change in use for that existing use. It's no longer on 17 acres, it no longer -- perhaps it
no longer has the access to Victory Road that it used to have. These would -- and
those could be things we could talk about at a variance application.
Bird..: Well, I don't want to take any more time on this Public Hearing. I don't want to be
here until 2:00 o'clock. I'll let Mr. Nary explain this to me at another time. With that,
Madam Mayor, I'd move we close the Public Hearing on PP 07-014.
De Weerd: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 12. All
those in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Zaremba: Nay.
De Weerd: Motion carried to close the Public Hearing.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Council, do I have a motion and what direction you would like to take on this
application?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 40 of 104
Bird.: I'll try a motion. I hope it's not too confusing. I move that we approve PP 07-014
and to include staff comments regarding 1.1.12 regarding the north -- use of the
northern driveway and the reading of that will be the access driveway to the north end of
this site to Meridian Road that is currently being used for loading for Victory Greens,
shall be removed and use discontinue prior to the signature on the first final plat and all
the other conditions staff brought forward, I would agree with.
De Weerd: I have a motion. Do I have second?
Rountree: I will second that.
De Weerd: Any discussion on this item? Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird., yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, nay; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2007: PFP 07-003 Request
for a Combined Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on 6
acres located in the C-G zoning district for Intermountain Outdoor
Subdivision by Carmen, LLC - 1351 & 1375 East Fairview Avenue:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 13 is a continued Public Hearing from October 2nd on
PFP 07-003. I will ask for staff comments at this time.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Intermountain Outdoor
project. It's located at 1351 and 1375 East Fairview Avenue. The applications before
you tonight -- or it's a single application for a combined preliminary and final plat. Just
has some history on this. In 2002 Council did approve the preliminary/final plat for the
subject site. However, the final plat was never recorded.. Since that time the property
has been sold to its current owners, who are requesting approval of, essentially, the
same plat that was approved in 2002. The applicant is proposing to subdivide
remaining 2.45 acres of land into three additional lots ranging from .69 acres to .83
acres. There is a copy of that plat for you. Staff did issue a certificate of zoning
compliance and construction is underway for an 8,450 square foot multi-tenant retail
shell located on Lot 3, Block 1, of the proposed plat. And as you're aware, there is the
Intermountain Outdoor building that you can see on the existing site as well. I do have
some elevations for you. And that's of the existing structure. Or the one under
construction. Excuse me. The Commission did recommend approval to the City
Council at their September 6, 2007, Public Hearing. Jane Suggs with JBS Enterprises,
spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented or provided
written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the construction of
-- find a good plan for you. I'm sorry. I'll go to this one. Construction of a driveway stub
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 41 of 1.04
to the salvage yard parcel to the east and the landscape buffer requirement adjacent to
Jackson Drain and Settler's Canal easement along the southern boundary of Lots 4 and
1 of the proposed subdivision. The key Commission changes to staffs initial
recommendation, they modified condition 1.2.4 to state that the property owners will
own and maintain the pressurized irrigation system. And, then, on condition 1.2.2 they
required a minimum of five foot landscape buffer adjacent to the Jackson Drain along
Lot 4. This is Lot 4. Where the buffer is encumbered by an easement and the
landscape should be installed with the development of Lot 4. And condition 1.2.13 will
stand as stated in the staff report regarding the construction of the driveway stub to the
Ada County parcel east of the Lot 1. And that's the salvage yard parcel. We have not
received any written testimony since the updated staff report and to our knowledge
there are no outstanding issues before Council. And I will answer any questions you
may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird.: I have none at this time.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here?
Suggs: Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is Jane Suggs, 200 Louisa Street
in Boise and I really don't have a lot to say, other than agree with the staff conditions.
We did have quite aheated -- not heated -- an exciting conversation about the
construction of a stub driveway to nowhere, because, actually, that driveway actually
won't be open until the salvage yard to the east is redeveloped. But we did capitulate
and say that we would put in a driveway, even though it goes nowhere, and we imagine
that whenever that salvage yard redevelops we will actually have to move the driveway,
because it will probably not be in the best location that will service both properties. So,
we did not disagree with the access easement, we were only disagreeing at that time
with building the driveway that will probably have to be rebuilt. But we want to move on,
so will do that. And I will answer any questions.
De Weerd: Well, thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on
this application? And, staff, anything further?
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 42 of 104
Canning: No, ma'am.
De Weerd: And applicant has no further comments. Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Having heard all staff and applicant testimony and the opportunity for public
testimony, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PFP 07-003.
Rountree: Second..
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 13. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we approve PFP 07-003, to include all staff comments.
Rountree: Second..
De Weerd.: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. If there is no discussion,
Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: Before opening the next item, could I request a five minute recess?
De Weerd: Yes.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 43 of 104
Bird: I would second that.
De Weerd: Yes, sir. We will reconvene at 9:00.
(Recess. )
Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from October 16, 2007: AZ 07-006 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 94.69 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for
Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants -south of East Fairview Avenue, east
of North Locust Grove Road and west of North Eagle Road:
Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from October 16, 2007: RZ 07-010 Request
for a Rezone of 75.67 acres from I-L and L-O zones to a C-G zone for
Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants -south of East Fairview Avenue, east
of North Locust Grove Road and west of North Eagle Road:
Item 16; Continued Public Hearing from October 16, 2007: PP 07-008 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 building lots and 21 common lots on
170 +/- acres in a proposed C-G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley
Consultants -south of East Fairview Avenue, east of North Locust Grove
Road and west of North Eagle Road.:
Item 17: Continued Public Hearing from October 16, 2007: VAR 07-007
Request for a Variance Application for two access points to North Eagle
Road for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants -south of East Fairview
Avenue, east of North Locust Grove Road and west of North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: I will go ahead and call this meeting to order again. We are at Items 14, 15,
16 and 17 on public hearings AZ 07-006, RZ 07-010, PP 07-008 and VAR 07-007.
These are continued public hearings from October 16th. We have not heard anything
on this, so I will ask staff to introduce this project.
Canning: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is Pinebridge
project. It's -- the overall site contains approximately 170 acres and is located on the
south side of Fairview Avenue on the east of Locust Grove, west of Eagle Road and
generally north of Commercial Street. Part of the subject property, those that are
colored there on the screen before you, 75 acres is already annexed into the city. The
remainder, 95 acres shown in white, is still in Ada County. So, the applications before
you tonight include an annexation., rezone, preliminary plat and a variance for access to
the state highway. The Pinebridge development consists of 61 commercial building lots
-- and I'm just going to put the -- this is the concept plan that went through with the staff
report. There is a revised one you will see later that's slightly modified, but this is what
went through with the staff report. Consists of 61 commercial building lots and 21
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 44 of 104
common lots that would accommodate approximately three million square feet of
commercial, light office, and multi-family residential uses and a medical campus.
Buildable lots for the proposed subdivision range in size from .43 acres to 13.62 acres.
The proposed development will also result in the extension of East Pine Avenue
between Locust Grove and Eagle Road., which will serve as the primary east-west
connection for the proposed development. The proposed Pinebridge Avenue will serve
as the primary north-south connection between Fairview. That's this -- this roadway.
One is proposed -- two roundabouts are proposed for Pinebridge Avenue and Pine
Avenue. 'One is proposed for the intersection of Pine and .Webb and the second is
proposed for the intersection of Pinebridge and State. There is Pinebridge and State
and there is Pine and Webb. A variance is requested for two access points to Eaale
Road. The first access request is for the continued use of an existing drive -- it's
actually an existing private street on Commercial Street that has been used by Elixir and
the second request is for a new access point, which will be located on Eagle Road
halfway between Pine and Commercial. That's right there. The variance for access
points are required due to a change of use of the property and because the locations
proposed do not comply with the spacing requirements of the UDC, which, as you know,
is the half mile spacing. Pine is at the half mile, so that access is not in question. Staff
has recommended a DA that includes the following site-specific provisions.
Development of the property shall substantially comply with the concept site plan and
elevations submitted with the subject application and the concepts outlined below. No
building permits shall be issued prior final plat recordation. And there is a modification
to that that you will hear later. The following concept shall be employed in the
development of the property. General massing of buildings, roundabouts, and
landscape islands and streets shall be constructed as generally shown on the
preliminary plat and conceptual plan prepared by Stanley Consultants. Pedestrian
connections shall be constructed between buildings in the form of pathways,
distinguished from vehicular driving surfaces, through the use of paver, colored or
scored concrete or bricks. Structures shall be built adjacent to roadways with a majority
of the parking to the rear and sides of the structures. Common area with site amenities,
i.e., plazas, courtyards, water features, picnic areas, flower gardens, public art, et
cetera, are encouraged to be included within the office retail portion of the development
and will be required in the multi-family portion of the development. Structures should be
oriented toward each on adjacent streets. Windows, awnings, or arcades totaling at
least 30 percent of the length of facade should be provided for facades that are
viewable from other structures. Provide sidewalks at least eight feet in width for any
aisle length that is greater than 150 parking spaces and if some of these sound an awful
lot like the UDC provisions for design review, it's because they are. Exterior building
walls should demonstrate the appearance of high quality materials of stone, brick,
wood, or other native materials. The building design shall incorporate at least two
changes in one or a combination of the following: Color, texture and materials. Roof
lines shall demonstrate two or more of the following: Overhang eaves, sloped roofs.
The primary building entrances shall be clearly defined by our architectural design of the
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 45 of 104
building. And, then, most -- many of those I just read off were from the design review
section of the UDC. And, then, finally, a Conditional Use Permit for the multi-family
portion of this development shall be submitted prior to submitting for final plat approval
on that area. So, those are some of the development agreement provisions. I'm going
to move to a discussion of the variance. Staff is not supportive of the two access points
proposed to Eagle Road with the variance application, because the access to the site
can adequately be provided from Pine Avenue. The applicant proposes a variance to
allow the existing Commercial Street approach to continue and, then, a new approach
to State Highway 55 be allowed on the west side midway between Pine and
Commercial. In order for the Council to grant the variance, as you know, you need to
make the following findings: The variance shall not grant a special right or privilege that
is not otherwise allowed in the district. The variance relieves an undue hardship,
because of the characteristics of the site and the variance shall not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, and welfare. And you have heard staff expound on these findings
numerous times. It's in your staff report. But to summarize, with regard to the special
right or privilege, we are and have been consistently advocating for restricted access to
Eagle Road.. There is not an undue hardship on the site. This one actually has frontage
along the mid mile road that will be an arterial road and the variance does encourage
more traffic movements out on Eagle Road and is detrimental to the public health and
safety. Staff does not believe you can make those findings and we do not believe that
two access points are necessary. We don't have elevations and that's why in the
development agreement you saw all the provisions for the design review requirements.
The Commission did recommend approval at their August 16th, 2007, Public Hearing.
Dan Torfin spoke in favor, as did Jack Cortabitarte. No one spoke in opposition and no
one commented or provided written testimony. The key issues of discussion by the
Commission were the timeline of the extension of Pine Avenue to Locust Grove.
Currently we have tied that to issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance. The
existence of historical structures on the property and what the applicant intends on
doing with them. The location of the ten foot wide multi-use pathway required by the
master pathways plan through the site. The requirement for final plat to be signed prior
to the issuance of any occupancy permits on the site. Requiring the applicant to provide
cross-access to adjacent industrial properties. The Commission added a condition that
Pine Avenue be extended to Locust Grove prior to issuance of any certificate of zoning
compliance for buildings that would require access from Pine Avenue. I know that the
applicant spoke to me just before the hearing and this is an outstanding issue. He would
like that tied to prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, rather than the
certificate of zoning compliance. The other changes by the Commission were they
modified condition 1.1.3 regarding structures being built adjacent to roadways with
parking to the rear and sides of the structure and that change was to the majority and
that's how I read it before to you. Modify condition 1.2.6 regarding cross-access and
driveway stubs to not require cross-access to the Elliott Group and H2NR parcels and
perhaps the applicant can point out those parcels in his presentation. But to require
emergency access to be provided to the H2NR parcel at the southeast corner and still
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 46 of 104
require cross-access to Cortabitarte and Bell Aire parcels. On condition 2.1 -- or 2.14
they include the provisions of the UDC that allow for the possibility of a waiver for the
requirement of covering waterways. And to strike 4.3, which limits shrubs and bushes
to species that do not exceed two feet in height, to allow these issues to be reviewed on
a case-by-case basis by staff to certificate of zoning compliance. And, finally, to modify
condition 4.6 which restricts the Pine Bridge -Fairview intersection access points to
right-in, right-out only. To require that the design of this intersection be subject to
ACHD approval and I think that the applicant just wanted to work with ACRD further on
that issue. We have received some written testimony since the staff report, namely, I
believe one letter from Blue Cross since -- since the last staff report was written and
that's asking for a continuation. I believe there is another letter from Blue Cross that's
actually in your packet tonight. The outstanding issues before City Council -- the first
one is with regard to historical preservation. At the time the staff report was written we
thought we would be able to get this item before the historic preservation commission,
so that we could give you an update. We were not able to do that, so what we are
asking for is the line of that paragraph I have there -- we are asking that you add a
condition just stating prior to any demolition on the site the applicant shall meet with the
historic preservation commission -- committee to determine -- should be commission --
to determine if the existing structures warrant preservation and/or documentation. The
second outstanding issue is the Commission requested the applicant and staff work
together to come up with a condition that would allow for occupancy permits to be
issued prior to plat recordation. We did meet with the applicant and came up with the
following: Where there are existing utilities and where the surrounding public roads are
fixed, the applicant shall be allowed up to seven occupancy permits prior to the final plat
recordation. The planning director and development services manager may consider
allowing additional occupancy permits, not to exceed 13, if the administration of the
previous seven seems to be efficient and in the city's best interest. So, staff did add
that as a condition 1.2.11 in Exhibit B. That number is higher than we normally see, but
this property is composed of a number of existing legal parcels that did have each a
development right of their own prior to undertaking this process. Blue Cross of Idaho
has expressed concern to the planning department regarding access to the property
once Pine Avenue is widened. The applicant is working with Ada County Highway
District and Blue Cross to resolve the access issue. Staff is unaware of the outcomes of
those negotiations and I know we do have Blue Cross of Idaho here with us tonight to
talk about those. And with that I am at the end of my prepared notes and can answer
any questions that the Council or Mayor may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions?
Bird: Not at this time, Mayor.
Rountree: I have none.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 47 of 104
De Weerd: Would the applicant like to come forward?
