HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 12-04Meridian Citv Council Meeting December 4, 2007
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:24 p.m., Tuesday,
December 4, 2007, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd..
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd., Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, Joe Gorton
and David Zaremba.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Bob Stowe, Bill Johnson, Kyle
Radek, Stacy Kilchenmann, Rita Cunningham, Todd Lavoie, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-.call Attendance.:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. Council. Thank you all. I apologize for the length of our meeting
before this and we will go ahead and get started. It is Tuesday, December 4th. It's 24
after 7:00. I will open tonight's City Council meeting with roll attendance. Mr. Berg.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 2 is our pledge of allegiance and since we did not have an
opportunity to ask anyone to lead us in the pledge, do I have a volunteer from one of
our Boy Scouts to lead us in the pledge? All right. You rock.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Craig Flinn with Meridian Alliance
Church:
De Weerd: Now, thank you. I will ask what your name is and what troop you represent.
Well, thank you., Jason. We appreciate it and I do have a City of Meridian pin I will ask
the city clerk to give you. Thank you for starting us off tonight. Okay. Item No. 3 is our
community invocation. Is Pastor Flinn here? Oh, there you are. We will be led tonight
by Pastor Craig Flinn. He's with Meridian Alliance Church. If you will all join us in the
invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection.
Flinn: In following Madam Mayor's suggestion, I'd like to lead us in three moments of
silence for different communities of people around the world or here. First, for the
people that live along the coast of Washington and Oregon, if we could just consider
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 2 of 77
them. Remember our troops, whether they are serving us here in the United States or if
they are deployed abroad in many of the different situations they are deployed in. And
as the scriptures instruct us in First Timothy to remember those that serve us in
government, here locally, the leadership team that's before us. The police -- the law
enforcement, the firemen, the educators. Lord, we acknowledge that you're supreme.
You are not a man, you're a God, and you're among us. May you give us wisdom
tonight to see your will and the humility to walk in your ways. Particularly for this
leadership team that you have appointed for such a time as this, that they might see
what is right and their place of serving among us, to lead us and a place live, work, and
play that's not only safe, but filled with energy and that pleases you. Amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you, Pastor Flinn. We appreciate you joining us tonight. Item No. 4 is
the adoption of the agenda.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Let's see. We have had no items requested for continuance. On Item 11, the
resolution number is 07-589, and with that one comment I -- I'm sorry. Yes. And we do
need to add an item -- we need to add an Item 23, which would be an Executive
Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a) and (1)(f). And with that I move that we
adopt the agenda as written.
Rountree: Second.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. As amended.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as changed. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried..
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of November 13, 2007 City Council Special
Workshop Meeting:
B. Water Main Easement Agreement for Meridian First Baptist
Church:
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 3 of 77
C.
(Construction -Northwest Electric) for $9,349.00:
D. Water Main Easement Agreement for J&K investments,
Meridian, LLC:
E. Amendment to the Roster of Qualified Consultants for
Engineering Services, Water, Wastewater, and Miscellaneous
Public Works Projects of the City's Master Service Agreement
with H.W. Lochner, Inc.:
F. Approve Standard Form of Agreement with Brown
Construction,. Inc. for the Construction of the Black Cat Road
Water Main Improvements Project for $711,983.20:
G. Development Agreement: MI 07-012 Request for a
Miscellaneous application to modify several provisions of the
recorded Development Agreement (Inst. 107099628) for the
Gardner Ahlquist development and to include both phases of
Gardner Ahlquist Subdivision into one Development Agreement for
Gardner Ahlctuist Gateway by Timberline Surveying, PLLC -
Southeast Corner of East Franklin Road and North Eagle Road:
H. Approve New Beer and Wine License for Fuddruckers by
Grantt Grace Meridian, LLC at 3421 North Eagle Road:
I. Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreement for Black Cat Sewer
Trunk by Stetson Properties, LP:
De Weerd: Consent Agenda. Item 5.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as written and for the Mayor to
sign and the Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second..
De Weerd: I have a .motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 4 of 77
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Department Reports:
A. Mayors Office:
1. Appointment to Meridian Development Corporation:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 6 under department reports, I did get Councilmen
Gorton's a-mail about stepping down from the MDC, as he had a conflict and my
appointment would be is -- is there a memo form in front of you is to appoint the Mayor
as the other elected representative and would open it up to any questions.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we approve your appointment of yourself, the Mayor, to the open
seat on the MDC board.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd.: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Gorton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent
Agenda.
Item 8: Impact Fee Annual Report by Finance Department:
De Weerd: Item No. 8 is our impact fee and a report by our finance department. Stacy.
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, for 2007 I am the new --
De Weerd: Is that on? Is that mike on?
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 5 of 77
Canning: It's always on, so --
De Weerd: Okay.
Berg: You just got to get closer to it.
Kilchenmann: Okay. I just need to get closer. So, this is my first year as the impact fee
administrator, which I did with much help from my friends Ted and Rita and Todd, who
are all here tonight to answer questions. But if you will notice in your report on your
computer is the annual report and this is the annual report that was prepared with and
discussed by the committee and some of these pages were prepared in response to
various questions and so forth by the committee. So, I'm just going to go through them
quickly. The first three pages we discussed at the budget hearing previously. They are
the projected impact -- or they show you what we started with at the beginning of '06,
what we earned in revenue, what we expended, and what we have budgeted through
'08, with an estimated balance that we will have at the end of next year. Then, the new
green part that we have dropped underneath is just excerpted from the BBC original
plan that we did in 2006 for each department. So, these reports go through fire, parks,
and police, a page for each. Are there any questions on those particular pages? Okay.
After those three pages we did a report that's called an Impact Fee History and what we
did is just kind of to show you where the impact fee has gone since 2006 when we first
changed our methodology and accepted the BBC methodology. So, you can see the
maximum fee for the study is in the first column and, then, we have the fee that the
impact fee committee actually came back and recommended to you. And, then, in the
third column on December 1st is the fee that you actually adopted and the difference
between the fee that you adopted and the fee that the committee recommended is that
you switched part of the funds that were recommended for parks to fire. So, when we --
when we analyze this, the net impact was a loss to fire -- or a loss to police of about
155,000 dollars. So, although the bottom line impact fee was the same as the
committee recommended, there was a shift between departments. Then, in the next
column, dated November 7th is the fee that the committee -- the Impact Fee Committee
is recommending and they are recommending that that 246 dollars that was taken from
parks be reinstated to parks. And, then, there is a blank space for whatever we decide
tonight. So, any question on that page? The next page is a summary of all our -- all the
parks that we own and their stages of development. It's park acres per thousand.
Probably -- there are a lot of numbers on this page, but the most relevant numbers are
in the lower right-hand corner where you can see at the time of the BBC report our
acres per thousand were 2.838 and in 2007 they are 2.687. And so this -- this report
actually summarizes population, city acres, back to 2002.. It's got some historical basis.
And., then, the next page is just -- the committee was -- just wanted to look at building
permit sales, so we did residential building permit sales. It's kind of an historical -- the
same kind of thing you get on the monthly reports, but they were interested in the
commercial building permits, seeing that by square footage, since the public safety
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 6 of 77
impact fees do have a square footage calculation in them. And, then, the final -- final
page is the ordinance -- I believe that's right, Ted. Correct me if I'm wrong. But it allows
for us to use a factor to increase -- for increased costs in construction and it -- it
recommends something called an ENR, which is an Engineering News Report, which is,
basically, a compilation of construction numbers throughout the country to develop an
inflation factor, so to speak, and there are -- it either -- they are either calculated by
region or there is one that's compiled for the entire United States. After some
discussion, the committee felt comfortable with the using the whole United States one,
because if- concrete might be high in the west, doesn't necessarily mean it's more
expensive in the east, depending on the demand and supply and so forth. So, that's why
we decided to go with the one for the entire United States. The committee did not
recommend that we adopt the fee this year, but that is something that you can -- you
can still choose to do. It actually comes out for -- we go from November '06 to
November '07, it comes out to 2.28 percent. And if you have any -- which is 42 dollars
for the residential and a penny for the commercial. And if you have any detailed
questions about those, Todd will answer them, because he's an ENR expert. I believe
he put in front of you some -- some more information about how it's calculated.. So, are
there any ENR questions?
De Weerd.: Council?
Bird.: I have none.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Okay.
Kilchenmann: So, that --that concludes my report.
De Weerd: Council, you have no questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: You did such an outstanding job.
Zaremba: Pretty straight forward.
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I'm going to look over the foliage at you, Stacy. And I don't know if maybe this
is the time for the question or the next part of the process, but did the committee make -
- do an analysis and we were talking about indexing and construction costs, in trying to
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 7 of 77
catch those variables with regards to land acquisition costs and the changes in those
assumptions?
Kilchenmann: No. We didn't look. at land costs at all, just the construction.
Gorton: But was that discussed -- Madam Mayor? Was that discussed by the
committee or --
Kilchenmann: No. We discussed looking at it next year, but we did not look at changes
in land cost this year. So, we did not reopen the CfP plan, because when we re-open
the plan, then, we will go back in and the costs that were used in 2006 will most likely
go up. So, Ted might be able to -- if I'm not explaining that.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Gorton, the committee
did have quite a discussion about the inflation adjustment factor and one of the reasons
that they recommended against applying the inflation factor for the year 2008 is they
just weren't comfortable that the ENR was capturing the true cost inflation the items
included in our CIP, our Capital Immprovements Plan. So, when we get to Item 11 on
your agenda, that resolution, you can -- you can read that history that the ordinance
allows you to impose it, but the committee just thought that they would rather come
back and do a little bit more work on it for the 2009 calendar year.
Gorton: Okay. Thanks.
Item 9: Public Hearing: 3rd Reading of Ordinance Amendment to the Parks
and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule:
De Weerd: Any further questions? Hearing none, that was a report. It is -- does have a
relationship to probably No. 9. I will go ahead and open No. 9, the Public Hearing, with
the third reading -- this isn't the third reading of the ordinance.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council,. it is -- Item 10 is the referenced
ordinance.
De Weerd: It is the third reading of the ordinance amendment to the parks and
recreation impact fee schedule and I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments.
Baird: Madam Mayor, I would be happy to give some background on this. The impact
fee annual report did give you sort of a general background., but what you have before
you in the Public Hearing is on an ordinance that looks an awful lot like the ordinance
that was brought to you last year. It's based on the work that was done by BBC
Consulting in their 2006 report and what it is -- it brings forward to you the development
impact fee committee's recommendation that the City Council implement the 246 dollars
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 8 of 77
in the parks impact fee per residential building permit to institute the -- what has been
referred to as the fully funded impact fee. By way of background., last year when the City
Council decided to not impose the maximum fee for parks, you were, in essence,
making a commitment to fund the balance of the Capital Improvements Plan by general
fund dollars or other dollars and I think you will hear some testimony here from
members of the committee and members of the community. Their recommendation was
to impose it, but it was not unanimous. So, with that as way of background, I suggest we
take some testimony and address your questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. We do have a Public Hearing on this -- this item. Is there
anyone who would like to provide testimony? If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record..
LeClaire: Yes, I will. My name Tom LeClaire and I reside at 1923 Pratt in Meridian,
Idaho. I'm a member of the Meridian City Parks and Recreation Commission and I also
am a member of the impact fee advisory committee and I made the motion to adopt this
increase and so -- and Iwas -- so, I think it's good that I come here and encourage you
to vote for it. The committee had a very good discussion about this. We have a tight
housing market now and we have seen building permits decrease over the last year and
so it wasn't an easy -- it was not an easy decision, because of the change in the market
that we have seen in the last year, but, still, we felt as a group by a majority that this
recommendation from the 2006 advisory committee on impact fees was the right one. It
was defensible at the time and it would better help us fund to the capital improvements
needed in the Meridian park system as new construction continues in the future. And so
I would encourage the Council to vote for this ordinance change and I'd stand for any
questions you might have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
LeClaire: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thanks, Tim. Additional testimony?
Kunz: Madam Mayor, Gentlemen of the Council, I'm Joe Kunz, I represent the Building
Contractors Association and address would be 6206 Discovery Way and that is in
Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Kunz: I want to thank you for the opportunity to come and to address you tonight on this
important issue that not only involves us as the building industry, but the entire city as a
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 9 of 77
whole. When -- I was not in with the BCA a year ago when they adopted the current fee
structure and so as a member of the impact fee committee, when it came time to review
this year, I needed to start doing quite a bit of research and getting caught up to speed
on -- as I did, it was a very educational process for me and found out many of the things
that Ted has related to you here this evening in regards to the BBC report and their
Comprehensive Plan and ordinance adjustments that they propose to you. As was
mentioned, the fee a year ago, the maximum defensible allowable fee is 1,846 from the
BBC report. The Council chose to fund that at 1,600 dollars, lower than that maximum
allowable -- allowable report. When the recommendation did come out of the committee,
the recommendation was to split that -- that decrease in the maximum allowable
amongst all of the three impact fees that are collected., parks, fire, and police. Here at
Council it was changed to fund fire and police at their full one hundred percent, but we
remove -- it was an 89 dollar difference to fund those at their full cost and which came
out of the recommendation from the Council for the parks impact fee. So, the impact fee
committee a year ago went through a lot of discussion., as I have spoke to members that
sat on that committee, as to what they thought that fee level should be a year ago,
recommending that 1,600 dollar impact fee. As I spoke to them, a lot of their rationale
on -- on it was that -- going to that full maximum defensible allowable, would -- that it
would be too harmful to the industry and that it was not the correct time. The fee as is
doubled a year ago to go to that 1,600 dollar level and that it was not the correct time to
go beyond that. I'm here tonight and -- and want to argue that -- that nothing has
changed from a year ago. In fact, the market conditions have even gotten worse in the
last year and to go beyond that -- or to increase the fees at this time would be a greater
strain than it was a year ago. Our builders are -- the housing slow down, as you're
aware, has affected the Treasure Valley, as well as the whole nation and our builders
are struggling right now through these conditions. The prices that they are receiving for
their homes, their sale prices, in many instances don't even cover the costs that they
are putting into build those homes and so it is -- it is very difficult and in that -- in those
conditions any fee increase is magnified. So, by raising these at this time it would have
a much greater effect even than what the increase did a year ago. I also encourage you
to use caution in increasing these fees, that as was discussed, there has been many
things in the inflation. We as the committee did not feel comfortable recommending an
inflationary increase this year through our discussions and especially in the parks fee, I
would argue, has seen the most charge. The majority of the funds coming out of the
parks impact fee go to fund new parks and buying -- the primary cost is buying new
land.
De Weerd: Can I ask you to, please, summarize?
Kunz: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 10 of 77
Kunz: All right. This new -- new land prices, as a result of the slow down, have -- prices
have fallen, therefore, the -- with not being able to revisit the capital improvements plan
every year, that would be cost prohibitive. There should be consideration taken into the
increase in parks impact fee that those land prices have fallen and the Capital
Improvement Plan would not be as large -- were able to be adopted again this year.
Also., when you're talking about impact fees and fees in general, there must be an
affordability side wage -- or taken into account --
De Weerd: I need a -- I'm sorry. I need to cut you off and ask Council if they have any
questions.
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: I have a question and it's -- it's the same question I asked last year, in terms
of the cost to provide these services don't change. I mean the CIP was accepted by the
committee last year. In fact, many of those we found were underestimated in the cost.
So, by not charging the full impact fee, the cost is still there. Who does that cost get
passed onto if we do not charge it to the growth that it needs to respond to?
Kunz: The cost is there, as you have mentioned. That cost continues to go on and the
fire and police portion of those capital improvement plans, due to your
recommendations ayear ago -- and, Council, I commend you for those -- are funded at
one hundred percent. The parks impact fee is the only one that is not and as I was
describing., there are many factors that go into that. The largest portion is that raw land
value, which has decreased during the last year and, therefore, the impact -- or the
amount of increase is not necessarily as large as needed to be. My recommendation
would be to restore that 89 dollars to the parks that the Council removed in Council
meeting a year ago, to restore it to what the committee recommended a year ago, but
not go to the full 246 that is allowable.
