Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 1, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 13 of 34 Zaremba: Happy birthday and congratulations. De Weerd: Okay. Since I haven't opened the public hearing, I would say that Council, just for the record, I am in favor of it. Item 11: Public Hearing: AP 08-003 Request for City Council Review for an Appeal of Director's Determination to deny alternative compliance to allow a portion of the former ldaho Truss site to be used for shared parking for the Broadwav InteQrated Proiect (CZC 08-018) by Ward Schwider - 130 E. Broadway Avenue: Zaremba: Okay. Now that we are in compliance, I will open the public hearing on Item No. 11, AP 08-003. We will begin with the staff report. Mr. Hood. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, Members of the Council. This item is an application to appeal Anna's determination for some off-site shared parking in Old Town. As you can see on the map, we have highlighted the two sites that are in question. The one in red actually includes the adjacent parcel, 130 and 132 East Broadway and they are proposing to use some parking at the old Idaho Trust -- Idaho Trust site for -- to meet the required parking. The applicant applied for the alternative compliance, because they didn't want to provide the required on-site parking for the subject mixed use project. The planning director denied the alternative compliance request, because in Old Town the alternative to providing the on-site parking is to pay the MDC in lieu fees. Anna was given the direction by the Council and through the resolution that was adopted last year to require all Old Town projects to either provide a combination of providing on site and in lieu fees or just provide all on site. That is the alternative in Old Town. So, her decision was based on that -- those two things. Shared off-site parking was not an option, so she denied the application. The applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Council, any questions? Bird: t have none. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Is the applicant here? It's your turn. If you will, please, begin by stating your name and your address for the record. Schwider: Hi. My name is Ward Schwider. I'm the applicant, the owner of 130 and 132 projects in downtown Meridian. My address is 1716 North 32nd in Boise. The question here -- the issue here is the fact that we have two sites, 130 and 132, in downtown Meridian. 132 is the old McFadden Market and the Meridian Exchange Bank and it's an existing building that -- I guess I have a picture right here. And we want to rehab this existing -- existing building right here and, then, add on 130, which is a new four story building right next to it. We have all the engineering done and we want to get that under construction. But the in lieu fees -- well, my partner is a co-owner of the property across Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 14 of 34 the street, the Idaho Trust property, which is to the south of us. We hold control of 230 car parking spaces. We wish to park -- this building required parking on that site and such. We would kind of maintain the urban character of Broadway. We would have, you know, the old historic buildings and this new 30 foot wide new building on that street. The goals of the urban development that -- as I see it in Meridian, is that you want to develop a, you know, compact downtown core. You don't want to have a building and, then, a parking lot and, then, a building and, then, a parking lot. And we have the parking. It's across the street to the south against the railroad tracks. We see that that's really our opportunity to put the parking against the railroad and do a parking garage or just share it with the -- with the theater. We have, you know, two uses that are going to be pretty complimentary across the street. And the site that we have, the 130 site, lends itself really well to a retail development, not a parking lot. It's only 30 feet wide. It could hardly park any cars, because you need 44 feet to get an economy of parking spaces. So, I really wish that we could park across the street there and, then, build that site up and make it kind of fit the urban character of downtown. So, that's kind of my hopes on this property. And I'll let my partner speak and he will give you more information about the Union Pacific leasehold and some of those other details. McCarthy: Hi. I'm John McCarthy, 7204 Brentwood Drive in Boise, Idaho. I'm a part owner of the fee simple property that's across the street. As well, I'm a managing member of the LLC that is in control of the Idaho Trust property. They are partners with Idaho Trust of the Union Pacific leasehold. What we have submitted to Planning and Zoning was parking with a shared parking -- provide parking for the 130 building and provide within that leasehold is never taken away for any reason, that within that shared parking agreement was a stipulation that the in lieu fees that were already agreed upon through MDC, would have to be paid. So, in our mind we have that requirement for the parking covered in case the leasehold for any reason -- I know there is questions about how long the leasehold actually is, whether it's -- right now it's one year with an automatic renewal, although there is a clause within the -- the boilerplate lease that gets down to 30 days. And that's up for -- although that lease has been in place -- Idaho Trust has had it for 30 years and nothing's ever happened. But, anyway, back to the -- back to the parking agreement. If that was ever to happen that the owners of 130, 132, and Meridian Exchange Bank building, would have 60 days to pay MDC the in lieu fees. So, that's kind of -- and all we are asking for as owners within Old Town is that we would have the right as everybody else in the City of Meridian to use the alternative compliance procedures in the code, which is 11-3-C-7, to provide an alternative compliance, instead of what the resolution says that you guys -- 07-583. Bird: Mr. President? Zaremba: Councilman Bird. Bird: Mr. McCarthy, I got a couple of questions. Has Union Pacific given whoever is willing to -- has this property or -- whether it's Idaho Trust, whoever has the lease with them for the one year with a 30 day pull out -- written approval of this for parking? Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 15 of 34 McCarthy: Oh, yeah. They understand. I-- Bird: You have got it written. You have got written -- McCarthy: I have not received it yet. I gave them a proposal back in March that I actually wanted a 25 year lease with a 25 year renewal. Bird: But you have not got it back. McCarthy: Not yet. Bird: Okay. So, you're, basically, working under ldaho Trust, which is one year, with a 30 day default. McCarthy: And that's exactly what shared parking -- Bird: And, then, they can pull out. Okay. The in lieu fee is quite heavy. You say that if UP pulls out, you'll have -- you will, then, pay the in lieu. McCarthy: Within the shared parking agreement on -- Bird: Are we going to put this in a trust, so that -- here is what happens. What happens if we get down the road, sign that kind of deal, UP pulls that thing, you got a building up, you have got tenants in there, and the cash flow isn't to where you can pay the in lieu. And it's -- I can't remember what it is. I'll state right up front I never voted for in lieu parking. I think it stinks, but that's my personal opinion. McCarthy: That's the -- Councilman Bird, the -- on that one, because we got lucky because there is so much existing, it's only 120,000 dollars. For example, The Hub that's next door that has the parking attached, if they ever go -- that in lieu fee will be over 500 grand. And within the in lieu fee is that the city has requested the developer to pay that up front, before even zoning compliance, which we think is an undue burden. Now, if something has to be worked up to how that -- those funds are paid, there is a lot of -- there is a lot of city's around the country have them staggered on installments. Then, if UP ever pulled back, which they haven't yet in 30 years, there is some precedent there, then, the funds will be there. Bird: But in the same token, right now that property is under agreement that UP could pull it within 30 days. I mean even though you have applied for the 25 year lease or whatever it is -- McCarthy: I'm not an attorney, but that's how 1-- Bird: And I'm not an attorney either. Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 16 of 34 McCarthy: I'd have to defer to Mr. Baird. Bird: But I-- I would feel a lot lot lot more comfortable if you had that 25 year written deal from UP. McCarthy: Well -- Bird: Because UP pretty well can do what UP wants to do. McCarthy: Well, Councilman Bird, it's not even the 25 years in my mind, if we are going to talk about it. It's the -- actually, it's 13-B, which is the 30 day. If that's goes away, to request of them that they adjust that somehow to where it does not say 30 days, which is making everybody uncomfortable, the one year least with automatic renewal, is good, too. Not good for me to get financing at all, you know, and they have told us that that 25 year probably won't be there. So, there is going to be -- I have been told that it probably will be somewhere in between, from an existing one year least, automatic renewals, to -- not to 25 year. For example, in the past Lumber's had a five year lease. They had a five year lease with automatic renewals. Bird: But they still had the 30 day -- McCarthy: And I would agree with you on -- Bird: And you're trying to get rid of the 30 days. McCarthy: Yes. But that's a secondary issue tied to the appeal. We don't want to just have the right -- you're telling -- if the Council tells me that if that goes away, at least I have the right through the -- that resolution that we changed it that Anna can say, well, okay, you do have an alternative compliance procedure. Right now the people in Old Town do not -- if I had a fee simple -- if that was fee simple property across the street, I couldn't use it for parking. Bird: I agree. McCarthy: That's -- there is two issues. That's one issue. The second one is, granted, the 30 day clause. It's not really the lease term, it's the clause. Borton: Mr. Zaremba, question. Zaremba: Go ahead. Borton: I think it's awesome what you're trying to and you really are boxed in. This is a tough one. And I agree with Councilman Bird. Unfortunately, this -- the circumstances here and -- and we are just fooling ourselves if we don't acknowledge the problem that Councilman Bird suggested could happen if -- I mean it's real and it's -- there is no way -- there is no way out of it short of you trusting the funds. Now, one option could be -- Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 17 of 34 my comfortable level could change, if you can -- they have responded back to you and you have indicated that you think they are going to provide -- you know, one and 25 years. That's a huge improvement issue. I mean to accomplish that would be amazing, because it improves our comfort level and the property across the street would remain as viable parking. I mean I think you have identified an interesting concern with it. Granted, you know, is there another alternative compliance? The intent is the in lieu of fee. It serves a specific purpose. I know Mr. Wardle, with the downtown development corporation is here. He might add comment to that. You know, the concern that Councilman Bird raised is -- I don't know how to get through it, you know. If the property goes away across the street, the ownership of this project has gone, you have tenants in there, who pays the fee, short of it being trusted. So, that's got -- I just throw that out. That's what I'm wrestling with it. McCarthy: Well, then, I would come back -- then, the Council is telling me and all the other owners in Old Town, that 11-3 alternative compliance in your ordinance doesn't exist for us, that we can't come to the Planning Commission and ask for an alternative compliance to provide, even if that was fee simple across the street. I can't do that, because your