June 3, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council
June 3, 2008
Page 19 of 56
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor'?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Go ahead. I'm way ahead of myself here.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve MFP 08-003, which is a request for a
modification of FP 08-005, as stated in Item 9.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none,
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from May 27, 2008: ZOA 08-001 Request for
a Zoning Ordinance / Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment
to modify, clean up and add specific sections to the UDC (see application
for details of all sections proposed for amendments) for Unified
Development Code Text Amendment #4 by the City of Meridian
Planning Department:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 is a continued Public Hearing on ZOA 08-001. We will ask
for staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I presented this to you last week and
there was a few comments, so I'd like to go through those and, then, answer any other
questions you may have. There was some testimony -- written testimony provided by
Mr. Jim Jewett with regard to the TN-C district. We have gone through and
incorporated the spirit of those comments. We took exact language and made sure it
can fit in with the code as we saw most appropriate. We did forward those to Mr.
Jewett. I don't see him in the audience tonight and we have not heard from him, so I'm
Meridian City Council
June 3, 2008
Page 20 of 56
assuming that he is agreeable to those modifications we made. And I did want to just
go on the record -- my only concern with these modifications is that we will likely need to
modify them again shortly to incorporate the design guidelines. So, I just wanted to -- I
really don't have any concern with them right now, but we may come back in another
couple of months and suggest other modifications. With regard to political signs, there
was a section in there that pulled out political signs in residential districts to remove any
time and date restrictions on those political signs. There has been concern expressed
about the proliferation of signs, so what we did, instead of the previous method, we
went back through and took out any content references in the temporary signs in
residential districts and because there is no discrimination as to the content, then, the
time and place restrictions can remain, because it applies to all signs in residential
districts. If you really want more information on that, I can provide it, but that's the short
answer.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: Then, there was -- Councilmember Rountree expressed some concern about
landscaping in industrial districts. I did go through and look at the code today and have
one short new addition to the alternative compliance landscaping standards that we
could add with regard to that. As I testified last week, I have been doing this as an
alternative compliance. I'm more comfortable doing it that way than doing a relaxed
standard for all industrial properties, because it's difficult to accommodate those
changes and uses where it goes -- where it adjoins residential or commercial or streets.
So, I felt more comfortable just making it clear in the alternative compliance section that
you could ask for alternative compliance with regard to the truck maneuvering areas
and the use of chain link for fencing within industrial districts for screening, chain link
with slats for screening within industrial districts. So, I did add that one. And, then, the
final thing was you asked that I go back and add gated communities or gates for private
streets. There were some recent changes done by ACHD with regard to a minor street
section that would replace our current private streets, so that, coupled with the gate
question, I felt would be better served doing a separate ordinance amendment for that
and I will follow up on that, but t felt the scope of it was a little too broad for the noticing
that we have done so far and that it really should be noticed and perhaps even
remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, I felt it was better just to
move forward and come back through and follow up with the a private street
amendment. So, there may be additional items Council wanted to talk about. It was
late last week. We didn't discuss much, so, please, let me know if there is anything else
and I can address that, I can bring up the staff report that has the list of the full changes,
if you so desire. There was also -- we received written testimony from Gary Inselman
with Ada County Highway District with regard to the access to streets provision in
support of that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. You have heard staff comments. Any questions from
Council?
Rountree: I have none.
Meridian City Council
June 3, 2008
Page 21 of 56
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Anna, I had a question on the landscaping in industrial districts part, the 11-5B-
5B-3. And when I looked at the list of potential uses, first thought was that -- to just -- to
pull from that amending provision the last sentence, the part where it says are within an
industrial district and/or. So, you can -- so, the thought would be you can utilize that
chain link with slating when it's near adjoining properties that are industrial uses, not
merely are within an industrial district, because some of those uses in the district aren't
really industrial. So, just throw that out for --
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, any -- the current code provisions
generally require buffers to industrial uses, rather than industrial zoning districts,
actually. We went through and looked at that. That being that there are some industrial
or -- usually it's just the opposite, it's non-industrial uses. So, really, any use in an
industrial district would be an industrial use. There are some industrial uses that aren't
in industrial districts, either because they are in the county or they are mis-zoned or they
are kind of a-- have nonconforming zoning currently. So, we did look -- we did think
about just using uses. We did think about just using districts. We can do either.