De Weerd: So -- but what -- we are actually developing land that we already have and
those costs have been increased., so the cost of the -- this growth to respond, you know,
to the capital needs to serve the increased growth, that cost, essentially, will be passed
onto the current residents. So, then, the committee is recommending -- or your group
that you represent on this committee is recommending, then, that cost be, then,
deferred to the existing residents?
Kunz: Not simply to the existing residents, that are -- they are -- as I have mentioned,
the need may not be as large as it was a year ago for this parks capital improvement
plan. Yes, there are many things going into the construction of the -- the equipment for
the park is still there and those costs have risen, but there is an offset with the fall in
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 11 of 77
land prices and the shift goes onto Meridian city residents, either through increased --
whether it's in the impact fee, it goes through increased home values and reduces
affordability for people to live in the City of Meridian on those increases to new homes,
as comparables will increase the cost of housing across the board, and so it will
increase everyone's cost of living in Meridian as a result of that, not -- and so either way
it will be bore by all citizens. .
De Weerd: I guess, you know, that is one of the things that I did ask of the committee is
to open up the CIP to -- to have that reality check adjustment, both with the cost of land
and with the cost of -- of our projects. I think they could have washed -- been a wash,
but it was suggested by our consultant that we hired three years ago to not do it more
than every three years. So, is your suggestion that that CIP should have been opened
and -- and re-evaluate the cost of those, so we could fairly assess what the maximum
allowable amount should be?
Kunz: No. My assessment is that the CIP should not be opened every year, that is a
very costly and time consuming process that would cause even more dollars to be spent
by the city in consulting fees and it is not a necessary thing to bring consultants in to
review the CI'P every year, but there are certain factors which we, as members of the
committee and as citizens of Meridian, and as Council members you can address on a
yearly basis and this is one of those that I -- that I feel can be addressed without
opening up the entire CIP.
De Weerd: Okay.
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Baird.
Baird: If I could add by way of information and a reminder that the Capital
Improvements Plan is a ten year plan and as you pointed out, what we have been
concentrating on in the last year and in the foreseeable future is developing the land
that we own and this -- this Council has seen month after month budget requests for
budget increases due to cost increases in the cost of developing those parks. So, I think
the point has to do with which of those items on this Capital Improvements Plan you're
choosing to perform within that ten year period and I think the point's well taken that
right now we are trying to deal with the land we already have. I'm not trying to advocate,
I'm just trying to point out some facts by way of information.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions for Mr. Kunz. Thank you. This is a Public
Hearing. Is there any further testimony? I do see a couple of other committee
members. Yes, Mr. Turnbull.
Meridian Ciry Council
December 4, 2007
Page 12 of 77
Turnbull: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. David Turnbull, 12601 West Explorer
Drive, Boise. I didn't come here tonight to discuss this matter and I'm not probably
terribly prepared., but I would add a couple of points to what Joe said. And I have not
analyzed your CIP and I don't know what all the components are. I know that Council
talked about your priority now is to develop existing land, so it looks like new land
purchases are probably off the table and if that's so, that's fine and good, but I guess I'd
ask the question is land purchase a part or a component of your CIP and if it is, you
need to examine what the cost basis is you're looking at for land, because I would tell
you in the last year land costs probably -- raw land costs have probably declined about
40 percent. I do know, too, that we are seeing better bids in almost every infrastructure
or project we do now. You will recall we just opened up the McMillan-Meridian
intersection and the cost figures on that were, you know, not -- not what we would have
liked to have seen them be. We just bid out the Linder-McMillan intersection and we
were just so pleasantly surprised, we didn't know that we would be able to get all of the
improvements in that design completed for the budget that we had and we had an
outstanding bid.. So, that's just one example of how some costs are coming down.
De Weerd: So, you will get all the improvements done?
Turnbull: It will go -- it will go all the say passed the high school.
De Weerd: Oh, very good..
Turnbull: Yeah. Very cool. I do know that in our internal subdivision improvements we
are seeing better costs from almost all of our subcontractors. Probably the one major
component would be anything related to oil and those -- you know, so PVC pipe keeps
going up with the cost of oil. But everything else, including labor, seems to be coming
down. And I'll try to be brief. I have been through some budgets with my home division
recently, because, as you know, home prices are suffering, too, and we have to build
homes more efficiently and so I have given them a mandate that they have to have a
minimum ten percent cost reduction in just their hard cost of building and they have
been able to do that with the exception of one cost, which is the one uncontrollable cost
we have and that's called city fees, impact fees, sewer fees, so forth. And., of course, we
don't have any control over that. And as I go comparing plans from year to year to year,
I have seen the cost of that line item go from about 5,000 dollars to 10,000 dollars. And
those -- you know, I think we are probably used to the idea that they are never going to
come down, but I think Joe does make a good point that we have to look at this in the
eye of the current economy and if the components of your cost structure that go into
your impact fee are, in fact, coming down, then, maybe there is some latitude for you to
at least not increase the fee as much as you might be allowed to do. So, those are my
only comments. Like I said, I don't have any details that I can give you from your own
plan that would help support that argument, but I did want to add that for the record.
Thank you..
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 13 of 77
De Weerd.: Thank you. Any quesfiions, Council?
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, can I just add a little on the land cost?
De Weerd: Do you have a question for Mr. Turnbull?
Kilchenmann: No.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Turnbull: Then I can sit down?
De Weerd: Yes.
Kilchenmann: It's just some information. In our CIP plan that we are using, land was
110,000 an acre, was the value, and we have not purchased any land in the last year,
but we did receive a developer donation within the last year and they value the land --
they valued the land that they gave us during the past year at 170,000 an acre. So, that
is a substantial increase from the value that we originally put in the CIP plan.
De Weerd: I won't ask whose donation that was. Is there any further testimony?
Council, it does not appear that we have further testimony from the public. Do you have
any additional information that you need from staff?
Rountree: I don't.
De Weerd: Thank you.. Well, I would entertain a motion to close this Public Hearing,
then.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'd move that we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 9.
Bird: Second..
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 9. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 14 of 77
Item 10: Ordinance No. 07-1342 An Ordinance to Amend the
Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho,
Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Exhibit A, Meridian City Code, Known
as the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule; to Provide for
an Amendment to the Parks 8~ Recreation Impact Fee Schedule; and
Providing an Effective Date (3rd Readings):
De Weerd: Item 10 is in relationship to Item 9 and that's Ordinance No. 07-1342. I will
ask Mr. Berg to, please, read this ordinance by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 07-1342, an
ordinance to amend the municipal code of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of
Idaho, amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Exhibit A, of the Meridian City Code, known as the
Meridian impact fee ordinance fee schedule, to provide an amendment to the parks
impact fee schedule and provide an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would
like to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing none. Council? We are at the third reading
and so I would need a motion to know the direction you would like to go on this.
Zaremba; Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we adopt ordinance number 07-1342.
De Weerd: I have a motion to approve the ordinance on Item 10. Do I have a second?
Rountree: I'll second that.
De Weerd: Do we have discussion? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll?
Berg: Madam Mayor, I do have a discussion that I need to have -- make sure we have
the effective date.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the state statute requires that if you do
adopt a change in your fee, that the effective date can be no earlier than 30 days after
fhe date of publication and that would be no sooner than -- I'm looking. It would be the
first week in January of 2008.
De Weerd: So --
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 15 of 77
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, the maker of the motion would suggest the first of February,
2008.
Rountree: No.
Zaremba: Is that a reasonable suggestion?
De Weerd: Does second agree? And I guess that would be the test. Does second
agree to that effective date?
Zaremba: Do we have a calendar that shows February -- what day of the week is that?
It's a Friday?
Rountree: Well, there is plenty of cushion in that date certainly.
De Weerd: Second agrees. Discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The effective date's
February 1st, 2008.
RoJI-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Gorton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 11: Resolution No. 07-589
Adjustment:
Impact Fee Annual Inflation
De Weerd: Item 11 is resolution 07-589.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: The resolution provided in our package actually requires us to make the
decision. It provides, as I recall, both options, either that we raise it by the permissible
2.28 percent or that we waive the inflation adjustment for this year. I don't know whether
should make the motion first or discuss it first. I guess I'll discuss. Having taken the
committee's recommendation to amend the fee, I'm inclined to also take the committee's
recommendation not to add the inflationary adjustment this year. I think doing one or the
other is -- is necessary and having done one, I would suggest that we not do the other
this year. If we had not passed the other ordinance, I would actually be in favor of the
inflationary adjustment, but we are recovering, I believe, what we need to recover to
keep the CIP in effect without taking too much additional fund out of the general fund
Meridian city Council
December 4, 2007
Page 16 of 77
and, therefore, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion. I move that we pass
resolution 07-589, making the choice that we not -- I'm sorry. Let's see how it's worded..
Making the choice that the city has elected to waive the inflation adjustment for the 2008
calendar year.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second regarding resolution on Item No. 11. Any
discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: For discussion of this -- in the earlier vote, which for me is difficult -- it was
difficult last year trying to make that increase. One of the things that we discussed last
year and sort of phasing it in some of the concepts and take some of the sting out of the
increased impact fees, it's difficult to support entirely, although I do support it and I'm
sensitive to what Joe and David have said., we know clear well that it's difficult times and
the city's sensitive to try and do what we can to -- to make that work. I wholly support
waiving the inflation adjustment and I appreciate Stacy's comments with regards to
reassessing some of these costs, not only the construction costs, but the land costs as
we move forward to make sure that we actually capture the true expenses and nothing
more -- well, with these impact fees. I know it's always the intent, but we want to make
sure we don't error too high, by any means. So, while I begrudgingly support adding on
the additional park impact fees, I'm just adamant in my opposition to an annual inflation
adjustment as well.
De Weerd: So, you're speaking in favor of this motion?
Borton: Very much so.
De Weerd.: Thank you..
Borton: I think I'm the second.
De Weerd: Any further discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 17 of 77
MOTION CARRPED: ALL AYES.
Item 12: Public Hearing: Substantial Amendment of CDBG Five-Year
Consolidated Plan and 2007 Action Plan:
De Weerd: Item No. 12 is a Public Hearing and -- oh, there you are. I will go ahead and
open the Public Hearing on Item 12.
Kane: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of Council, I'm Emily Kane, I'm a Deputy
City Attorney for the City of Meridian. As you may recall, CDBG stands for Community
Development Block Grant, which is a grant program administered by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development and as required to apply for the CDBG
funds that were allocated for the city, we submitted a draft of our proposed five year
consolidated plan and 2007 program year action plan to HUD by August 15th, according
to HUD's regulations and I have been working with HUD representatives since that time
to address their reasons regarding the regulatory eligibility of our planned CDBG
programming under the original plans. So, with HUD's assistance, the plans, as
amended, are now in compliance with the regulations, but in the course of making those
revisions, the plans underwent a substantial amendment, which requires that we solicit
public testimony regarding the amended plans and initiated another 30 day public
comment period before HUD will release the funds under the revised plans. So, this
item is on your agenda tonight to allow public to testify regarding the amended plans,
which have been available for review by the public on our website and by hard copies in
notebooks at the library, the senior center, and City Hall for the past two weeks. So,
will be available to answer any questions you may have following the public testimony.
De Weerd: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. I would invite any of the public that
would like to comment on this item. Staff, any comments? Council, any questions
regarding this? I know we have seen the extensive part of it prior -- earlier this year and
these are just a few clean-up items that we had to come back through the process; is
that correct, Emily?
Kane: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council that is correct. The substantial
amendment was generally regarding the description of the activities that would be
conducted under the plans and under the definition of substantial amendment, as it was
defined in our citizen participation plan, under the original plans and as amended that
requires us to just make sure the public has the opportunity to comment on the -- it's not
exactly reworded, but the newly compliant portions of the action plan.
De Weerd: The most exciting part. So, Council, no questions for Emily at this point?
No public testimony? Then I --
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 18 of 77
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd:: Yes.
Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 12.
Bird.: Second..
Zaremba: Second..
De Weerd: I have a motion and a couple of seconds on closing the Public Hearing. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Next steps, Mr. Baird..
Rountree: We have to approve the amendment and the action plan, do we not?
Baird: Madam Mayor, I will hand that back over to Mrs. Kane and I want to also, while I
have got the microphone, I want to thank Emily for all the work that she's done on this.
It's the first year we have done this. It's hyper technical. She has really helped us get to
where we are and I will let her tell you what the next step is.
De Weerd: Well, I'd like to echo that. The learning curve has been huge and that you
have filled in the gaps very will and appreciate all your work. Next step.
Kane: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the public comment period is -- it's now
open and it will go through January 4th and this will be brought before you on I believe
your January 8th agenda to have you sign off on it and I'm hoping to submit it to HUD
on January 9th. With any Fuck, they will approve it that week. They have asked me to
submit four copies of what they have seen so far, so that's a sign that they are ready to
get the preliminary stuff out of the way, so they can just give it their stamp of approval
hopefully that week.
De Weerd: So, right now this was for a verbal public testimony, now we will seek the
written public testimony and ask for Council action, then, in January.
Kane: Madam Mayor, that's correct.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 19 of 77
Baird: Excuse me, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. I'm getting a hand
signal from Anna Canning that we probably need to reopen the hearing to get that on
the record what those next steps are.
Canning: Actually, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I thought the last time we
did this we kept the Public Hearing open until you had your next discussion on that item,
that the hearing record was kept open for that written testimony. I have stumped Mrs.
Kane.
Kane: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it was actually on its own night last
summer. It was on a Wednesday night and I believe that Mr. Berg closed the Public
Hearing at that time -- it's a little hazy. I think that was six months ago. I believe that
either way it would be procedurally appropriate.
Rountree: It's not going to hurt anything.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg.
Berg: Madam Mayor, not to get all mixed up with this, but when we did the grants with
the senior center and LP, we had to keep the Public Hearing open for -- was it seven
days, after we had the public for the written comments and., then, we closed it. This is a
little different. I don't think this is the same format that we did then. So, we might be
getting those two things mixed up. I remember closing the acceptance of anymore
information last time.
De Weerd: Well --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: I think we have to reopen it. I don't know how we can -- how we can continue if
there is a public comment period and someone provides comment between now and
the 4th and we would want to hear that and that might influence our decision on what
we do with the substantial amendment. I don't know how we go forward otherwise and
keeping the Public Hearing open. I guess our next meeting date after the 4th would be
January 8th, is a Tuesday, I don't know if that's too late, if we can continue it, leave it
open until January 8th, come back, find out what the public comment was, and take
action at that time. Hopefully that doesn't screw up the schedule.
De Weerd.: Mrs. Kane, does that work?
Meritlian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 20 of 77
Kane: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, I am looking up the
citizen participation plan, which is what governs this. Madam Mayor, Members of the
Council, it just says that written testimony will be accepted during the 30 day public
comment period and that a Public Hearing will be held to kick off that 30 day public
comment period and last time I personally accepted the public comments. There was
only one.
De Weerd: Well, we appreciate that one person who commented. I guess we can't error
by keeping this open, just for the public record. So, if it doesn't matter either way, just
error on the side of caution and ask Council to open the Public Hearing, if you so
choose.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we reopen the Public Hearing on Item 12 and continue that
hearing until January 8th, 2008.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and asecond --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, discussion. Madam Mayor, this may just be semantics, but in
order to have the intervening testimony part of it, I would suggest that we =- rather than
use the word reopen, that we cancel our closing of it or something to the effect that
makes it retroactive to -- so that we didn't ever close it.
De Weerd.: I --
Zaremba: I don't know if that's important or not.
De Weerd: -- don't think it matters.
Rountree: I think, Dave, you're being Dave.
Zaremba: Okay.
De Weerd: All those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 21 of 77
Kane: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Emily. I guess I should have asked you what the next steps
were before we entertained the motion to close the Public Hearing. So, we will hear this
again, then, on January 8th.
Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2007: RZ 07-016
Request for Rezone of 3.66 acres from R-15 zone to TN-R zone for
Gramercy Townhome Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. -
south of E. Overland Road and west of S. Eagle Road:
Item 14; Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2007: PP 07-016
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 38 single-family attached
residential lots on 2.81 acres for Gramercy Townhome Subdivision by
Tuscany Development, Inc. -south of E. Overland Road and west of S.
Eagle Road:
Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2007: CUP 07-018
Request for Conditional Use Permit for 32 multi-family dwelling units on 4
lots in an existing R-15 zone on 2.93 acres for Gramercy Townhome
Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. -south of E. Overland Road
and west of S. Eagle Road:
Item 16: Public Hearing: MI 07-015 Request for a Miscellaneous application to
modify the existing Development Agreement listing the permitted and
prohibited home occupational uses within the Brownstones (Live /Work
Units) and ensure the Brownstones and future condominiums are
constructed as shown with the submitted elevations for Gramercy
Townhomes by Tuscany Development, Inc -south of E. Overland Road
and approximately'/ mile west of S. Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Item No. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are all related. I will open up these public
hearings --
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Baird.: It's my understanding that Item 17 needs to stand alone, so it would be my
suggestion at this time to open 13 through 16.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 22 of 77
De Weerd: I will do so with the advice of our esteemed city attorney there. Items 13,
14, 15 and 16. I will open those public hearings and ask staff to comment.
Canning: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This project is the
Gramercy Townhome project. It's -- the site is approximately a quarter mile west of
Eagle Road and just south of Overland Road and the subject property is currently
located -- I'm sorry, I didn't need to include that part. The applications before you tonight
are a rezone, preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit, and a DA modification. The
request is to rezone 3.66 acres in the center of the project from R-15 to TN-R and that's
this lot here, with concurrent preliminary plat of 38 residential building lots on 2.81 acres
and that would allow for future construction of attached townhouses on that site. The
applicant also requests conditional use approval for multi-family residences on four
other existing R-15 properties, one, two, three and four. The applicant intends to
condominium the multi-family buildings consisting of 31 total units. As noted before, the
applicant is proposing a unique product mix for this development. They are essentially
townhouses, it's just some of them are on individual lots and some of them will be
condominium-ized. So, we classify them differently, but they are all primarily
townhouses. These are the townhomes in the center of the project. These are the ones
that are going to be on their own individual lots. So, they have a shared entrance going
to each unit -- this one has its own entrance and these two have a shared entrance.
These spaces down on first floor will be available either as far as the dwelling unit or as
part of a home occupation for a small office or other uses. And I will go through those in
detail, but I wanted to show you the elevations. These are the multi-family units and,
again, they are -- this is the garage side of them, so we have one, two, three, four
garages here. This is a typical layout for the multi-family, so you will see the driveways
coming in. Here is one, two, three and four. So, they will come off of a common parking
court, with the buildings facing that court, and, then, they will face the street in some
instances or generally landscaping. And., then, this is the Brownstones. The easiest way
to identify where you are on these Brownstones is to look for the stairs. So, here is a
stair well, here is a stair well coming up, and here is one, two, three there. So, this
would be four units and this would be the building with the five units. Okay. The gross
residential density is 12.02 units per acre for both projects combined. I did show you the
elevations already and, you know, just as a personal note I think we have been asking
applicants and challenging them to come in with good multi-family and transit supportive
densities and as staff we are excited to have an example to hold out in front of future
applicants with regard to this application. The Commission did recommend approval at
their October 18th, 2007, Public Hearing. Becky McKay and Joe Atalla spoke for the
applicant. No one spoke in opposition or commented or provided written testimony. Key
issues of discussion by the .Commission were parking for the future condominiums,
secondary access to the site, occupancy classifications, additional trees and foundation
landscaping. Whether the corners of the development should be considered reviewed
and multi-family apartments or single family condominiums. Requiring a 20 by 20
parking pad for the condominium units as stated in the staff report. And, then, the
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 23 of 77
applicant clarified at the hearing that future condominium units meet the 80 square feet
of private useful open space requirement for the UDC. Key Commission changes to
stafFs initial recommendation were they removed a condition requesting additional
parking spaces from the fire department. They provided additional trees and foundation
plantings and they amended condition 3.11 with regard to working with the Meridian Fire
Department in determining the classification of the Brownstone units. And they -- on
condition 3.2.3 and 4.2 they struck through the preferred location for secondary access
to Mountain View High School. The applicant has worked on several of those issues
prior to tonight's hearing. They have submitted a revised site plan, which is the one that
presented before you tonight, dated November 2nd., 2007, reflecting the Commission's
recommended parking standards, specifically with regard to the 20 by 20 parking pad
and the parking stalls dimensions for the multi-family units. The applicant has removed
one of the multi-family units now, so there are only 31 as I mentioned earlier. Originally
they requested 32. Staff did review the revised site plan and finds the applicant in
compliance with the city's parking standards. The applicant also submitted a
miscellaneous application to amend the development agreement for the site and the
proposed DA modifications pertain to tying it to the elevations I have shown you tonight
and also the potential home occupations on the site. So, staff has amended condition
1.1.3 related to the proposed DA modification and that DA modification -- the purpose of
it was to limit the uses and to note some of the prohibited uses within the Brownstones.
To give you a flavor for those, the allowed uses would be things like small offices,
accounting, architecture, engineering, things like that. Some of the prohibited uses
would be like a hair salon or a nail salon, so -- the idea is to keep very low impact uses
within there. The applicant provided us a response letter. They did request that we
remove one of the Public Works conditions related to flood plains. This site is not in a
flood plane, so staff does not object to removing the condition. The applicant also
requests removing a police department condition related to common entrances. The
applicant had already met with the police department to clarify their question regarding
shared entrances. There is no more than two units sharing an entrance and the police
have been concerned that there was more than four sharing those entrances. So, staff
is in favor of removing that condition as well. And with that I'll answer any questions you
may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: Not at this time.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You may have said it, Anna, but I might have missed it. Has the condition
related to the fire department's classification of the Brownstones been resolved?
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 24 of 77
Canning: My understanding was that, yes, it was resolved.
Rountree: And if the chief wants to answer, I'm --
Johnson: Madam Mayor, Councilman .Rountree, I believe so. When I talked to Deputy
Chief Silva he did not bring up anything about the classification, so he said he had been
working with the developer on this.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd.: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Anna, it is a rezone request. What other uses could occur in a TN-R zone if
the property were flipped?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council., the -- the home occupation
standards are more lax for the TN-R to allow them additional folks coming or perhaps
working there in the TN-R. So, you can have, I believe, one employee. I may have to
look Phis up. We haven't done too much TN-R. But it allows for clients to come to the
site and it does allow for an employee to come to the site. So, it loosens up some of our
home occupations, but we don't ever list what a home occupation is. We don't
specifically say these are the only things you can do with a home occupation. We rarely
have one that isn't just an at home office. So, I think that the applicant's intent was to --
fortheir purposes we'll narrow down what some of those uses -- allowed uses would be
and I'm -- I'm sure they can provide you more testimony on that as well.
De Weerd: Is there any -- so, there is no restrictions, but is there anything of concern,
then, from the fire department in types of materials stored or anything -- anything like
that?
Canning: There are general standards that it needs to be similar to what the residential
neighborhoods would have. So, we don't -- we've never had a .problem with it, just to be
honest. It's been -- they haven't been a problem. If there are problems it would be with
like a nail salon where there is fumes, possibly. I can bring up that section of code for
you while the applicant is speaking and have that available for you.
De Weerd.: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 25 of 77
Zaremba: I think in our application they suggested that among the prohibited
businesses be anything that required the plumbing to be rearranged. That probably
would cover the nail salons and the hair salons and, you know, a photo studio that they
have a different kind of waste and things like that. If I may segway to another question,
in the TN-R are there -- are there any different regulations about parking or signage?
Home occupancy businesses, just out in a general subdivision, are not allowed to have
signage, usually. But is any provision in TN-R? I have forgotten.
Canning: Home occupations are allowed one small sign and I don't believe there is any
special provisions for TN-R. I can double-check that quickly while the applicant is
speaking as well.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: And any concern -- I guess this kind of brings up new things and I know it
has -- had been discussed, but in terms of any special treatment from the sewer
treatment plant -- is there any concern from Public Works on these zones? Has that
been discussed? I don't remember any kind of discussion as far as what might be going
into our waste stream.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council., we did discuss it with the building
department, with members of Public Works, at that time and one of the qualifications
they were looking for is that it not have an impact on the plumbing, as I recall, that it
needed to be standardized, so that would insure that there weren't additional impacts on
the sewer or the water in the area.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Hi.
McKay: Hi. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Becky McKay,
Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario. I'm representing the applicant on this
particular application. Just to kind of refresh your memory, on the Gramercy project we
-- it was a mixed use project. We had retail along Overland. We proposed some multi-
story office toward the mid section, and as we moved south toward Thousand Springs,
which is single family development, we transition to residential with a differing type of
residential. We had the -- the -- what we call the courtyard units here, which were
detached single family dwelling sharing a common drive and, then, we identified these
corners here, here, and here is Kiwanis Park. This corner here, here and here and here
as future multi-family. It was at the request of staff and the desire of the Council that we
come back for a Conditional Use Permit to show the Council what those units would
look like and that's one reason that we are here this evening. Secondly, we worked
diligently on these Brownstones here. There is an alley access that comes through the
middle. Those are the -- what we call the live-work. With those particular units we -- we
were at 2,376 square feet for each particular lot that that townhouse sits on and under
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 26 of 77
that R-15 designation we needed to be 2,400, so we were just a little bit under that. In
meeting with staff and talking through this project, it was their recommendation that the
rezone TN-R just for this Brownstone area made the most sense. Then, we didn't have
an issue of the 24 square foot shortage that we had on our lot sizes and, then, we would
fall within that -- the live-work scenario would be allowed under that TN-R. The other
thing the staff asked us to submit was a modification to our development agreement.
Basically to clarify these -- the live-work units, as far as what particular uses are
allowed.. These will be owner occupied. They can't lease the space out. The intent is the
owner that lives there, maybe he's an accountant, maybe he sells insurance, that they
would have an office area on that bottom level and, then, the other two floors are their
own residents and those are townhomes. The work area, the maximum would be 545
square feet, so it's very small. The things that we listed would be any type of
professional office and that's typically with a home occupation permit, what -- jurisdiction
C and they also find studios, so someone has their -- they are an artist and they have a
little studio, they may give lessons. Jewelry, crafts, something like that., on a very very
small scale. So, you know, if the Council wants some further clarification or language
put in that development agreement, I think we are comfortable with that. We didn't want
to list everything, because you just -- it's impossible, you know, to have it take in any
possible use. It was our desire with this project originally that with the nice balance of
mixture that people can live and work here, in the retail area, the office area, and even
within their own home and if you .look -- Anna, could you put up the elevations? We
wanted to make sure that unlike other multi-family developments in the valley, some of
them that the Council has not been very pleased with the esthetics of them, we wanted
a variety of looks and they came up with this French country look and the English
cottage look. So, we will have a variety. These particular units come in pods of five,
four, three and two. So, that also gives them a difference in their appearance. The other
thing that was nice is their orientation where the -- Anna, if you will go back to the site
plan -- oops. The orientation of them, the bulk of the building is not what you see from
the street. What you see is the end of the building and I had an opportunity to go to
California and go through a project that had this type of product and that really made a
visual difference, because you don't see all that bulk and you could walk by some of
those multi-family townhomes -- I thought it was a single family dwelling until I took
another look and you get the landscaping in there and it's -- it's really a nice feel and we
believe that what we are proposing here is really going to make a statement and that
has been our intent. One of the other things that the staff wanted me to clarify -- I think it
was that we will meet the 80 square foot of private usable area per unit. We will be
meeting that. We had a lengthy discussion with the Planning and Zoning Commission
about the parking pads in front of the two car garages for each unit. We ended up
adjusting our site plan and meeting that 20 by 20 pad that the ordinance required. The
debate came when you're talking condominiums versus townhomes and the definitions
and., luckily, we got through that and only lost one unit in making this fit the
recommendation of the Commission. As far as the size of these townhomes, they will be
up to 2,000 square feet. The Brownstones here will be up to 2,400 square feet, so they
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 27 of 77
are pretty good sized units. As far as the amenities in this particular project, I think the
staff asked that I clarify that. The multi-use pathway that we originally proposed coming
down the Ridenbaugh and, then, going into Kiwanis Park and, then, wrapping back into
the Gramercy project, has been completed. We did donate this 2.14 acre parcel here as
part of Kiwanis Park and financially participated in the improvements of Kiwanis Park.
There is a pocket park here between the two Brownstone buildings. Those
improvements have been completed and it does have an interactive water feature in it.
We show another pocket park here and that would, obviously, be installed when these
particular units here are developed. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Anna, can we go back to the elevations?
McKay: The live-work ones?
De Weerd.: Yeah. The condominiums, I guess.
McKay: These?
De Weerd: Yeah. So, it's -- it's -- the bottom floor is just doors, either a front door or
garage doors. Are those doors that -- I'm trying to figure out --
McKay: It's kind of hard to see.
De Weerd: I guess my question is the bottom -- the first level on that are just doors,
either garage doors or front doors.
McKay: Right. But they do have decorative features on those garages. We also had
islands separating -- little landscape islands separating each particular parking area to
break that look up. I'd probably want Joe -- if you want to ask questions about the
architecture, to discuss that, because he was the one that worked closely with the
architect on this design.
Canning: And.., Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you look at the site plan, the
only elevations you will see from the street are the side elevations and there are no
garages on the side elevations. So, if you look up here, this is the side elevation you will
see from the street. You will see the side elevation here, as well as here and here. This
is a smaller unit. The only people that really see the garage one are the inhabitants of
the -- the units. It's similar to the alley concept where there is a lot of garages along the
alley, but, then, the street facades don't have any garages.
De Weerd: Well, I don't know. It is the elevation you will see from the park, from
Kiwanis Park.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 28 of 77
McKay: You will see the side.
Canning: It's just the -- there is a two -- just the two unit one here and the garages
would be -- actually, on that one I guess the garages do face the street. Probably the
most visible elevation will be the rear of this one from the YMCA parking lot.
De Weerd.: And is the rear elevation -- what's the rear elevation look like? Do you have
a rear elevation?
McKay: No. Madam Mayor, we do not have a rear elevation of that structure.
De Weerd: Council., any questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: The Brownstones, I believe it is, that have stairways leading up to two
entryways --
McKay: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: -- are those ever going to be condominiums or will that be a single business
-- a single building with five or six different occupations?
McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, those will be townhouses, so they will
have own their lot, the live-work area, and, then, the dwelling above it.
Zaremba: Then --
McKay: They will not be condominiums. The only ones that will be condominiums are
the -- these corner units that you see here and here. These are all townhouses and the
plat is before you tonight for the 38 townhomes.
Zaremba: Then, my question is on the townhome ones, there would be a property line
down the center of the stairway; is that correct?
McKay: That's correct.
Zaremba: Which leads me to the next question. Where we have had driveways that
had something like that, we have required cross-access agreements. I'm concerned that
you may some day have owners in one apartment that don't get along with the owner of
the other apartment and try and put a barrier down the middle of the steps, because it's
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 29 of 77
their property line and I'm curious whether anybody else thinks that there should at least
be a perpetual cross-access agreement to the stairway in place.
McKay: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure if that would be necessary, because you have half
on one side and half on the other. If we go to that elevation --
Zaremba: How wide are the stairway? I'm sorry.
McKay: Probably six is what I'm told.. I mean one could note on the plat -- it gets pretty
messy when we try to put those cross-access easements, especially if they are small,
on the plats. It's better to note on the plat and, then, obviously, include it in the CC&Rs.
Zaremba: That would work.
McKay: Would that be acceptable?
De Weerd: It's an interesting question.
Zaremba: I just think it should be noted somewhere that people understand that
somebody else is going to walk on half of their stairs or --
De Weerd: Or there is a liability on half of their stairs. Are these single ownership? Are
these -- would it have individual ownership?