resolution says it's on-site parking or in lieu fees. So, that means all those homeowners in the Old Town district do not have the right to use 11-3-C-7. It doesn't exist. You guys wiped it off. That's all we are asking for. There is two points. Give us the right to use that ordinance, then, should -- then, we can address the other problem. It's two stages. I understand there is a problem with the 30 day lease, but give us the right to provide some alternative compliance as well. Borton: Mr. Vice-President. And I agree that is probably another way to look at it, but the difference is what you have is you don't own this ground. This isn't a property owner who has got, you know, sole and specific control over an adjacent parcel and want to use that parcel and maybe we need to craft some solutions for those situations. I think you're right. I wish this were that case and if there wasn't a structure to try to allow that, maybe we can look into doing it. But we don't have that here. And I wish we did. You're close. You might get -- you know, a longer leasehold will get you closer. It's not fee simple. It's not the best. But, you know, 25 years is phenomenal. With what you have right now -- and maybe this gets tabled and let you continue to work through UP and -- and let you try and resolve that, but if that -- I don't disagree with you. I understand the problem. At least just talking to myself. But under these circumstances I don't know how you clear that hurdle today. McCarthy: I guess procedurally, then, if -- 130 would have to come back through again with a CZC application if the lease term -- lease terms were different and go through the whole procedure again, because that's what this is about, the 130 building. We are set -- Ward has designed it -- we are going to move ahead with the bank and the market and there will be a parking lot for 130. There will not be a building there, because we -- because we are restoring that bank and that market, we have enough parking for the condos and it's ready to go ahead. That CZC has been approved and we are ready to go to permit, so, then, the city is going to look at a parking lot, a 30 foot wide strip sitting in there until this issue can be solved. Not only the alternative compliance issue, but Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 18 of 34 also the Union Pacific issue. So, if tabling this is the best thing to do, then, I'm sure we will be agreeable with that. Zaremba: I think you said this, but tell me again -- on the Idaho Trust property or lease hold or whatever it is, you had notified Union Pacific that non-Idaho Trust people will be parking there and they have not responded yet or that's okay with them? McCarthy: I sent them a proposal in March, what we intended to do with the property. The existing building is here. They wouid have the majority of the parking and use the rest of it for public or private parking and I'm waiting for that response. It's gone up and down the chain of command at UP I guess a lot of times. Zaremba: I know other people that have tried to deal with them and it's not easy. McCarthy: Yeah. They said it's coming. I don't know -- I don't know when. It could be -- it could be tomorrow, it could be two weeks from now. Borton: Mr. Vice-President? Zaremba: Councilman Borton. Borton: Mr. McCarthy, I don't -- I don't know if I gave you the chance to -- or I might have skipped it if you said it -- to answer the question that Councilman Bird brought up with. There is a unique fact situation which makes this one problematic, you know, unless you can help us craft some solution that addresses it, other than, you know, just take a risk and try it. And one of the examples was -- was trust in the -- in the -- I don't know whether it was a letter of credit of whatnot, the in lieu of fees, I mean if that's an option, that changes things. At least it helps answer the unanswered question. So, I don't know if I gave you a chance to answer that. I'd love to have you try and help there. McCarthy: Well, I have some problems with -- I guess that's another discussion for another day with MDC, I guess, on the in lieu fees. Borton: Okay. McCarthy: If I'm providing parking on a piece of property that I either have a fee simple ownership of or a leasehold interest in, I don't think I should not have to be paying in lieu fees, if I'm providing the parking for it. Almost exactly like The Hub that was approved -- The Hub -- they have a parking !ot next door. They are not paying in lieu fees. They will if that parking lot ever goes away, but right now, since that lot is contiguous to his development, he's not paying in lieu fees. Now, whether fee simple or a leasehold interest, it's an interest and I have the same right as any other development. I think if the leasehold was different -- if the 30 day -- let's say the 30 day clause goes away, I Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 19 of 34 have the same rights, leasehold right, or same rights to parking as The Hub does, though he's fee simple and mine's leasehold. Zaremba: One of the things we consistently struggle with is how to administer things that turn out to be out the odds ducks. It's nice if everything followed the ordinance and could be smooth like that, but maybe I need some help either from Mr. Baird or Mr. Hood. If we were to go saying that you could use this alternative for now, but you had to have a clause that if this alternative went away, then, you owed the in lieu, what mechanism would there be to administer or trigger that or for anybody to know that that was in there six and a half years from now or ten years from now? Baird: Mr. Vice-President, Members of the Council, I have had a conversation with the planning department about this. I have reviewed a proposed shared parking agreement and that's the big question with the planning department and with the legal department is how do you track it, how do you catch it, how do you enforce it when it's clearly going to provide a hardship after the building has been penciled out and pro formed without including these fees