Because it was alternative compliance, I wasn't too concerned about putting both,
because it's still a judgment call as to whether or not I feel it's appropriate, rather than a
standard. And this was one of the reasons I didn't want it to be a strict standard,
because it does require a lot of just common sense and good judgment in applying it.
Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Borton: With that understanding that it's, you know, directed towards alternative
compliance, I see some obvious uses within a zone which you probably would clearly
pick out aren't appropriate to utilize that type of screening.
Canning: Yes.
Borton: So, as long as it gives you the flexibility to deny it where it's not appropriate.
That was my only question. Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Not right now.
Meridian City Council
June 3, 2008
Page 22 of 56
De Weerd: Is there any public testimony on this application? Yes, sir. Sir, even. If you
will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Morrow: Walt Morrow. 2340 West Franklin Road, Meridian.
De Weerd: Okay. You want to pull the microphone close -- closer.
Morrow: Is that close enough?
De Weerd: Yes. Thank you.
Morrow: Okay. Thank you. I have some questions or some comments with reflect to --
and Anna and I have talked about this -- five foot landscaping requirements on interior
lot lines within an industrial district. The issue there is that they don't make any sense
from the standpoint of maintaining them when you have them back to back on each side
of the property line, you have inter-growth amongst trees, it denies both properties the
use of that. We have problems maintaining them from the standpoint of tractor-trailers,
delivery trucks, those types of things, breaking the curbs, running over trees, breaking
trees -- it is an expense, needless to say, that you don't recapture in terms of having the
industrial user maximizing the potential of the lot, which is -- is the job there. So, I don't
have any problem with landscaping along street lines. I do think those landscapes in
industrial areas ought to be ten to fifteen feet and not necessarily more like 50 feet
adjacent to a freeway. Certainly if that were the case when Western Equipment and
Cesco and all those folks were there -- built their projects along the freeway, then, may
preclude those folks from even being in there within the community. So, in the quest of
trying to bring jobs and industry to the area and we compete with other areas, it seems
to me that we have to understand that the maximum use of the dirt that's there creates
the income and the capability of the companies to be there and the maintenance long
term of the interior lot lines, landscaping, is problematic. Alternative landscaping is --
can be arbitrary. It seems to me that it's just another step that we don't need to do, but
we have no landscaping required in terms of the interior lot lines and we have company
backing to -- company backing and have the fencing in between. There is probably no
better example of the things that I'm talking about than in Railside Subdivision, which is
at Pine and Locust Grove, as you drive through there, it's now about a five or six years
old subdivision, you can begin to see the overgrowth of back-to-back landscaping. You
can see the difficulties that companies have with screening fences and chain link fences
that aren't screening and maintenance and the fact that you lose the use of the dirt that
can be put to better use in terms of making those businesses more aggressive -- more
profitable and less maintenance. So, that's how I-- that's how Anna and I differ in terms
of the interior lot lines. Any questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor'?
Meridian City Council
June 3, 2008
Page 23 of 56
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: He makes an extremely valid point, I believe, and I think others have made a
similar point way back in my memory from times on the Planning and Zoning
Commission. I think I have heard the same sensible comment. Part of the reason for
the landscaping requirements are not just to make them pretty, but the landscaping
helps clean the air, helps cool areas, and I think the intent is not to have vast areas that
have no landscaping. So, I guess my question isn't really for you, it's for staff, Director
Canning, and that would be the solution to the problem here would be alternative
compliance, but since this has come up several times in my recollection for the same
reason in -- always in an industrial zone, might we just want to say that we could
eliminate it on the interior lot lines and make the requirement more stringent along the
public road line -- if we figured out what the alternative compliance usually would be
and, then, change the ordinance to say you have to put all alternate compliance in front
of your building or something and, then, we didn't have to struggle with this every time.