McKay: Yes. Each -- each home would have individual ownership. So, you would look
at it just like if it were a townhome. So, what you're looking at here is five different units
with five different ownerships.
De Weerd: And who maintains the stairs, then?
McKay: They have to spell that out in the CC&Rs.
De Weerd: So, that would be something --
McKay: Just like with an alley.
De Weerd: -- in the CC&Rs?
McKay: Absolutely. It would be very similar to who will maintain that alley in perpetuity.
There has to be provisions in those CC&Rs for that. So that, you know, it would be
similar with these.
De Weerd: So, it sounds like that's taken care of in the CC&Rs.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 30 of 77
Zaremba: It certainly could be. I could be satisfied with that.
McKay: And we have met, Madam Mayor, with the fire department I think four times,
tweaking this, making sure that the fire access, emergency vehicle access to these
structures, was adequate on the issue of the classification, so that -- that has been all
worked out.
De Weerd: Those are nice.. I'm not sure about the garages, but I always have an issue
with that.
McKay: Madam Mayor --
De Weerd.: Maybe I do want to talk to your --
McKay: If they put -- I have noticed if they put windows -- decorative windows in them
or different designs on the garage, it makes all the difference in the world as far as the
esthetics when you look straight on. But I will have Joe kind of go through the
architecture with you. That's why he's here.
De Weerd: What, did you anticipate this?
Atalla: Joe Atalla, Parkpoint Development, 6223 North Discovery Way, Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Atalla: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's been our goal in this project to try to
mitigate the impact of cars and garages and all that throughout the whole thing., not just
the residential park, but also the retail and commercial areas, and Anna -- yeah. Thank
you. The courtyard units that Becky mentioned, these here, they are oriented in a way
to hide the garages, so there aren't garages along the street. The Brownstones have the
garages on the alley and so these townhomes -- well, condominium units here function
similarly in that their garages are not facing the public street, they are only -- as Becky
mentioned before, the people that would see those garages are the people who live
there. And so from the public realm, it's very well mitigated in terms of the parking
garage -- you know, the garages. This here is oriented this way, specifically because we
provided additional parking here at the request of -- I believe Planning and Zoning,
Council planning staff originally for the Kiwanis Park and the police department wanted
access into here, so that they can get a better visual of the entire park from that vantage
point. So, that's why those units right in this pod are oriented that way specifically. The
elevations -- well, if you can go back to those. Thank you. There may be, you know,
considerable garage along this facade, but the units still function as separate units,
each with the front door,, as Anna mentioned -- or as Becky mentioned before and I
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 31 of 77
think Anna did., too, these -- this here would be the elevations seen from the streets. So,
you would have a front door, no garage visible from the public street. But with the
architectural enhancements, stone, here we have brick, as well as the tree planters,
landscaping in front of there, we feel at least -- and hope you agree -- that -- that that
mitigates the -- the presence of those garage doors in that private auto court area. Is
there any other questions?
De Weerd: Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you, Joe. This is a Public Hearing. Is there any public testimony on
this application? Council, any questions needed from the applicant or staff at this time?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I need confirmation from staff that I understand what I think I
understand. Essentially on that diagram, the rezone is for this property?
Canning: Yes, sir.
Rountree: And that would take care of Item 13. The Brownstones are this area and that
takes care of Item 14. And the difference between the acreage here for the
Brownstones and the entire acreage is the acreage for the park between those two
items, because there is about 8/10ths of an acre difference.
Canning: I'll have to double-check. Perhaps the applicant can nod at me. Do you have
two separate plats or are these -- two -- yes, sir, that would appear to be correct.
Rountree: And Item 15 would be the four corners and you have not held that up long
enough for me to count the units, but it says 32, but I believe we were told there would
be 31.
Canning: Yes, sir. And I did count the units.
Rountree: I amaze myself. Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I can go over the home occupation
stuff. I checked the TN-R. There are no special provisions in the TN-R with regard to
uses or home occupations. The standards. are in here. The allowances are made for
provisions B, C, E and F in the TN-R and it's says you don't have to strictly comply. It
does leave a little latitude for staff to perhaps not strictly comply. The first one is that --
which all home occupations would be held to, is that you cannot cause the premises to
differ from the residential character. The home occupation shall be conducted entirely in
the dwelling. Again, there are some provisions within the TN-R to not hold them strictly
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 32 of 77
to that. Because there is no other room on the site, they will be held to the dwelling in
this case. No activity connected to a home occupation or any storage of goods or
products connected with a home occupation shall be allowed in any detached
accessory structures. Again, that won't apply, because there is no detached accessory
structure.. Home occupations shall not have more than two outgoing pickups per day.
There are provisions to allow more than that in this zone. The home occupation shall be
conducted by the inhabitants of the dwelling and no more than one nonresident
employee shall be permitted. Again, there is allowances for a little more than that. Home
occupations shall not serve as a headquarters or main office where employees come to
the site and are dispatched to other locations. They would be held to that. No retail
sales shall be permitted from the dwelling, except the sale of services or items produced
or fabricated on the premises as a result of the home occupation or to products related
to the home occupation. Then off-street parking shall be provided. All visits by clients,
customers, and/or employees shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Anna, on H can you give me an example of what's a home occupation -- the
number two -- or, excuse me, the retail sale of a product related to the home
occupation? What's that?
Canning: We sometimes get hair salons as home occupations and they sell shampoo,
conditioner, jell, spiking jell. Or it could be somebody that makes crafts and sells those
crafts from that location.
De Weerd: So, if you go there for a haircut, you can't buy hair products?
Canning: No. You know. That's the exception.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay.
Canning: But you couldn't go have your hair done and, then, buy candy.
De Weerd.: Oh, bummer.
Canning: Unless it can also serve to spike your hair.
Borton: Okay. Thanks.
Zaremba: I used to put candy in my hair and you can tell it's not a good idea. It pulls it
all out.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 33 of 77
Canning.: Especially the bubble gum, sir.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You suggested, you know, somebody who makes jewelry. Whoever makes
jewelry doesn't form the beads in a glass oven, they probably don't form the string that
holds the beads together. So, they import that material, yet that's thrown up as an
example. I suggest an occupation that filled this room one evening a number of years
ago that could just as well fall into the category with pieces, parts, that are delivered by
UPS and assembled in the home and cause a great furor and it was a firearms dealer.
And you can acquire all of the pieces, parts, to do that and assemble whatever the
product might be. So, not that that's necessarily germane to this, but to me there is a
weakness in that whole definition, because I'm looking at our legal counsel down at the
end of the room and he has a rather perplexed look on his face. Not that it would, but I
mean that's -- I don't know how you get around it with that definition.
Canning: And, sir, they do apply to us --
noxious uses or unsafe uses and Ithink --
would deny a firearms application and hav
applicant wouldn't mind prohibiting firearm
absolutely positive.
there is a general provision that prohibits
I can assure you that if staff asked me, I
e them bring it up to you, but I'm sure the
sales if you would like to do that. I'm
Rountree: That's one of a whole lot. That's one of a whole lot.
Canning: Well -- and there are -- in general it has to not different from the residential
character. That -- I guess all I would say is that you need to trust staff a little bit to bring
that to your attention and not think that that was appropriate fora residential
neighborhood.
Rountree: Oh, we do.
Canning; Not on my watch, sir.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: The thought occurs to me -- these houses are designed intending to have a
home occupation in them. They still will be required to get a permit.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 34 of 77
Canning: Yes., sir. We require them to fill out a piece of paper telling us what it is and
make sure that it meets the standards and, then, we keep that on file.
Zaremba: And., then, I would suggest to the applicant that that's probably another item
that ought to be mentioned in the CC&Rs, just so everybody is aware of it.
De Weerd: So, any other questions? Does the applicant want to respond, have any
comment -- they are not paying attention.
Canning: Sorry, ma'am.
De Weerd: Becky, do you have any response? Do you want to make any comment
based on the discussion?
Canning: Madam Mayor, I think that the police department would like Becky to
summarize her conversations regarding secondary access, if the Council would
entertain that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Atalla: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I will clarify for Becky, she was not
there for that meeting. We met with John Overton with the police department, as well as
Joe Silva from the department and -- Anna, if you could -- I don't know which plat is
best. Actually, this one's probably okay.
Canning: This one or this one, Joe. I thought this one was better.
Atalla: Yeah. This one's a little bit clearer. These are our commercial lots in here. There
are three one acre commercial lots here and what we all agreed upon was to provide
emergency vehicle access through here along the shared lot line, which would align
with this road that we have in our phase two and that would provide the emergency
vehicle access needed. You can see that property line right there in the top right corner.
And so that would align with this road to provide that secondary access. The fire
department and the police department seem supportive of that.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, while Joe is still there, could you give me a sense of what the
neighbor side of the townhomes will look like? We have seen what the owner side will
look like elevationwise. At the park and at this southeastern corner.
Atalla: Oh. Okay. At the park here -- Anna, if you can go back to the site elevations. At
the park you will see this type of elevation here. The entry to the house is off to the side,
so that's what will face the park down there. And, unfortunately, we did not bring a rear
elevation for these units, but it would look like a typical residential -- you know, there is
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 35 of 77
-- there is movement and play in the roof lines, it's not just one massive roof, so there is
-- there is movement in the floor plan to allow architectural variation in features that
make the units feel more like individual units, rather than one large structure, if that
answers the question.
Rountree: We don't have a flat blank wall?
Atalla: No. We do not have a -- no. And., also, along the southern border there -- this is
Kiwanis Park along here and, then, the Ridenbaugh Canal and, then, the -- I think
Thousand Oaks Subdivision below that. So, there is definitely distance between that.
We have donated those 15 acres -- or those 15 foot wide buffer to the park along the
multi-use pathway, which is landscaped, and so this should be sufficient buffer to -- for
those rear elevations.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: So, you have the path and the ditch or --
Atalla: Yeah. The canal.
De Weerd: Canal. Anything further from Council? Staff, any further issues or items?
Canning: No, ma'am. Thank you.
De Weerd: Seeing no further testimony or information needed, I would entertain a
motion to close.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Having heard all staff and applicant testimony and given the public the
opportunity to speak, although none did, I move that we close the Public Hearing on
Item 13, 14, 15 and 16.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd.: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Items 13
through 16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARR'LED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd.: Okay.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 36 of 77
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd.: Yes.
Zaremba: I move that we approve RZ 07-016, PP 07-016, to include the secondary
access as described by the applicant. CUP 07-018, indicating 31 multi-family dwelling
units, and MI 07-015, all relating to Gramercy Townhomes Subdivision and including all
staff comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Items 13, 14, 15 and 16. Any
discussion by Council? Hearing none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17: Public Hearing: SHP 07-008 Request for Short Plat approval to create 2
building lots on 4.86 acres in a C-G zone for Gramercy by Kenai Partners,
LLC - 1925 S. Wells Avenue:
De Weerd.: Item 17 is a Public Hearing on SHP 07-008. I will open this with staff
comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Gramercy short plat and
it's located at 925 South Wells Avenue on the east side of Mountain View High School.
The property was previously platted as Lot 7, Block 3 of Gramercy Subdivision No. 1.
The application before you tonight is a short plat for two commercial building lots on
4.86 acres in a C-G zone. Staff recommendation is for approval. The subject property
meets all applicable -- applicability requirements for a short plat. We have not received
any written testimony. The applicant has provided us with a written agreement of the
conditions and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. The
odd shape of the lot line reflects the fact that it goes through the center of a building and
accommodates different open space. So, there will be one single building -- or not open
space, but common space within the building. So, it's just one building, but it will have a
lot line going through it. And with that I will answer any questions Council may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird.: I have none..
Meridian city Council
December 4, 2007
Page 37 of 77
De Weerd.: Applicant comments? Council, any questions of the applicant? Does staff
have questions of the applicant?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was a little concerned -- I know
there is cross-access easements located on the underlying plat and I want to make sure
the applicant was aware that those would stay with this plat. I'm getting nods of
agreement.
De Weerd: It appears that they don't have issue, but we will find out. If you will, please,
state your name and address.
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. Yes,
Madam Mayor, we do reflect all of the easements that we created on the -- on the
original Gramercy No. 1. And, then, like staff said, the zig and the zag is to follow the
firewall between the YMCA and Intermountain Orthopedic. And based on
recommendations from Daunt, we needed to be absolutely perfect in the center of that
firewall. And so that's why it looks so strange.
De Weerd: And that's the technical term of zig and zag; right?
McKay: That's what it looked like to me.
De Weerd.: Thank you. Council, any further information needed?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, have we asked the public if they have any comment?
De Weerd: Is there any public testimony? Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, having heard all staff and applicant testimony, and given the
public the opportunity to speak, I hereby move we close the Public Hearing on SHP 07-
008.
Rountree: Second..
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 17. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd.: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 38 of 77
Zaremba: I move we approve SHP 07-008 to include all staff comments.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 17. If there is no discussion,
Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Cash Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea;. Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18: Public Hearing: SHP 07-009 Request for Short Plat approval to create 4
units in 1 commercial building lot on 0.20 of an acre in a C-G zone for
Newton's Nook Condominiums by Penwood III, LLC - 429 SW 5m
Avenue:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 18 is a Public Hearing on SHP 07-009. I will open this
Public Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Newton's Nook
Condominiums short plat. It's located at 429 Southwest 5th Avenue on the south side of
Franklin Road, just west of -- just west of Southwest 5th Avenue. This property was
previously platted as Lot 4, Block 1, of Newton's Nook Subdivision. You can see it there
just off of Penwood. This is the plat. It's for four condominium units. Staff is
recommending approval. The subject property meets all applicability requirements for a
short plat. We haven't received any written testimony. The applicant has provided us
with written agreements with the conditions of approval. There are no outstanding
issues. The applicant may not be here tonight. I think they had a -- we do have an
applicant here. Great. Perfect. I'll answer any questions Council may have.
De Weerd.: We have an applicant and a letter that says they agree with staff comments.
Canning: Yes.
De Weerd: So, Council, any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Applicant have any additional comments outside the letter? Any questions
for the applicant? Council, is there any public testimony? Council, seeing no further
information needed, do you have a motion to close?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 39 of 77
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Having heard all staff and applicant testimony and given the public the
opportunity to speak, I move that we approve SHP 07-009, Newton's Nook
Condominiums.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba, I would like to close the Public Hearing first.
Zaremba: I`m sorry. That's where I was going when I started, but I just kind of jumped
over --
De Weerd: I thought so and you were trying to save time. I appreciate that.
Zaremba: Having hearing all staff and applicant testimony and given the public the
opportunity to speak, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 18.
6'ird: Second.
De Weerd: The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 18. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve SHP 07-009, relating to Newton's
Nook Condominiums.
Bird: Second..
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 18. If there is no discussion,
Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird., yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Boston, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19: Public Hearing: TE 07-013 Request for approval of an 18 month Time
Extension to record a Final Plat for Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton
Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard and Ten Mile Road:
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 40 of 77
De Weerd: Item 19 is a Public Hearing on TE 07-013. I will open this Public Hearing
with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, This is the Bainbridge project. It's
located on the south side of Chinden Boulevard between Ten Mile Road and Black Cat
Road. The application before you tonight is a time extension. The applicant is
requesting an 18 month time extension to obtain the city engineer's signature on a final
plat and commence the conditional use for Bainbridge Subdivision. The conditional use
was for a planned development under the old code. The subject plat consists of 389
single family lots, 22 common lots, one church lot, and one future development lot in the
R-8 and L-O zoning districts on 151.72 acres. The applicant has previously received a
director's time extension, so this one needed to come before City Council for your
approval and with all extensions the city may require compliance with the current
provisions of the UDC as a condition for granting a time extension. This project was
approved under the city's previous development code and there are additional
conditions for this project that staff is recommending be added. Specifically, staff is
recommending the following additional condition. In accordance with ITD's requirements
and UDC 11-3H-5C-2, to allow for future highway -- future Highway 20-26 expansion,
dedicate or preserve a hundred feet of right of way from the center line of Chinden
Boulevard... Construct a 35 foot wide landscape buffer along the northern property line
adjacent to Chinden Boulevard, exclusive of any right of way. Construct a ten foot
pathway along Chinden Boulevard as required by UDC 11-3H-4C-4. Submit final plat
and landscape plans depicting these requirements. Obviously, that was -- the intent was
to bring it in compliance with the regulations regarding state highways and we have not
received any written testimony since the staff report. The question of the hundred foot
right of way is still an outstanding issue for City Council. I'm not sure if the 35 foot
landscape buffer and the ten foot wide pathway are additional concerns at this time.