and, then, you have got tenants and it's a huge additional expense. It has to be provided up front and I think Councilmember Bird proposed the only reasonable solution is to trust it or some other letter of credit that could be extended. And while I have the floor, I wanted to clear up a legal matter regarding Resolution 07- 583. That resolution I have in front of ine, it merely provides direction to the planning director regarding granting of alternative compliance. It directs her to only use those two alternatives of on site or in lieu fee. The appeal right exists as you have it before you tonight. It's within your power to provide those alternative compliance with the facts that are in front of you. So, nobody's rights to alternative compliance has been taken away, it's just elevated to you as a decision maker in cases like this. So, I just -- I wanted to take that legal issue and give you our -- how we view it. Zaremba: Thank you. Baird: If anyone wants to look at the resolution, I have a copy of it here. Zaremba: Any other questions for the applicant? Bird: I would and I'd like to hear some other public testimony. Zaremba: Thank you. This is a public hearing and welcome anybody else that would like to -- I have a sign-up sheet. Claire Bowman would be next. Bowman: Good evening, Members of the Council. I'm Claire Bowman. I live at 4400 West Legacy Lane, Meridian. I am one of the finro managing partners, along with John McCarthy, for the Meridian Historic Old Town, LLC, which is a partnership among Idaho Trust, John McCarthy's company Ironac, and mine Avalon Ventures. I have several points to make. I'd like to make them from a larger perspective than focusing in on these two pieces of ground for the moment. We all recognize that parking is critically short in downtown. When I was the administrator for the urban renewal agency, solving Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 20 of 34 that parking issue was the number one to do item on my list for the entire finro years -- two and a half years I worked in that role. The day on which Councilman Borton made the motion to adopt the in lieu of fees, presentation and the entire discussion was that this was to be offered as an additional alternative for downtown development, not as exclusive alternative. I believe if you read the preamble to that -- to that resolution, you will find that it says that in the preamble. Your resolution is contradictory. What that resolution accomplishes, whether it's -- whether it's rights taken away or not, it restricts the opportunities of -- if it's enforced or if it's applied, as you gave your guidance to the planning director, it operates as if it eliminates some of the other alternatives that a developer out on the corner of Fairview and Eagle has the option, if he wants to put parking passed down let's say Fairview, passed someone else's property, that would be an alternative compliance where he is able to do that. Or at least he would have the option of convincing Anna that it is right to do that. We want the same option. We want the option of trying to convince her that we can solve these legal issues that we are talking about here. Right now her denial is not on the merits of the issue, it's on the legalities related to that resolution. Our request is that you remand this to the planning director for rehearing or reassessment without the limitations that in lieu fees are the only alternative compliance. Let me go a bit further. The ground that Idaho Trust is on is zoned Old Town. There will not be anymore industrial uses on that property now that Idaho Trust has moved out. If they were to abandon their lease, they would be required, within a certain period of time, to take down all the buildings on it and leave the ground as it was 30 plus year ago. They currently carry the value of those buildings as a major piece of their asset portfolio. So, they cannot afford not to pay the lease right now. They are in a difficult situation. They lose a significant portion of their asset base and they have to pay to get rid of it if they don't follow through on that lease. The 30 day clause, as I understand it -- Counsel Baird can correct me if I'm wrong, but that 30 day clause is only triggered in the event that the railroad wants to reclaim the property for railroad uses. Romans have had the Frontier Tire since the early 1950s. Lumberman's 1960. Lumberman's have had theirs for 40 plus years in the earlier manifestations as well, at least some portions of that. The railroad has not opted to take that action to require that to be done. Our work with Union Pacific -- John was much more silent about the options than I would choose to be and that is why we have had a number of ongoing discussions with the folks from the regional office of UP. Two weeks ago we were promised a letter that would state the -- their willingness to negotiation or willingness to reset some terms. Last week we were promised it again. And last Friday we were promised it this week. The fact that they are willing to make those promises now and put a very short trigger on it, tells us that we are close to the break through point on that. Clearly, if we had a 50 year lease on this property, the Council should not have an issue with any shared parking arrangement on there. We have a one year lease. That's a problem. I understand that. We think it's a problem. It's a problem for financing. But yesterday morning we had a banker tell us that within -- with a five year one time renewable lease, he thought we could get bank financing on the theater complex to redo that. We could certainly get private financing with those terms. We are that close. But we need to have our proposals heard on the merits of the proposal, rather than on the denial of the option to use shared .parking. That's enough. I think I have gone over my time and I apologize. Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 21 of 34 Zaremba: Council, any questions? Borton: No. Bird: I have no questions. Zaremba: Thank you. Also signed up, Dolores Lisby. From the audience she says she's been covered. All right. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anybody else care to testify? If I may put the executive director of the MDC on the spot, would you comment, please. Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chairman. Shawn Wardle with Meridian Development Corporation, 2239 East Greiner Street in Meridian. At your request I'll provide just a little bit of additional information. I want to clear up a couple of items and the first of which is the applicant stated, they currently have the ability to move forward with their project without providing parking on site by paying an in lieu fee to the Meridian Development Corporation. So, that is currently their option. The planning director has made the determination that that is their only option and so that's the issue, really, before this body. I can tell you that both from the Development Corporation standpoint and the planning director's standpoint, it will help to have that clear decision on that specific issue. As you know, the current in lieu fee is 10,000 dollars per parking space and we process that at the level. I can tell you that 130 and 132 East Broadway have asked for a variance. There is a specific requirement in our in lieu fee policy that no one property owner can ask for more than 50 percent of their parking to be waived with the fee. We have processed that application and they have the proper procedures in place to be able to pay the in lieu fee as of today. So, the specific issue at question, I think, which both the Development Corporation and staff would like to know is are the other alternative compliance avenues available to property owners within the downtown core. And, then, a separate issue, which I don't -- that Claire and John have both really delineated is -- is a leasehold interest on this specific property available for that alternative compliance and I think that's a direction that the planning department is -- would consider if direction were given that were alternative compliance measures available. I would like to clear up just one additional item and that is reference to a project across the street at 2nd and Broadway known as The Hub project is -- provides all required parking spaces on site as part of the development, so that the issue of in lieu is not necessarily applicable to phase one of the proposed project. They have proposed spaces and, in addition, some others that MDC is considering for public parking. With that I'd stand for any questions. Zaremba: Thank you. Would you state a preference as to whether you and Meridian Development Corp would prefer to see the property 130 be a parking lot or another new building. Wardle: I can tell you that given the downtown design guidelines, the streetscape standards, that we would prefer to see all properties fronting the public right of way as Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 22 of 34 dense as possible and providing opportunities for live, work, and play. The one thing that we are going through currently that I can tell you is the downtown design guidelines do not call for parking to be adjacent to the sidewalk. In fact, we are processing some conditional use permits, because the preference is actually to have that parking either behind the building or in some other location. And so our preference at the Development Corporation would be to see a viable building full of tenants, people doing business, living, and participating in downtown. Was that clear enough? Zaremba: With parking behind it. Wardle: The downtown -- I didn't give you a preference on parking. The downtown design guidelines call for if there is any parking for it to be behind. Zaremba: So, they couldn't do that on 130, though. If they need 130 to be the parking for 132, it sounded like that whole piece of property would be a parking lot. There wouldn't be a building on the front of it and parking at the back. Wardle: I don't know that -- Zaremba: I'll call you back up in a minute, but -- okay. Wardle: I guess your question is we would prefer to have buildings -- Zaremba: Have a building. Wardle: -- have a building with businesses operating or people living there, as opposed to surface parking lots. The ultimate goal is to have density and, then, at some point to have some elevated or additional parking available. Zaremba: That does answer my question. Wardle: Okay. Zaremba: Thank you. Councilman Borton. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. I think I missed the focus of the question and the request. For me it is very clear that the in lieu fee is specifically an additional opportunity. It is not in -- to replace other -- I think Claire mentioned it. He's right on the money. That was the intent and I remember MDC there was a discussion that really all this is is an additional tool. You don't have to use it, but it's just something else. Really, there is no harm to development, it just provides another way to try to satisfy the parking requirements. So, to the extent that's the question and that's vague -- and I think it might be when I read that, that there is one provision in the resolution which I could understand why the planning department -- yeah, I think you're referencing number three -- could see it being, you know, on street or in lieu, as either/or. I don't think that Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 23 of 34 was the intent. That's at least my recollection and I think that's why the preamble makes reference to the desire to create an additional opportunity to address parking. Zaremba: And Mr. Baird appears to have a comment. Baird: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President and Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton. Like I mentioned, this is merely a resolution. It doesn't have the force of ordinance. It doesn't overrule your in lieu -- or your alternative compliance provisions of your ordinance, it merely gives direction to the planning director that at her level, either these of finro choices. If the applicant doesn't like those choices, the appeal is here in front of you