Is that workable or is that difficult?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we actually, don't have a
landscaping requirement on interior lot lines. Where the requirement kicks in is
because we have a requirement for a five foot landscape buffer adjoining any drive aisle
areas. So, any vehicle driving areas I think is how it's worded. So, where that ends up
happening is parking lots and, then, these truck maneuvering areas and the parking lots
I think Mr. Morrow and I perhaps agree to disagree that -- that -- I still think they are
necessary along just the parking lots, where they have provided vehicle parking spaces
for customers coming to the -- to the building, I think that those are still appropriate in
those locations. The other areas which can be a large portion of the site, are the
vehicle maneuvering areas and that's why I specifically reference them in the language
I'm proposing, is because we do get -- it just doesn't make sense sometimes, I will
agree on that one, that there are instances where it's just asphalt for the purpose of
moving those trucks in and out. There is no customers going back there or it's just
maneuvering areas along with storage areas and the landscaping has little benefit to the
actual storage of materials within the property. So, that's why I called those out for
alternative compliance. But a lot of it depends on how that individual property is being
used in relationship to the adjoining properties as to what makes sense and, again,
that's why I would prefer that it stay within alternative compliance, rather than a more
lenient standard.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Morrow: If I might, Mr. Zaremba, I would also suggest to you that the vast majority of
these sites, in terms of the building lots, are acre to an acre and a half in size, with ten
to 15 to 20 thousand square foot buildings. And so in that generally you have organized
parking along the street frontage areas and the rest of the lot is primarily overhead
doors that you're backing into and out of delivering, plus driving around the building,
plus storage areas, so the interior lot lines in some cases maybe used for some
Meridian City Council
June 3, 2008
Page 24 of 56
incidental parking, but the primary parking is along street frontages where we already
have landscaping available. So, it's a matter of these sites are fairly -- are small sites.
We are not talking about five acre sites, which, obviously, different standards should
apply, because of the sheer size of the them and I'm sensitive to the argument about
cleaning up the air and so on and so forth, because you can do it by size there. But on
these particular subdivisions and sizes, there is just not a lot of room there and we are
spending part of it for this use. That doesn't make a lot of sense. If that helps.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Well, what it muddies is what development do we -- do we account public
parking on -- on the street in the allowance?
Canning: Madam Mayor, I think Mr. Morrow means that it -- it backs up to the public
street. That you have your street buffer and, then, you have your parking.
De Weerd: Okay.
Morrow: And, then, typically where ever you have your street buffer, you also have your
parking and, then, the other two or three sides of the lot, either utilizing within the usage
of the building.
De Weerd: Okay.
Morrow: And that's the problematic area. I'm totally on board with the street.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Morrow. Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor'?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: It's not a question. 1 agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying and I
wouldn't put it up in the front, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't try and -- you know, if you take
away that requirement and pose something else somewhere else, just for the sake of
doing it, I would be inclined just to remove it, but, procedurally, I don't see -- and I'm
looking through everything on this topic, I don't see this particular issue as being one
that is up for the Public Hearing, which we could address through this process. It might
be one that we need to fix. But assuming we wanted to go that way -- I might, but if
everyone else did, can you do that for this process or does that need to be done
another time?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, I forgot to look
that up. Let me check. Hold on.
Borton: Kind of a long way to ask that question. I didn't see it.