With that I'll any answer questions staff may have -- or Council and Mayor may have of
staff.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Applicant.
Turnbull: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is David Turnbull. Address
is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I appreciate Anna's staff report and I want to
start out by just using this, I guess, as an opportunity to discuss what I think is
potentially an unfortunate outcome for the city. As you recall, ITD and Compass made a
presentation to this City Council and Mayor I think earlier this year and outlined a study
on U.S. 20-26 that they had been engaged in and previous to that we had gone through
the north Meridian plan and invited ITD's participation in that plan, at which time they
gave us the requirement for 140 feet of right of way, 70 feet from center line, both ways,
and, then, access control at intersections at only mile and the half mile sections. And
those are the components of the north Meridian area plan that we adopted. What
distinctly remember from the earlier presentation this year by Compass was kind of a
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 41 of 77
stinging rebuke from the Mayor and the Council about changing the plan midstream,
that there are a lot of developments out there that have already received approvals and
that a lot of investment had been made with the input of ITD previously on the north
Meridian plan. However, it seems like since that time every application like ours that
comes forward that staff recommends and Council adopts, whatever it is that ITD is
willing to propose. I would note that ITD hasn't adopted any U.S. 20-26 study at this
time. As far as I know I think that's still unadopted. So, what I'm suggesting to the
Council -- Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, is before we go down this road
any further, that this Council -- the city really needs to decide what it wants to see out
there and so I have prepared a little Powerpoint presentation on this and I'd like -- Anna,
you have got that up; right?
Canning: Yes.
Turnbull: Could you click to the next -- in the staff report there I think is a misstatement
in the narrative where it says Bainbridge is the only city approved project along Chinden
Boulevard west of Meridian Road that has been approved with less than one hundred
feet of right of way along Chinden Boulevard. This gives you a map of everything that's
been approved from -- well, even over to probably Cloverdale Road all the way out to
Black Cat Road.. And as you can see, there is a lot of 40s, 43, 40, 40, 70, 40, 100, 40,
100. Down here we have 100. This one -- you know, Bainbridge -- I couldn't actually find
the condition. Our preliminary plat showed 60 feet of right of way. We have always
planned it for 70 feet of right of way. We planned in the 35 foot landscape buffer that
Meridian wants to see, but, then, Silverleaf at 70. Lochsa Falls at 70. Those are all east
of -- or, excuse me, west of Linder Road. Paramount was -- the first phase was at 52,
but we -- when we built that access out there we intentionally set all of our monuments
and signage and everything back passed 70 feet, because we knew that that was part
of the north Meridian plan. Hightower is at 70. Bristol Heights 70. And Hobble Creek at
70. Could you go to the next one, Anna, please. So, as you can see, there is a
patchwork of right of way anywhere from 40 feet to 100 feet and these are all measures
from center line of the road... Next, please. Now, we have finally got from ITD -- I think
just today, is that, Jay? We sat down with them previously and we have looked at this
right of way -- in the 200 foot right of way section. I would note, they explained to me
just recently that I think a 200 foot right of way is what's out on I-84, if I'm not mistaken.
Rountree: Four hundred.
Turnbull: Oh, they told me 200, but -- okay. Anyway, we have always maintained that
they could build the facility that they wanted to within 140 feet of right of way. So, both
of these facilities are three lanes each way. The difference is you got a barrow ditch in
the center here and you got barrow ditches on the sides. And this landscape you have a
center median, which could be hardscaped or landscaped, and, then, it brings -- gives
you the opportunity to do, you know, berming and landscaping on both sides of this right
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 42 of 77
of way here. Could you go to the next one, please. So, the issues to consider are what
are the appropriate roadway sections for Chinden between Eagle and McDermott. What
is the esthetic that the Meridian city wants to have. Do you want to see an urban or a
rural divided highway and what are the existing constraints. What is appropriate for a
road that the City of Meridian has designated as a gateway corridor. So, to give a visual
of that, I asked my assistant to go out and snap a few pictures. One of the examples --
and this may be incorrect, Charlie, as to --
Rountree: Well, it depends on where it is.
Turnbull: Anyway, I wasn't going to go out in the middle of I-84 and snap some pictures,
so we went to -- we went to Hill Road and if we could go to the next couple of slides.
Here is your divided highway with the center median and we have a few shots of this.
We can go to the next one, Anna. Next one. Next one. I mean to me that's not what I
want to see for Meridian's gateway. Now, what could you have in an alternative? I don't
have a -- probably a precise example of this, but if you go to the next slide, Anna. You
could take, for example, Park Center Boulevard, which has three lanes going both
direction with landscape medians that could be landscaped or could be hardscaped, et
cetera. So, if we can go to the next few slides. That's what you will get. Now, this would
be modified, it wouldn't be exactly analogous to Highway 20-26, but it gives you a
different kind of feel for what could be accomplished, so -- then., I need to go back,
Anna, to the one that showed the two right of way sections, if you could go back to that.
Okay. These both have the same capacity. They both have a designed speed for 55
miles an hour. If the City of Meridian wants to see a divided highway where you have
got barrow ditches and, I don't know, what I consider an unsightly gateway to the city,
then, I guess you can make that determination. That's just one that I think would be
unfortunate and I think it's time for the city to get engaged with ITD and really determine
what they want to see in that area. Like I said, there are already constraints. They
identify this one as a constrained section between Meridian and Eagle Road and this
one as an unconstrained section between Meridian Road and McDermott. I submit to
you that you already have constrained conditions all the way along that corridor and if
you want to change the character of that, probably from McDermott west you have an
opportunity to do that. But there are already constrained conditions all the way along
that corridor. So, I would request that the city take this under consideration. I'm not sure
that you have to make a recommendation on this specific staff condition at all at this
point, because I believe the existing staff condition is preserve the appropriate right of
way and I think that you can make that determination at anytime we come in with future
applications. So, I -- that's may presentation and I'll stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Turnbull: I do have copies of the Powerpoint that --
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 43 of 77
De Weerd: Council, were there any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: David, did you say your current preliminary plat shows 70 feet?
Turnbull: I think the one that we submitted showed 60 feet, but we are fine with the 70
feet. We always have been.. I looked that up today and I was actually a little bit surprised
to find that it showed 60 feet, because we have always planned for 70.
Rountree: And are you okay with the right of way and the sidewalk? I mean, excuse
me --
Turnbull: Sidewalk and the right of way?
Rountree: -- the landscaping.
Turnbull: Excuse me?
Rountree: Landscaping and the sidewalk.
Turnbull: The landscaping buffer of 35 feet? Yes, I -- you know, I sat on the UDC
committee where we adopted those landscape requirements, 35 foot buffer on gateway
entries and I'm perfectly fine with that.
Canning: Madam Mayor, perhaps the applicant could comment on the ten foot
pathway, if it's not going to --
De Weerd: Can you talk a little louder?
Canning: Madam Mayor, perhaps the applicant could comment on the ten foot
pathway, whether -- there wouldn't be sufficient room in the right of way, they have got a
seven foot attached is what's shown on the example he's provided and we were looking
for a ten foot detached.
Turnbull: I believe per the UDC the ten foot pathway can go either in the right of way or
in the landscape area.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 44 of 77
Canning.: Yes. What I'm trying to get the applicant to commit to is putting it in the
landscaped area.
Turnbull: Yes. We would prefer to see a detached pathway and so if that went outside
of the right of way into the landscape area, we would be fine with that.
De Weerd: That would be our preference, too. I don't think anyone wants to walk on
20-26. Okay. Any further questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I have just a comment on walking. I think it has been
identified as a future bikeway, so I think it would be necessary to at least have the ten
foot pathway and detached would work I would think.
Turnbull: Yes, it would.
De Weerd.: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to
.provide testimony on this application? Yes, sir. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson, 6040 North Ten Mile Road..
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stevenson: Madam Mayor and Council members, I kind of find it a little ironic about the
-- you know, the gateway of what you see coming into the City of Meridian and my
comment, basically, here tonight is since this land has been sitting vacant it's, basically,
been nothing but an eye sore and just a patch of weeds. So, that's something that I
would like to see, you know, if this is going to be extended on, that we make sure that
we adhere with the -- the rules that are set before the landowners out there. I have even
contacted the code enforcement officer a couple of times, without any success of any
action and it was finally cut down just so they could get surveyors in there at the -- early
this fall, so that's the only comments I'd like to make at this point, so that we -- hopefully,
if you do extend that out that we don't have a weed patch out there for goat heads and
puncture vine.. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further testimony? Closing remarks?
Turnbull: I could comment on that last comment. We have had that property leased out
to two farmers, one who has been operating a sod farm. I think that there may have
been an instance where he harvested the sod early and he might have let the weeds
grow. I think Jay was working with that farmer on getting those mowed and cut down, so
if that's of any comfort to the Mayor and Council, we -- that would be our explanation.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 45 of 77
We have had them leased out to two farmers., one raising grain, I think, and one raising
sod.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba, did you have a question for the applicant?
Zaremba: It probably includes the applicant. I was hoping either somebody from ITD or
ACHD may be able to offer some suggestion. The question I would have, the 200 foot
right of way, a hundred feet either side of center line, it's apparent to me what happens
to storm water runoff, it goes into the barrow ditches. It isn't as apparent to me how
storm water runoff is handled in the 140 foot right of way. Anybody have an answer to
that? Maybe Councilman Rountree does.
Rountree: I can give you a quick answer, but it's obviously not here on the cross-
section, but it would be with plumbing and at a signature cost. And that's probably why
there is a preference for the rural typical section in the 200 foot of right of way.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions? If there is no further testimony from the applicant --
Turnbull: I can address that in part. There would be offsetting cost both ways. If they
wish to go to a 200 foot right of way, there is going to be additional right of way cost.
Also, you will notice from that example, this cross-section, all drainage flows to the
sides. This center median is not receiving any drainage, it's just going to be unkept
barrow ditch. I have been by that Hill Road -- Councilman Bird's probably been by there
a few times when he goes out to the Optimist fields and I have been really disappointed
at times to see the weeds growing in that median to pretty high lengths. The pictures we
took, obviously, for this picture were after the weeds had been mowed.
De Weerd: I know. They look nice. They were green.. Groomed..
Turnbull: We had a little rain the last week or so.
De Weerd: Council, anything further?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, just discussion again. I guess on the -- with -- again, I don't
remember which property it was, but somewhere along Chinden we had a discussion of
a reduced right of way, perhaps the 70 feet, in areas where it was just through lanes,
but when you came to an intersection with turning movements, a wider footprint was
preserved for right turn lanes and left turn lanes and stuff. Ican -- I can see the 70 -- the
140 foot right of way in places where there is not intersections and -- but I still would
think that we may need to preserve more right of way at -- at the other access points.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 46 of 77
Personal opinion. And remembering a discussion we had on some other property that I
think we resolved that way. I don't remember which property.
De Weerd: That might have been Knight Hill or Knight Sky there at Linder.
Zaremba: Possible.
Turnbull: I'm not sure if I'm allowed to speak, but I think I can address that point if we
go back to that cross-section.
De Weerd: When I acknowledged you that allowed you to speak.
Turnbull: Can we go back to the cross-section, Anna. If you look at -- one of the
discussions we had with ITD all along is the desire to have double left-hand turn lanes,
particularly at intersections like Linder Road. And if you notice, this section right here,
there is an eight foot shoulder, an eight foot shoulder, and I think that's eight feet. I can't
read it entirely. Can you see that, Anna? Thank you. Does it show up there on the
screen?
Rountree: Six foot off of center line, so it's 12 foot.
Turnbull: Twelve foot off -- Yeah. So, it's 12 and eight and eight. So, essentially, if you
take that section out when you come to an intersection, you have room for the two left-
hand turn lanes at the intersections and you would also have -- particularly when the
sidewalk is located outside of the right of way and in a landscaping strip, you would also
have room for an additional even fourth lane right-hand turn at intersections. So, those
are all design details that we can do at final plat stage and we can work those things
out, but I believe for the most part -- in almost every little -- every instance of 140 foot
right of way would be adequate. Thanks.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba, did that answer your question?
Zaremba: It does. Thank you.
De Weerd: Anything further? Council, what would you like to do?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we to close the Public Hearing on Item No. 19.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City council
December 4, 2007
Page 47 of 77
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 19. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRLED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the 18 month time extension for Item
No. 19, subject to staff comments, with the exception of the hundred foot right of way
requirement and leave the stated requirement that adequate right of way would be
provided, with the understanding that the applicant at this point is indicating 70 feet
would be acceptable.
Borton: Second.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second regards to Item 19. Any further discussion?
Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRCED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Council, I would like to call a five minute recess. We will recess in -- or we
will reconvene in five minutes.
(Recess.)
Item 20: Public Hearing: CPA 07-010 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map for the north Meridian area to include 645
acres north of the Phyllis Canal and south of the Boise River from Linder
Road to approximately '/ mile west of Black Cat for North Phyllis Canal
Project by Sherrie Ewing:
Item 21: Public Hearing: CPA 07-015 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment to create a new land use designation that would include open
area, low-density, residential, medium low-density residential and
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 48 of 77
medium-density residential uses with an anticipated average of density of
3 dwelling units per acre for North Phyllis Canal Proiect by Sherrie
Ewing:
De Weerd: I will go ahead and call this meeting to order and we are at Item 20 and 21.
Mr. Baird, can we open these two together?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that would be my recommendation.
De Weerd: Thank you. That was an enthusiastic response. I will go ahead and open
Items 20 and 21, CPA 07-010 and CPA 07-015 with staff comments.
Canning: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the North Phyllis
Canal project. It's -- the subject area includes 645 acres north of the Phyllis Canal and
south of the Boise River from Linder Road to approximately a quarter mile west of Black
Cat Road.. The applications before you tonight are a Comprehensive Plan map and text
amendment. The highlights of the proposed development are they propose to amend
both the text and map of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. They want a new future land
use designation of -- their original application was for future land use designation of river
residential. The river residential designation is proposed to consist of common area,
open space of about 265 acres, low density of 293 acres, medium low density of 48
acres and a medium density of 39 acres, with an anticipated average density of three
dwelling units per acre. Concurrently, the applicant has proposed a text amendment to
the Comp Plan to create a new land use designation for the subject area called river
residential that would include open areas, low density residential, medium low density
residential, and medium density residential uses with the -- again, the average
anticipated density of three dwelling units per acre. And those details are included in
your staff report. However, prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, staff
requested that the applicant substitute a low density residential designation for the river
residential designation and, really, it was me, more than any other staff member. And
my only motivation was to keep the Comprehensive Plan simple and not add another
designation to it. We already struggle, I think, with too many mix used designations and
I was reluctant to add the river residential designation. The applicant did agree to the
change and that was the recommendation that's before you tonight. So, that low density
residential designation does allow up to three units per acre and is consistent with the
applicant's original proposal. So, we are proposing -- this is what it would look like. With
that change, the text amendment would no longer be necessary. The Commission
recommended approval at their November 1st, 2007, Public Hearing. Sherry Ewing
spoke in favor of the application, as did John Yorgeson, Ryan Colson, and Tuck Ewing.