to make a choice to either remand it with specific instructions or to fashion alternative compliance right here from the dias. That's the way I see it. Borton: Mr. Vice-President. Is going forward -- I would either -- does the resolution get amended or if that needs to be clarified, I can see how the staff wouldn't have the right direction to address that, but if our goal is to make sure that developers know that the in lieu of fee is truly an additional opportunity and not as this or that -- I mean what would be the mechanism if we went that way to clarify that? Hood: Mr. Vice-President, if I may hopefully answer Councilman Borton's question. With it being just the direction, I think it's going to be very hard for the director -- if I'm looking at this as an alternative compliance to approve anything, knowing that there is another alternative being the in lieu fee. So, even if the resolution is amended to not say in black and white either provide it on site or you pay the in lieu, it's going to be really hard to convince us that whatever you're proposing is better than an in lieu fee. If it's not on site, what's better than on site? Nothing. But an in lieu fee, in my mind, would be the next best choice probably pretty much in every instance. So, you're going to be seeing these anyways on appeal, even if you change the resolution, in my mind. It's going to be -- again, it's just going to be difficult for us to approve any other type of alternative. I can't envision an alternative that's going to be better than on site or in lieu. That's just my opinion. So, maybe there is something, but -- Borton: Mr. Vice-President? Zaremba: Councilman Borton. Borton: I guess to answer the second part of the question, which might answer that, if the in lieu of fee is an additional opportunity and it gets remanded with a gray area back to staff to try to determine, you know -- if it's not in lieu of, what the heck is it? If there is going to be any bright line rules, you know, a 30 day lease doesn't get there and that's, you know, where we are today, maybe that gets fixed and that would be great and maybe it's a year or five years, you know, if this were a fee simple developer across the street, we might be having a totally different discussion. There might be an opportunity for an alternative compliance using property across the street. A 25 year lease gets you pretty close. A 30 day doesn't get you there. So, I'm just thinking out loud telling you my perspective. If it got remanded, the planning department understood that alternative Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 24 of 34 or in lieu of fee isn't the only other option. What they have now doesn't -- doesn't satisfy my interest and my concerns and the concerns that Councilman Bird raised. Zaremba: I would guess -- and maybe this is a question for Mr. Wardle -- that at some point afternative compliance would run out as an option. I mean there is only so many parking spaces that somebody can get across the street or down the street to be alternative and the 10th or 12th developer is going to run into a brick wall on that and either have to have it on site or pay the in lieu of, but -- am I thinking of that correctly? Wardle: Mr. Vice-President, I think to address your question -- the one thing that I would say is the in lieu of fee, when it was adopted by the Meridian Development Corporation, was -- was looked at as a tool for developers that were specifically landlocked at their property, but wanted to build denser projects, which is a goal for the Development Corporation within the downtown core is to have additional densities in downtown. And so the fee would allow them, rather than to go out and acquire additional sites or take some portion of their property as has been proposed here and create a parking space that they could, then, pay that fee. And the Development Corporation would, at some point in time, provide additional spaces. Now, the one thing about the in lieu of fee is it doesn't necessarily mean that those spaces are provided to that specific development. I mean it doesn't mean that those spaces are provided instantaneously, that the fee does not get the developer a parking space right away. So, it's more of an overall picture. And that's really what it was designed for, it was those people who either, one, chose to go with a denser project or for those that were in a difficult situation and could not provide additional parking, that's what the fee was really designed for. Did I answer your question? Zaremba: Uh-huh. Hood: And, Mr. Vice-President, just to maybe follow up on that point, I think -- there is a limited supply of parking downtown and thaYs why, again, probably at this point, anyways, the Council should be the decision making body, because I don't know what other direction you could give the planning department to say in this case do that, in that case do this. I don't know what it is. So, it really does need to be appealed, we will do the best we can at our level, but if they are not happy with either providing it on site or -- they can come and they can explain to you why it makes more sense to do whatever they are doing and you can look at it on a case-by-case basis. And I think that's why the system isn't broke the way it's set up now. They are having their day to explain something better and if you say, you know what, that money is not better spent. Across the street would be great if you own the property in this case or whatever, you know, other cases may be. Again, if they are three blocks away, do we approve them for parking? And, then, we have to track that we approved six spaces over there and four spaces over hear and ten over there -- I mean it could be a nightmare. So, I just don't know how you -- if you can give us that direction, that's great, but I don't know how you craft language like that. Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 25 of 34 Zaremba: Thank you. Before the applicant returns, any other testimony from anybody? Sir, come ahead. You need to be on the microphone. And if you would, start with your name and address. Nielson: I'm sorry. My name is Roger Nielson and I live at 5377 EI Gato out here in Meridian. I happen to be the property owner just north of 132 on the alley way adjacent to the 127 Club and Meridian Electronics. I have run a machine shop in there for 20 years. And I personally have been blindsided by this in lieu of fee. It's getting to the point where I'm taking medical retirement and I'm trying to get an equity out of my business. Okay. This whole downtown development project has almost devoided my 20 years of work. I am totally landlocked where I'm at. Okay. So, alternative parking is an absolute necessity. There is only 4,000 square feet on the portion of lot that I own. There is no way to provide -- other than the couple of spots that we have in the driyeway now for overhead door access -- those are the only finro spots that are available and if it was to turn to retail you couldn't have cars parked that close to the front door of retail. And so the idea of totally eliminating the ability to have alternative ideas, other than doubling the price of construction, you know, by this in lieu of fee, okay, is extremely damaging to the guys that have been down here working -- you know, the Murray brothers have owned their building for a couple of generations. Kenny Thompson across the street, him and his dad have owned that building for a couple generations. Kenny's in a little bit worse shape than I am. You know, he gave up his parking space with some promises and -- and he's been left hanging. Now, he's on a small little island and the value of his place, according to this project that's going on down here that we are all trying to bring up to speed in our own minds, has left us in a terrible shape and has taken huge amounts of equity out of our pocket that we have worked for years to try to attain. And so 1 don't have any solutions, other than for those of us who don't have the opportunity to lease something across the street or anything and we are isolated in our own little patch, we are stuck, we are landlocked, and whatever alternative you come up with, would be really nice if -- I mean landowners like us and business owners like us would be taken into consideration. Okay. Any questions? I don't have any solution for you, but -- Zaremba: Thank you. Anybody else care to testify? All right. We will have the applicant come back up again and -- talk into the microphone and state your name again, please. Schwider: Ward Schwider again. I'm the owner of 132 and 130. I have before you a diagram of what our plan is. Okay. Here we go. Here is -- our game plan right now is the parking is really right off of the alley right here for the condos above and right now the building, the 130 that's there, we are going to demolish it and just make it into just a patio space right now, so we don't really have a building, but that's what we want is four stories of vertical integrated, you know, condos and people living down here. What we have right now is just a dumpster and a driveway. That's all it is right now. And so what we are asking for is that the 3-C-7 -- I mean it's already in the code, that we can use the off-site parking that's already in the code. Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 26 of 34 McCarthy: This is zoning compliance -- Zaremba: Speak into the microphone, please. McCarthy: This is the -- this is the zoning compliance. There was two of them that went with these two properties. The one that was tonight, which was zoning compliance for 130. The zoning compliance for these two pieces of property has been approved. This plan is already going on it, so that's the way it is until I guess your action, I don't know what the procedure is after that. Zaremba: Just a question if I may while you're here. And the last speaker kind of helped me think of this. I see an opportunity for a lot more parking on the Idaho Trust property. Is there any thought that you might make it available to your neighbors for a small fee or are you able to do that or does that confuse Union Pacific too much? McCarthy: No. That's the intent of the shared parking agreement. That's goes to -- Zaremba: Yeah. But you have presented it for your own building, but there is other buildings within walking distance of that property, like the fellow that just testified and -- McCarthy: Yeah. 11-3-C-7 say anywhere alternative compliance and parking within a thousand feet, so -- and our long-term plan, given the lease term of UP, is to put parking structures against the railroad tracks, so -- public and private parking. Zaremba: Thank you. Holman: Just a moment. I'm sorry. Excuse me. Vice-President, could we get a copy -- since that plan was discussed on the record, what you're showing, we are going to need a copy of that or if we can have that one for the record. Zaremba: Everything that's presented to Council we have to keep. Holman: Yeah. Thank you. Zaremba: If you show it to us we keep it, so -- Councilman Bird. Bird: I don't care which one answers it, but I'm in favor of your project. Your parking across the street scares me. You know, it might go along for two or three years and, then, UP gets something else. I could -- I could be fairly comfortable if you come back in with this 30 day eviction notice gone from your lease and stuff like that. As it sits right now, we -- we really don't have any guarantee down there. I'm probably the most lenient person in town as far as parking, because I realize that a lot of these old buildings and locations -- these small lots, 30 foot by 120 foot, was -- was a Meridian downtown lot. Not going to get much parking on there. We want to jump start downtown Meridian. In the same taken, the in lieu fee probably puts the cost of construction to the point that it's not feasible to do, but I was voted down at both Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 27 of 34 locations and so that's what we got. That's the law. Majority rules. So, if you could come back with a guarantee from UP with that 30 day eviction notice gone, I could certainly take a hard look at it. Borton: Mr. Vice-President? Zaremba: Councilman Borton. Borton: To dove tail on that, if you came back with a letter of credit for the in lieu of fee, I-- you could have a 30 day. I mean -- Bird: I agree with that, too. Borton: Getting it from UP is pretty tough. I mean I-- I support the project and would love it to go forward, but, you know, where we are sitting right now, you know, I'm still stuck. And, again, I don't think in lieu of fee is the only alternative and it might be a situation that these get appealed continually on a case by case and come back to us. So, it clarifies that, at least it's an additional level. It's not required, but if there is a way to trust that, I think that's great. That might be a heck of a lot easier, unfortunately, than getting anything out of UP would. That would be my preference. Zaremba: If we were to put this off again, continue it for a week or three weeks would be the choices. Our meeting finro weeks from now is a workshop where we wouldn't have a public hearing, but -- McCarthy: Considering -- considering I have been talking to Union Pacific for almost two years now, I think three weeks would be -- Zaremba: I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. McCarthy: Considering I have been talking to Union Pacific for two years almost, I would go for three weeks, instead of a week. Please. Bird: They don't get excited. Borton: Mr. Vice-President? Zaremba: Councilman Borton. Borton: Continuing it to try and get some of these things worked out, if that's three weeks -- if that's the request. McCarthy: That's fine. Zaremba: It would be July 22nd. Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 28 of 34 Borton: July 22nd. I guess from my perspective I-- if the -- there is two ways to try and resolve it is a long term lease with UP, which even a year might not be long enough for me to feel comfortable, quite frankly. I think Claire mentioned maybe five, which might allow financing to make this whole place blow up well, which would be great. So, just to let you know up front, the longer the better. A year is pretty short, because it still is up to what Councilman Bird said. On the other hand, if there is that trust, if there is that letter of credit for in lieu of fees, then, a year is perfect. Thirty days, quite frankly. Because, really, what you have done is you have secured the alternative compliance and you're good to go by me. So, just to give you a heads up of where I'd love to see it go is that letter of credit or a trust. Zaremba: Just to chime in, that would certainly work for me. Bird: Me, too. Zaremba: Do we wish to have another comment from Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chairman -- or Vice-President. Shaun Wardle, Meridian Development Corporation. I think in terms of -- and not speaking for planning staff, but I believe the applicant's appeal was on a specific issue in terms of is this the only alternative compliance and so to the extent that I understand the other issue with the property and whether this is a proper alternative compliance, I believe the planning director's determination was made simply because it was not in lieu of fee and so if you can give at least some direction in this public setting -- I believe I heard Mr. Borton say that it was only designed to be a tool in addition to certain things in the alternative compliance code. If -- I think it would help planning staff, as well as the Development Corporation, to understand that -- that the rest of the alternatives are opened up and I believe that gets the applicant to where they need to be to work with planning staff, if I'm getting a head nod, if you're so inclined. Rather than continue this entire item for three weeks. Does that make sense? Borton: Mr. Vice-President? Zaremba: Councilman Borton. Borton: It does procedurally. What we wouldn't want to do, I don't think, is -- is make a determination here that says -- that grants the appeal and says in lieu of fees are not the only means of alternative compliance. Off-site parking can be. Remand it back to staff and staff says we don't know what the heck that means, because Council didn't give us any guidance, so you're denied, then, they appeal, and they come back to us and say here is what we did -- so, in lieu of trying to go back and have it punt back up to us, procedurally we can just continue it -- I mean I see what you're saying, but to get us there and not have them have to go meet and set up staff to have meetings to go I don't know what Council wants, should be a fair response. Zaremba: My sense is that we are not answering that question tonight. Meridian City Council July 1, 2008 Page 29 of 34 Wardle: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Guidance is suspended for finro weeks -- three weeks. Bird: Mr. Vice-President? Zaremba: Councilman Bird. Bird: If the applicant don't need the last deal, I'll -- Zaremba: You do have the opportunity to have the last word always. Enough's been said. Bird: I would move that we continue this public hearing to July 22nd, 2008. Borton: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That was unanimous. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Hopefully, we will have new information three weeks from now. That -- gentlemen, that was the last item on our agenda for tonight. Is there another one? Bird: Mr. Vice-President, before we adjourn, we need to -- Zaremba: Oh, yes. Bird: We need to discuss August 5th, I believe it is. Am I not right? Borton: August 5th. Bird: National Night Out. Zaremba: Oh, yes. Okay. Bird: Which traditionally we have not had any Council meetings. We do have a grant -- the block grant that we continued until then. I understand that we could continue that to the 12th and still be okay, as long as we don't have any problems, because it has to be turned in by the 15th. That's the reason we had set it as the 5th. So, city clerk, Jaycee, came up with the idea of either continuing it there or coming in a little bit early for 15, 20 minutes and taking care of that one business on the 5th. National Night Out does start