Meridian City Council
June 3, 2008
Page 25 of 56
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Well, I was just going to make that comment. I don't believe it was included
in our original public notice. It was added because of my comment last week. I think
this paragraph that Anna has provided us tonight is -- is -- or could be an interim until
we get to the issue and maybe make the modifications next go around. But for now I
think Anna attempted to do what she could on this item as this was advertised in
hearings presented last week. A question for Mr. Morrow. I think that -- had a lot of
schooling here, visited a lot of sites. It is an issue. I think it's something that we need to
get on the agenda and talk about. But for Mr. Morrow, I think on an interim basis that at
least having something written about truck maneuvering areas and chain link is a step
forward and, hopefully, makes the process a little less arbitrary and I think Anna used
the words common sense and I always go back to that comment that whose common
sense are we using. And if it's Anna's, okay. If, however, Anna, has to give that
common sense to each and every staff member as applications come through, then, I
think we ought to get this on the agenda, get it taken care of. So, I'm just asking you for
an interim as an approach that -- you can wait and --
Morrow: That's fine, as long as you continue to get to the point, because to something
-- because we are rapidly running out of industrial or light industrial ground within the
city. We need that in terms of a job base. The city's goal, in my opinion, needs to be to
try to create cities in Treasure Valley that are job neutral, so we don't have quite as
much commuter -- commuter traffic, those kinds of things. There is lots of positives
about continuing to pursue industrial development and as long as the standards make
for usable lots, then, we will attain that. I would have no problem with the interim steps,
as well as we progress towards the ultimate goal.
De Weerd: Well, even if you did we couldn't do it right now.
Rountree: I think that's what Anna is going to tell us.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, actually, you can. We did -- part of
the original was to modify the alternative compliance section. So, that is a section that
we noticed for changes. So, you can make those changes. I would suggest that it
would be appropriate at this time and as Mr. Morrow develops some properties, let's see
if it helps us in moving toward that. If it achieves those goals, again, I think that -- I
really think that it's going to be too difficult to write a standard to replace common sense
in this instance. So, for the interim I would like to suggest that we just go with this for a
long interim until we can figure out if it's working.
De Weerd: Well -- and I think you could define it as the -- it's the director's call and,
then, that answers your question, Mr. Rountree, on whose common sense. It's the one
that's answerable to you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 3, 2008
Page 26 of 56
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I just soon have a law written that's clear and to the point than to have alternative
concepts every time we have something come down the tube. Because we have very
few to do identical applications and if it's a law written in there, then, that's the way it
goes and the people don't have to worry about what the alternative concept's going to
be all out. They know what is allowed and what isn't allowed by that. So, I would
sooner see us get hard facts and set the law in place than -- and have no judgment left
for it myself. I think you got to also look at the land -- the setbacks. Very much so.
Industrial is different that retail. And we are losing industrial ground in Meridian. We
are losing industrial business that is going to the west of us. So, we need to get after it.
Borton: Madam Mayor? Oh.
De Weerd: I don't think that's always a result of not lack of I-L or landscaping. It might
have something to do with ownership, so -- Mr. Borton.
Borton: Madam Mayor, I don't -- I don't have issues with any of the other amendments,
but if -- and I can't find, Anna, the -- and maybe this is the language you're putting up
here, which -- which fits and allows the option to try and make this change to this
process. I know this process takes some time and if this is fixable, I'd just as soon table
it a week to get language on this particular issue that addresses at least what
Councilman Bird's talking about, if there is a way to have some more concrete
guidance, again, on this one issue. Bring that forward. All the other changes I'm fine
with. If that means we table it a week, I'd rather do that than require a separate UDC
text amendment application to come forward and all the time and hassle with that and
delay, so --
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I-- I don't believe that -- well, the text
I was showing before was a portion of the alternative compliance section. So, that was
something we had notified. I'm not sure that we made changes to the landscaping
provisions that would need to be changed to make this a permanent -- and that's what
I'm trying to look up now. I just wanted to make sure that if we delay it a week to make
permanent changes, it may require re-noticing anyway. But we can do that if you'd like.
I-- again, I'm very nervous about a permanent change to not require any landscaping
adjoining truck maneuvering areas without some -- you know, that they could take up
right to the property line of an already developed property. There may be trees on the
adjoining property that need to be protected.
Borton: Madam Mayor'?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Anna, you -- if we went that route you might be right. I mean I guess it also
invites the opportunity for you to put together the list of why that idea is just dead wrong.
Meridian City Council
June 3, 2008
Page 27 of 56
My reaction right now is it's the right thing to do. I could be wrong. But I guess that
allows us to craft language and understand that issue a little more. I just -- it's just an
idea. I might be by myself on this.