No one spoke in opposition or commented.. There was written testimony from the City of
Eagle, signed by the Mayor and Council and that was stated 10/24/07 and it opposed
the application, because it's currently within their area of city impact and within their
Comprehensive Plan as well.. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 49 of 77
desire of some residents along the west side of Linder Road south of the Phyllis Canal
to also be incorporated into the area of city impact. So, I will point that out to you. It's
this property. Because it was not part of the noticed application, the Planning
Commission could not act on that request. And the other issue of discussion was the
fact that the subject property currently lays within the Eagle's area of impact. There
were no changes to staffs recommendation. As I pointed out before, staff did make the
recommendation for low density residential, rather than the river designation. The
outstanding issues before City Council -- there is still some question as to whether it's
appropriate to include this in the area -- in our Comprehensive Plan, because it is in the
Eagle area of city impact. I would be remiss if I didn't point that out. As Council is aware,
we have tried -- you have tried to meet with Eagle city council and get this issue
resolved on a number of occasions and have not been able to come to an agreement
on that. We -- as a -- if Council would like me to also talk about the Blueprint For Good
Growth plan from the planning boundaries discussion, I can include that as well. It's
somewhat germane to this, but not directly related. So, I'll just leave it at that for now
and ask if you have any questions.
De Weerd.: Council -- yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Anna, what were telling us about an area in this spot?
Canning: I believe -- I'm 99 percent sure -- and Ithink -- I believe he's actually here to
testify tonight as well. The person that owns this piece of property was interested in
being included within the area of city impact also. Because it wasn't part of the noticed
application, it extended the boundaries of that application, the Commission was not able
to act on that recommendation. Would also like to note for the -- to refresh Council's
memory, when the north Meridian application went in that included the property north of
Chinden, there was discussion with those neighbors -- those neighbors were pretty
vocal about the fact that they wanted to remain in the city of Eagle. Those within the
subdivision. I think there is -- a few of these lots are not actually in that subdivision.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Rountree: Question, Anna. You have a couple different colors in the area. I'm going to
take a guess that they are probably green. But they are different shades of whatever
they are.
Canning: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. This is the low density residential and this is public/quasi-
public open space.
Rountree: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 50 of 77
Canning: And, yes, they are green.
De Weerd: Any further questions for staff at this point? Seeing none, would the
applicant like to comment?
Ewing.: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, I am Sherry Ewing and I reside at
2934 East Lake Hazel Road here in Meridian. And to give you a little history on how
.long it's taken us to get to this point, in May of 2005 we attended the north Meridian
area open house and told both Meridian and Eagle planners that we wanted to be
included in Meridian. I, then, met separately with both planners. We testified at the
Eagle City Council meetings, Meridian Planning and Zoning, Meridian City Council
meetings. We also testified at the Ada County Commission meeting on April 27th of
2006, where Ada county granted permission to the city of Eagle to include us in their
comprehensive plan. We also testified at Meridian and Eagle luncheon meetings. We
have met with Ada county -- an Ada county commissioner. We have met with Ada
county development services on three different occasions. We attended and testified at
the Eagle sewer district board meeting. We visited with Mayor Mitchell from Star and
also their sewer district to see what our options were. Ada County Development
Services agreed that the most common sense approach was for us to be connected to
Meridian. They also indicated we could plan and organize our own planned community
through Ada county and build our own sewer plant. On November 20th, just a couple of
weeks ago, Ada County Commissioner Tillman met with Meridian and Kuna to discuss
boundaries. The north Phyllis Canal area was mentioned and the map was marked for
us to be included in Meridian. He said that he had met with Eagle prior to this meeting.
He said that the boundaries should be set according to which city would be able to
service the area in the quickest, most cost effective way and according to the wishes of
the property owners. Some of the reasons we want to be in Meridian. Our address has
been in Meridian for 85 years, since my grandfather bought the place in 1912. Our first
phone number was a Meridian number. Five generations of our family have attended
schools in the Meridian city limits. Access to this area is through Meridian roads. We are
contiguous with the Meridian city limits. When we called 911 Meridian responded in less
than five minutes. We are members of the Meridian library. Sewer capacity is planned
for us through Meridian and we will be -- and will be at our property line within three
years. The closest Eagle sewer has not been scheduled yet and is 2.8 miles, plus two
river crossings, away from us. Eagle sewer would cost over five times as much to
connect to as Meridian. The Meridian police department and fire departments are
closest to this area. For this application I contacted the following agencies. Idaho
Transportation Department. United Water. Meridian police. Meridian fire. Meridian
parks.. The joint school district. And Ada County Highway District. And no one had any
negative words for us to be accepted. When we started this application process the staff
asked us to develop our own designations for this area and I would like to share with
you what -- what we had proposed. However, we are very acceptable to do what staff
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 51 of 77
has asked now with the other designations, but I have a reason for this. We would like
to see this area developed into a showplace for the City of Meridian. The floodway
would be a perfect place for walk paths, public parks, and possibly sport fields, ponds,
et cetera. The flood plain area will follow through with more ponds, walking paths larger
lots, and cluster homes. Against the bench or the Phyllis Canal we are thinking of
smaller lots and depending on the market. The land circling the golf course may include
townhomes. We would like to see a walking path for the two miles along the Boise
River, plus multiple access points for the public to enjoy the Boise River. This area
would give the City of Meridian its only Boise River frontage, water amenities, and
ponds and would definitely be a showplace for the City of Meridian. In our proposal we
had 41 percent would be open -- 41 percent of the 645 acres would be open areas.
Forty-six low density residential. Seven percent medium low density residential. And six
percent medium density -- medium density residential. Our total homes for this area with
those numbers is 1,090 homes, which is what Meridian staff wants to see. As per the
letter -- Eagle's letter to the City of Meridian, dated October 24th, that you have in front
of you, on pages two and three, if you do the math they projected 1,092 homes for this
area, so that's two homes actually more than what we had proposed. Eagle's letter also
indicates that we want 1,920 homes and that is incorrect. And that is actually in the
school section of their letter. We included a concept plan with vision for this area. Again,
we are not proposing a development project at this time. Our map is a general picture of
the feathering of uses we are proposing as stated above. We are not submitting a
bubble plan at this time, because of the following reasons. We are not developers. We
are not ready to develop. We do not know what the market will be when this area is
ready to develop and to get one hundred percent agreement with the property owners
on everything would be almost impossible. Transportation to this area -- from the east is
Linder Road, using Duck Alley. From the south Basco Lane, Black Cat, and possibly
Highway 16. And from the west possibly Palmer Road.. All of these access points would
be developed as the land is developed, subject to the approval of the City of Meridian
as annexation is requested. To summarize, we have always been Meridianites and we
want to remain Meridianites. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd.: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Sherry, you said just a bit ago that -- talking about your bubble plan and what
specifically you wanted to do down there, that it would be almost impossible to get a
hundred percent agreement amongst the various owners. We probably will hear this
evening, but I guess want you to reflect on what you think you have in terms of the
property owners in these boundaries?
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 52 of 77
Ewing: Well, of the 645 acres, Charlie, I think almost everybody is here tonight and they
totally agree with what I said.
Rountree: So, you have one possibility.
Ewing: Uh?
Rountree: You have one thing that was a possibility.
Ewing: Well, no, really, what I thought was on that was, you know, to actually get in and
say, okay, this is where the road's going to be and this is where -- you know, we aren't
there yet.
Rountree: I understand.
Ewing: Yeah. That's what I meant by that.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Any other questions, Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Sherry, can you outline briefly what happened with Eagle and there was some
request or requirement by them that you apply to be removed from their planning area
and pay the related fees and costs to do that?
Ewing: Actually, what happened there is prior to them going to Ada county and having
Ada county change their comprehensive plan, prior to that they had a City Council
meeting and I went and I testified there that we did not want to be in their city -- in their
impact area and they said that they were going to go ahead without that -- without doing
anything with us and, then, when we went to Ada county, I also testified at the Ada
county level, and they went ahead and approved, even though I had testified that we
didn't want to be in there. Is that what you mean?
Borton: Yeah. And, then., there is request -- I guess a requirement, then, if there were to
be change for you guys to pay the fee of task to get out of the planning boundary that
you never --
Ewing: I don't know about that.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 53 of 77
Borton: -- requested to be in in the first place.
Ewing: I don't know about that. That we had to pay to --
Borton: No. That you would be required to apply and pay the related fees to request of
Eagle to be removed from their planning boundaries?
Ewing: I guess I didn't understand that.
Borton: I was just asking if that was --
Ewing: We had been asked. Idon't -- Joe, I really honestly don't believe that we have
been asked to pay a fee and submit an application to be removed from their -- their
planning -- I don't know that we have done -- I don't know that we have been asked that.
Borton: I'm sorry, Sherry, I probably asked it kind of confusing. I don't think you have
been asked to do it.
Ewing: Oh. Okay.
Borton: It was my understanding that -- and Anna might be able to clarify that for me,
but that's kind of the steps you're forced to undergo if you wanted to be removed.
Canning: Yes, sir. As I recall, it was after the councils last got together. There was
some discussion about -- perhaps that -- from the Eagle city staffs point of view, at
least, that the appropriate mechanism would be for the -- the property owners to request
to be removed from the area of city impact and, then, request to be added to ours. Mrs.
Ewing came to the Council I believe last summer and prior to submitting the annexation
to just ask Council in general about their opinions and they just suggested that she go
ahead and submit with the city of Meridian and not pursue anything with the city of
Eagle. That's my recollection of that particular situation.
Borton: Mine as well.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 54 of 77
Zaremba: I know this is a story that sounds like a snowball started rolling down the hill
and it just kept going and going and no matter how you tried to push, but I would
perhaps ask our legal Council to comment. It's my understanding fihat there is nothing in
Idaho law that prohibits us from annexing or having a Comprehensive Plan in another
city's area of impact. I know all the cities are sensitive to that and try not to step over
each other and the point is so that you can
effect. But, in fact, this is not anything tha
correct?
develop a plan that you can -- can put into
t would be illegal for us to accept; is that
Baird.: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, that is a
correct statement.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, if I could expand on that a little bit. The action you would take
tonight, if you chose to, is to include this area within the Comprehensive Plan. The next
step would be to ask the county to include it within their area of city impact, if you
choose to do that. The state law -- most attorneys would say that the state law allows
you to annex whether or not it's within an area of city impact or not. The state code with
regard to overlapping areas of city impact appears to give two different options. One is
the Committee of Nine, which the -- which the Commission opted for last time, which
didn't work very well for them. There is also a very clear option to just have a vote of the
properties affected.. I think it's pretty easy to see that if you voted -- had these folks vote,
they would -- you would know what -- how that vote would turn out. They have
submitted the application. And that was the reasoning we used with Commissioner
Tillman when we met to go over the planning boundaries, is that clearly if you had a
vote they'd vote Meridian. It's the intricacies of state law regarding areas of city impact.
De Weerd: Any further comments or questions? Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Sherry, you said you met with Eagle and Star sewer. Did they give you any
indication when, if ever, they might be able to provide service to this area?
Ewing: We actually testified at the Eagle sewer district meeting and at that time they
said that there was no schedule for them to get sewer to our area. Right now they are at
State Street and Linder is the closest to our area, which is 2.8 miles away and that just
gets it to Duck Alley, which is another two and half miles to my parents' property and,
then, Star said that they are -- they are still on the north side of the river, they haven't
crossed yet, and so it's going to be quite some time. No, it's not scheduled at all. And
the cost -- they told me that they had no idea and they could work it up, but it was too --
it was another river crossing again and a long time. And we are contiguous with the City
of Meridian and the City of Meridian has us planned.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 55 of 77
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Rountree: What's the parcel size that you're representing?
Ewing: I am representing -- of the 645 --
Rountree: Of the 645.
Ewing: -- acres I am 260 acres. I'm representing all 645, but my parents' is 260.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Further questions?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. It's not really a question, just acomment. Ijust -- the sense of
Eagle is that they may be changing about how interested they are in growth in general
and they might welcome us removing this from their consideration. Just a comment.
With all due respect to Eagle. There is an election tonight. I don't know how it came out.
De Weerd: Bandy is leading by 130. It's like a sports score right now, you know. If
there is no further questions, Council? Thank you. I do have a number of people that
did sign up in favor of this Comprehensive Plan amendment. Peggy Everest is in favor.
Andy Roman in favor. If you have any comment, please, come up when I call your
name. If you will, please, state your name for the record.
Roman: Yes, Madam Mayor and Council members. My name is Andy Roman. 4146
North Bryce Canyon Avenue in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Roman: As a member of the Idaho Rivers United, I would strongly recommend that this
area be incorporated into Meridian, because anytime you have services crossing a river,
you are bound to have an impact on that river and I think it's just better, because they
are contiguous with Meridian, to have them part of Meridian. So, that's my only
comment.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Someone -- I can't read the printing. Who signed up after
Andy? The last name ends in a D. That would be my best guess. Or an L. I I'll just
continue on and if I didn't call your name, you can just let us know. Linda Lazarus in
Meridian City council
December 4, 2007
Page 56 of 77
favor. Gary Hinkle. Thank you. Signed up in favor. Tuck Ewing signed up in favor. Ray
Arona signed up in favor. Tim Gibson signed up in favor. Thank you. Phil Abbott signed
up in favor. John Ewing in favor. So, who didn't I call? And what is your name? Steve
Hinkle. Might be you. It's still in question. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Sounds like we have a united front there. Council, any
further information needed?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd..: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Ask a question for general discussion, I guess. This has been a struggle,
apparently, for the applicants and I'm sorry for that and my personal opinion is this is the
right thing to do. I -- the question that I have come to is this is low lying land and the
request to change the map includes some low density residential, some medium low,
some medium density.
De Weerd: No. Not by the city.
Zaremba: Well, what the city request was to change the designation of river residential,
which is not something that we had defined, to be low density residential, but there are
-- there are different densities and I'm not questioning that. The piece that I'm getting to
is when this becomes part of our map for the Comprehensive Plan, we do allow a step
up or a step down and we have become sensitive and stung by people that have flipped
property after it had designation. I'm not anticipating that that's going happen with any of
these properties, but my question is either of Director Canning or of our legal counsel,
when -- when and if we agree to the designations that are being proposed and they
become part of our map, can we add that in this low lying area they are not available for
a step up?
De Weerd: Okay. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you have done that in another area, I
believe. No. Sorry. We are in -- we were contemplating it at one point with regard to the
south Meridian application, but currently -- we haven't done that, but certainly we could
add -- we could modify the text amendment to state that -- instead, that this area
wouldn't be available for a bump up. We can't condition it per se. There is no application
to condition. If I might just go back a little bit and talk on that subject a little more. The
reason the applicants proposed the river residential designation was one of my
concerns that if we are to have overlapping areas of city impact, I wanted them to be
consistent, that -- particularly with regard to transitions and overall density. The one you
see here is the Eagle future land use map. This was the applicant's proposal. It does
kind of have a transitional use coming up toward the bluff. They have actually shown
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 57 of 77
more open space, because they have shown the golf course here and, then, the low
lying flood plain. areas. Those step ups are always at the discretion of City Council. it's
not a given. It clearly states that they are at the discretion of City Council. If an
application were to come in for this area, we would look to this bubble concept, as well
as the Eagle Comprehensive Plan to make sure that there was some consistency there,
along with our own Comprehensive Plan. I think that could be addressed at the time of
annexation. I do understand the concern, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to
signal out one specific area to exclude that exception. There may be -- it was designed
to allow a little flexibility in the application of the residential designations.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I guess on that point, it's not -- it would not be annexed at
this point and that would be subject to annexation. This is a bit unique, I think, in that the
infrastructure that ultimately will be in place to handle this wouldn't handle any greater
density than we are talking about now. So, I don't see -- even if they proposed a bump
up, there is no place to put the wastewater, so it's kind of self imposed.
Zaremba: Well, you have both given me some comfort.
De Weerd: Any further questions from Council?