Torfin: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Dan Torfin and address is
250 South Beechwood in Boise and I'm representing Dennis M. Baker, this guy right
here., DMB Investments, and that is the applicant for Pinebridge. I think this is the new
concept plan and it really has a --amore update photograph -- aerial photograph
underlay that shows some of the changes in the area around Pine Street. It's my
pleasure to finally be before the Mayor and City Council on our Pinebridge application. I
know we have continued it for some time and we have actually -- I think we submitted
this application about four years ago and withdrew it and we added this piece of
property to it in that -- in the interim and so it is a larger piece, approximately 170 acres.
Eagle Road., Pine Street, is built partially up to this point right here. This is all open
pasture right now. Fairview Avenue. Locust Grove here. And Commercial Street here.
We have actually -- our company has been out in this area for about 18 years
assembling the ground for this project and as Anna had indicated, there are several
parcels, so it's been quite a process, but we think we have something now that we have
master planned that, really, we intend to have this be, in our minds, something that will
be the finest mixed use development for the area. We -- our philosophy these days is to
incorporate mixed uses in all our developments, because we think they are beneficial. It
kind of provides places to work and live and shop and so that's -- that's kind of what
you're seeing before you right now and I'm just -- I`m going to break it down a little bit.
Along Eagle Road right in this location we have a retail segment and one thing you will
notice is this isn't fraught with a lot of retail, it's mainly what we think is a corporate
campus, medical, technical, educational facilities. And so these buildings that you see
in here in conceptual form are larger buildings. They range from 60,000 square feet up
to 100,000 square feet in this area and some of these buildings could be upwards of
100,000 to 200,000 square feet. So, we are talking nice modern architectural buildings
and -- but traditional elements. I would like to point out we are currently under
construction and our building's framed up and it's starting to take a nice shape out here.
It's not part of -- it's in the Gemtone Subdivision, it's not of Pinebridge, but we are
showing it right here and it's at the intersection of Hickory and Pine Street and it's -- it's
a pretty fantastic looking building and that's where we intend to have our corporate
headquarters adjacent to our project. So, the elements of Pinebridge will be the
corporate campus and that's the lion's share of the development. We are in an area
that seems to be transitioning from what used to be maybe industrial, we have a lot of
industrial uses around us and so we do show some -- some potential transitional uses
down in this area, but very nice architecture. As you move along this roadway, we are
planning a new roadway connection that will come up from north-south and tie into
Fairview Avenue. And, then, we have got a road proposed to come out to Locust
Grove. The development in this area is a crucial element to a mixed use plan. It's a
high density residential. And I guess it's really unlike anything that we have seen in
Meridian or, really, in the valley and it's something that could be -- it will be multiple
stories, it will be potentially two, three, four, maybe up to six floors that are unique
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 48 of 104
designs that will potentially incorporate retail spaces below, giving people, you know,
close-by shopping, neighborhood coffee shop, and bookstore potentially, is a concept in
here. It will -- it will be highly amenitized with, you know, recreation facilities adjacent to
the Jackson Drain, which the path currently runs from this location on out to Locust
Grove and I believe onward. So, we are definitely pro pathway and we will also be
installing a pathway that will, you know, expand the pedestrian nature of this
development. We intend for it to be lushly landscaped and really encourage pedestrian
travel within the development and into adjacent areas. So, you have got -- you have got
the corporate campus, you have got the retail, which also is -- is up on Fairview and
some potential retail here on Locust Grove.. The project is served by some -- some
major roadways, Eagle Road probably is the one that stands out the most. We now
have Locust Grove, which runs right here, which is fantastic. It's paved out and once
we provide this crucial roadway connection between Eagle Road and Locust Grove and
once Locust Grove is extended over the interstate, we think those two traffic
improvements will definitely provide some relief to Eagle Road and something that we
think will be very beneficial to the overall existing transportation system. We also have
access points from Commercial. It's our intention and our approval from ACHD was to
extend Hickory through here to Commercial. We have stub streets at Machine and
Webb. We will -- Pine Street will tie into the intersection of Nola, which this section of
Pine Street has been improved and we will match to that. Maybe I can just give the
Mayor and Council an update on Pine Street. ACHD is wrapping up their acquisition of
the right-of-way and we have final agreements that we are reviewing for the cooperative
design and construction of Pine Street, which we are actively working on right now. So,
it's an important aspect to Pinebridge. We definitely benefit by it. We think, as I
mentioned,, the surrounding transportation system will benefit by that connection. We
also think that it could be a link between the downtown and some of the new
developments out here and really be a catalyst for the downtown and I kind of
envisioned that, you know, maybe you have got anice -- as you cross Locust Grove
that you have kind of a Harrison Boulevard connection to the downtown, which will
really, you know, kind of be a nice asset. So, that's maybe dreaming a little bit, but see
that all happening. We -- one thing I would like to point out, you know, access and
transportation. issues and traffic are -- are critical. We -- we have been approved by
ACRD for a full access on Fairview right here. We requested that that be a location for
a signal in the future. ACRD didn't approve it with a signal. They left -- they left it open
that we would be -- we could provide input to the corridor study for Fairview, which we
have. And one thing I'd like to point out is the signal meets the district's policy of
spacing from Hickory to this location on Locust Grove. We demonstrated through two
traffic analyses from our traffic engineer Pat Dobie and, then, Gary Funkhauser also did
an analysis that showed that that would work and was something that would be
beneficial to the -- to Fairview Avenue. It would not be detrimental. And so we -- we
are still fighting -- I guess I don't want to use the word fighting, but we are still working
very hard to obtain a signalized access at this point, because we think it's another
crucial link to Meridian -- existing Meridian development to the north and to the west,
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 49 of 1'D4
without everybody always having to use Locust Grove or Eagle Road. So, there are
some benefits.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Since you're there, what would that align with on the other side -- is that
Avest or am I in the wrong place?
Torfin: It lines up with Oakbrook, which is Norco.
Zaremba: Okay.
Torfin: The plaza. The other location that was shown previously was the Sonic Drive-
in, but this spacing actually worked better and so our approval with ACHD is to line up
here with full access and, then, they also approved right-in, right-outs at the corners -- at
the east and the west corners. We do have a variance application in this -- before the
Mayor and the Council tonight for -- and it was something that staff required us to
submit, because we are showing access points -- at Pine is the existing access and we
are showing Commercial -- Commercial is an existing drive. I received an a-mail today
from ACHD and they are interested in talking to us about Commercial tying into this
section down here and kind of, you know, continuing this road out with a link in this
location. And so we think it's an important aspect of access and transportation for the --
forthe area as well and for us. We are extending Hickory, as I indicated., and we -- the
variance is -- you know, I guess that's just a procedural thing that we needed to do, but
it's an existing access and so our request, I guess, is that we -- we want to keep that
existing access open. Additionally, we have a deed that was signed in 1988 for an
additional access from ITD to the previous property owner for an access in the middle.
And I'm going to explain why those access points are important to us. We have been
here and so we kind of know the discussion and the -- the Council is interested in
closing down accesses to state highways. For our project we do have a small retail
component here. If we didn't have this access or this access and the only -- we only
have aright-in, right-out in this area, to get into the site up here you would have to come
in on Pine Street and come clear back into this area and come back out and the same is
true there.. And, really, it eliminates the viability of -- we have -- we have been talking to
some restaurants that, you know, they rely on access that people don't have to really
fight for and may -- may pass them by if -- if it's not readily available. So, it's -- these
two points are important to us and I'd like to maybe pass out a copy of the deeds that
were signed in 1988 for the new access. We, through our engineers, have
demonstrated that these right-in, right-outs -- these are restricted access points. They
are not full access. They wouldn't be similar to what you see over on the -- I guess the
crossroads where you have quite a number of access points that seem to be full
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 50 of 1.04
access, although I don't recommend trying to make left turning movements, so we have
already acquiesced, even though the deed doesn't specify it, and the language is on the
first page towards the bottom that specifies that this new access is between a station
that's at Pine and at Commercial. And so what -- what we are proposing is a restricted
right-in, right-out. It does make our retail viable to retail users. If you're coming this way
you can -- you don't have to come clear down here and wander back in, you would be
able to get right in here and out of the travel way, because we will have aseparate -- a
separate right lane that will be out of the main flow of Eagle Road. And so we are -- I
guess I stand before you this evening with Dennis and our group saying that those are
important to us and we ask that this Council seriously consider allowing us to move
ahead. We are submitting our application -- permit application to ITD to start working on
opening this access immediately. It really is -- without those points, it is inadequate
access for the retail in this area, which is, you know, a small portion to the whole project
and as far as getting out of the site, you know, once -- once you have arrived there -- I
guess there are methods of way finding to leave. This is a right out, so you will be able
to leave to get out here. You will be able to, you know, leave to get out there. And so
access in is really the paramount issue for us. I do want to -- I do want to briefly touch
on some of the discussions that we have had with Blue Cross and we -- and one of the
reasons that we have continued our application for a little while. We have presented
some information to the representatives of Blue Cross and they will -- they are here
tonight, so I think they will give testimony to the Mayor and Council as well. But what
we are proposing is -- I guess regardless of our development, once Pine Street's open --
their existing access is about 300 feet from Eagle Road., so it's pretty close and once
you -- once the traffic is here, you know, during peak periods of travel it will be restricted
and so I guess what we have talked to them about is, you know, that regardless of our
development, that's going to happen and that if you -- if you can still get people to your
site here, they have got access -- they have got access off of State Street, Rosario
comes up here and there is an access point here and I believe they have access here,
but it may be gated.. So we have shown that, you know, our experts and our engineers
tell us that if they move a full access down here and offset it with our full access here,
it's -- that's what works -- will work for their site, it works for our site, and we -- we really
want to be good neighbors to Blue Cross and for all the other property owners adjacent
to the site. You know, we think we bring a lot of good things to the table for access and
so we are -- we have been -- we have met with them, we have had -- you know, we
have had neighborhood meetings that go back to December of last year and some
informal meetings throughout the first part of the year and, then, recently we have met
with them in the early part of September and, then, I believe the latter part of
September, the first week in October, but -- and presented this plan to them at our last
meeting. So, we want to work with Blue Cross and come up with a solution that works
for them and for us and one of the things that they still have, you know, to carry with
them is ACHD has to approve this design of Pine Street and we are going to be, you
know, placing additional lanes, we have landscape medians -- they are not really shown
on here, but we intend to, you know, have landscaping on both sides and, then, down
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 51 of 104
the middle in kind of a really different kind of landscape boulevard that's going to -- that
will be very beautiful for the area. But Blue Cross -- and, for that matter, you know, the
property owners here will have input with ACHD and so there is -- they are not missing
a chance to work on this access and so I know they have asked that, you know, maybe
this Mayor and Council hold up this application while we solve these problems, but I'm
saying that there is -- there is plenty of time for that -- those issues to be resolved and
that our application is merely a -- you know, it's an annexation and zoning, rezoning,
and preliminary plat and it's really the first step for us to move ahead and potentially if --
you know, if we did get delayed maybe just a couple months, you know, when you run
up against irrigation season and things like that, it can actually -- you can -- you can
delay your project another year if you can't meet irrigation timelines. So, that's -- I
guess that's the presentation on the access. I would like to talk about the staff report
and Anna, you know, summed it up fairly well. We did go to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and we did -- we did make some modifications to the original staff report
and so based on that approval -- one of the things that occurred to us -- and we do have
a scenario that kind of lends itself to this request is the P&Z approved their change, it
was C-1, was that before CZC -- certificates of zoning compliance were issued that Pine
Street needed to be done and there is some overlapping timing situations. We do have
a potential hotel that is actively working on this project right here and will start
construction next spring and so, you know, the -- if we move through on our -- our
schedule for Pine Street, Pine Street, theoretically, can be built and paved in the early
part of next year. It could spill over into the early summer and so if the -- if the hotel's
starting in -- I don't know, May, you know, we will -- I think -- and we have got Pine
Street built in the middle part of the summer, we are going to be well ahead of them.
But we did want to -- if they wanted to get their building permit and start construction in
May and the road's not paved until July, there is -- there is a hold up and so we would
like to have that recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission changed
from the CZC to occupancy permits to allow them to get their building permit and move
forward with some construction. On our -- on our outstanding issues we -- we have
talked to the -- I personally have talked to Ann Clawson with the state historical society
about the existing dairy at Nola and Pine Street in this area. They are fairly dilapidated
buildings. Just a phone call from the state, they said they don't really have any record
of it. They show them, but what -- I guess we -- what Anna proposed is that we meet
with the historical preservation committee for Meridian. We are fine with that. And this
log cabin -- I don't know if it was a cabin, but the barn -- I don't know the date. It's a
block building and so maybe somebody could help with timelines for that. We have
been known to preserve aspects of old farm sites --
De Weerd: Keith, do you know?
Bird: It was before my time.
Torfin: Maybe we can find somebody.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 52 of 104
Bird: I knew I was going to get asked that.
De Weerd: Sorry, Dan.
Torfin: We have been known to salvage, you know, a silo. We have projects in Eagle
and the Island Woods Subdivision. We took one of the old silos at the old home place
and turned it into a clock tower. And so, you know, we are -- I think we are willing to
look at those -- those things, a dairy barn in the middle of our development is, you know,
something that we want to look at really close to see if it -- if it makes sense. I don't
know how it would function. So, I -- as Anna stated, if we can, you know meet with the
Historic Preservation Committee prior to any thoughts of demolition, I think we are fine
with that. It kind of leaves it open-ended and so I guess maybe, you know, we -- if the
Council wishes that, you know, we could -- if there is some question, we may have to
talk to staff or whatever. I know I'm talking a lot and I'm going to try to wrap this up.
De Weerd: That would be great.
Torl`in: I don't usually like to talk this much. We did work -- we did work with staff on the
next item, the D-2, and I think we are happy with that and it really is just because we
may -- we do have original parcels. We could start some construction while we are
platting. Sometimes the platting, because they are multi-agencies that are involved,
sometimes the plats seem to take, you know, two years in some cases to get through all
of the conditions. I'm not saying that would happen and we definitely intend on
providing plats for this project. In fact, we are currently working on one kind of slowly to,
you know, identify the plat and have one ready to submit soon after -- after we get
moving along. I really did -- I have already talked about Blue Cross and so I think at this
point I'm going to wrap up my presentation with just a summary that we really do intend
to provide a very high quality development for the City of Meridian. It's what we like to
do. I'm lucky. I work with a guy that's -- that's all he does and he's got a sickness for
landscaping and land and -- and -- well, it's made me old, but we -- we like to plant a lot
of trees and really change the nature of the area.. And so we intend to do that. We
have a -- we have a project that will be a high quality development. It's going to add
millions in tax revenue, millions in impact fees, and we think it really is -- is a project that
will take a long time -- it could -- this could be a 20 year project, you know. It may even
be a 30 year project, but we are ready to get started and we ask this Mayor and Council
for approval tonight, if possible. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dan.. And just for your information, the Historical Preservation
Commission meets on November 1st.
Torfin: Okay.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 53 of 104
De Weerd: At 5:30.
Torfin: Is that Thursday?
De Weerd: Thursday.
TorFin: Maybe I can just coordinate with Anna and get some names and we can go --
De Weerd: You could coordinate as well with the city clerk.
Torfin: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg.
Torfin: All right.
De Weerd: Okay.
TorEin: Thank you.
De Weerd.: Council, any questions for the applicant at this point?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would ask one. In your discussion of the access to Eagle Road there, you
suggested -- if I heard correctly, that you would have separate acceleration and
deceleration lanes for that. Is that in addition to the proposed third lane that another
developer is planning to put in that section?
Torfin: Well, you know, I don't know the status of the third lane. We definitely have -- I
think there was adequate right-of-way to do that if you see where the fence line is, that
those could be held off, you know, far enough that there would be room for that. I think
those all probably take place in fihe existing right-of-way. So, to answer your question, I
think there would be -- it would leave room for that and, you know, we would have to
work with ITD on any improvements to Eagle Road and if they do have the plan for
expanding another lane --
De Weerd: I believe there is adequate right-of-way in that area, if I recall the engineer
drawings on that.
Zaremba: Great.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 54 of 104
Torfin: Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: They have got the extra lane there as you turn off -- turn right on -- on Pine -- on
Pine off of there anyway, so I know there is plenty of right-of-way there. What is -- is
that about an eighth of a mile off of Pine?
Torfin: Roughly, yes.
Bird.: Because isn't Commercial about a quarter mile?
Torfin: Yeah. Well, this -- I think the frontage right here -- no. I think the quarter mile is
to the tracks. So, we are -- we are probably in the 600 range across here.
Bird.: Probably -- that's probably right.
Torfin: I can review my documents and check that, but I think it's more in the -- the
eighth of the mile that you -- for this whole frontage.
Bird: Okay.
Torfin: Thereabouts.
Bird: You're probably right. I'm thinking -- yeah. That's all.
De Weerd.: Anything else, Council, at this point? Thank you, Dan.
Torfin: Thank you.
De Weerd.: I do have several people who have signed our sign-up sheet. If, when
read your name and whether you're for or against, if you would like to provide testimony
come forward at that time. Mike Ford. For. If you will, please, state your name and
address.
Ford.: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mike Ford.. 1098 North Hickory,
Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 55 of 1D4
Ford.: I represent the Yanke family that owns approximately 15 acres, I think, we have
left in the Gemtone Subdivision. In 2004 we bought 26 lots. Since, then, sold five of
those to Blue Cross, two to Dennis, and several other ones. We have recently
completed our own office building there that I moved into Monday. I'm in favor of the
overall development that is proposed. I feel the extension of Pine is very important to
the area. And if I'm going to have a neighbor, Dennis' reputation for doing things in a
quality way is unquestioned and so the devil's in the details and I'm sure that Council
will make the best decisions on the access issues and these things, but I think that
mixed use in that area is going to be something good
the city in general. I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: I have none.
not only for the neighbors, but for
De Weerd: Council? Thank you. David Gratteau signed up against. Or Grattow.
Gratten: Gratten.
De Weerd: Gratten.
Gratten: My name is Dave Gratten.
De Weerd: Oh, I thought a W and not an N. Sorry.
Gratten: Madam Mayor, Council members, my name is Dave Gratten. My address is
1405 West Main Street in Boise. I am here today speaking on behalf of Blue Cross of
Idaho. We have several senior management team members here today. I'm hoping
with some indulgence on time that I may take up a little bit of the time that they might
otherwise have used, if you would allow me a few more minutes.
De Weerd: We set you for ten minutes.
Gratten: Thank you.
De Weerd: Since you are their spokesperson.
Gratten: I think that will be sufficient.
De Weerd: Okay.
Gratten: We did submit a letter to you on Friday. I hope you have had an opportunity to
look at that and if you haven't that you will before you vote on these matters. I don't
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 56 of T04
intend to go back through all of that, but to emphasize a few points and I think clarify a
few points for you. Blue Cross was aware of this development from some time ago., but
became more aware, if you will, and concerned more recently. It wasn't until September
that we learned that our access that we have had since 1998 is going to be lost, at least
in terms of a full access, right-in, right-out, left-in, left-out access.. That began to cause
us some concern about what was going on a little more than maybe we had appreciated
in the past and began to ask more questions. We looked at that document from the
planning and zoning and I think it's telling that no one testified at Planning and Zoning.,
except for one adjacent land owner who has across-access easement. No one
submitted anything to the Planning and Zoning Commission in regard to this
development. This is 170 acres. Three million square feet. About three times larger
than Boise Town Square Mall. It's huge. The difficulty that we have isn't with Mr.
Baker. These buildings are going to look great when this project gets done. There is no
question about that. What's concerned us is the lack of study -- the lack of additional
study, if you will, about the impact of this development, particularly in light of the
newspaper article in the last two days relative to Center Cal and I'll get back to that in a
moment. We, then, asked Dan Thompson, who is a traffic engineer, to explain to us the
traffic study that the developer did and submitted to ACRD. What we were concerned
about, principally, is the impact in the area. I have sat at meetings, frankly, at Blue
Cross and looked out at Eagle Road and saw the traffic backed up, Franklin past Pine
and from Fairview back past Pine. That's a health and safety issue. That's roadways
that are functioning at below acceptable levels. So, we asked Mr. Thompson to give us
some information about the traffic study. What came out of that wasn't an effort to throw
stones at Mr. Dobie or Mr. Funkhauser -- and we also, by the way, looked at the ACHD
report and what came out of that is there are a lot of old numbers. ACHD usually
requires traffic counts within a year. Most of these were more than a year old.. They are
now -- that was submitted in November of last year. They are now two and a half years
old.. Mr. Dobie uses averages. Mr. Dobie uses high values for right turn on red light.
They use highly coordinated -- assumptions of highly coordinated trip -- signals. And
what came out of that discussion with Mr. Thompson is that one could look at these
numbers very easily and draw the conclusion that you cannot satisfy the acceptable
levels on the traffic. Now, the Dobie study does that. It comes out at acceptable levels,
but barely. And only making these assumptions. We believe that given the situation we
all know about out at Eagle and Fairview, that the most conservative of numbers and
the most conservative of assumptions ought to be used in looking at the impact of this
development. We, again, believe that it is a health and safety issue. We think that
more traffic data is needed.. We are requesting that more traffic study be accomplished
and submitted to you and particularly traffic studies in coordination with what we all
know what else is going on around it and particularly Center Cal, which has not been
done. We can't stick our heads in the sand anymore and just allow these things to be
viewed in isolation. We became concerned about ITD. What has ITD submitted in
regard to this application? Nothing. Zero. No comment. Why? It has to have huge
impact upon Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. Thirty-two thousand cars are going to
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 57 of 104
be added by this .project, according to the Dobie study. Thirty-two thousand cars and
ITD doesn't say a word. Probably because ITD doesn't have any capacity
improvements in their 25 year plan for these -- these major arterials that are going to be
affected by this project, as well as others of similar size. They have punted. So, now
what have we got? We have got ACHD that looked at the Dobie study. ACHD has its
own jurisdiction. It doesn't have the state highways. It doesn't have Eagle Road. It
doesn't have Fairview. It does have the intersections and it has Pine. And Pine -- the
widening of Pine was on its plan for some years and if you look at the -- if you have
looked at the ACRD report -- and I hope that you have or that you will -- there is a lot of
criticisms of the Funkhauser study, which is the light up at Fairview 'and what will be
Pinebridge. And there are also consideration -- points of difference with the Dobie
study. Ultimately, ACHD says, well, the two state roads aren't ours and so they don't
really look at Eagle Road or Fairview. They look at some of these intersections and
they look at Pine and making that five lanes. At the end of that story who has looked at
Eagle and Fairview and what the impact of this development is going to do to already
overtaxed roads? No one. We are asking that you do that. We know that you don't
have jurisdiction over those roads, but you can also prevent another 32,000 cars from
being dumped onto those roads without some more work. At least some effort at
coordination with these other entities that -- that would look at every angle of mitigation
of the impact of this development and particularly given the fact that we all know Center
Cal is on Planning and Zoning's agenda in the next week or so. The Center Cal --
Center Cal project has had a lot of press. This one's had none. I venture that Center
Cal is -- is going to have a lot more analysis and input than this one has. What we are
asking for is this body to say, yeah, we are really concerned about traffic. We are really
concerned about the impacts of these developments on our roads and our citizens'
health, safety, and welfare by roads that are -- and roads that are overtaxed. How you
do that is up to you. It's time for the modern approach and a coordinated approach. At
least for these agencies to talk. And we are asking that that be done. We ask that the
application be tabled until further study and analysis can be done. We don't take any
position on the variance, that's not our issue. We do believe that the impact of this
development on traffic in the major arterials does affect the health, safety, and welfare
adversely of your citizens. Lastly, in regard to the conditions that were discussed, we
would ask that those conditions be left as they -- as they were and as we said in our
letter, that condition 1.1.3, which states that a final plat shall be recorded prior to the
issuance of certificates of zoning compliance, should remain in place without
modification or exception and that the Planning and Zoning recommendation that Pine
must be extended all the way to Locust Grove prior to the issuance of any CZC for a
building that would access using Pine should be left in as is and, if anything, the clause
that would access off of Pine be deleted. With that I would answer any questions that
you might have.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 58 of 104
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Mr. Gratten, how many employees work -- report at Blue Cross?
Gratten: About 850.
Bird: Eight hundred fifty daily basis? How many of them do you suppose live to the
west -- Kuria, Nampa, Caldwell, Meridian area?
Gratten: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, I don't know the answer to that. I do know
that there is about 190 or 200 of that 850 that live within the Meridian city limits.
Bird: Realizing that this development is going to add traffic, but also it's going to help
relieve, I believe, some of the traffic off of Eagle Road, because it's going to allow
people to go over to Locust Grove and once we get the Locust Grove overpass finished,
you can go to Kuria, you can go to south Boise., you can go anywhere without getting on
Eagle Road. You can go up Locust Grove, go out, you can get to Star, you can get to
Eagle without using Eagle Road. So, and -- I believe your employees would also -- I'm
sure most of them would enjoy being able to go back that way, instead having to get on
Eagle Road. Also, on your entryway there, you -- do you have any idea how close that
is to Eagle Road?
Gratten: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, our present access is about 250 feet back
from Eagle Road.
Bird: And would you -- would it take away from your business if that was moved back to
meet one of their roads and not be quite so close? I don't -- to be truthful with you,
don't like that -- even that one they have got for the right-in, right-out so close to the
intersection, but -- and I know when yours was designed we didn't have much out there.
We didn't have restaurant row across the street. And Idon't -- I don't believe you guys
depend on walk-in trade at Blue Cross. People come to you because they got a reason
to come and if they have to drive an extra quarter of a mile to get into your facilities it's
not going to bother them. Am I right? You don't have walk-in trade.
Gratten: Yes. Councilman Bird., we don't have a lot of walk-in traffic. We have a lot of
elderly traffic --
Bird: That's true.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 59 of T04
Gratten: And there is concern among senior management of accommodating those
people and moving those entrances down past our buildings, may be -- it will be
confusing, we believe.
Bird: But you could come back into your parking lot.
Gratten: If there is movement of the entrance there is going to have to be a way back --
to circle back to the building.
Bird: Okay. That's all I have.
De Weerd: Council, any other questions? Thank you, sir.
Gratten: Thank you.
De Weerd: Victor Ballegus.
Ballegus: Ballegus.
De Weerd: Ballegus.
Ballegus: I will withdraw my request to testify.
De Weerd: Did also sign up against. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like
to provide testimony on this application? Yes, sir. But you only get three minutes.
Baker: I can probably stop before I start. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm
Dennis Baker, 250 South Beechwood in Boise, until we get to Pine Street, then -- or
Pine Street and Hickory, which I hope is in February. I would like to just comment
briefly that we want to be a source of relief to the Eagle Road situation, so let me
comment on Eagle Road. Eagle Road at this point -- it started failing years back,
adding to it is inconceivable at times, but you have got the Gardner-Ahlquist project up
there, nobody's stopping that. Things are moving forward there. Center Cal may or
may not come to Meridian. I know they plan to come, but I know them from Farmington,
Utah, I know them from Tigard, Oregon, Iknow -- I know the company. I know the
constraints, dollars and costs related.. I'm not saying they won't come, but to bank on
the fact that they are coming and they are coming in a certain time frame, as a reason
to hold us up, where -- additionally, I think would -- would not merit long and hard
consideration based on the fact that we have a 20 to 30 year build out program for this
project. Obviously, I'm 71 now, so I plan to be around at 101 or somewhere in there.
We have three direct -- we have six access areas right now that are existing, if you
count State Street in from -- or within the -- the Treasure Valley development that Tom
Wright started that Yanke's now have.. Each end of Pine, the two accesses from the --
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 60 of 104
the development to the south of us, the -- what's the name of that development, Dan?
Layne Industrial. I think might forward that for the Yanke family. We have access off of
Wilson Lane that is aimed at direct access to us and with additional access that we'd
like to pull in there. The Ten Mile private -- the Ten Mile Road that is planned to pull
additional major amount of traffic off of Eagle Road when that interchange is put in and
we do have that long time line. So, I'm not going to take additional time here and I'm
not suggesting that Center Cal is not coming, I'm not suggesting that traffic will get
better or necessarily worse, but I think we provide an avenue to shift some traffic flow
and to get some additional help to Eagle Road through Pine and provide additional
access toward Meridian and additional access back up to Fairview and south across the
-- thank you very much, Meridian, for providing that bridge over Locust Grove. That's
the end of my testimony. I'd stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd.: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Baker, we hear often the subject of traffic and often we hear your
engineer didn't do as well thinking about traffic as our engineer. My question to you is
are you comfortable with the two engineering studies that have been conducted for your
project and --
Baker: Having worked with traffic engineers here and in Utah on an ongoing basis for
the last 25, 30 years, I am comfortable with the traffic studies that have been done, only
to the extent that there are still a lot of variables out there that I think most of which,
upon realization of them, will provide additional relief to Eagle Road. So, there are a
number of variables that are underway right now that will provide additional relief and
part of those variables that will provide that would be what we are providing and what
we are -- we are cost-effectively building a lot of road.. Albeit, we will get some return of
the money back and there are other portions of it we will never get back and we will
never get back full amount, we will never get back the landscape we put in and provide,
which is a major amount of landscaping, because that's the only way I know how to do it
and because we grow so many trees on our own, in own nursery. So, we just do it that
way. Thank you, though. I am comfortable.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Thank you. Yes.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 61 of 104
Ewing: Madam Mayor, Tuck Ewing. I'm here for TICO One, LLC. 1500 EI Dorado. We
own a piece of property just to the north of the subject property -- northeast of it across
Fairview and, I apologize, I'm a little bit behind on this. For some reason I didn't receive
the Planning and Zoning meeting, so I didn't make it to that one. I guess my only
question is a point of clarification. I know that the previous gentleman indicated that
Fairview was controlled by ITD. Is that truly correct or is it an ACHD road?
De Weerd: ACHD.
Ewing: That's what I thought it was. So, Fairview is controlled by ACRD and
understood the applicant said this location right here was approved for a full access
point with two right-in, right-outs somewhere in -- on each side of it. I guess that the
property I represent is in -- what have I got here? Somewhere in this location right
there. It's approximately five acres. I guess the only point that I wanted to bring out --
and maybe I need to get in with ACHD, but I think that if the access -- we are in --
number one, full support of the project and definitely full support of the signalized
access at -- somewhere in this location. I think the previous location would suit not only
this property, but the properties across or to the north more adequately due to the fact
that Norco does wrap around here and I don't know what the cross-access agreements
are to the properties to the west, but I don't think they are limited to none and I know
that the cross-access agreements from basically Sonic to the east are clear through to
this signalized intersection to date. So, I think that the overall traffic flow in that area
would be better suited if that access point was moved back to its original location to the
east and signalized. So, with that -- thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Additional testimony?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Since Mr. Inselman has come to our meeting and sat so long through it, if
there is -- if he'd be willing, I'd like to pick his brain on a couple of thoughts.
De Weerd: He's excitedly walking forward. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Inselman: Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, Gary Inselman representing Ada County
Highway District, 3775 North Adams, Garden City.
Zaremba: Thank you for coming, for one thing. Let's start with what we were last
talking about. My recollection somewhere in the past is there was originally a plan
somehow to have a signal at the half mile. When the agreement was made that Hickory
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 62 of 104
would be signalized, I was under the impression that it took away the right to have any
other signals between Locust Grove and Eagle. Am I making that up or was there
something like that in the agreement for Hickory?
Inselman: Councilmember Zaremba, I don't believe there was any agreement for
Hickory that would have precluded another signal, but the highway district staff does not
agree another would not be detrimental to Fairview and that's why we disagreed with
the studies that the applicant's engineer submitted and recommended to our
commission that that signal not be allowed. In the end our commission agreed that they
wouldn't prohibit it today, but they would agree to look at it again in the future under
certain circumstance, that is after our Fairview corridor study is done, after the Locust
Grove overpass is open, after Pine is built and open, after Wilson is connected. A
whole list of items that have to be completed before we'd agree to even consider it
again.
Zaremba: Thank you. Another question would be your opinion of having a traffic circle
on Pine.
Inselman: The highway district has looked at that. We did require, as part of our
approval, that they submit a detailed analysis of that roundabout and that has not been
submitted to date, but would be required as part of the design of Pine and before
construction would be allowed. Theoretically, we are in support of it. It would be the
first dual lane roundabout that we have and probably the first true roundabout that
would get built in this county, so it will be interesting.
De Weerd: Welcome to the 21st century.
Zaremba: Yeah. One more. And that is out here -- not at Eagle Road., but approaching
Eagle Road, in -- and I'm thinking future again. In the use of Pine -- when this section is
connected to Pine, even though it changes names four or five times, is going to be a
very long thoroughfare. And I guess my question is even -- even the traffic counts that
this would add or that are currently going on on Eagle, even though that's an ITD road,
would it be necessary -- if Pine is connected through, would it be necessary, even
without this project, to suggest that Blue Cross' access be moved back slightly? I'm
thinking it might be more appropriate here. I'm not thinking all the way back to there,
but just on instinct is that something's coming anyhow?
Inselman: Councilmember Zaremba, eventually functionally their driveway -- it would be
difficult to make a left turn movement out of that driveway in the future with or without
this project. As soon as Pine is extended it would be a difficult movement to make with
the traffic that would back up at that light. It does not meet any of our current offset
policies. It probably barely met them in '98. I don't think they have changed
dramatically since then. And why they had it so close to the intersection when they
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 63 of 104
knew Pine was going to be five lanes wide -- they fought for that signal. Originally, ITD
had denied Blue Cross to have that installed at the time. So, I don't know why their
driveway was put so close. Eventually they -- if they want an access off of Pine to be
full access, they need to have another one further back from the intersection. We are
not suggesting that that driveway be restricted as a requirement of this project, but
functionally it would be at peak times, as Dan testified..
Zaremba: Thank you. Any question I have failed to ask you that I should know about?
De Weerd: You sound like a reporter.
Inselman: If I may, Madam Mayor, Council, I would like to suggest one alternative that
perhaps wasn't mentioned in relation to the access points on Eagle. Your staff is
recommending that both be denied. Our report recommended that at minimum
Commercial be restricted to right-in, right-out. As you mayor may not know, we worked
for many years on the other side of Eagle Road to get a connection from the public
Commercial Street up to Pine. That finally occurred a few years ago and the intent was
always to restrict Commercial to right-in, right-out to help prevent those accidents that
keep occurring there. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, did you want to hear from Mr. -- the traffic officials or
those that studied the traffic? Did you have any questions on that?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have no questions, but I see Mr. Dobie is here. It might be
interesting to have his comments and maybe Dan wants to reflect the results of the
traffic analysis.
Torfin: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I was just going to introduce Pat,
because I think he can add some clarity to some of the questions that were brought up
about his traffic analysis and so if the Council would, I'll have Pat come up and --
Dobie: Madam Mayor, Council members. Patrick Dobie. Hearthstone Drive in Boise.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. I have been studying this
property for a long time and I'm very familiar with the intersections at Fairview and Eagle
and the intersection of Pine and Eagle, because I designed both of them and the -- just
one comment first. There were some issues raised before about the -- the accuracy of
some of the assumptions that went into the analysis and the currency of the traffic
counts. Those were issues that ACHD raised in their analysis. The traffic counts were
current when the study was originally submitted. It took years to review and get through
the process. We went out and counted the intersections again. We counted all the
turning movements of the intersection. We documented and verified all of the
assumptions that went into the analysis. The roundabout was analyzed and the traffic
counts were current. The assumptions were documented. ACRD reviewed the studies,
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 64 of 104
both the study that I prepared and the study that was prepared by Gary Funkhauser and
they reached the finding of no significant impact. So, in their opinion there are no
unmitigated traffic impacts associated with this development. Now, there is -- there are
a number of features, there are a lot of changes that are occurring on the transportation
system, both because of new traffic for this project and also because of new capacity
that's being introduced into the area. The Locust Grove overpass is a huge change.
The Pine Street corridor is going to take traffic off of Fairview Avenue and it's going to
take traffic out of the Pine-Fairview intersection. So, it's sort of a push-pull thing that
they are generated traffic, which is, you know, causing capacity demands, but at the
same time they are providing new capacity on the system. And in addition to that, they
are paying in excess of 13 million dollars in regular impact fees to ACHD, a portion of
which will be used to pay for Pine Street, but there is close to ten million dollars of
additional monies that are available to do other, you know, system improvements within
the Meridian area to mitigate any future, you know, unidentified impacts that may exist
at this time. If you have -- if you have any specific questions about the transportation
elements or the impacts or any of the assumptions that went into the study, I would be
happy to try to answer them.
De Weerd: Council, specific questions?
Rountree: Not of Patrick.
De Weerd.: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I do have one question.
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird.: And it's just off the wall, but how do you -- how do you determine the impact of --
of the traffic when you're adding an overpass and aroad -- you are completing a road
and you're getting another entrance up to Fairview? How -- I just don't understand how
you can get in a crystal ball and say, you know, that it -- how it's going to impact the --
because we have no idea how much it might take and I -- and I kind of feel, even though
this is a large development and it's being done over so many years, it might take actual
traffic off of Eagle Road. Might lower the count of traffic, because Pine Street is going
to be a very popular -- I believe is going to be very popular. I feel that going south of
Meridian, once Locust Grove overpass is there, Eagle and Meridian overpasses volume
will cut down tremendous. So, I don't -- I just -- I don't know how when something like
this, when you're adding so many road features, in my opinion, how you know the
impact of traffic out there on Eagle. Maybe you can answer.
Dobie: Well, I agree with you totally and for the -- for the baseline assumptions in my
traffic analysis, I discussed this with Compass, you know. Compass maintains the
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 65 of 104
model. Compass is -- is monitoring the demographics and the development trends, you
know, associated with your Comprehensive Plans and the input that you give to them as
a planning agency. In looking at what would be occurring on Pine, you know, we
approached it from the assumption, you know, if you build it they will come. I mean this
is brand new asphalt out here. This is, you know, untouched capacity and it's going to
be faster than all the alternatives and people tend to take the path of least resistance.
You know, if it's faster they'll go that route. And between Pine Street and Locust Grove
Road it's going to be faster to get from point A to point B than the alternatives. So,
therefore, they will use it. Compass agrees totally. Compass modeled this, assigned a
bunch of traffic to those to new arterials and as a consequence the traffic on the heavily
congested arterials decreased. Now, over time development in this area, you know,
and manifestation of the development objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will start to
build it back up. But that's going to occur over a period of time. In the meantime., those
developments are going to bring new capital resources on board that will build new
capacity and, hopefully, keep pace with it, so -- one last point as far as coordination with
ITD. I discussed these reports with ITD. As a matter of fact, I met with them very
recently on these right-in, right-out approaches and, you know, the deeds that exist, the
deeded accesses that existed to the highway and some of the design criteria that will be
needed and they said that it was certainly something that they would -- they would look
at. They recognize that there are commitments to those approaches and, you know,
their response was if you design it according to our standards we will approve it,
notwithstanding the -- the variance.
De Weerd: Any other questions for Mr. Dobie?
Rountree: I have none, but I'd direct a question to Gary.
De Weerd.: Thank you.
Rountree: Gary, I just want you to verify or speak to the comment that Mr. Dobie made
about the conclusions that ACRD reached based on the traffic analysis and the re-look
at traffic numbers.
De Weerd: Gary, if you would just state your name for the record again.
Inselman: Gary Inselman again.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Inselman: Mayor and Councilman Rountree, I agree with most of what Mr. Dobie said..
They did do new counts for the turning movements and such. There were some streets
that they could not count because of construction in the area and we noted that in our
report, that we had the most current counts available for all the road segments. They
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 66 of 104
did do updated counts at the intersections. We did conclude that there were a couple of
intersections that did not stay at an acceptable level of service, but there was -- say
Fairview and Eagle, for example, there is really nothing more that we can do now that
the interchange was taken off the long range plan at Compass. The intersection is
nearly as big as it can get. You can add the through lanes on Eagle, but that's an ITD
decision. So, for our jurisdiction the capacity is there that we can provide.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Gary, I guess before you walk off -- and I don't know if I can ask this
question, since the connection on the northeast -- the connection that you want from --
oh, what is the road over there by Wal-Mart?
Inselman: Records.
De Weerd: Records. Records to go north and you have started the leg from Ustick
going south. Do you believe that as that connects, as being proposed, is that going to
help also reduce some of that congestion on Eagle?
Inselman: We certainly hope so. We made a very large investment in that property to
get that road started and we do believe that it will ultimately help serve those developing
parcels and keep that localized traffic off of the arterials to those sites and on those
roadways and that that's a wise use of those funds to protect the arterial.
De Weerd: So, from a traffic perspective I know that Councilman Bird had mentioned
and asked the question with all of the improvements that are being suggested in this
area that do add capacity, how do you figure how that capacity is absorbed through
these kind of developments and over what time?
Inselman: Madam Mayor, as Mr. Dobie said, we rely on that Compass model as best
we can and as I stated earlier, one of the reasons we said we would look at the
possibility of that signal on Fairview after all these other things have been in place is so
that we can look to see what traffic really does and verify those assumptions, because,
you know, you really don't know exactly how it will all play out until they are built and
open and traffic patterns are established.
De Weerd: So, as one of the transportation agencies that is looking at dealing with this
traffic, do you think with the capacity that's added in the area, that these improvements
are sufficient to address the impact of this development?
Inselman: On the ACHD roadways I believe they are. I cannot speak to Eagle Road,
it's a separate entity of itself -- or issue of its own.
Meridian city council
October 23, 2007
Page 67 of 104
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Gary, you hit upon this and now I'm coming back and I don't remember if the
applicant has got Commercial as a right-in and right-out only, but that's what we went
across and did at the one across the east -- going east; right? You can -- that isn't a full
intersection, is it?
Inselman: Mr. Bird, today Commercial and Eagle is a full access intersection and it was
our recommendation with the first application on that Elixir property that it be restricted
when that's developed and it was the intent when the connection was made between
Commercial and Pine on the east side from that Albertson's property north.
Bird: That's what I mean. It's right-in, right-out, isn't it?
Inselman: No. It's not restricted -- no. There is no median in Eagle Road today. You
can make that movement if you're courageous enough.
Bird.: Yeah. It would be right-in, right-out for me.
Zaremba.: Madam Mayor, in the long range plan --
De Weerd.: If you will speak up, please.
Zaremba: Sorry. In the long-range plan that I think ITD has shown for this area and
that's before the Center Cal came in, I do believe eventually there is going to be a
median that would block Commercial. Now, when that's going to happen I don't know,
but I would assume is that is going to happen sometime. It keeps getting put off for
funding, but I'm not aware that the plan has changed and I think they did show a median
at that point.
De Weerd: Thank you, Gary.
Inselman: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is still an open Public Hearing. Is there any additional testimony?
Would you like to make wrap-up remarks?
TorEin: Yes.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 68 of 104
TorFin: Madam Mayor --
De Weerd: I`m sorry.
Zaremba: Before you start your wrap-up remarks, let me throw one more thing in if
may and that's -- no. I need you. I was waiting for you to come back. And that's an
attempt to help Blue Cross. I am of the feeling -- and I think it's been confirmed, that
their current main access probably is not going to be workable in the future. I'm not so
convinced that they need to move all the way back here, though. I would think for
visibility, the front of the building, and access in and out, that somewhere along here
where they already have a parking lot roadway that comes close to that would be better.
To do that, though, I would want to see your access point be opposite that, instead of
offset, as you have done here. And not to redesign the project for all these years of you
working on it, but is there a way that even if you extended the retail back one more little
piece and added another retail building, that both of you having the access at about that
point would be of any value to anybody?
Torfin: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, we -- what we have shown is the offset
actually benefits their access. If we line them up and try to have full access -- and that's
what I`m understanding you're talking about, full access.
Zaremba: Yes.
Torfin: There are too many -- there are too many conflicts, unless you put a control on
that and so our -- Scott blunders with Stanley Consultants, who will be -- who is
designing this, has maybe a better handle on this, but I'll try to explain it. Our right-in,
right-out here, you know, doesn't -- we don't think it impacts Blue Cross's site, because
we are going to be restricted in this location. If -- if we are making left turning
movements in here and they are making left turning movements coming in here, there is
no conflict. But if we line them up we are going to have conflicts in our left turning
movements without a traffic signal. So, we have shown this and it's -- you know, I
guess right now it's conceptual.. We did show one option that we did. We lined up both
our access points right here, which didn't function as well given the future traffic demand
on the road and so this is the one that we think works best. And I think the final -- you
know, the final outcome will be trying to work with Blue Cross with the City of Meridian
and ACHD to wrap that up -- align them up -- just to get back to your question -- to line
them up is not the best function and either Pat or our other consulting engineer might
well address that better than I have. If I may, Mayor, one other point I'd like to make is
back to these access points right here. If you don't have, you know, a considerable
amount of traffic pulling in here, it will benefit Blue Cross, if traffic can pass in and get in
through here. So, that's -- I guess that's just another argument that I maybe didn't make
earlier.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 69 of 104
De Weerd: Well -- and I wonder why Blue Cross didn't comment to the variance,
because that is exactly what would help. At least their access is to give additional
things and I guess Anna in staffs evaluation, in looking at the variance, and maybe not
particularly to this application or -- but to this development, but to their neighbor to the
north, that those variances I think would work almost better for their northern neighbor
as well in moving some of those cars off of Pine wanting those turn movements. Was
that part of staffs evaluation or can we look at off-site constraints?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, staff does not purport to be traffic
experts, so we generally don't get into that aspect of the variance application. We just
stick to the findings, which are not related to necessarily traffic impacts, as much as
they are public health and safety.
De Weerd: Mr. Torfin.
Torfin: Well, I guess to wrap it up, that was one point I was going to wrap up. That
does benefit our neighbors. We -- you know, I guess this -- this is a full access on this
side of Eagle Road and, you know, maybe at some date ITD does have a plan, I believe
it's been reviewed probably by the City Council that there will be some restrictions along
here. So, we -- I guess -- our project is a long-term project, so it's not like the traffic's all
showing up tomorrow, that's -- that's one thing. And, really, you know, Eagle Road is
the focus it seems and there are improvements that are taking place that are going to
alleviate some of the present congestion. You know, the long-term plan is to create
some additional north-south routes through the area and Highway 16 is one, potentially
something to the east could occur, although it seems like nobody really wants to think
about it, you know, a direct Five Mile off the interstate right now, but those are other
things that, you know, I think will still be on the table in the future to help alleviate that. I
think just -- Pat addressed it, but we did go back and re-study the counts and so the
information that -- just rebuttal that our traffic counts were outdated, you know, is -- we
did address that with ACRD. We think we have a good project. We have been working
on it a long time and we are very interested in, you know, moving this forward and
getting on with the design of Pine Street, which is important to us, and so I think, just in
closing., I would ask for consideration for approval tonight for the variance and for the
other portions our application, including the modifications to the conditions that we
discussed. Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Torfin: If I may, I do just want to -- Dennis reminded me that we -- we intend to work
with Blue Cross in good faith to solve -- you know, solve some problems and so, you
know, we are at the table now.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 70 of 1D4
De Weerd: Well, I guess I could invite you to sit down and maybe you need to stand
back up, but I'll get on my traffic soap box, because, you know, we have been -- we
have been dealing with this -- we inherited an inefficient system. If you look at the
system in the Treasure Valley, Eagle Road is the only one that has anorth -- that is a
functional north-south corridor. You may take exception to functional at this point, but it
is the only north-south corridor that has a river crossing, a railroad crossing, and an
interchange. It's the only one that connects anywhere, except when you get down to
maybe Curtis and Broadway on the east and Middleton or Midland on the west, if that's
-- that's a stretch. So, we wonder why Eagle Road is the mess it is. We have been
working very diligently -- and I know I have talked to the CEO of Blue Cross about this
and I feel like my fight on this has been by myself -- or the city alone in advocating for
the Ten Mile interchange and we are going to get the Ten Mile interchange. Well, we
will need that full support on the Ten Mile interchange this legislative session, because
full construction is going -- and being requested at ITD -- ITD is bringing that to the
legislature and what it showed years ago when we did our numbers is it would impact
Eagle Road and add capacity there at ten percent. The state legislature gave us a tool.
Now, the Idaho Statesman might think that we are not thinking statewide enough to
want to use the Star legislation to improve our own system, but, excuse me, I'm elected
by my citizens and not by the state and so we are going to employ every tool we can to
find system improvements out there. I made that pledge to your CEO and I have taken
that pledge serious. We are looking for alternatives to adding capacity to taking traffic
off that road at every turn. That is why maybe not this Council, but I know a couple of
us that were on this Council when we dedicated dollars to the Locust Grove overpass.
This city saw that system improvement as necessary to improving some of the impact
on Eagle Road. Eagle Road carries the Treasure Valley's traffic. Eagle Road is not
only finding congestion based on what Meridian does and so -- but Meridian is
dedicated to finding different avenues to take those trips off of there. This has been
another thing that we are told takes traffic off of roads and that's mixed use
developments. It's trying to capture trips internally. This is what this is designed to do
as well. I don't have a crystal ball and, you know, I think Meridian has taken traffic
impacts more serious than anyone else and, I will tell you what, it's because we have to.
But to say that we don't care and we are not looking seriously at these traffic inputs -- or
impacts is I think a stretch. We look at traffic impacts -- and I swear, I live and breathe it
every day. And I'll tell you what, I probably spend more of my time as Mayor being a
traffic -- not expert, but trying to be an advocate at every turn. Also in this area is a very
valuable rail corridor. We think at some point -- and I hope that is also in the lifetime of
the build-out of this development in this area, that that rail corridor is functional. We
also have plans, if we ever find a funding mechanism for public transportation, that
public transportation will be also another tool to help in this area. Blue Cross is very
valuable to this city. You're a corporate sponsor. You're a corporate partner. We
appreciate you being and residing in our community. And I want you to know that. But
we are working to add capacity in that area and I can't give any guarantees, but the
Meridian City council
October 23, 2007
Page 71 of 104
numbers that have been provide
improvements out there -- and I do
have -- if we have growth triggers to
in more system improvements and
and what we hope will have system
maybe our attorney can help us -- if we
I'll tell you what, this developer is putting
than anyone in that area, except for the
-___ _JJ7.__. LL:.~J i...-.. b...a4. ........... ......~-h
development that goes north of ther
and south. We hope it gets throug _
support the idea of the Star legislation and I don't know what else we can do, but I do
know that traffic is going to continue to be impacted by the entire valley until we have
another functional north-south route and more functional east-west routes as well,
because right now the only functional one is I-84, if you call that functional. But we are
working on that, too. So, I -- Council, I, apparently, am not going to break any tie,
because there are three of you --
Rountree: Are you still on your soap box?
De Weerd: But I want our Blue Cross friends to know we are doing everything we can.
We have looked under every rock and we have considered public-private partnerships
at every turn, because we inherited a system that we don't just impact and we are trying
to do what's best in that area and the improvements that this development adds does
help add capacity and give people different routes and -- I'll get off my soap box.
Rountree: Thank you.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: I took away that one minute sign from you, Mr. Berg.
Bird.: Well, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Are you done with your public speaking? If you are, I would move that we close --
if nobody else has any testimony or needs any --
De Weerd: Well, it is a Public Hearing if there are any other comments.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Anna.
De Weerd: Anna, question.
d to us
n't know,
this, but,
capacity
e. They
h to the t
Rountree: I have not heard an explanation yet this evening of why there is a variance
requested for Commercial.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 72 of 104
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we -- we required this of Gardner-
Ahlquist as well. The way it reads is -- the use of existing approaches shall be allowed
to continue provided that all of the following conditions are met. The existing use is
lawful. The nature of the use does change. For example, a residential use to a
commercial use. The intensity of the use does not increase. So, because the intensity
of the use is increasing, that approach is questionable and if you go to the definition of
approach in the UDC, it's does state existing streets. And that's why we have had the
Gardner-Ahlquist bring that proposal to you, as well as this one. If Council ever chose
to close one of those public streets, it would -- we haven't dealt with that issue,
obviously, yet and the questions that might raise. But this does suggest that those need
to at least come before you in variance application.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Did you misspeak in terms of the ownership of this particular
road, because it is a private road.
Canning: What I meant was because the applicant is not the sole property owner of
that approach and use, then, those questions we haven't dealt with as to if you were to
deny the variance request how we would proceed from there.
Rountree: Okay.
Zaremba; Madam Mayor?
Rountree: You have clarified my confusion. Thank you.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Canning: That's unusual. I didn't have to have Mr. Nary interpret for me tonight.
Nary: Not yet.
Zaremba: If by chance we were to approve the variances, is there anything about that
that would etch in stone the current full access to them? I would not want to give
anybody hope that the median isn't coming or that they have some right to deny that
median..
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the --
Zaremba: And let me frame that in another picture. I agree with our ordinance about
access to state highways. The issue here is where the next access would be there is
actually a railroad track. So, I'm not having much difficulty saying we could move an
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 73 of 104
access to Commercial. But I don't want to take away ITD's plan to put a median in front
of Commercial and eventually that's going to be right-in, right-out.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, Pine is the
half mile one and, then, Franklin and Fairview would be the mile roads. With regard to
the railroad track, I'm not sure what that meant.
Zaremba: Well, haven't we allowed right-in, right-out on the quarter mile?
Canning: No, sir. Not as a policy.
Zaremba.: Oh. Sorry. I thought that was part of it.
Canning: With regard to the right-in, right-out onlys, the -- you could certainly require --
there are improvements they could do to complete that now that would -- that would
insure that that were done if in the event ITD does not have the funding to put medians
in the future or the near future.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Canning: Does that answer your question, Mr. Zaremba?
Zaremba: It does.
Canning: Okay.
Zaremba: And I don't know if I'm speaking alone, but I just wanted to make sure that if
we do go that direction we safeguard the eventual median.
De Weerd: I guess I have a question for Dan and I don't know if it's for you, Dan, or for
Pat. We have never required this, but let me ask it anyway. You made note that this --
this plan is kind of phased or anticipated to be 20 to 30 years. Can you look at phasing
it and tying it to some of the same road projects that ACHD has suggested before
considering the traffic light and those kind of things, where you phase certain
improvements or certain building components of it based on those road improvements
connecting?
Torfin: Could -- Anna, could we get the plan back up, please? Madam Mayor,
Members of the Council, Dan TorEin again, I -- just for clarification, are you talking the
other improvements on -- the outlying transportation system or within the project itself?
De Weerd: Within the project and maybe even some of the system improvements on
Eagle that it would trigger.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 74 of T04
TorFin: The right --
De Weerd: Just to protect the safety element.
Torfin: The protected right lanes we are going to do?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Torfin: Potentially, yeah, Ithink -- you know, I think if we develop in this area we do
those right turn lanes when we develop in there and I'm hoping that I'm understanding
you correctly. You know, one thing I do want to point out on Commercial, there are
covenants -- we do own the road, it's in our fee title ownership, but we do have these
other property owners that have access to that road, so there -- there is a -- I guess a bit
of a complication on -- on that road and how it all came together, but -- so, we -- you
know, I guess if ITD does have a plan for raised medians, we'd like to leave -- I guess
leave this as it is and let it be up to when that plan is implemented. I know during peak
times, you know, traffic does stack back in this area and so it's limited already, but there
are many times that it's open and the breaks, because of the traffic signal, that there are
some openings there. As -- you know, as we develop this -- these -- these
improvements will have to go in before we get into these areas, too, so it will be kind of
phased in. Ithink the key -- you know, the key traffic improvement will be Pine Street
and., you know, that's -- that's, really, our first phase. That's the first item that we are
working on. And we are really kind of working it right now and getting ready to sign the
agreement with ACHD, but we have already started the engineering of that. So, I think
we are sort of doing that. And Locust Grove will be connected this spring, I believe the
overpass is going to be completed either, you know --
De Weerd: In December.
Torfin: In December. And, then, with our connection, you know, then, that starts -- we
start seeing some of that relief that we have been talking about tonight between Eagle
and Locust Grove and we know a lot of people that live north that will be doing exactly
what many people have described tonight, they won't be on Eagle Road, they will be
using these systems back over this way.
De Weerd: But you will do the road infrastructure -- not just Pine, but Commercial and
the road that would go -- what is that?
Torfin: This -- Pinebridge. Up here. Yes. And., in fact, our first phased plat -- and this
is another -- I guess another minor improvement~to this system, but our first phase plat
will include this road over here that will tie into the existing State Street. It doesn't show
real well, but State Street comes down to Hickory and there is a signal here and then --
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 75 of 1D4
so, you will be able -- you know, there will be other options to come up to Hickory here
and down to Hickory here and out. So, as we phase it we will be -- we will be including
those transportation improvements.
De Weerd: So, do you see a way that you could tie certain phases to -- to road
improvements to make sure those are connecting before certain buildings are built?
And I'm sorry I keep asking the same question. I, apparently, am not asking it correctly.
Torfin: Well, it's -- you know, I think it goes back to the crystal ball and kind of
wondering how our project's going to develop and trying to nail that down right now,
because we do -- you know, the road -- the roadway systems are kind of set, we kind of
know where they are at, but where it's going to develop and, you know, maybe -- okay,
Maybe you have got -- you know, this is about 350,000 square foot of a campus and
maybe you have a user for that and so I think, you know, you'd say, well, then, this
Hickory extension to Commercial has to be constructed at that time and maybe that's --
you know, maybe that's what I'm trying to answer is that we -- we would be doing those
things in those areas, but I don't know exactly where the phasing's starting. It seems
like we are -- you know, we will be kind of focused back in here right now. Our office
building here. Potentially you might see some retail go in, some restaurants have, you
know, been looking at this site right in here. But those improvements on those turn
lanes on Eagle Road would be built at that time, too.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I guess my question to you is could you tie road improvements
and make them logical and enforceable to -- we haven't done that.
Nary Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you probably could, but this is probably
not a project that would make much practical sense, because you don't have a definitive
date for -- if this was one project and you had defined dates of when road improvements
were going to occur, you could probably stage that. But because you're talking a large
project that they don't even have -- mean a lot of what they are talking about is driven by
the market as to what customers they have, what tenants they are going to have -- I
mean. I'm sure Mr. Baker has a fairly good idea of what he would like to build first, but
it's still driven by the marketplace. I mean I think you could do what you're suggesting,
Madam Mayor, if the Council wanted to do that. I don't know that in this particular
project that would make much practical sense, because some of the other road
improvements that might be of concern regarding Eagle Road., which was part of the
testimony, we don't have dates and finalization as to when those improvements may
occur. Right now the only thing that, you know, we have here is all of these road
improvements -- that's why the Planning and Zoning Commission had required -- which
think Mr. Torfin wants the Council to consider something alternatively, is that anything
related to Pine Avenue requires Pine Avenue to be constructed first before buildings
could take access from it. So, I think that was their attempt to do what Madam Mayor is
proposing is at least trying to tie that stage of development with that roadway. But I
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 76 of 104
don't think with the other ones related to Fairview or how the Locust Grove and Pine will
work are very practical from the staffs standpoint to try to monitor and be able to
enforce that. So, the answer would be yes and no.
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Attorney.
Bird: Madam Mayor? I'll give you anon-attorney's --
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: -- thoughts., if it would be all right. I think that -- I think that the applicant can
control the extension of Pine, the redoing of Pine and that stuff with his development,
but there is nothing to say that -- as we just went through on our pre-Council, because
of money and stuff, road projects get changed and driven out we can't -- and we can't
ask adeveloper -- if somebody comes in and wants to take a 100,000 square foot
building or something, to pull it off until ACRD or ITD gets their money up. Now, what
they do within the development I think we can kind of control and adding -- we have
already got the control of getting Pine through by certificate of occupancy. We have
already got that taken care of. So, I don't know how we could -- I don't know how to be
fair to either -- to us, to the applicant, or to the roads to try to tie something like that. I
wish we -- I mean wish we could -- had 'all the money we needed so the roads could be
done that way, but I -- I don't see we hold this up without -- and market is going to drive
what he -- I mean he -- this might beaten year project, instead of a 20. And it might be
a 30, instead of a 20.
De Weerd: Another probably out of the blue question. If the approval for the Eagle
Road improvement does go forward as being suggested at this point, it appears -- well,
don't know all the details, but the center median will go at least from River Valley to
Fairview and they have talked about it perhaps even going down to Pine. If it does,
would you consider continuing that along the frontage of your property?
Torfin: And do the improvements to that -- to that -- is it a landscape median or just a
raised median?
De Weerd: It's a raised landscaped median in certain places where -- it's all going to be
in the design. They have -- they have shown different pieces of it and I don't know what
it is in that area.
Torfin: Yeah. I know we saw a conceptual plan that was -- you know, it seems like they
were going to start the raised median at the interstate and move all the way to State
Highway 44. I guess for the commitment of, you know, funds, Iwould -- for that raised
median island, I'd like to defer to Dennis to have him maybe address that question.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 77 of 104
De Weerd: It would be landscaped, Dennis. But I have to ask, you know. If we can get
that in. And right now we put a lot of resources out on Eagle Road and it's generally
because of that center turn lane. It is a hazard and so I guess -- I know it's out of the
blue, no one has mentioned it, but I'm asking.
Baker: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Dennis Baker. 250 South Beechwood.
I am not sure what I might be committing to. I certainly would be open to looking at
additional solutions that could be brought forth in conjunction with others and other
solutions you're working on, as long as we haven't already moved forward with other --
other -- we do have an interested national restaurant concern that is interested in
locating up front toward Eagle Road. We do have a project here that I -- Dan will kill me
for showing you -- that I'd love to show you, but I'm not going to -- and I can't do that,
because I don't know that it could happen, but it's a fantastic project that would front on
Eagle Road and I think would give great identity to Meridian and I would be the proudest
person to -- to bring this and pull this off if we could do this, but I have gone through this
project and it's a major wonderful live-work -- live-shop-work-play project and I did bring
it with me just in case and I am not supposed to be mentioning it, because we show
something and, then, it turns out to be something everybody is expecting, but, yes,
would work with -- with Meridian in solving those kinds of solutions to the best of our
ability, just as long as I know that others are participating and its reciprocal all the way
around and not just something that we are adding additional cost to, but not -- not really
solving problems that you're looking for. So, I think we would work with Meridian to
accomplish that goal..
De Weerd: You would work with us if we get that road improvement moving forward.
Baker: Sure.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, I'm sorry, I'm dominating your meeting. Any other
questions at this point?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Staff, any additional comments or concerns? .Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird.: I move that we close the public hearings for AZ 07-006, RZ 07-010, PP 07-008,
and VAR 07-007.
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 78 of 1.04
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close Items 14, 15, 16 and 17. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd.: Discussion?
Bird,: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We have no discussion, I'll throw something out and see if we can get a motion
going and see if we can get this Council meeting going. I move that we approve AZ 07-
006, the request for annexation and zoning for Pinebridge and to include staff and
applicant comments. And -- that would be under the certificate of occupancy -- be
under this or it's under --
De Weerd.: He's just mumbling, Dean.
Bird: No. I`m just checking to make sure that the certificate of occupation is under plat.
thought it was, I just wanted to make sure. I didn't want Anna jumping up and telling
me that I had missed half the motions.
Nary: We have a DA.
Bird.: Yeah, And we have a DA. And include the DA.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the C of O --
De Weerd: I'm sorry, right now discussion is not appropriate.
Bird: That's my motion.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Anna.
Canning: I'm sorry. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you're tying it to the C of
O, instead of -- that's not a plat issue, so I think that is in the DA. But that's -- that's
what you just did.
Bird: It's in this deal.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 79 of 104
Canning: We could make it a condition of the development agreement, would be the
cleanest, probably.
Bird: And with the second's permission I would add to the zoning compliance a
certificate of occupation.
Canning: Did --
Rountree: Second agrees.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, did the maker of the motion want to
include the --anew condition regarding the historic preservation commission?
Bird.: I believe we, in our discussion and stuff, were going to get them with HPC and
see what is -- I mean I don't want to require some applicant -- or I'd never want to
require some applicant to try to fix something that's unfixable and I'm not too sure that a
good wind wouldn't blow those things over, but -- and Idon't -- I think that's -- they can
go to the historic preservation commission and work it out with them. I thought that's
what they had agreed upon. That's what this maker of the motion agrees upon, if the
second agrees.
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, I'm not trying to -- I just want to make sure -- it's been
awhile since we raised these issues, so I just want to make sure I have got it right. Did -
- did the maker of the motion intend not to discuss the issues about building permits
prior to signature on the final plat?
Bird: Well, Idon't -- I got to know what you're -- that was one of your conditions, wasn't
it?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the Commission had asked staff to
work with the applicant. The way that the Commission left it I believe it does require
modification to the Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Madam Mayor,
take that back. I'm sorry. It was included as condition 1.2.11. Forgive me. Sorry.
Bird: Yeah. That's what I -- you had me doubting myself.
Canning: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, Mr. Bird..
Bird: No problem. Is that all your questions now?
Canning.: Yes, sir. Thank you for indulging my clarifications.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 80 of 104
Bird: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: We have a motion and a second.. Any discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea.; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Gorton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES.. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Item 15.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: I move we approve RZ 07-010, rezone of 75.67 acres from I-L to L-O zones to
C-G zone for Pinebridge and to include all staff, applicant, and public remarks.
Rountree: Second..
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 15. Any discussion? Mr.
Berg,
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Item 16.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 07-008, the preliminary plat approval of 61 building lots
and 21 common lots on 170 plus/minus acres in an approved C-G zone for Pinebridge
and to include all applicant, staff, and public comments.
Rountree: Second..
Meridian City council
October 23, 2007
Page 81 of 104
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second on this item. Any further discussion? Mr.
Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird., yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: And, Mr. Bird., Item 17.
Bird.: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: I move that we approve variance 07-007, the request for a variance application for
two access points to North Eagle Road for Pinebridge and to include all staff, applicant,
and public comment.
Zaremba: I'll second that and add some discussion.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Could we clarify as part of this motion that the applicant has agreed that if
other improvements are made on Eagle Road by another developer north of here, that
they have offered that they would continue the median in front of their property?
Bird: I believe they had this in public testimony of the applicant, which is part of my
motion.
Zaremba: We don't feel that needs to be in the motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's not part of the application. I mean
all they are asking for is access points. But you can't tie -- you either grant it or you
don't. It either runs with the land or it doesn't. You can't condition it. So, you either
grant it and make a finding as to why you're granting it, but the fact that there might be
something else that might happen in the future, that's not a consideration for a variance.
It's whether it meets the standards of the ordinance.
Zaremba: Should it have been a consideration of the development agreement?
Nary: It can be, although I guess my recollection of the testimony was, yeah, I will work
with you, it depends on what it is, I'm not going to commit to anything. So, I'm not sure
what you'd put in a development agreement for that. And I'm not trying to be facetious,
understand the reason for that testimony, but, yes, it could be part of a development
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 82 of 104
agreement. I don't think you had consensus to include it, but you can certainly back up
to that if you wish. But on this it's whether it just meets the standards or not and what
your findings are, so --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I'm still having trouble issuing a variance based on the criteria that Anna
showed. On a private road that, granted, is owned by the applicant, at least to some
degree, and possibly some neighbors to the south and I'm not sure I want to get into
that rhubarb, but we probably will. I don't have a major concern with that access point,
because it is there and without this application it probably will develop to the south and
continue to increase the use and probably would remain. I do have a problem, though,
granting the variance on the -- between the two existing locations at this point. It seems
to me it's premature. Having not really had the opportunity to comment one way or
another on variances on state highways in the past, but having watched them rather
closely, it seems to me that the Council's position has been not to allow access on state
highways until the applicants have worked out their issues with the transportation
department and if the transportation department has allowed access, then, that's been
brought back and used with the Council to request a variance and get generally
favorable response. I know that protracts success, but it seems to me that's the
process that we had. I would like to see what ITD has to say about that access point
between two existing accesses on Eagle Road, even though it is deeded. I suspect
they probably will ultimately allow it, but I don't know that. Depending on their action,
then, I would think that that would be when the applicant would bring back a request for
a variance. So, my position is to not act on the variance request until that issue is
clarified with the owners and operators of that particular facility and my position would
be not to approve the variance this evening.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And I don't disagree with Mr. Rountree. I have always felt the same way until the
last few we had and, then, I went down -- Boise's impact on Eagle, their city limits in
Eagle and you have -- in a half mile you have six or seven entrances-exits being used.
You go on down to Eagle north of -- or of Chinden and -- and one side has, if
remember right, between State and Chinden, one side has something like 12 or 13
entrances and exits and the other one something like 11. So, while I would like to see
frontage roads all throughout these major things, it's too late. I hate to say that, but it is
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 83 of 104
too late. I don't like the closeness of it either, .but it's aright-in, right-out only. I -- I have
-- there is lot of precedence that ITD has allowed them every eighth mile or every 16th
mile. I don't think it will. That's why I -- I agree with Councilman Rountree, I mean I
wish they were every half mile, but they are not. We -- we come up with a plan after the
road was developed.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary:. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean you have two -- two distinct
variance requests. If you think they are -- the findings are the same for them, that's fine,
mean that's within your discretion. If that's the case if you could clarify that that is what
your finding is. If you think there is a difference between the Commercial access
because of the private road and the other properties that access it and whether or not
those other properties will have similar access. The only thing the statute points to is
the potential for a regulatory taking if -- if variances aren't granted, it would like you to at
least make sure whatever finding you make that we have that articulated on the record
as to what your reasons are. If you think they are different, then, you certainly have the
ability to distinguish them as to what -- why you may grant one and not another or why
you may grant both for different reasons.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Call the question.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Zaremba, nay; Borton, absent.
MOTION FAILED: ONE AYE. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: So, Mr. Rountree, your suggestion was to take it to ITD and, then, bring it
back?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, my motion would be to continue Item 17 until such time as
the applicant has reached an agreement with Idaho Transportation Department with
respect to the access points on Eagle Road.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 84 of 104
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Oh. I guess I'll wait for a second. Sorry.
Zaremba: Again, I`II second that for discussion and could we include in that motion that
if there is agreement with ITD it would include putting the median in? Can we direct ITD
in what they do?
Rountree: I don't think we can do that.
Nary: I don't think you can, either. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you want
to table this motion, so that it puts in, basically, in the applicant's hands to go forward,
they don't have an approved variance, so they don't have an approved access to this
point. The staff would have to follow the ordinance in regards to the plat. If that's your
intention, then, I think we would be tabling this motion, because there is no date to
continue it to a date certain. If you think you want to set it over for 90 days or 60 days
or whatever and put the burden on them to move this along a little quicker, I think that's
within your purview as well. But I think you have to pick one or the other or, otherwise,
this will just hang there.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Could I say something? And this probably don't need to be, but we are basing a
lot of stuff on a development that is supposed to go in at another location on this. There
is no guarantee that other thing is going to go in. The market is down and I mean
haven't seen any dirt move out there, other than picking up turf, and we are basing
Eagle Road off of that deal. This is a development that's standing on its own and that's
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I don't think the variance has anything to do with that.
Bird: Well., you're wanting to add the -- the median and everything else into it and --
Rountree: The motion does not include that.
De Weerd: So -- okay.
Bird: Question.
De Weerd,: The motion was to table this, then? Is that the appropriate --
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 85 of 104
Rountree: As opposed to continue, to table.
De Weerd: Second agrees?
Zaremba: Second accepts that change.
De Weerd: Do we need a --
Berg: A question.
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Madam Mayor, if I could ask a question. Are we going to wait for more
information or are we going to wait for a decision by somebody else before you make a
decision on the variance? My concern is that if you're going to get more information, do
you keep the hearing open or just if you're just going to wait for one aspect to make a
decision and I -- I don't know if you can table it definitely to keep it on the books.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if -- if there is a desire for this access --
by tabling it all -- I mean Mr. Berg's right, I mean it simply is, essentially, in abeyance at
a point something should probably happen with this. But you can do that. You could
certainly table it. They would have to renotice it, just like any other application. You
could deny it, because there is not enough information at this time to make the findings
to grant the variance. That doesn't bar them from asking again. They can come back
and reapply. They'd still have to notice it. But the only significant difference is they
would have to pay the fee. So, one certainly gives you closure now, which is I think
what Mr. Berg is talking about. The other doesn't do that, but at some point someone's
got to remember to deal with this in some fashion. So, you certainly have that option as
well. But your motion is to table at the moment, unless you want to withdraw that or
amend it, that's what you have in front of you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, actually, we do have a prohibition
about submitting the same application if it's been denied. So, the better -- the better
solution may be to have the applicant withdraw that one, so that they may resubmit that
portion.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate Mrs. Canning's thought on
that. If you want to do that, I think you're going to have to withdraw your motion and
reopen the Public Hearing if you're going to get testimony from the applicant
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 86 of 104
withdrawing their application. Because, technically, you couldn't take any further
information on that at this point.
Rountree: So moved.
Zaremba: Second accepts.
Bird: Second agrees.
De Weerd: I'm assuming that so moved meant --
Rountree: To withdraw my motion.
De Weerd: You don't need to -- you can just withdraw. You agree to withdraw the
motion. Correct?
Nary: Correct.
Zaremba: I agree to withdraw my second to the motion that was withdrawn. Correct.
De Weerd: Now --
Rountree: Now I move to reopen the Public Hearing on Item 17.
Zaremba: I'll second that and I will comment for the record that I don't believe anybody
left the room during the period that we had that hearing closed.
De Weerd: You're right. Council, I have a motion to open the Public Hearing on Item
17. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed nay.
Bird: Nay.
De Weerd.: The two ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Mr. Torfin.
Rountree: Question for Dan.
Torfin: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, we agree with the withdrawal of the
variance request and I guess what we will do is we will seek ITD's input and, then, come
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 87 of t04
back and re-apply. We are withdrawing our application, so we will just have to go
through that process again., so -- yes.
De Weerd: Then you -- that's considered a request; correct?
Torfin: I guess our preference is -- would be to, you know, get the variance approved,
but in light of the discussion --
Nary: Stop while you're ahead.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Question for Dan. What kind of time line do you anticipate? Because it could
continue if you had a date certain in mind.
Torfin: Well, I -- you know, it's hard to guess what ITD -- I guess we could continue it for
a date certain and get a feel for the timing, if that's an option. I -- you know, I don't know.
Six months. That's what I heard. We have been discussing this with ITD and we intend
to submit something right away, so if -- if a continuance for six months saves a little bit
of process time, we would be agreeable to that.
Rountree: Probably the withdrawal is the way to go.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Sorry, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I guess this Council has
discussed about some of these lengthy continuances. It would appear if you set it over
for six months you would., likely, want to renotice it anyway. If there is no additional cost
to the applicant, there is new information that will probably be gathered by traffic
studies, some of the things Blue Cross' testimony had brought out, staff needs time to
analyze that as well, I'm sure, as ITD and ACRD will. I don't think there is any value to
just setting it over when reapplication doesn't impact you any differently and the noticing
would be done more routinely if you did it that way. Someone would have to remember
in six months to go out and renotice it, because that wouldn't be common for us, versus
a new application.
De Weerd: Anna, how does this affect the plat that was approved? Well, it shows the
access point and it shows a private road to the south.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I can go check the preliminary plat
conditions. I would assume that the preliminary plat was written as -- that the variance
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 88 of 104
applications, particularly for the one in the middle, were not approved, because that was
discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission. They -- they acknowledged that the
Commercial Street access would probably need to remain and would remain regardless
of this application, it's just kind of whether or not they would take access to it I think was
the question. So, that issue's probably been addressed.. The one in the middle has
probably been addressed as needing to go away, unless the variance was approved,
but I could check.
De Weerd: But if they own that road, how could they be denied access to it?
Canning: As I said earlier, Madam Mayor, there would be a question as to how to
actually implement the second one. To be truthful, I think staff assumed that the
Commercial Street would stay, because of some of these complications related to it.
De Weerd: So --
Bird.: That looks like -- that plat looks like the center one isn't there. That looks like a
walkway to me. So, I don't know why it isn't -- what's wrong with this plat. And
Commercial isn't going to go away regardless.
Canning: The plat does not appear to show the access points on it at this point.
De Weerd: I guess if you withdraw, you have time to -- to contemplate all these
comments.
Torfin: Madam Mayor, Council, would it be possible -- and I'm thinking out loud here. It
seems like Commercial -- it's an existing access. Can this variance be separated, so
we are just dealing with the center variance? It was our intention -- and I think our
concept plan shows it, but to have that access. Could we separate the variance request
and let Commercial stand, because it's an existing access and it is -- it is in our
ownership boundary.
Rountree: I don't have any problem with that.
De Weerd.: It sounds from what Anna has noted, it would be separate. The
Commercial is an access right now, it's -- it's in your ownership and so -- is that correct,
Anna?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant just asked to withdraw
the second variance application and Council could act on the Commercial Street, if
that's what Council would like to do.
Torfin: That's what our request would be, Madam. Mayor.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 89 of 104
De Weerd: What?
Torfin: That we -- that we withdraw the center access and that the Council, if they so
desire, would act on the variance request for Commercial.
De Weerd: Okay.
Torfin: Thank you.
De Weerd.: Council, he's withdrawing the center access request and would like your
action on the Commercial access.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: If there is no more public testimony -- have you asked for that?
De Weerd: Is there any further public testimony on this?
Rountree: Seeing no further, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 17.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 17. All
those in favor say. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird.: Madam Mayor, could I ask a question of staff?
De Weerd: Yes, please.
Bird: On this -- if we are going to split it, they have withdrawn the center entry and leave
the existing Commercial in the variance, do we still -- do you still want to use the same
number, VAR 07-007 and when they come back they will have to have another variance
number for the center one; am I right? So, we use this number and just clarify that we
are only -- we are only dealing with Commercial.
Canning: Yes, sir.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City council
October 23, 2007
Page 90 of 104
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve VAR 07-007, which has been split and the only variance we
are dealing with is the Commercial -- the road now known as Commercial off of Eagle
Road..
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Mr. Nary, do we have to have specifics on
the basis of this variance?
Nary: Madam Mayor, maybe I could be of some help.. Madam Mayor, Members of the
Council, the statute requires that you make a finding that there is no special right that
you are granting, that there is an undue hardship based on the characteristics of the site
and that the variance is not in conflict with the public interest. Your discussion has been
primarily of the other accesses that other property owners that are not the applicant take
from this road and that by eliminating this access point may be a hardship upon them.
So, the constraints of this particular site, by the statute, may be a reason to grant it.
There isn't a special right being granted, because you're, basically, allowing continued
access through that property, even though the applicant owns it. I think staff said part of
the reason that the request was required is merely a mechanism of our ordinance. So,
there are -- there are findings, if that's your pleasure, that that's your reasoning, that's
what we would include in the variance findings.
Bird: That's the motion maker's --
De Weerd: Intent.
Nary: That's exactly what I thought you wanted. That's the reason I thought you meant.
De Weerd: And the second --
Rountree: Second agrees.
De Weerd: -- intends as well. Any discussion?
Bird..: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Gorton, absent.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 91 of 104
MOTION CARRfED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Canning: Madam Mayor, before we leave that one, just for the record, so that when -- if
someone's reading the minutes, that the second access -- the center access was not
denied by Council, it was withdrawn by the applicant.
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Let the public record note that. Thank you for indulging us.
Zaremba: Do we need to put it on the record that we accept that withdrawal?
Canning: I think you just did.
De Weerd.: I think you just did.
Torfin: Thank you.
Item 18: Public Hearing: AP 07-008 Request for City Council review for an
Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision limiting the
hours of operation from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. for Anytime Fitness
located in an L-0 zone district within Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave
.Evans Construction - 3220 North Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Item 18 is a Public Hearing on AP 07-008 and I will open apparently with
Anna's comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Anytime Fitness project.
This is a request for reconsideration, so in doing that the -- the whole use is up for
rehearing, so I will present the entire project. The Anytime Fitness is located on the
northeast corner of Meridian Road and Ustick Road. It's currently zoned L-O. The
application before you tonight is a City Council review of a Conditional Use Permit that
was granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Conditional Use Permit
approval was to allow a 24-hour fitness center within a 4,750 square foot single story
building. The .91 acre site is zoned L-O and located on Lot 10 of the Sundance
Subdivision No. 5. At the August 2nd, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing
the Commission approved the findings for Anytime Fitness Conditional Use Permit. At
that hearing the Commission required a condition limiting business operation on the site
between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Due to the limitations of this condition,
the applicant Dave Evans Construction has filed for a City Council review to remove that
condition of approval. The elevations I do have. Well, I used to have them. Where did
they go?
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 92 of 104
De Weerd: Anna, isn't this an appeal of Council's decision? I know it says Planning
and Zoning.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, it's an appeal for a City Council
review we call them now, of the Planning and Zoning Commission, upon which the
Council acted on this previously and upheld the conditions that the Planning and Zoning
placed on it. Did approve the use, but with the same conditions as the Planning and
Zoning Commission did. The applicant, then, requested a reconsideration of the
Council at that time and they suggested, which was where he was going after I found
the elevations, but I, apparently, don't have them. But it was suggested that instead of
5:00 to 11:00, that they could perhaps live with 4:00 to midnight and that was part of the
reconsideration. But, really, the -- really, the request is still that of the original appeal,
with some additional information they have provided.. But the request of you now is
actually to -- the formal request is for the 24 hours still, but they did suggest in their
reconsideration that 4:00 to midnight would be okay. But I have got just a couple more
things to add to your confusion. The Commission, again, approved this at their August
2nd, 2007, hearing and at that hearing Travis Burrows from Dave Evans Construction
spoke in favor. Risa Brown spoke in opposition. No one commented. And Vance
Barber did provide written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were
the facility security and disturbances surrounding residential neighborhoods and the 24-
hour operation in the L-O zone. Key Commission changes were that they added the
condition 1.9 limiting the hours of operation. Since the staff report we have received
written testimony -- and this includes now the first and the second Public Hearing. We
received written testimony from Risa Brown and Vance Barber. Both letters support the
restricted hours and the Commission's decision. We also received an a-mail from
Vance Barber with regard to the reconsideration request and the multiple hearings on
this matter. Mr. Barber has resubmitted his opposition letter for this hearing specifically.
And, then, as I mentioned before, we also received written testimony from the applicant
suggesting that 4:00 a.m. to midnight might be an acceptable condition So, the
outstanding issues before Council, again., this is -- it's your decision as to whether or not
to approve the use now. You're not just acting on the conditions of approval, the one
with regard to hours of operation. This is a new hearing for the Conditional Use Permit
and Council can act as they see fit on the matter. With that I'll answer any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird.: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd.: The applicant.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 93 of 104
Burrows: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Travis Burrows with Dave Evans
Construction. 7761 West Riverside Drive in Boise. I would like to have some additional
information here.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: I don't always feel the need to have to translate for Mrs. Canning, but just to
make it clear to the Council, it's as if we didn't have the other hearing. So, all of the
information is new. There is no -- there is nothing approved at the moment. So, just so
you know when -- as you process the information, it's not like they already have this
approved and we are only talking about hours. They don't have anything approved.
They have appealed, so --
De Weerd: Okay.
Burrows: As I stated, this is an application -- a reconsideration for the Anytime Fitness
facility. It is located at 80 East Ustick Road on the -- that is the northeast corner of
Ustick and Meridian Roads. The final plat for the Settler's Crossing -- or Sundance
Subdivision No 5, the Settler's Crossing Business Park, has recently been recorded and
so this is showing the current recorded plat. These being the property lines here and
this is the facility in question. These are the approved access points on Ustick here and
on Meridian Road here. You can see travel through the development. Parking right
adjacent to the building and to address a few of the concerns brought up by Council and
Planning and Zoning at the first few meetings, that, first of all, this is directly at the -- the
corner of Ustick and Meridian. It is not directly abutting any residential uses there.
There is quite a substantial buffer between the building and any of the residential. You
can see on this that there is approximately 350 feet to the north -- from the northern
most corner to the residential properties and approximately 300 fleet to the east, from
the eastern most portion of the building. And to the south of the building we have
shown that as well. The nearest residential is across Ustick Road and is approximately
120 feet there. A few of the other concerns that were brought up were deliveries to the
building.. There are not going to be any deliveries, other than normal business hours,
UPS, you know, mail, those types of deliveries that -- cleaning of the facility, they have
determined their slow hours of business are between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. and that
is when they do have cone-person cleaning crew. It's a fairly small facility. Lighting on
the building. The exterior of the building is all soffit lights, similar to what is above you
there. It's -- they are the recessed lights that shine -- this is an example of a similar
building in a similar lighting in a different business park that's -- it would be down lighting
along the building. Let's see. The traffic light at the corner of Ustick and Meridian I
know is fairly new and does have one streetlight on the southeast corner of that to light
the intersection. Previous discussions -- I know the police department was involved --
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 94 of 104
or not involved., but was involved in the discussion and said that they would be
discussing the alarm -- the security systems, if it was to be a panic-type button alarm
system that they do have, it's, you know, a panic alarm that would be mounted on the
wall for emergency use only. That would be a priority call to the police department. The
equipment they do have, they are -- it's not of the free weight type equipment. It all has
a safety catch so it, essentially, eliminates a need for a secondary spotter. Let's see.
They do have, you know, a fairly high tech security system as far as cameras inside the
building, as well as on the exterior of the building., which is monitored 24 hours a day
and is used to deter any -- any occurrences and to -- if there were any issues they
would be able to determine that, who the culprit might have been. They do have a
system that would prevent -- forget the term, but as the tailgating is if the member uses
the key card to get in, there is a security system that only allows one person to pass
through that. If there is somebody that goes through that that will be noticed. We have
had the opportunity to check out the other facilities in -- there is one in Kuna, which has
been very well-accepted by the neighboring businesses, as well as the owners, which
are -- the proximity to their homes is considerably closer than what we are proposing at
this facility. There is one at Nampa as well and a new one being opened in Boise. The
facility is -- is just under 5,000 square feet and is considerably smaller than a typical
fitness center that you would see in either Gold's Gym, Idaho Athletic Club, and their
business model is to be located right in a neighborhood area to allow neighbors easy
access, to promote pedestrian access, as well as bicycle and reduce the vehicular
traffic. The building itself will look very similar to the other facilities we have in that
development already. There is a dental office and an insurance office that they share
with the real estate there. It's going to be a similar type model. It will, essentially, look
like another office building in there. We feel it will be a minimal impact on the residential
neighborhoods, even in operating with a 24-hour model, the -- it has -- we have
determined that there were minimal patrons that would be going there after -- between
the hours that were originally limited., it would be between 11:00 and 5:00 and/or 4:00
a.m. and midnight. It -- the facility is staffed between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. At that
point it is open to the general public to come in and either open up a -- start a
membership and/or members to bring a guest with. After those hours it is only operated
-- or accessed by the key card. In this packet that we have provided we have shown
the proximity of the building in Kuna, you can see it looks like the property setback is,
you know eight to ten feet from the back of the building to the fence line and, then, the
following picture shows from the fence to the back of the residence. We have also
provided a few letters or statements from -- from the business owners in the area, as
well as the residential owners directly behind the facility and I think with the extended
hours of operation it would potentially reduce the traffic. There wouldn't be a lot of
congestion at any certain time, it would be -- hopefully, it would be spread out through
all hours of operation and, again, we have not found that there is any negative impact
on the neighbors nearby and I know previously we -- it was discussed that Meridian's
policy is typically to limit hours of operation in an L-O zone and we did some research.
There are no ordinances speaking to this specifically, only that it is up to the Council to
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 95 of 104
have the discretionary authority to review these on a case by case basis and to approve
or deny accordingly and we feel that since this is located -- I guess at almost the
farthest point possible from residential areas within this L-O zone, that the other
buildings in this development would create a buffer, as well as to the south Ustick and to
the west Meridian Roads are -- I'm not sure about the traffic impact that is there, but I'm
sure the building will be quite less of a noise and disturbing impact than those roads
would be. And would stand for any questions at this point.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You have used the Kuna location as an example. What's the -- what's the
zoning that that facility resides in?
Burrows: That I couldn't tell you, sir. As well as the Nampa, I'm not familiar with the
zoning. The only information we were providing on that is the proximity to the
residential areas there and that there have not been any issues brought forth by the
homeowners, as well as other business owners in that area.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. I did have someone sign up, Brian Sweet, and it looks like he
marked every box and, then, scribbled out -- I think he's for, but he was also neutral and
against. But, I like said, I'm -- that was his most recent X and I don't think he's here.
Burrows: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I -- we did have the opportunity to
speak with Brian Sweet. He was the only neighbor that was concerned about this that
did come to speak with us directly. Go back to the aerial. He is -- his home is located
directly to the south of this. He owns this property right on the corner here and he -- I
know it was stated by Planning and Zoning, as well as -- as the Council that you felt that
it was a good a location and a good business model, the only concern was the hours of
operation. He agreed with you, that he is -- he owns a gymnastics facility in Eagle and
is all for fitness and all of that and is familiar with the other businesses in the area and I
cannot speak for him, but he expressed that he was not concerned about the 24-hour
use, so --
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 96 of 104
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any additional testimony? If you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Nelson: Genesis Nelson. 2688 North Springtime Way, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nelson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I know it's late and everybody wants
to go home. Me, too.
De Weerd: We are trying not to be glazed eyes.
Nelson: I'm just here, basically, to plead with you to, please, reconsider what we have
asked. This business -- we have the one in Kuna. I'm just going to reiterate a little bit of
stuff. Kuna, we have been open over two years. People live directly -- like as far as
that wall to me behind the building and in two years we have never had one complaint
due to our 24-our operation, noise, any kind of problems. If we had, we would have
dealt with it, but we simply haven't had any. We have submitted nine letters to you of
everybody that lives right behind there, stating that they do not have a problem. Also,
the other business owners that want us there, they like us being 24 hours, because it
offers protection for their businesses. We have the Kuna club. We have one in Nampa.
We are opening -- we are just opened in Boise. Each one of these facilities has closer
residents and have more impact to them than the club that we are proposing in
Meridian. This one means more to me than any other club, because I'm a Meridian
resident, so I'm having a really hard time with this. I'm only about a mile from this club
and I have put a lot of pride into it and it's really hard for me to deal with the fact that --
understand it's an L-O zone and you haven't in the past let anybody have -- or you have
had restricted hours on these operations, but this is a little bit different, because we
aren't really operating, we are not open, we have some people that come in past the
hours that you would like to limit it. To those few people it means a great deal. It's not a
huge amount of traffic in the middle of the night, but that the people that do use it, it
means a lot to them, because there is nowhere else that they can go. They have jobs,
they have things that -- reasons why that's the only time that they are able to use the
facility and the model, Anytime Fitness, I mean it's kind of going to be a joke if we are
just Almost Anytime Fitness or Sometimes Fitness or -- I have heard everything from
what I have been going through the last few months. Everybody has their own opinion
of what we should change the name to. But we can't really change the name, it's a
franchise -- I mean this is our business, it's Anytime Fitness, and so I really ask of you to
really consider the actual impact that it really has on the residence, the businesses, it
really doesn't have that much of a negative impact at all. It's a very positive thing for the
neighborhood, for the community, and for the City of Meridian. That's all I have. Thank
you.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 97 of 104
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Evans: I'm Dave Evans. 7761 North Riverside Drive, Garden City. I called the
planning directors for Nampa and for Kuna and asked them if they had had any code
complaints on their 24-hour operations down there and they had none. Also called the
police down there, which they haven't called me back, to see if they have had any calls
and because I own the business park and I would own this business that Anytime
Fitness would be a tenant and I'm not interested in having any kind of a situation occur
in my park that's going to be negative on the other buildings, I got a lot of other square
feet to deal with in there and I don't want it -- and I fully understand the policy and agree
with it in most instances, however, it may not cover all -- and this is a unique situation,
since the general public operation is -- is in normal business hours and the limited
access to members only is in the off hours and so that's why we are doing this. I don't
want to waste your time with this and beat this dead horse, but we thought we would
reconsider it or at least get enough time to where her business model would put her in a
position to where the business could succeed, which is important to me, and not have to
compete with the other gyms, because the model is we would offer times that other big
gyms do not offer. If you have -- if you're an off-hours shift and you're working second
shift at Micron, you can get in there and work out when the other clubs are closed and
that's part of the Hitch. The other is that the -- that they are successful in residential
areas, because people don't have to travel and they can get to them easily. And that's -
- that's my pitch. As regards to this letter, Anytime has extensive studies on their
memberships and stuff and -- and the uses and the number of -- in fact, the amount of
activities have been very successful in residential neighborhoods. I don't know where
this address is right here by this gentleman that's objecting to it, but it doesn't look like
he's close to the gym and it was refreshing to see the guy who lives closest to the gym
for it. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Any final comments? Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd.: Mr. Bird.
Bird.: Anybody need anymore? If not, I move we close the Public Hearing on AP 07-
008.
Zaremba: Second..
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 98 of 104
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor
say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don't want to be here until 2:00 or 3:00. I thought we got rid of that when I was
younger. I move we approve AP 07-008, request for appeal of the planning and zoning
decision for Anytime Fitness. And to allow their hours to be from 4:00 a.m. to 12:00
midnight.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Rountree: I'll second it for discussion.
De Weerd: Discussion.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I do have some discussion. I appreciate the value of this
kind of business. Located in the right place I think it would be an excellent business. It
would be a good addition to Meridian. It would be a good addition to some
neighborhoods. As I stated before, I think that proper location is either over closer to
Eagle Road in a different zone or as an afterthought realize that there is a neighborhood
center about a half a mile to the west of this where I think it would be a logical place for
this to locate. I felt that the Planning and Zoning Commission was generous in the
hours that they suggested. The typical L-O restriction has been like 7:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. The difficulty I have is chipping away at the purpose of the L-O zone and I -- while
like the idea of this business, I don't feel the L-O zone is the right place for it. And
opening the door to expanded hours in L-O zones is something that I believe we will
regret farther down the road. It's one of the last remaining things where we have things
that are safe next to residential and by safe I mean that they are not disturbing 24 hours
a day and no activity and I -- you know, while I'd like to see this business be
somewhere, I'm not in favor of having it in an L-O zone period.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 99 of 1.04
Bird: I'll give a little rebuttal on that. I think that the location of it -- I don't think it hurts
the L-0 zone. I don't think we are setting a precedent in the deal. That is probably --
and Idon't consider somebody across a busy road like Mr. Sweet is as a -- somebody
that's going to bother. He's going to get enough road noise that he wouldn't even hear it
if the gym was going. And, actually, you look from how far away they are from the
houses and stuff there, they are quite a bit away -- farther away. In fact, our park -- and
realize that we don't go from 4:00 to midnight at the park, but also we do have activities
and stuff going over there, it's closer to the residents than that is. I think that for this
little corner out here, I think it's very good and I -- I don't think it's bothering the
neighbors when you only have -- we had one person testify and we had -- we had a Mr.
Barber and a -- and a Mrs. Brown or something like that, were the only ones that -- out
of all those people that testified against it, I think it fits in there very good. With all the
security cameras and stuff, you know, I questioned whether you wouldn't want to have
somebody on staff all the time, but I guess they -- this franchise has been successful by
not being that and I'm not one to argue with that. So, I fully support this in this location.
If it was sitting back where that other lot is, back next to the subdivision, I might have
different thoughts. But where it's sitting out there by itself, I -- on the corner, Idon't --
and the buildings, if they are going to build at the same -- those two buildings they have
got in along Meridian Road are very nice, attractive, and fit -- fit with that atmosphere
and so I'm a hundred percent for it.
Rountree: Well, it is tomorrow, so -- I don't have any issues with the location and the
zoning. I think it's starting to get the nose under the tent in terms of what is or isn't
office, but I'm still struggling with if we do it here what's the next request in terms of
timing. I can't -- I guess the thing that's swaying me is that I do use fitness facilities, so
that kind of makes me think that this is -- that's the way I ought to vote. Would very
much like to condition any vote or any motion on this that if there are issues with the
hours of operation, that it be set back to what we normally would allow in an office area.
I'd really like to make it a requirement that Mr. Evans and the operator of the facility
would be here on the next application we get with a room full of people saying we don't
want 5:00 to 11:00 operation in a limited office facility or a limited office -- or limited
office classification, and have them understand the pain and angst we go through, one,
when we do set precedent and, then, we have to figure out a way of saying, well, it was
okay here, but it's not okay there. And I really struggle with this. It's a simple
application, it's a good business, I'm probably going to -- I'm probably going to go soft
on this at this point, but I'm going to call the question.
Nary: You don't have a motion.
De Weerd: We don't have a motion.
Rountree: Oh, I thought we had a motion.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 100 of 104
Bird: Yes, we do. I made a motion to approve it.
Rountree: I seconded it.
Bird: Charlie seconded it.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Sorry. Yes.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, since staff is going to be the one having
to ultimately deal with the enforcement of these hours and as such -- and maybe Mrs.
Canning can correct me if I'm wrong -- the precedent that you're talking about for this
facility is probably not as significant as the precedent you're setting in the L-O zones,
because staff, then., like Mrs. Canning's office, that has to deal with the next applicant,
this business is successful, it moves to another location, someone else wants to locate
in that business park, staff has to be able to distinguish this use versus other uses that
want to operate under the same hours. So, any guidance you can give -- if they want to
do this, then, that would be helpful for staff, because I think as Councilmember Zaremba
raised, that's the issue. It isn't this business, it's the location of this and this use, as well
as other uses that may want to locate either in this park or your other office facilities and
trying to distinguish what those are. Why would this be unique? If you have some
information that would be helpful, because it's very difficult from the staffs standpoint to
be able to try to administer that on every individual application.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's fairly routine with every request
for annexation in an L-O zone for you to put time limits on it. It's so common that
sometimes we think it's actually a code requirement and one of the ways to get around
the issue that you're talking about is to perhaps consider an actual code amendment
that puts time restrictions on it, but, then, I think you will be having -- I don't know
whether you can really have a variance to a time request. So, you would be stuck with
it. It would be an awfully hard and fast limitation within that zone. But that's the only
thing I can think of to perhaps address some of the concerns I have heard from Council
tonight.
De Weerd: Well, I would want to open up the time that this allows -- I mean it's acase-
by-case basis. This is not anything typical and -- that time element would concern me
with other type --
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I called for question, but I'd withdraw that call to make my
final comment here. To respond to Mr. Nary in terms of guidance -- and I guess my
position on this in terms of being in a limited office area is the relatively low volume of
Meridian City council
October 23, 2007
Page 1.01 of 104
use that it's going to have at any one point in time. It probably isn't going to be much
more than a two or a three or a four person dental operation, from the information that I
have seen and read about this particular operation. So, that would be what I would use
in terms of guidance and the office areas, how much clientele at any one point in time.
don't know if you need guidance or not.
Berg: We need to find our way home.
Canning: I need to go to sleep.
De Weerd: That's a discussion for a later date and., Anna, maybe you can bring that up
as -- as we look at the different elements of the code and appropriate uses and times
and all of that. Mark that in your memory as well, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Call for the question now.
De Weerd: Will, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, nay; Borton, absent.
MOTfON CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Item 19 is a Public Hearing for SSC commercial rate charge.
Rountree: Anna's over there going what.
Canning: I'm sorry, I don't know what the motion was. Was it --
Bird: The motion was to approve it.
De Weerd: To approve from 12:00 --
Nary: 4:00 to 12:00.
Rountree: 4:00 to 12:00 CUP.
Canning: 4:00 to 12:00.
Rountree: Yeah.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 102 of 104
Berg: 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight.
Item 19: Public Hearing: SSC Commercial Rate Change:
De Weerd: Good night. Thank you for hanging in there so long. We have a Public
Hearing on Item 19. I have opened this Public Hearing and would ask the tolerant
Steve Sedlacek to address Council and keep it short.
Sedlacek: Thank you, Madam Mayor. This will be short. My name is Steve Sedlacek,
representing Sanitary Services, 2130 West Franklin in Meridian. What we are asking
for -- or the Public Hearing tonight's about simply instituting a rate structure for voluntary
commercial and school recycling. This has been brought forward to the SWAC in the
past, as well as to pre-Council. We -- this is simply adding another service that we can
offer to businesses and schools, allows them to segregate commingled recycling,
reduce their trash bill. There is a rate structure associated with the -- with this
collection. It's much lower than a normal solid waste collection, so, hopefully,
businesses that can take advantage of this will. Currently we have this in 22 schools,
so we do hope you pass this rate structure tonight, otherwise, it's going to be a
voluntary thing, at least for a short time. And that's shortly all I have to tell you. I don't
have the rate structure -- well, we have given it to you in the past. It was published. I
don't think you want me to go through it, so --
De Weerd: And I'll tell you what, those schools are excited.
Sedlacek: Thank you. I'll stand for any questions.
Bird.: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 19.
Bird: I second..
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor?
MOT10N CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 1'03 of 104
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd.: Yes.
Rountree: I move that we approve the commercial rate structure as proposed in Item
19 for SSC.
Zaremba; Second.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members. Just a comment that we will have a
resolution prepared for the next regularly scheduled meeting for approval.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea.; Zaremba, yea; Boston, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 20: 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.: Council, I know that we have one last -- and we will just put that over to the
next agenda.
Nary: I could probably discuss it with Councilman Zaremba and we can just talk -- just
update you at the next meeting, so that will be fine.
De Weerd: Well, Iwould --
Rountree: Move to adjourn.
De Weerd: Thank you. Do I have a second?
Bird: Oh, I second it.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
October 23, 2007
Page 104 of 104
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:26 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
,,
MAYOR Y De W ,,~~~~.~~ ~',~'''>.,
ATT~~T~~D:
~_/ ~ /~
DATE APPROVED
,~ ~, ILL~AM G. BERG, CIT~CL
,,,, .~ c ~~. ~,,
.~,~ ,~