De Weerd: Well, certainly, Council, it's your call. I think Anna has a point where there
is some -- if you rush this through it can't be well thought through and if Mr. Morrow was
okay to move forward with what has been suggested so far, he can be part of the new
language and look at it as a complete picture where we can anticipate unintended
consequences from action that might be done hastily. So, it certainly is discussion and
your decision. And I won't ask for it right now, because this is a Public Hearing and
there may be someone else who wants to testify. Mr. Morrow, anything else?
Morrow: No, thank you, ma'am.
De Weerd: I think you have caused enough trouble. Is there any other public testimony
on this application? I did have one other signed up. Mr. Forrest -- okay. Thank you,
sir. Okay. Seeing no other public comment, Council, what is your direction?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would just chime in with what I think has been said. Other parts of this are
coming together and developing into their supposedly final form, but I could agree with
continuing this for a week to get some of the language on this subject, if that's what
other people are saying.
Rountree: Next week is a workshop. Madam Mayor, if we do -- continue this, we would
have to do it I think until at least the 17th. I'm not sure that we would have time on the
10th during the workshop to address this.
De Weerd: Huh-uh.
Bird: No.
De Weerd: Perhaps we should ask Council or staff if they have time to bring it back,
then, by the 17th. On just that one issue. At least a recommendation and your -- your
best advice on if you can deal with it under the current parameters of the changes as
they are or if it does need to come back in a different format.
Canning: Certainly, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: I could probably provide that within five minutes time by looking at -- at the
code briefly. If the Council's desire is by the 17th to have new language, I guess I'm still
Meridian City Council
June 3, 2008
Page 28 of 56
a little unclear on who all I need to consult -- am I working with Mr. Morrow? Am I
working with -- there is -- there are finro industrial owners that talk to us regularly, Mr.
Morrow is one and Mr. Van Auker's representative is the other, so I--
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'll chime in. It might help that I would suggest that you work
with your liaison.
Bird: Be glad to.
De Weerd: And I'm sure the industrial users that you know of, they would be good to
consult.
Bird: That's right.
Canning: And have spoken to Mr. Morrow in the past. He's drug me on many a site
visit at this point. And I did call Mr. Miller today to talk to him about the issues as well.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor'?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I did want to clarify to make sure that my remarks were not misconstrued to
say that changing the language was the only option. I certainly understand the reason
for the request and it sounds like a reasonable request, but I'm also open to staff
providing a defense of what's already there.
Canning: And between the --
Zaremba: I didn't mean to say the thing I wanted to hear was new language.
Canning: No. And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there was actually a
difference of opinion between the two individuals 1 spoke to with regard to the -- the five
foot landscape buffer, so --
Rountree: 1 can't imagine that.
Zaremba: Imagine that.
De Weerd: Okay. So, I-- it looks like the 17th will be an interesting discussion to
continue this on. Just that one subject.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would move that we continue Item 10 until our regularly
scheduled meeting June 17th, to address specifically Item 11-5B-5B-3.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
June 3, 2008
Page 29 of 56
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue this until June 17th. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2008: VAR 08-004 Request for
a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2.a, which prohibits new approaches directly
accessing a state highway to allow a temporary access to SH 55/Eagle
Road for Great Wall Restaurant by Kinsan Chan - 2590 North Eagle
Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 11 is also a continued Public Hearing on VAR 08-004. I will ask
for staff comments at this time.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you may recall I gave the full
presentation on this Public Hearing item and, then, the applicant requested tabling it
after my presentation. So, I will not go through the full presentation, unless you would
like to rehear it.
De Weerd: Council, you did get a briefing at one time. Is there -- would you like to have
it refreshed?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I just want confirmation that though there was anticipated
change, nothing's changed.
Canning: Correct, sir.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Is the applicant here this evening? Thank you. If
you will state your name and address for the record.
Fairchild: My name is Mike Fairchild, I'm the architect representing Mr. Kin Sun Chan.
My address is 1518 Mulligan Street in Middleton, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fairchild: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, we have been working on this
site for quite some time, anticipating that we would get access to this site through the
property to the east, Boyd Homes or something like that.
De Weerd: Bach Homes.