Zaremba: Just to explain why this concerns me. I lived along the Mississippi River for
many years and you learn when you live along a river that the river isn't just where you
see the water today. The river can go from bank to bank or bluff to bluff -- here we call
them benches -- and I've long been concerned about how many houses Eagle has let
be below ground. So, I -- that's why I raised the concern. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any closing remarks from the applicant? Okay. Council, any further
information needed? Last chance for any public testimony. Okay.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I did contact the city of Eagle last week and let them know
that this hearing was tonight. Staff said that they wouldn't be coming, but they would try
and get one of the council members to come. Apparently that hasn't happened, so I just
want to let you know I did call them.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: They are all new now anyway, so --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 58 of 77
Zaremba: Having heard all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move we close the
Public Hearing on CPA 07-010 and CPA 07-015.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 20
and 21. All those in favor say aye. All ayes, motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED:. ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we approve CPA 07-010 and CPA 07-015 relating to the North
Phyllis Canal project, to include all staff comments. Do you want to do them separately?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, sorry to interrupt, but as Anna pointed
out at the beginning, there may not be a necessity for Item 21 and I'll let her fill in the
gaps.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant has, basically,
consented to staffs suggestion that they withdraw the text amendment. If you'd like to
do it that way or you can deny it. I would prefer to see it -- the withdrawal accepted..
Zaremba: In that case, Madam Mayor, I withdraw that motion and start anew. I move
that we approve CPA 07-010 relating to North Phyllis Canal project and accept the
applicant's withdrawal of CPA 07-015.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Mr. Baird, is it best done in one motion or two motions?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it probably would be clearer for the
record if you took them one at a time.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I so far have not said anything, so I'll start again.
De Weerd.: i heard nothing.
Borton: Keep going.
Rountree: You're on a roll.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 59 of 77
Bird': Keep going., David.
Zaremba: I move we approve CPA 07-010. Period. I'm sorry. To include all staff
comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second on Item 20 to approve. Any discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Berg: And, Madam Mayor, just to clear my thought, by approving the staff comments on
that motion, more or less accepted the withdrawal in a text change amendment;
correct? The applicant wanted that, but now we have got to do that motion.
Zaremba: I still would make a separate motion. I move that we accept the applicant's
withdrawal of CPA 07-015.
Rountree: Second..
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second approving the withdrawal of Item 21. Can I do
that by voice? Mr. Berg, just call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 22: Public Hearing: 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 22 is a Public Hearing on PP 07-014. I will open this Public Hearing
with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Emerson Park commercial
project. It's located 2910 and 3030 South Meridian Road and 110 East Victory Road on
the northeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road.. The application before you
tonight is a preliminary plat. The development includes 34 commercial retail building lots
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 60 of 77
and one common lot on 17.84 acres in an existing C-G zone. We do have some
elevations before you tonight. No, we don't. We did the last time you had this hearing.
I'm sorry, I thought they were on here. You did approve elevations along with a
development agreement modification last year and those are still tied to the site.
Commission recommended to approve this plat at their September 6, 2007, Public
Hearing. Chris Tverdy and Oaas Laney 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 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 2-M building -- and that's down on the southeast corner of
the property, within the required buffer area along Victory Road. The widening of the
existing five foot 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 to strike the requirement for the ten foot wide pathway along
Meridian Road. To modify condition 1.1.6B requiring a 25 foot wide buffer along Victory
Road and, instead, require alternative compliance. To provide a 15 foot wide buffer
where there is adequate room available on the site and also alternative compliance
application to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the final plat application. To
strike the condition requiring a ten foot wide pathway be depicted on the landscape
plan. To modify condition 1.17 to require a minimum 15 foot wide buffer again, instead
of the 25 foot wide required.. And the reason for that -- those modifications to the
required buffer is that Victory Road used to be classified as a -- not as an arterial. It is
now an arterial and, therefore, we had a -- with reclassification came the requirement for
a larger landscape buffer. The fifth issue of discussion was to allow for the relocation of
the existing access from Meridian Road to the north., if agreeable with the owners of
Double D, ITD, and City Council. A variance is required be approved by City Council for
the relocation of the existing access point. Modify condition 1.2.2 allow the pond to
remain, but required to have recirculating water be maintained, so that it does not create
a mosquito breeding ground. 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 and that was with regard to the sewer extension, I believe. And to modify
condition 3.7 to allow for the option of incorporating the required emergency access into
the requested stub street along the northern boundary of the property and to modify
condition 1.1.1 to require that applicant to apply for a miscellaneous application to
amend the DA to reflect the conditions of approval for the preliminary plat. So, the
Meridian City Council heard these items on -- heard this item on October 2nd and 23rd
of 2007 and at the Public Hearing on the 23rd of October you approved the subject
preliminary plat request. It is at that hearing, your first hearing on this -- this is a
reconsideration hearing. At your hearing -- again Chris Tverdy spoke in favor of it, as
did Oaas Laney and Tim Mussell. No one spoke in opposition, commented, or provided
written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the removal of the
requirement for a ten foot wide pathway along State Highway 69 or Meridian Road.
Removal of the temporary access road to State Highway 69 for Victory Greens at the
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 61 of 77
northern end of the site and the requirement for a variance application for the continued
use of the access road. And relocation of the existing access point to Highway 69 for
Double D further north through a variance application process. The key Council
changes to staffs recommendation were to modify condition number 1.1.12 to specify
that the existing driveway needed to be removed prior to the first final plat for the
application. Since that staff report was written and since your hearing we have received
written testimony dated October 31st 2007, from Richard Andrus on behalf of the
applicant. Staff responded to that letter in a memo from Sonya Wafters dated November
19th, 2007. So, the outstanding issue before Council tonight is condition 1.1.12 to allow
the northern driveway to continue use until the third phase of development is complete,
whereas it currently reads the first phase. This issue was, again, the focus of the
discussion at the original hearing, but I will go through Mrs. Wafters response to the
attorney's testimony -- that was Richard Andrus, the attorney for the applicant. So, with
regard to that, we submit the following: During the annexation hearing the applicant's
representative Dave McKinnon stated that they would like to keep the access point to
State Highway 69, Meridian Road, open at the northern boundary of the site temporarily
until such time as this area redevelops and access can be provided internally. At that
time they would close down the access point. The development agreement for the site
approved in 2004 with the annexation of Mussell Corners states that the applicant shall
be allowed to use as a temporary access onto State Highway 69, which is located at the
far northern portion of the proposed project, until such area redevelops. Per the UDC,
connections to a state highway are only allowed at section line roads and half mile mark
between section line roads. Although temporary access to State Highway 69 was
allowed until such time as the site redevelops, approval of a permanent access point to
the highway was never granted and would require approval of a variance. Because the
driveway access is not allowed by UDC, it is deemed nonconforming. As a
nonconforming use, the use may continue as long as the use remains lawful and is not
expanded or extended. With development of the first phase of Emerson Park, the use
will be expanded, thus, the use shall not be allowed to continue without specific
approval of a variance. We have consistently applied the nonconforming use code in
this manner. So, basically, the use on five acres wants to annex to the city and divide
the property such that that nonconforming use is now on two acres. We insist that the
nonconforming use come into compliance wifh our code. This interpretation of the code
is fundamental to achieving compliance, particularly with older businesses and homes
that annex into the city. The preliminary plat condition of approval for Emerson Park
states the access driveway at the north end of the site to Meridian Road that is currently
being used for the loading for Victory Greens shall be removed and the use
discontinued prior to signature and as amended by you at your first hearing on the first
final plat. Finally, per the letter submitted to the city by Richard Andrus of Spink Butler,
dated October 31st, the applicant believed that this access would be allowed to remain
open until the portion of the property including the access develops. With each
application in regard to this corner staff has vigorously advocated that the access be
discontinued and that the site be brought up to the standards of the code. We maintain
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 62 of 77
that the condition to allow the temporary access was intended to terminate upon first
subsequent development application on this site. The applicant's own testimony states
that until such time as the area redevelops and access can be provided internally. The
first phase of Emerson Park will provide public street access to the landscaping
business. There is no need to continue the direction access to State Highway 69. Our
concern is that each temporary approval of the access point is a lost opportunity to have
that access closed. If Emerson Park only develops one phase, we will have missed our
opportunity to improve the safety of the traveling public on Meridian Road and to close
down this access point. Therefore, because of the statement made by the applicant at
the original hearing, the existing DA, and the fact that this is a nonconforming use, staff
recommends that condition approval 1.1.12 be upheld as originally approved by City
Council. I'd like to also point out that the landscaping business has now been annexed
to the city for over three years. The original application was over four years ago and it's
still not in compliance with our development standards. Typically you do require
compliance concurrent with the initial development of the property. With that I'll answer
any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. Good
evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Andrus: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm Richard Andrus, associated with
Spink Butler at 251 East Front Street in Boise. And I actually have a depiction that I'd
like to pass out to you. I'm sorry I didn't get it to staff sooner. Just to clarify, I don't think
there is any disagreement that the applicant in this case doesn't mind giving up a
valuable deeded existing access in order to develop, they'd just like to have the
consideration of the timing of when that access is given up. Because we are talking
about the access, I'd like to give you a little bit of history as to how it came about and
how it's been used.. As you can see on the -- the depiction that I handed you, that
temporary access is on the far north end of the property and access is State Highway
69, Meridian Road. The -- what would be phase three would include that access. You
can see here on the plat that's up there I have highlighted phase one to demonstrate,
really, the difference and the distance between these two areas. This access, as I said,
is a deeded access. There were three access points that ITD originally deeded to Tim
Mussell, the owner of Victory Greens, back in the '80s. This was done in exchange for
right of way. He gave up property in exchange for these access points. Just to clarify the
use in the past and the use moving forward, Victory Greens is the only business that's
located within this area that has used this access point. Moving forward, Victory
Greens will be the only business using this access point. There will not be a change in
use.. There will not be an increase in intensity. I believe the section of the Meridian
ordinance that staff has discussed, 11-3H-4-62, defines a nonconforming use as one
that increases the intensity and changes the use. As I said before, the applicant is
willing to give up this existing deeded access, but they just request that it's done at a
different time frame than staff has requested. To give a little more background on the
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 63 of 77
2003 application, this is a -- the Emerson Park plat is a replat of the Mussell Corner
application from 2003. At that time ITD, who has jurisdiction over State Highway 69,
submitted their feedback on new construction for new access points, but as I said
before, this is an existing access point. Staff, then, I think rightfully concerned that they
needed to have a mechanism to close down the access point and the question is, then,
what is that mechanism.. At that time Council adopted the following language included in
the development agreement. The applicant shall be allowed to use as a temporary
access onto State Highway 69, which is located in the far northern portion of the
proposed project, until such area redevelops. I believe if you had a chance to look
through the letter, we discuss in there that at the prior approval of this application, staff
had indicated That a variance would be a good alternative and a good compromise to
allow this -- this access to remain temporarily in place. We are concerned with that
.requirement, because under Idaho law a variance is improper for this type of request
and it would essentially be setting the applicant up for a request that the City Council
can't grant and the access would be lost and make the project not viable. I think there is
also some practical implications to this. We are here in a situation where the Council
can craft the condition of approval so there is a mechanism to close down the access
point. We request that it be the phase that actually encompasses that access. I don't
have anything further at this point, but I'll -- if there is any questions -- I know there were
some representations in the memo, maybe, that need some clarification, maybe
perhaps we have a different perspective than staff on a few of the underlying facts and
interpretation of the ordinance, but, as I said, if you have any questions I'd be happy to
answer them.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Richard is there a disagreement over whether or not there is access provided
to the property with phase one? Internal access? Regardless of the consequence of
that, but is that --
Andrus: I think there is two ways to view this, just being completely honest. It's -- there
is no more additional access in phase one -- and correct me if I'm wrong, we also have
Chris Tverdy here that could -- could provide some clarity on this, but there is no more
additional access when phase one is built out than existed when the application was
made in 2003. The north access is an integral part of Victory Greens as it exists today.
It's what allows it to -- to stay on site and., to be quite honest with you, makes this project
long term viability a possibility.
Meridian city Council
December 4, 2007
Page 64 of 77
Borton: Madam Mayor. So, if
street access to the landscapin
to get myself clear on --
Andrus: Again. I'm sorry.
said the first phase of Emerson Park will provide public
g business, is that -- is that true or false? I'm just trying
Borton: The first phase of Emerson Park will provide public street access to the
landscaping business.
Andrus: There is already public access off of both Victory and Meridian Road. So, yes,
it's -- it's accurate. Our position is that northern access is necessary, though, to
continue..
Borton: Okay.
Bird.: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird..
Bird: Richard, is that northern access right-in, right-out or is it full access? There is
cross -- but it is -- so it is a full access?
Andrus: As a side note to that, there is also a condition in the approvals that this access
will actually be made into a fire access with a knocks box and a locked gate. One of the
concerns in -- and I'm sorry I didn't hit on this earlier, but right here is where the road
into phase one will end -- or the phase one road will end and I think the copies of the
depiction you have show this a little better. There will be a locked gate there and so to
say that this property will have access off this road is a stretch at best. Victory Greens is
located over here, as I recall. Chris could probably do a better of describing it. He's the
guy that's been on site.
Tverdy: Chris Tverdy. 519 West Front Street. I work with Oaas Laney as a project
manager on this project, here representing Eric Oaas, who is traveling today and also
Tim Mussell, who is traveling, but they are not together. They probably wanted me to
expressly make that point. The access point to the property that is -- is correct today,
the traffic for Tim Mussell's Victory Green business enters in through here, into their
property -- they actually enter through this driveway right here to the store front and they
exit primarily -- there might be some entrance, because it's not marked as a right-in,
right-out today, but there could be some entrance coming in here, but the primary
access point coming into the property is right here. There is a -- Tim's business is set up
such that there is a booth down here where as customers come in and load their
material and purchase stuff, that they check out through this box as they leave the
property. So, it's a critical entry point for Tim and his business there. And, in fact, you
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 65 of 77
made a very key point that when they put that kiosk in down here and made it more
convenient for the traffic to come through the property and exit onto the highway, it
made a substantial positive impact in his business. So, he is quite adamant that
removing this access point hear is going to have a substantially negative impact on his
business. The point that we want to make loud and clear that we do not agree with
staffs position on is that there will be an expanded use of that access point. There will
not be, as a result of this business here -- or as a result of this development here. This
is -- will be maintained and improved -- be a nice driveway onto the property. Tim
Mussell will put in a gate entering his property there. It will be gravel. It will be just like
the property that you may have visited today is. It is not an access point for clients of
these buildings and such to travel through the property. In the evenings at business
hours that gate will be locked -- that gate will be locked to protect the inventory that
Victory Greens has out there, just like they do today. To the point that Richard made
about emergency access point, this is the same point that we are going to maintain for
emergency access to the site, as emergency services folks requested. So, I guess
would just close by saying that -- that we feel strongly that -- we agree that the long term
use of this action will be closed down and be emergency use only. We agree -- you
know, we -- I guess I should say we don't agree that this is an expanded use. It is not.
When the use expands because of the development of phase two and in phase three,
we agree that the access point will be vacated, except for emergency use, and we just
would request that the Council honor the agreement that is put in place -- development
agreement has put in place that is the purpose of -- or I mean the business activities
around there are there because of those business agreements that were done past and
until those uses change, the uses expand, we should leave those access points the
same. So, with that I can stand for questions.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Council: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: A comment and., then, some questions. The reason the intensity increases is
that the same use, even if the use doesn't change on less property, just makes it more
intense.. If you have 20 acres conducting a business and you cut ten of those acres off
and conduct the same business, it is more intense. You -- you're not spreading the
same amount of work over the same space. It is more intense. The other question
guess I have is when this was annexed there were a number of things that were not in
compliance, even with the county ordinances and on the promise of the applicants., the
city went ahead with annexation and some of the things the applicant promised was to
fix faulty wiring into an auxiliary shack. I'm not sure whether that ever happened. The
shack is no longer there, because new buildings have been built. The other promise
was to shield the view from State Highway 69 of the rock piles and the bark --
landscape rock and landscape bark and stuff for sale. That's still visible from the road
and the discussion was whether a fence would be put there or whether there could be
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 66 of 77
enough trees put there to shield it, neither of which have happened. Do you have any
idea when that's going to be complied with?
Tverdy: Oh, it's difficult for me -- I'd like to respond to a couple of points, kind of in
order. The first item is the vacation of the property, as we say, that we are consolidating
as the existing business to fewer acres, increase or expands the use, I'm not sure
agree with that point --
Zaremba: Intensifies the use.
Tverdy: Because what he's doing is storing inventory there and that inventory will just
go away. So, the clientele, the number of car trips -- I don't think you can characterize
those as expanding the use and, in particular, we are talking about exit points onto a
highway and I don't think that you could make that same point, if I understand your point
right. But, anyway, to go onto the development agreement, in preparing for these
hearings that we have had, I went back and read through the -- all the text and I do
understand the points and I read through the testimony from those meetings back four
years ago before I was around and -- and I believe that those were all addressed during
that time frame or specific items that the county -- because it was a county property at
that point -- required them to meet, enabling them to be annexed into the city. And so
I'm not sure what the -- from reading through that, the discussion back then, I'm not sure
what was concluded as to what screening was going to be required there and so I don't
know if you can clarify that. I can certainly take those back to our tenant and work for a
resolution on that. I don't know what was decided,, though. I kind of thought that they put
tree inventory there to screen it.
Zaremba: As I recall, the end suggestion was that there be enough trees to screen that
area. There are not enough trees to screen the area.
Tverdy: And the area that you're concerned with is the -- I would say the northern
portion of the property where they have the bins set up with the bulk gravel and bark
and that type of stuff.
Zaremba: What sparked my memory of it was -- was staffs comment that it still is not in
compliance with our development standards and perhaps Iwill -- I see Director Canning
is quickly looking some things up. And those were the ones that I remembered off the
top of my head, but I -- since the comment was made --
Tverdy: I find it difficult to -- to -- you know, we are the property owners there and Mr.
Mussell is a tenant on the property, so it is our responsibility to get it in in compliance.
have -- I find it a hard time to commit on his behalf on what we will do, but -- but we
certainly will take the appropriate steps to make sure the property's in compliance and
that's -- you know, we -- and if Eric Oaas were standing here, he would be doing a lot to
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 67 of 77
make sure that there is a clear delineation between Oaas Laney and development and
the projects we have done, versus the history associated with the property. So, we will
take the appropriate steps to make sure that those items are cleaned up appropriately.
Zaremba: Thank you for your promise.
De Weerd: Any further questions from Council while Anna continues to search?
Bird: I don't, but, Anna., do you have a -- a site -- an overall area site deal that would
show the west side of 69? Yeah. That's what I thought. I believe the church exit -- or
enters and exits right across from that and it's a full blown deal. So, we have granted
one on the west side, but we want to grant one on these, uh? ITD I should say.
Tverdy: If I may add, if I'm allowed to, I think it is -- it is germane to the discussion that
when this development agreement and when these letters with ITD and such were in
place, that stop light was not in place and we have since installed the stop light there at
the corner of Victory Road and Meridian. And so I mean -- you know, the traffic is much
much slowed down from where it was when this project was originally in front of -- in
front of your consideration.
Canning: Madam Mayor --
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: -- Members of the Council, just to remind the Council that the applicants do
have an access from State Highway 69 where there wasn't one on the other side. Both
applications came in prior to the code amendment for the -- prior to the UDC adoption,
but it was an ongoing concern for both sides of the highway. I did find the applicable
provisions. The applicant was tied to meeting the landscape requirements at the time of
certificate of zoning compliance approval, but it does note a 20 foot wide landscape
buffer on Victory and a 35 foot wide landscape buffer on State Highway 69. I do
remember that discussion, Commissioner Zaremba, and I think we did put it to the
certificate of zoning compliance, because there was no preliminary application at the
time.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, sorry, I misspoke. There was a
preliminary plat application. This is the final plat. I was confused for a moment. I'm sorry.
Zaremba.: I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. What we are doing tonight is a preliminary
plat; right?
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 68 of 77
Canning: It's a -- it's a re-subdivision of the first preliminary plat. The first one was
Mussell Corner Subdivision, so that did come in with an annexation.
De Weerd: Council, any other questions? Mr. Zaremba, did you have that question
answered? Did you feel there was an answer in there, because maybe --
Canning: Madam Mayor, probably not. I think this is the way it goes.
Zaremba: I guess the remaining --
De Weerd: I have been thinking, well, maybe I just didn't get it.
Canning: Typically what --
Zaremba: I had it -- I had it addressed and discussed and what still remains is staff
comment that it's still not in compliance. I don't remember all the things it was supposed
to be in compliance with, but -=
Canning: Right. Typically what happens is you come in with a preliminary plat. When
they come in with the final plats for an area, we require the landscape buffer at that
time.. It was put as a conditional -- on the conditional use application, it was required
with the CZC. On the preliminary plat we just get it as the final plats come through, but
this area is being re-preliminary platted., but has not yet gone through a final plat. Does
that make sense? I don't believe it has. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Zaremba: So, what you're saying is it does not yet need to comply with the things that
are out of compliance.
Canning: I'm not sure at this point.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, it isn't being replatted, is it? It's being resubmitted because of the
conditions on the north entry, exit, whatever you want to call it.
Canning: No. They have proposed a detailed preliminary to you, but it's a -- it's a new
preliminary plat on an area that I don't believe is final platted yet. It's not a lot in a
subdivision.
Bird: Isn't this the same plat that we seen before? I thought it did, but I'm not --
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 69 of 77
Canning: It's the same one you saw on October 23rd.
Bird.: Okay.
Canning: But in 2004 you approve Mussell Corner Subdivision.
Bird: Oh. No. No. No. I realize that. It wasn't one from 2004. No.
Andrus: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd.: Yes.
Andrus: Commissioners. Councilman Zaremba. I wanted to just clarify a point. We have
put in the 35 foot wide buffer the entire length of the property down Meridian Road and
the area that -- you know, I think that you can see in I think is -- the highway is elevated.
The property is a good element below the -- below grade of the highway. So, I think
that's probably why you could see in there, but the improvements that were required
when we did the Mussell Corner Subdivision a couple years ago, required that all be put
in. So, it is put in per the requirements there. So, now I still think that you have a
concern that we need to go and take a look at, which we will do. But I believe we have
met those requirements and I'd love Anna to comment, if she disagrees.
Canning: I'm slowly --
Zaremba: Well, I know there has been some landscaping done and it looks nice, I'm not
being unappreciative.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm slowly getting up to speed on this
one. Sorry. The legal description for this preliminary plat does list it as Lots 1, 2 and 4 of
Block 1 of Mussell Corner Subdivision. So, the project has gone through final plat
approval. We typically require the -- look for the landscape buffer at that final approval
time. I can only anticipate that we checked it and it met our minimums. I'm not sure
without doing a lot of research on it. I'd have to go back to the final plat applications and
see what was exactly approved, so I apologize.
De Weerd: Council, do you have the information that you need, in addition to what we
have already discussed or heard? Is there any further testimony?
Bird.: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, what was -- what was the final plat on? What --
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 70 of 77
Canning: I believe the entire property that was
went through the preliminary plat and the final
three of those lots, one, two and four.
part of the Mussell Corner annexation
plat process. This is a resubdivision of
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, do you want to have discussion? We still have an open Public
Hearing.. Or I'll just be quiet and wait until you talk.
Bird: Well, Madam Mayor, Ineed -- I need -- I want to make sure I'm clear on my pea
brain. What we are actually ruling on tonight is the preliminary plat and the condition of
leaving the north entry-exit there until the development of the final stage, is that what I
got they have requested or -- and does that change, then, we have to make amotion --
do we have to change the development agreement at that time?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if the -- the issue may be able to be
decided on the question of what constitutes redevelopment of the area, without the
need to change the development agreement. The findings that you have before you
tonight are, actually, the findings that were prepared based on your last hearing, so they
require the access to be removed with the first final plat. Does that answer your
question, sir?
Bird: Yeah. And if we don't -- are you comfortable if we don't change the development
agreement to state that?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, the -- the
approval, I would imagine, would note what the concept of redevelopment is and, then,
that would decide the issue.
Bird.: You're comfortable --
Canning: I'm not comfortable with you -- no. I'm sorry. Never mind.
Bird: Well, Madam Mayor, just to follow up, I -- I don't see how you can -- and (believe -
- (don't know. These people can tell me, but I believe that that north thing is right across
from the main entry into the new Valley Shepherd Church and it's a full blown deal and if
-- you know, if we have -- if we allow it there and they are not wanting this as
permanent, they are asking this to -- and I understand why they do. You go out there
and I -- the little bit I have been seeing out there and stuff, you go buy your stuff and
they go out there and they load you up with your rock and stuff and, then, instead of
having to come back through the deal., you can go out and turn right and go out. I don't
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 71 of 77
know. I have a hard time justifying denying something that's right across the street that's
just been put in within the last couple of years and this -- this has been there for ages.
De Weerd: Anything further from Council? Just thought I'd ask.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I have a lot of questions running around upstairs. It's late and it's hard to get
them out. But I just want to make sure that I understood the applicant correct when he
indicated that when phase two and three went forward that the access would be closed.
have heard that it would stay open until three was done and -- and, then, my follow-up
question to that is if we never see phase two and three, what on-sight measures would
be made to minimize the idea of eight new potential sources of vehicle traffic would not
find their way to that access to the north, as opposed to go out on Victory Road and I
don't believe the fact that it may not be improved would hinder that, because I can take
you to several places in town where people have found short cuts over hill and dale that
aren't paved and they are driving through mud to get around fences. So, you know,
anyway, I think that's -- that's my concern about what happens if.
Andrus: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, to address those points, the -- our argument with
the north access is to protect the tenant's business there, the Victory Greens business,
and where we have phase one set aside or -- we already have an agreement that Mr.
Mussell will move his business out of that corner, so that we can redevelop. His
business really can't continue there on less acreage than what is -- currently he's
consuming on phases two and three. So, yes, we would like the most flexibility as
possible to tie the vacation of that access point to phase three. Practically, it will happen
when Tim's business is no longer viable there on that sight and that, really, is phase two
and three. So, I don't want to kind of, you know, be to fuzzy about what I talk about,
that's really just the way that it will play out.
Rountree: Reality and what you want are just a little bit different.
Andrus: Yeah. Then -= I'm not sure I can address your last point. lunderstand --
understand your point. You know, is there something we can do, a signage or
something -- we would certainly entertain any and all of that, if that's what is necessary
to make everyone feel comfortable that that -- that that traffic will not be going out that
entrance.
Rountree: If that particular tenant decided to find another way of making a living or
retire or whatever for himself, would you contemplate doing something with the access
between their business office and that parcel to the north that is utilized for storage? In
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 72 of 77
other words, there would be no need for the exchange and the movement of people and
materials from Block 2 to the north.
Andrus: Gosh, I'm not a hundred percent sure I understand your question. If the
business for some reason next year was to cease to exist, would we vacate that north
entrance; is that what you're asking me?
Rountree: Uh-huh.
Andrus: We would -- we would go into a more aggressive development of phase two
and three in that event and I think that, yes, we would.
Rountree: Yes, you would.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd:: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: This may have been asked during the October hearing and I have forgotten
the answer, that the lease that the tenant has has how much longer to run on it?
Andrus: Well, it's kind of complicated, but there are -- there are two leases on the
property, both of them expire in two years, so 2009 and I think it's like May of 2009. One
lease deals with the property toward phase one. It's not a clear break, but it's pretty
close. That one is not renewable unless the landlord gives the option for him to renew it
for an additional five years. The property to the -- what would generally be phase two
and phase three, is renewable for five years at the tenant's request. So, the way that
stacks up, then, is there really is a two year lease --given our plans, there really is a two
year lease on the area related to phase one and a seven year lease related to areas of
phase two and three, if the tenant wants to take it that long.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Andrus: There is a whole lot of discussion associated with what I just summarized there
that I feel a little uncomfortable representing Mr. Mussell on that, but that's the contract
that's in place today.
Bird.: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird..
Bird: On that -- getting back up to that temporary access, did you say there was a gate
with a lock on it?
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 73 of 77
Andrus: Yeah. After business hours the -- the property is locked currently that the entry
point is right there and we would move it to there and there is gate right here that is
closed and locked and that's basically during his business hours and that's how he
controls traffic coming on and off the site and he made it very clear to me that he would
want to maintain that because of inventory theft.
Bird: Yeah. I can understand that.
De Weerd: Council, anything further? Any final remarks? Staff? Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird..
Bird: Before we close this -- we didn't close the Public Hearing, did we?
De Weerd: No.
Bird.: Anna, I got a question. Are we -- are we allowed, seeing how this is state
highway, are we allowed, if we wanted to put a stipulation of that access being right-in,
right-out only? Is it -- can we legally do it?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird., the way I
describe this to folks when they come into us is that you have got kind of two gates that
you have got to get through to get to the highway. You -- you can tell folks what they
can do as far as coming off of their property and, then, the state has the authority to say
what they do coming onto the property. So, if you were to require some improvements
be made on their property side that would limit them to physically basically being only
able to do a right-in, right-out, that's -- that's something you could do.
Bird: That's what I thought you was going to tell me. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I guess everybody's done needing to hear any Public Hearing. I hope everybody --
anybody else wants to testify, if they don't, I move that we close the Public Hearing on
PP 07-014.
Rountree: Second..
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 22. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 74 of 77
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: No one needs me ask if we have a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'll try one. I move that we approve PP 07-014, request for preliminary plat
approval for 34 commercial retail building lots and one common lot on 17.84 acres
within a C-G zone for Emerson Park Commercial by Kuna-Victory, LLC, at 2910 and
3030 South Meridian Road and 110 East Victory Road. And to change condition of
approval 1.1.12 to state that northern access shall be discontinued at -- at the phase --
the final plat of .phase three, I guess.
Rountree: Two.
Bird: Phase two or three, whichever.
Rountree: Which one?
Bird.: I want three.. I said three to start with.
De Weerd: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Borton: Second for discussion.
De Weerd: We have a second for discussion.. Discussion.
Borton: Would the motion maker be inclined to amend the motion to make it phase
two?
Bird: You know what, Iwould -- yeah, Iguess. Iwould -- the motion maker would agree
to phase two.
De Weerd: Does second agree?
Borton: Second that amended motion.
De Weerd: Any further discussion from Council?
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 75 of 77
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if the motion maker would also agree that any measures
need to be made for the property to become in compliance -- or there is some suspicion
that it may not be, prior to the final plat for phase one --
Bird..: And we are -- we are getting on two -- kind of from wrong, I'm not against that, but
we are getting on two different subjects. What -- a preliminary plat has nothing to do
with what the old development agreement -- or what they haven't done, has it? I mean I
think they should get up to compliance, yes, but Idon't -- I don't think this preliminary
plat on this -- on phase one does that. I mean is where you do it. I don't know.
Rountree: I guess I just bring that out that it's an issue for compliance and enforcement,
so maybe we can handle it through enforcement.
Bird: I was going to say, that's -- we have to enforce -- something in place already for
enforcement to do.
Rountree: And the applicant's agreed to get it done, so we need to follow through.
Bird: Yeah.
De Weerd: I think just that note of discussion was already received.. So, any further
discussion. Mr. Berg., will you, please, call roll. I'm sorry. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: And just a question to the maker of the motion. Would you want to have an
alternative time limit if you --
Bird: No.
Rountree: Seven years.
Bird: I'd just as soon leave it like it is.
Zaremba.: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 23: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a),(1)(fl.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 200.7
Page 76 of 77
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. There was an addition of an Item 23 with an Executive
Session. Do I have a motion to adjourn into Executive Session?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird.: Are we going into Executive Session? I move we go into Executive Session as
per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a), (1)(f). '
Rountree: Second..
De Weerd.: Okay. I have a motion and a second. I would ask that Mr. Nary join as well.
And -- oh, roll call.
Roil-Call: Bird., yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of executive session.
Rountree: So moved..
Bird.: Second
De Weerd: All those in favor, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Then a motion to adjourn?
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second
De Weerd: All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:27 A.M.
Meridian City Council
December 4, 2007
Page 77 of 77
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
MAYOR TAMMY De WEERD
/ /_
DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK