HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 10-28
Meridian City Council Meeting October 28, 2008
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday,
October 28, 2008, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, Brad
Hoaglun, and David Zaremba.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Anna Canning, Bill Johnson, John Overton,
Pete Friedman, Kyle Radek, Keith Watts, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. We will go ahead and get started. I would like to welcome you all
here to the new City Hall. This is the -- last week we kind of kicked things off and were
able to work a couple of the bugs through, but this is the first non-workshop .setting that
we have had, so we appreciate that you're all here with us today and I will kick off this
meeting. For the public record it is Tuesday, October 28th. It's 7:00 o'clock. We start
with roll call.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: If you will all rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Randy Rodes with Vineyard Christian
Fellowship:
De Weerd: .Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor
Randy Rodes. He is with Vineyard Christian Fellowship. If you will all join us in the
community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Pastor.
Rodes: Thank you. It's a privilege to be here. Thank you very much. Let us pray.
Father Cod, we thank you for the great community of the City of Meridian. We are so
thankful to be a part of this great city and, Lord, I pray that tonight's meeting -- that your
hand would be upon Mayor de Weerd and these Council Members with every decision
they make, Lord, that your wisdom, your truth, and just your guidance in all that is to be
done. And so, Lord, be glorified in this community and we thank you, again, in Jesus'
name, amen.
,, '
~~
t~ S
•-, '
a y
~ ''~ ~ Ir
1._ ~ IC
.. ~ lx
~~
,~
~ ~ 1f
~`I
-:
.a
~~ i~
:~ s
~t
;::~,'{
~I
1.
f
j
r
.~.
~F
`,
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 2 of 54
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 4 is the adoption of the agenda.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: There are a couple of items of note on the agenda. In the Consent Agenda,
Item 5, Items L, the resolution number is 08-628. Item M, the resolution number is 08-
629. On the regular agenda, Item 10, there has been a request to continue that and not
hear it tonight, until November 5th, 2008. And I'll remind people again that is a
Wednesday. Normally we meet on Tuesdays, but November 4th being a national
election date, we move our meeting to November 5th, which is a Wednesday. Item 13,
the applicant has requested to withdraw that one. Items 14 and 15, there is a request to
continue those to December 2nd. Item 17, the ordinance number is 08-1384. Item 18,
the ordinance number is 08-1385. Item No. 19, the ordinance number is 08-1386. Item
20, the ordinance number is 08-1387. Item 21, the ordinance is 08-1388. Item 22, the
ordinance number is 08-1389. And Item 23 is an Executive Session referencing Idaho
State Code 67-2345(1)(a). We also need to add (1)(c) and (1)(f) to that. With that I
move that we have approve the agenda as amended.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion a.nd a second to approve the agenda as amended.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 08-
004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 318.74 acres from RUT
to R-4 (69.72 acres), R-8 (192.20 acres) and R-15 (56.82 acres) for
Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC -east of North McDermott Road, west
of North Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of
Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast comers of West
McMillan Road and North McDermott; and near the southwest
corner of West McMillan Road and North Black Cat Road:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval PP
08-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 139 lots including:
118 residential lots and 21 .common lots on 30.72 acres in the
proposed R-8 zoning district for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC -east
of North McDermott Road, west of North Black Cat Road, south of
.Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick Road including the southeast
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 3 of 54
and northeast corners of West McMillan Road and North
McDermott; and near the southwest corner of West McMillan Road
and North Black Cat Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval AZ
08-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.953 acres from the
R1 to the R-8 zoning district for Saroi by Nunzio Sgroi - 4405 East
Ustick Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval :CUP
08-016 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for a
convenience store and fuel sales facility in a C-N zoning district per
requirement of the Development Agreement for Maverik (Locust
Grove/McMillan) by Maverik, Inc. -NEC of N. Locust Grove Road
and E. McMillan Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: SHP
08-007 Request for Short Plat approval for 157 condominium units
in 13 buildings in an I-L zone for Storaae Condos by Ron Ramza -
658 North Principle Place:
F. Cross Access Easement for Emeraency Services with Avest
Limited Partnership for Ten Mile Christian Church:
G. Development Agreement: RZ 08-002 Request for Rezone of 0.55
of an acre from the R-4 to L-O zoning district for Meridian Library
Parkins Lot Expansion by the Meridian Library District - 1727 N.
Leisure Lane:
H. Development Agreement: AZ 08-008 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of approximately 5 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for
Redmont Health Services by The Land Group, Inc. - 5075 W.
Cheny Lane:
I. Development Agreement: RZ 08-003 Request for ,Rezone of
27.17 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Kennedy Commercial
Center by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC -1250 W. Overland Road:
J. Water Main Easement Aareement for Foundations Academy by
Foundations Academy:
K. Cooperative Aareement with ACHD for the Split Corridor
Phase 1:
L. Resolution No. City Hall Parking
Permits Policy:
r
r .'
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 4 of 54
M. Resolution No. :Employee Identification
and ID / Prox Cards Policy:
N. Change Order No. 1 for Pressure Zone 1 with DC Engineering
for $2,899.43:
De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: With the noted changes to the Consent Agenda, Item L is resolution number
08-628. Item M is resolution 08-629. I move that we approve the Consent Agenda and
for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Hoaglun: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is
no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Department Reports:
A. Public Works Department
1. Budget Amendment for Floodplain Development Studies
for $42,000.00:
2. Budget Amendment for Five Mile Creek Restoration
Proiect for $3,200.00:
3. Budget Amendment for Collection System Manhole GPS
System for $22,146.00:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 6 under Department Reports. Tonight we will start with Kyle
Radek.
Radek: Madam Mayor, Mr. President, Council Members, we have three budget
amendments from Public Works. The first simply asks for the balance of money that
was approved in 2007, but not spent. It was I guess a mistake when we firs# asked for
the 60,000 for flood plain studies and we didn't make it clear that we wanted it to be
~
S
I `
. ~ i ~ i 3'L ~j : . ~.. !~. Y. J !, ~e ~ ~
l i
t S
yyjj
' }S5
` ,'~ F' t :~ i i ~
i x.
• ~
~.l ~iy'
i.
` ,y
.
F„h 9~
1
~
1 t
° ,
t ,
~~
:~
•i ~ .
:31a', i°a t: r,•
'•1'
~, f
r
i i .
ti
~
f•~ s!
a
~
;
,
i
.t ` ,
,
Fifi' ~' .i 'i.1144~~''''
; s
l.
~~
~'
t 4it S; `
' i f, i'
' ; { ..
a
t
~i~, .1 . ~
' - . .
y
.
.
}
;~ r. ; t.; 4 ~,. I: • $( vE. . ~~
5.0 ~• ~ .f F :
tip
~~ a~ . 1
rt
.i> . .tt
. . , ~ .s ..
:.
-
'
{
.15
~
., q ~ ~~
`
~, ~`
F , 5!
~ a
~ ;7.
~i r .~:~
g Y
5 3
~ i .!
e ; .. ~ Y•. R ~' ~ d p fff
.t~kF. `~~;' ck,~ ~ F 4
~
~ 'l F i ~ ~ i
~ ~Y '
;S~ ei ~ s ~
( 't ~
i
.
e -
¢ .~
' F ,
~~ ~ ~ t k s F~~ Y s
€
, A
t a W { v
,
`'~ : R 9 ~t~ • 1 ; Y i } ? ~'~.~ 1 ~r
- 5 t ~ ~
' ,
: , ~ r
~ 4 , e
~
~ ~ es
'~' :' §1v~A ~~F.• t
~~ i~ ,4~~' ~ p
I~. ;fir, '
~
~' I _
„ i .
A ~'.
S y 4 ,
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 5 of 54
carried forward to another year. We have started to do some studies and we have
studies left to do, so we are simply requesting that money that wasn't carried forward
back. The second budget amendment is for the Five Mile Creek restoration project.
The net of that is 3,200 dollars. The total money is 43,200 dollars, but since we are
getting 40,000 from ITD -- or we have already gotten that, then, the net is all you see
and the 3,200 left is for a recurring expense for the Parks Department to maintain that
project. And the third budget amendment is for a global positioning system that we are
requesting to purchase that will allow Public Works to collect data for the sewer model
at a savings of 37 percent from the consultants to proposed cost for the data collection
and this equipment was anticipated and budgeted in 2008-2009. The funds are coming
-- are being requested to come from FY-09 consultant work, which would have
accomplished the same -- the same goals. We are redirecting the project consulting
work for acquisition of this GPS data collector.
De Weerd: Thank you, Kyle. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: If I understand Item 3 correctly, you have announced a first year savings, but
there would be continuous savings in following years, would there not also be?
Radek: Madam Mayor, Council Members, that's correct.
Zaremba: Sounds like a winner to me.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, I will need action on your behalf.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the budget amendments as outlined in the agenda
for flood plain development study in the amount 42,000 dollars. The Five Mile Creek
restoration project in the amount of 3,200 dollars. And the data collection system in the
amount of 22,146 dollars.
Zaremba: Second.
` ~ ii T.,I ~.
~? ~1, f
it
~ i~ ~
- ~,
~ ": k r }
t
i „ i~, ~.
~' !
~~
~ ~~ ~~
I,
i ~~
' €
~` } I~ t f
.; 3 ~4
I4 '.I
w ~, , ~l.
~~? ~ s~~ t
I~ ~~
~ ~~(
~,,~~ , ik
t
Fi
,~ ~ i ,
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 6 of 54
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Public Works
Department request. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Purchasing Department (Approve Multiple Change Order for
Additional Work for a Not to Exceed Amounts- listed below for
a total amount of $23,301.00:
1. Idaho Custom Wood Products Budgeted Contract
Amendment No. 3 for $495.00 (Owner Initiated &
Architect Changes):
2. Idaho Custom Wood Products Budgeted Contract
Amendment No. 4 for $4,185.00 (Owner Initiated
Change):
3. Western Roofing Budgeted Contract Amendment No. 1
for $1,380.00 (Owner Initiated Change):
4. American Wall Covering Budgeted Contract Amendment
No. 1 for $4,120.00 (Owner Requested Change &
Architect Initiated Change):
5. Custom Glass Budgeted Contract Amendment No. 2 for
$1,704.00 (Architect /Design Initiated Change):
6. Pre-Conn Budgeted Contract Amendment No. 3 for
$6,630.00 (Owner Requested Change):
7. SBI Contracting Budgeted Contract Amendment No. 2
for $545.00 (Owner Requested Change):
8. SBI Contracting Budgeted Contract Amendment No. 3
for ($5,000.00 decrease) -Floor Mat Credit):
9. Apex Budgeted Contract Amendment No. 1 for $7,120.00
for Card Reader Upgrade (Architect /Design Initiated
Change):
,~ , ,; ;
s t
~ ~ i#
~
I j
t I yss.~ : ztY ~
,~;ti.;z
~ :
' _~
1" ~
}• } X31 ~ t
~ F~7
by
'
E
!!
l
^
w~ P
' ~ 6i
.s f
~ ~~
~
fig)
~
~
4 ~
: ' ~ F. 4: 1~> ,; i - : t
^ ,~ '•. ~ ~ '';,~f:: }~ A• ~ I ~ t t ',Its &~ ~ 3
t .~
F
~r ~
3
' :. 4.
f i %
' '~ ~~
RRR
i 1
4
:
.'
~ '
.{...
a..
'~ Jj
,}.
~.
~
t ~' ~~
~ 4?#
~ ~ 4 ~
i; p*
:~ " ;1 ~ ~?:~` ~ ~,1ry ~,; 5
F .1;a, ~' r
rt , ~ ~ ; # ` '
s
i
.
•
,
,
r 3.
~ s •
'
~ ~ a
y
i.
$
.
s t
, ;
?
, , tl
e
~S 1:
#
,
• i ~~' ( ~ •. Age £ .
.
~
1
a s ~
~
.
1•$
~ E s
' ~
g
i 5.~~. i
3'1'~• S' r ~~~ ~ ~.
~ ~
L~ f ':'~ `iix '. r,~.. i.1
~:4s : ,. ~~ .; i"F ~.'~.:> , 1~ a~.~ ,• ' ..~ " ': £ ... '. ' :i~ 3i i ~ ~~ ~ ` ''C '.
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 7 of 54
10. Apex Budaeted Contract Amendment No 2 for $3,545.00
(Owner Requested Change):
11. Schindler Elevator Budaeted Contract Amendment No 2
for $2,776.00 (Architect /Design Initiated Change):
12. Alpha Masonry Budaeted Contract Amendment No 1 for
$6,398.00 (Owner Requested Change and Architect
Initiated Change):
13. Architectural Buildina Supply Budaeted Contract
Amendment No. 3 for $10,088.00 (Owner Requested
Bronze Medallion):
14. Architectural Buildina Suppl Budaeted Contract
Amendment No. 5 for $1,281.00 (Owner Requested
Change):
15. AATronics Budaeted Contract Amendment No 2 for
$608.00 (Owner Requested Change):
16. Sunshine Landscape Budaeted Contract Amendment
No. 2 for $665.00 (Owner Requested Change):
17. Commercial Painting Contractors Budaeted Contract
Amendment No. 5 for $2,025.00 (Owner Requested
Change):
18. Simplex Grinnell Budaeted Contract Amendment No 4
for $3,735.00 (Owner Requested Change):
19. MR Miller Budaeted Contract Amendment No 1 for
$23,015.00 (Owner Requested Change):
20. MR Miller Budaeted Contract Amendment No 2 for
($7,250.00 Decrease) Credit for Water Feature
Modifications:
21. KB Fabrication Budaeted Contract Amendment No 1 for
($44,764.00 decrease) Credit for Trellis Modifications:
De Weerd: Okay. Under Department Report, 6-B, we have our Purchasing
Department, Mr. Watts.
Watts: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Tonight I have 21 changes to
our project for the City Hall building. I have Tom Coglin from Petra here that will answer
~.
+ ~
~$ I
''
~ t
~ i
~1 i
FI
`~
~~
_; t
`Id i
~~ Ei
i
,;
~:
i ~ ,
G~
; ~ ~
i ~ J :r
i ~ ~ r
~
~ :
'
s{
~
!
f
i
~ ~ s
~ ~ l
z
L
~
t
a 3
~t
r
C S
~
t
t
I
ti j
J~
{' ~
,
J ~ t ~ ~
~
~
' 1 ~ F
, . s t ~ r ~i
I ~r
~
~
` t J
-` ,~ ;
f
{ ~
7
' ~
it ( )
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 8 of 54
questions and go over details with you. One of the things I did want to mention is we
did -- throughout the project we have called any additional work that we have done
change orders and a lot of that was incorrectly stated as far as -- most people think a
change order is an increase to what was originally budgeted. A lot of these items were,
in fact, budgeted, but we just didn't let all the work at the same time from our bid
documents, so we have changed these to be re-budgeted contract amendments,
instead of change orders. They are, in fact, in the original budget in the original scope
and with my year end -- or my project closing statement that I will bring, hopefully, within
about seven or eight weeks, I will go through and identify each one of these and which
ones were actual change orders and which were in the original budget and design.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for Mr. Watts or for Petra?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: For Keith. Do any of these represent final payment?
Watts: No, they do not, sir.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If there are no further questions, I move that we approve the change orders one
through 21. Noted that 20 and 21 are decreases. For a total sum of increase of 23,301
dollars.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing
none, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
j ~ ~%~
,. ,
3
g j
~ a
{ i
~
i r
~
4
E
1 ~
y ',
i
S E
F F ~ ..
iil
~~
~ .,I
~[ i;
~ ~
p i
f '~ I,
{
f
!~
ii
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 9 of 54
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8: Public Hearing: Foundations Academy / St. Ambrose Christian High
School Bond Approval:
De Weerd: So, we will go to Item 8, which is a public hearing for Foundations Academy
for their school bond approval. Who do I turn this over to?
Nary: Is Mr. Goodwin -- Madam Mayor, he's supposed to be here.
De Weerd: Is Mr. Goodwin here? This is part of your process; correct?
Goodwin: Correct. And I'm about as -- not real sure exactly what -- what we need to
accomplish, because I know it's unusual for this type of a thing to come before the
Council, so I will answer any questions you have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, this is part of their process to go into the bond approval.
Goodwin: I can briefly explain it if you like.
De Weerd: That would be good.
Goodwin: We have applied through the state of Colorado to issue tax free municipal
bonds for our facility, which is at 6100 North Locust Grove in Meridian and the reason
for the application in the state of Colorado is that the laws of the state of Idaho prohibit it
with regard to religious institutions, even schools, and municipal bonds. So, it's
customary and normal for this to happen and it's happened in this district for Cole Valley
Christian School to function as a state constitution amendment that makes it a
customary thing for schools in states like Idaho to apply for that out of state and that as I
understand our purpose here this evening is that the -- the presiding authority, called
SEGFA in Colorado needs a motion from the city that you're not opposed to such a
move going forward.
De Weerd: Thank you. This is a public hearing, but while I have you in front of us, I did
want to comment. I participated in their foundation dedication ceremonies and they
launched it off with a showing of the talent -- the artistic talent of their school body, kids
from K through 12 recreated some artistic masterpieces, including the Mona Lisa, Stany
Night, the American Gothic and a portrait of George Washington and I was not familiar
with the fifth, but they filmed that from above and you saw these masterpieces being
recreated and coming to life. The logistics of such an exercise were that the old
classmen went and did the outlining and each of the classes had their individual
responsibilities for coloring that part of the portrait. It was truly the most amazing thing I
have ever seen and my hat's off to you. That was just an amazing experience. So,
thank you for letting me be a part of it.
s
~~
~~ ;
..
I
~;
3 ~,
Yy i
3i ~
,,~~
~j
~ ~
~j
'.
! i
~ if ~ i'
;~
~~ ,~
~~
~~ F
li #:~ ,
"' t. ~ :
;~~
~~ r
~~ f
ii
i
Li
~t {~ tt
~ '~ 1
~ f'
i` t
~~
~ ~~ ~1
~i ` iI
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 10 of 54
Goodwin: We were honored to have you. Thank you. And we had a lot of fun with it. If
you would like to see it, the high speed footage -- I don't know if you knew that, but it's
on You Tube. If you search for aerial art gallery it will be the first thing that you see and
you can watch it. It's about a three minute video of it coming together. It's kind of fun.
De Weerd: That's great. And I talked to one of your older classmen and they said that
there is also a Christian site that you hope to put it on as well as You Tube and I wasn't
familiar with it, so -- Got God or -- I --
Goodwin: I'm unaware of what they might be talking about. We did put it on another
site -- it was shot in high definition and You Tube doesn't do high definition, so there is
another site that has the high definition version of it and that may be a Christian site.
I'm not aware of it. But, yeah, we are, obviously, a Christian school and have much of
the -- what we do is centered around Christ, but that -- that was a lot of fun. We
enjoyed having you. Thank you for speaking.
De Weerd: That was a good experience. Okay. Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: My recollection on these types of activities is that we keep the hearing open
for a prescribed period of time. Was that the case with this one or is it just a matter of
having a public hearing and, then, having the resolution come before us?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, from the
material that Mr. Goodwin had sent me, I believe we .only have to have this hearing.
don't think it's a comment period like you would in some -- in some grant programs. I
think this is the hearing and if there are people here to speak, obviously, they could --
they could provide comment and if there aren't any, then, we can go forward with a --
with amotion by the Council.
Goodwin: That's my understanding, because we published two weeks ago by federal
law in the newspaper the existence of this hearing. So, there is a publication period that
I think replaces the need for an open public comment.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Another question, Madam Mayor. And it's probably for Mr. Nary. I don't see
a draft resolution. Other than endorsing their activity to seek bonds from the state of
Colorado or through the state of Colorado, is there any requirement on the part of the
city to do anything more than endorse that? Guarantee them or --
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, no, we are
not guaranteeing the bond.
~i
~,
~,,
~~
„ ~
~;
i 3
~
} ~ i
3( ~
e ~
i i~
i,
~ ~ ,'~
i
! s ;~
'i
~ ;
{
~
4 1
{
~ ~ }
f
{ f ' '~',
~~:
f~~
~;
~ `.
~,y
r ~.
~~ r
j
F C
1` l
t I
~ ; ~~
it
~.,'
F'
4
{ ~
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 11 of 54
Rountree: -- overseeing them?
Nary: We are really just providing the public forum and I think, as Mr. Goodwin stated,
we did this one other time with the Cole Valley Christian Church and it's the same -- the
same type of thing where the city is really just aforum -- the municipality has to simply
sponsor the hearing process and allow the comment time to occur and I think all the
motion that's necessary by this Council is, essentially, your consent to them going
forward with their action. We are not -- again, the city is not on the -- responsible for
these bonds or any of those things and whether or not -- unless Mr. Goodwin thinks --
didn't see any information that a written resolution is required. If you certainly -- if you
need that, we can provide that and bring that back next week, but I didn't see that we
even needed to prepare that for you.
Goodwin: I don't -- our lawyers may know more than I do, but I think all they need is a
motion and, you know, it needs to be in the record that it's been supported here. I think
as it was explained to me by SEPTA in Denver, they just do not want to be running --
they don't want to be a back door to avoid local municipalities, if the local municipality --
you know, if this were to happen without your knowledge. They don't want it to be a
back door.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Ms. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Just a question for Mr. Nary. In reading through the material there was
something about having the Mayor sign an approval certificate I guess just to
acknowledge that fact. So, I guess there is some form of something that you will -- if we
approve it, then, she would sign and that's on the record, then. Is that -- is my
understanding correct?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Council Member Hoaglun, that's correct.
That's what was attached was simply a -- and that is just -- and that's what the
document I was reviewing -- or referring to, but it simply indicates that the Council has
consented to the hearing and to this document that they, essentially, approve you going
forward with that and, then, there is a signature place for the clerk to sign that we have
held a public hearing and that notice was properly done.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: The materials do have a statement that the City of Meridian, Idaho, will not
bear any responsibility for the tax exempt status of the bonds that service on the bonds
or any other matter related to the bonds. So, that's a very comforting sentence to me.
i ~ v i i ~; S } f; [ i¢ ~ +i ~'
~ ~ ~ 3 ~ i ~
ff •LI
`L €
r, Y ~,y ~+ & . f' ~
s ~»
t )°b + ~}3' ,~ i'~> `.o - i
} Y ~' ~ 3
.
,.
:.: .s
>
~
:
:
s
: z
F:
e .~ ~ i°:
'a
r .,:.
,h' $
%'!; p..
~.`
i.~
'~ zi.
"
: ;
•
{~.
'
:
n
..
M
:
x
: i is ;.
`
;
a.~.+~~ .... ~
,
~~:
...,..
e:
: ` ~~.• :.:...: '
~
e
y
'
~
,
~.:
s
4
•i.
~
,::
~,
•
.
.y .
3 s:
t
a
~ i~.:...,
:
-
.~
~{
..~ i~' ~:~: ~,.
a
~~'r ~
• .
-
-
~ =,
:f
..
:
i i,r .
is
s.
'~R r •<
> g
L.
v ..
: Zc .+ 9K.'
..:1 . :' fit' ~t
:
.. :
j ~s
~'~' ?>
~
f
`
R
4 "'f
zf : s
i.
A l
i_
t
{ .:~ 5 _
g
•'r ;~~•.s•~:
qi
...3.
i;.'
~~. '. ~' ': ~. F..
'i:.: ~ ~. .j:,
•}i
it =:i
t.
s .• ; xi~. ~ ~ v
g ~~ ; r :7, Sa: : ,~ a $$.:;i F t . S ' .. ' `i _ t.
.
'
,
..
!
~:
,
i
..
,
. ~~
,
:e
: •
~' '>
:
s l
: 3
+
~
t
,
,,
.r
~
y
"p, ~~
~
2 ~` .:
,~
f,.:
.. -
~:~.
is
-I' k
i'
~ ~
.F~
i
~ .
r
e
•
v e
: - .
4r
i. ~.
.. .
{.
•.
A
j Ya
>1 .~
~:i ..Y a
~
s
~
•'•
~ ..#. ~^,.
~
'
'i'
~
f a. '~.¢M .
gp• t`r.5 .iN
~.
^
st,_
x
..~ F_ ~<3
`i. Vii. a _~ ,~ ;
,
y
~ • k S
Sp
i
~
j}
7
;:.C~1.~ '1~~.
:.
,
1~
$ ~+
Y
~Sy
i.
ii
,! 'e
~,`, ~
t.' c
f'
~C F -
t
1F r
t 1[ f
, f
~S
i-
~C
~: ~ f
~~
' i
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 12 of 54
do have one question, though. Where are you able to sell the bonds? Can you sell
them in Idaho?
Goodwin: Yes. We can sell them anywhere, but they are only tax exempt on the
federal level. They are sold on the open market. They are seven day typical municipal
tax free bonds. They are sold under a letter of credit, so they are sold on a triple A
rating, so they are like a negotiable instrument. They aren't sold to individuals for 30
years or anything like that.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Goodwin: Thank you very much. Appreciate it
De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there any member of the public who
would like to provide testimony on this application or on this agenda item? Okay.
Seeing none, Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the public hearing on Item No. 8.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that the City Council resolves that we consent with the Foundation
Academy moving forward with their bonding activity and authorize the Mayor and the
Clerk to sign the appropriate documents.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will
you call roll.
~
' ~ F
r e "i
f s ~
4
~~' i 'y
? ~T~Fr I~F'
~ ~
j~tk'- 3 i~ f'
~
FJ '~ ~~
~'
f ,
~' S
~
i.
Y t~. .
5 }
~.. ] F I~
I
3
'} •
'fC'i ~ '~ •f.~ ~%:;~:i:"'
'Y.u .;. 1^ `~~~ ~ li ~ 5 s'~•'.
i. '{
:7 ~1 i.
~~:
~ {
.F ::i ~iG' 3 e' i.•. ~, '7:: .~5
: g ,gyp ~' ~ ~
~- ~ ~ l
: ; .
.
f ~y ~'i ~, f~
';. G a ~. 1; V~', S
l
f l~' I ~
7:
~
~ t 3
F ~ `
Fl D
r
f h
j ~.
•
'
6
F' n S
9 j ~1 99
3g .•.
~!£ ~
F ~ :
r•
c
a ~': ~. } I~ E i~'
~ S tl f. #.t l
x{. .i ~. .
~
~. >,, (
A
,~
y
q
{ { 1
..
.. R} ~lr' ~ t'F{f Si a
i i~'¢
~; ~ 4 1S ~ £. $
~~~
~ r
y ~.
t
,
.
:k..~
.'~ r'..
s .its'
~.
-
a
r
;.
i"
;
s ~! ~~. F +:
ff i
'F tJA.
3:
.f
Id'F!
i
'
s
'
~ _
.
:°.f:f''. .~ ? . .:5
'1:
d' { t
j
~{~: .F ,3, .~'~' f ~ it
i
fi
~
5j
.S: 's~ ~ e
yp
e,
l
:i
t
F
] .
.
.
t
,.
,
~ ••
~ {. ~e
s
T a
% :• ..
jy
~ .
.i'
5
h
(
x
~
,
~ 3
6 ; ~~~ ~
I
,:.
i. :a
z
- ,
:
~
'.
. s
,4
I~s ,
u.
,
ry
i.
=.~ ' ;.
.. .
~
,, tr ~ ~
f
~
~
f ~
_ _ f3
{ .~ pC .6e .~:
4
~y~ F• ~ .
f 4.
..
r S
~>~e
);:
'
~
~
s 9
'
- tiff E
:
!~. i
4';
1;..:'.: :~
~~~
Vii
'~ ..
'~'
~.'i.':
g
`~
;
er;,
}
~ $~~ ;a
iF
' : y
,.~.
;
-
-
,
~ $
. _ .: .g..
.a i i~'.! .,a,~... e'
2. .} i~ ~ i~ s
..
.
fi
$ ,
~
k t.. F., i~ ~ :..1~- :F~ ~.
~
, ~•
~ 3
': _. ; .i#:'~..''' ' ~. :. ~ z..."•a::'' ~` ;;{!. ~w~~i.;iy`:
~
~
~
~ _.^
x..
.:. !.F.:
"~
..' '~~
...}s, ~'.iy.Y
.',
~'
~
~
~
~ ! ~, .. _. . ' !~ ~~~ :.'
~
~ .1.
;;7f,`
' ~
.=''
~ P !
q ~ ~ ,.'a " :.,
::
~s. ~ _. r:.
i ;
+ .
.~?' ~i1 #F",.. - ~'e~.. ~ .
~ .5~~
~
~~ lj 1. If ? b.
. ~ s
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 13 of 54
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Request for Reconsideration for AP 08-005 Instant Equity Auto by
The Land Group:
De Weerd: Item 9 is a request for reconsideration for AP 08-055. Council, you have in
front of a letter requesting reconsideration. Is there any additional information that you
need or order -- for this item?
Bird: I don't.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the request for reconsideration of Instant Equity
Auto, based on the reasons outlined in their letter.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that? Madam
Clerk, wall you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun; yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: So, this item will be reset for a public hearing with the appropriate public
noticing given.
Item 10: MFP 08-006 Request to phase the perimeter and common space fencing
approved with the final plat landscaping plan for Hacienda Subdivision
(FP 05-031) by Jayo Construction - east side of Meridian Road,
approximately a quarter mile south of East Chinden Boulevard:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 has been requested to be continue to November 5th.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
i
7 .. „ ~ . J 5 2 '
,
:=
'Y
i
x
i'
~~ ~
~ ~
{
'.
T
i
s :l' .
.. .
~.. .~ . ,~
~
(~`
.
.
;,
.
, :f
i ~ 'S ~'
2'ii
'~Ih ~.
'
,
s
~
.~:; :.:
P
~ -
'
5
'
p
',„~;
~~
'
..
¢ .
i ~;:.
p~
.
.
k.
jj
t
t
~'
~
'
:
! ~
,
3:
~~ ~
~
':
~ .;t
,3
. -..
. ::~' .('
~3
i.
R .
}'
,(
_ .
.
:
.
.
.
.
•
:
f
:
i
a
S
~
:
I:
`
i
~~'
~
S
'
F.:
' 7.
:':
<~'
r4':
t'.:
` _
f
i-
y
S
}
.
.
w
.
.
.
.
•
l+
~
A
: Y
'
:
d
3
N
.
s
'
.
:~
11
Y
:
~
'`
i
:
s SS
^'4.
i:1
P.
.
::t .
t` '
~:i.
:
'.
$
~ i T.
.
3
'
}
Y`i
}
_
..
~ :
; ~
~ . .
.
t :
'
i
.- ..
'Y .
t ~' !~ .
j
{
;;°
~
'::i
-d
~ ~~.{'
i.
•~~
. . y ]
, { ~,
p .
c5~_ dir. ~. T_
~ .. }i#, .~~ -': 1.
5 . t
1
i.
-
,
~
_.; ~ , E,. :
f...c. .y
:' u
; .. ,. .r x
. ' : .~
~
{~~ „~C
L
. s 5 .. aa ,1 :
i
~ ~t
'f
~
:
,
u
.
, '
' A1
i
,
Y
: ' '3 .x
+~'~ . :i'id:'. 'y
'z is
~~
'
` ~~
w
.
.
w
:
~
.
,
.
,
;
.
.
.
~.
.
,
,
e.:
.
.
~
: ~
'
.
,
.
:
'
,
.
:
E
. ,j :
.
.
'
~
,
•
~
'
.. i:-•
.
'
n
~
c
i
.
:
•
#
~
~ _
.i
-
',;
.
Vii.
b A!
f
~
Y'
.
S
is
q
,
~
' 1 :. .. i
i ,
S; ~
pp
'S:': 4 -
[':;
.
,
~
...,
ti; t ,
l
k
T:"
~ i
i
' i~
f ~
.}
q
~ .: ~ •
i
~
~
i
t
.,; .
~ . ;
i .
s
..
:.
: ~
:
~
yy
T: r ..'y
.;
.l:: ~~ i.k'
"
.. :.~
f~': .
3 ~'
.
~
, ~
~
~
j 2
C .
;
~
~~ ,
yy
~ .~ ' 4.i.~i: `.
~
~
'
y
.
i
.x
s~
.
~~~'... ~'.'::: 'x ,'~5 a
'~ .
'f
~'- -
~'~ ~:,
E F~ ~~
I
i'
"{
.f',.;.
~:
~.
-
' ~3 iw
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 14 of 54
Zaremba: I move we continue MFP 08-006 to our regularly scheduled meeting of
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 10 to November 5th. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from September 23, 2008: PP 08-007
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 building lots on 12.62 acres for
Una Mas by Una Mas, LLC - 3945 East Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 11 is a continued public hearing from September 23rd on PP
08-007. I will ask for staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Una Mas project. It's
located at 3945 East Ustick Road on the south side of Ustick, approximately a quarter
mile east of Eagle Road. The application before you tonight is .a preliminary plat
approval of 21 commercial lots on 12.62 acres in a C-G zoning district for Una Mas
Subdivision. The proposed project will include one access point from -- excuse me.
One access point from Ustick Road, which is kind of over on the west side of the
property, and, then, three access points from the newly constructed Allys Avenue, which
runs along the east side of the property. They do have elevations associate with this.
These were the elevations they originally provided for a day care that the approval of
which has since expired, but these are the elevations that they have submitted and
have included as conditions of approval with the preliminary plat. Additionally, all
structures on the site shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19,
which will fold into our new design guidelines as well over time. The Commission did
recommend approval at their June 19th, 2008, public hearing. Denice Lowerman, the
applicant's representative, spoke in favor, as did Burk Hansen, the owner. No one
spoke in opposition, commented, or provided written testimony. Key issues of
discussion by the Commission were the proximity of Allys Way in relation to the Lowe's
entrance and possibility of traffic conflicts on Ustick Road in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation as mixed use regional for this
site. There were no key Commission changes to staffs initial recommendation and to
our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. We have an a-mail from
the applicant's representative stating that they are in agreement with the staff report and
the conditions of approval for the preliminary plat. With that I will answer any questions
Council- may have. And Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
i. ~]..~,
~:
<<
ik
~;
~';
'.
F;
FI
~'!i
'f ;
..,E f
1
~~ t
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 15 of 54
L1
~;~
Fff9
[I~
4
~3 I '
t
.# ~'g
X18
F4f
~~
.,~
~. k
~i I
II
l '~i
~S I
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Martin: Brian Martin with DHM Engineers, representing the applicant and owner. As
she stated, we -- there is no opposition to any of the recommendations for approval or
conditions, so the owner and applicant are just requesting preliminary plat approval on
the subject plat and I'd be glad to take any questions or comments from the Mayor and
Council.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you, sir.
Martin: Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there any member of the public who would like to provide testimony on
this application? Okay. Seeing none, Council, if there is no further information needed,
I would entertain a motion to close.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the public hearing on Item No. 11 for Una Mas.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 11. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED:- ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the preliminary plat PP 08-007 for Una Mas,
including staffs comments and recommendations.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 11. If there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk, roll call.
Roll-Cali: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
tE: . = ~j•S 9i ~ !X
#
~
~
f k ? i F. .~ 1;~.
~ ' 7-~~
S ,i.ry: f<', t e
~ ..
i <
~ s i~ ..t ~
~ ~l ~: ~.
.: ...
.
,~~ ~ .
~ ~i
$+, . S ~
t ;fib i ~
x,
a: ~ ~ i
Z Z
S
k t {
.,~ ..
'.
i~ I }
s:'
' }•
t
...
,. ...'.
:. ~ ;l V. • ... ~.
~ .
1
:
~ f
y:
%
' .
F'
%
4
A%.
s..
,
.
jq i~:'
M
i
' +'
f
-
.~~ F' ~
~`
i',-.
i'
'
.
.ls
.
.~~
#
s.
,~~
~~~
=
+ !
-
~`.
i'-::
':~ ~.{fi
a .
~,•
t
:
~.
A
N
ii' gg
t
€ ..,
~
~
f
~
;
'S+
.
P ~
:
'
q .
i
f
9
.
)SS
:
4' , S :..
~
.~
x
. .
.
,
d
}
' >k
~
~:
t
I
.
t
Iff l"
~ `5~'
~
'
f
t
.Y'
;
.: ..
Is
'
'
~~~'(~~
`
`
~~
fV .
r
4
~+
3
.
.;.
:. S
.
~.
d~ i
k
x.
:.~:
;~
t i
:
,
t
.
.. , .
.
'
dy ii s
,,'~
}
x
~
~
,
:
8
fi r
3'~ a:.;' '~~
a p e:c; ~.
'~kr'
S. "
F:.
'
, f
~~.t
.
~ -
r: e•
:,'
r
.~
~' v
x.r
s
,. 3k
r •:
;, , ' .
'
p
i s
[
f=
r
.
.
~' ~
'
".3
~
~
3:: ~,:.. .
~`:
`• ti
t
2..:
t•
i = '
,_: :::
:a ..
;::.
~
.~~t,
.
.
d.
S ?'i
t. 1
t
R`
}
• .
.
E
.
r~ t ~ji
'F
'!
.:
~`
5
'.
~.'
Y
q `
y
s~.
r
:
s
is a
k' :~ i~ I.g ~.
"aS
~ -
Y.[.
. j..l' ; i' ~
~
¢
:.}:~:: .h',
~;. <
,;
..
- ~ hby.
` ,
~.
.a
~'
i
}`
.~
.a a y.:.
1
t
:
'r. xa.
T.
~
,
/:.
.i
r
i
%' '.
k..
S'
.i.
~ ' Y:
~•. .
.
.:rt
Y
'. ' 1.
z:
~'
-
•
e
,
.
-
,
€~
a
>
~
.
~:
';
~
:.';
~
'
'.i'.
-
8
s .
}
'
,~ ,
'j
+fi
z5:
:.
y
~'
'
y:
`
:
!k
a'
~
3
i
t
~~
;
S.
' ~ '~~ ~
gg
.
~.:
s
.
¢¢
~~t i.
_
~ ;`
~9,s
s
r~
~
'
e
_ :, ?
L
~::
~i+
.
a
~;.
}
- ~
%6
~
}
'~
.
.
'
`
.~
:
gg
:. .
:
QX„' S:
,X
t:C.s.:
'
.
` ..3
~:. .7 ~
~~
Z ::
`~
~i
1'.
-
.
.
i:
,a
.. ;, ,.
.: ~:
:;,
.
3
{~
i~
+~
.
%4
.
{
3
T
is
ii:
•~
?
i, .,
~;
;'i
.
:.
.
.
` ,
!
;:
,
~i
r
;
'
`
'
~ ~.
~"
{
-
~~
'
~
~
~:
``
.~
.
^
`
i
.
~
. t
;
'
-
''
,
F'
3
.
„
-
.g
.
~•
B
.
.
.
;
~'ii .
s'~; ~~
:• .
~
,~
0
t
:
~:'
i -s
'
i.
y
.
y
;
,
.
4'i
..w
:: .. ..n :,
~
~,
'
:
i~
j'.`i
F
c s (:
a
t" '
+(:t ,.i
t
`
;~
-
iii
„
~
5'
'.~.K ..~.
y
g
{:
fir
' ,
_ . i;~ .
~
~
t
i
i
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 16 of 54
De Weerd: Item 12 is a continued public hearing from September 23rd on CPA 08-002.
I will tum this over to staff.
Item 12: Continue Public Hearing from September 23, 2008: CPA 08-002
Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land
Use Map by changing the land use designation for approximately 10 acres
from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Eagle and
Victo by Rose Law Group -Northwest Corner of East Victory Road and
South Eagle Road:
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Eagle and Victory project.
It's located on the northwest comer of, surprisingly enough, Eagle and Victory. And the
applications before you tonight are to amend the Comprehensive Plan for approximately
15.5 acres from low density residential to mixed use community. The Applicant
originally submitted a concurrent application requesting annexation of 3,75 acres of land
to C-N and that was right at the corner of Eagle and Victory. That application, though,
has been withdrawn. There is the -- the previous slide was the existing zoning. This is
the aerial map. This is our current Comprehensive Plan. And, then, the proposed plan
is shown in the lower right. This was the conceptual site plan for the comer property.
And that's all of our exhibits. The applicant submitted a conceptual development plan
showing how the site may develop in the future. The plan listed two drive-thru
businesses on the site, a pharmacy and a bank, and, then, there was some questions
about those, because they were within 300 feet of residential. Access to and from the
site was proposed as one full access driveway on Victory Road and aright-in only drive
on Eagle Road. This shows just part of that property. I would like to point out that staff
received a memo from Mindy Wallace at ACHD stating the following: The applicant of
the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone located at the northwest corner of
Eagle Road and Victory Road, have requested that ACHD staff review and provide
comments on a .revised site plan that was submitted on September 23rd, 2008. Staff
has reviewed the revised site plan and does not support the proposed right-out
driveway on Eagle Road located 200 feet north of Victory Road due to its close
proximity to the Eagle and Victory Road intersection. So, that was in reference to this
proposed access. The Commission recommended denial at their August 14th, 2008,
public hearing. Shawn Nickel, the applicant's representative, spoke in favor, as did Rex
Young, Vem Irwin, Jim Allen, Barbara and Dave Marquart, Teddy Hepper and David
Curier. In opposition were Wendell Jeffries, Bob Aldridge, Chantelle and Harold
Kruzinsky. Commenting or neutral, rather, were Ed and Joan Crampton, Teny Murphy,
John Koontz. Written testimony was provided by Jared and Gina Ireland, Wayne
Peterson, Linda Kaley, Jeff Bower, David Cuzette, and staff also received two petitions
totaling 34 signatures in opposition of the project. The petitions were from residents of
the surrounding neighborhoods. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the
appropriate land use designation for the seven parcels requesting the land use change.
The subject site is an enclave on low density residential, surrounded by primarily
medium density residential development. The Commission recommended denial of the
project and felt a higher density residential use, not commercial, on the site would be
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 17 of 54
more consistent with the surrounding area. There was concern over current and
proposed access points to and from Victory Road and Eagle Road for the subject site
and the Commission discussed the Comprehensive Plan, which had made provisions
for a neighbor center at the half mile west of the site to alleviate congestion that
commercial traffic would generate at the Eagle Road and Victory Road intersection.
There were no key changes to staffs initial recommendation. Staff had recommended
denial on the project. We have had two pieces of written testimony since the staff report
was produced. One was the memo from ACHD that I mentioned previously and, then,
the letter was -- the letter from the applicant requesting withdrawal of the annexation
request also, since -- that I mentioned previously. Outstanding issues for City Council.
Since -- since the withdrawal of the annexation application came after the~P&Z, I do feel
it's appropriate to note to Council that the withdrawal of that annexation application
creates even greater concerns with regard to the appropriateness of the site for future
commercial development. One of the primary reasons staff recommended denial of the
Comp Plan amendment and the annexation was that the site is very constrained for
commercial development. It is much narrower than what we generally are told is an
acceptable depth for commercial development. The previous concept plan with the
annexation application did not provide staff with satisfactory evidence that this site could
accommodate commercial development. ACHD staff stated that even if the right-in --
even the right-in only access off of Eagle was a compromise. Preferably they would
have had no access off of Eagle. So, given those things, the Council should determine
if the mixed use community designation is appropriate land use for the subject site. If it
is compatible with the surrounding residential uses. And if the change is in the best
interest of the city. And with that I will answer any questions Mayor and Council may
have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions at this point from Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Question for Anna. Anna, your last comment about ACHD's questioning of
the right-in, but their letter indicate that the right-in and right-out would not be something
they could approve. So, are there two different scenarios that they talk about are right-
in, right-out, and simply aright-in?
Canning: The -- the original approval they gave was just for aright-in, but they did want
to make it clear that even that was a compromise.
Rountree: Thank you.
' i J~
'~
~ k Y
x
. .
.. .. ,..,
.
,.; Y
~ ~
E ]
t . ~
i
•
~
~,
3
µ~ .
4
.
`i
Y
,~
t
•
f.
;5.,. ~.,
.f .{..
..
~~:: ;.
is
;..
i
a
,
d ~
. '
.::~ ,i=' '{
y {'. '
, ~ i
~+`
. ~8
>
:
`
iF
=r ~
i'
~'
+
S •
.:~
~ y
l'. ''E'
R
~
~
..
~,•
{`5'i
f
'v
~:
.s~ ~.
..
;r
.
E?
~} ..F.
~~'~
.,J.
t
.
~a
'.W
'.; 'k
?~~ .
.'.R ;'Y i
'
:
v5 ~.
.
{ :1 ~:
V
'~ (i'
E i
i ~:
', ~)
'
: - ,
+
. •1 :
~
:'.
~
_^~~..,,,
fz
°
~~ :,
t ..
•i:
a.
±;~~ '
>a*'.
:;
.F
°i.
'::
~
~
;3 ~~
t
r
~.
.
` ~E
`
t i t.
1
~
: .
.. y
1
.. ...: ~
*
.. ..
'
~
~,
r . ,:.
.
is
~:
i
i`
}
`~
~,
',
]
~ .
.
1 ~
.~~':
;!;
A
5'` (.~~
..:..
1
~'
)'+ .Y -
;~
_
:.~: .. F
v'.j
: I t:. :
L
.,.1 .
i .:.t:
f
'
;..
. s' • r
n•
i
}:
'.
r
y3
.:% !`
.
S ~
; ~7
''
~
. .
~} ,
F
'
,
:.`
3' ;r
.
~
;
'
,
4
3,j
: s ,
{{
.~i~i
•..1
yy
f
`j
5
~ ~ ~
; .
~. .
i,
f
.
,'y
'.b
~~
•
r:~j
Ma
.
~:
~,
s.
y:3~.: .
~' ;!
.
w¢
.
-
3•
i:' ~'.
~
V ~
~+
' F
j::
i S
}
;~
i
i ~.
,
i
~q
.?i:.,~:
,r
}
t
~ C
K
:
,~
•t •
.
~•
x
3°?
``~
is
~
s
i':
`~
A,
,
~::
~:
:
.
-
,.
s: . ;j :.~:.
..
<..
>
c .::. .
.,
:.: .. .,. ;±.,
~
.
3
))
,
.s.
tee
,. .
.
~
~
~
.:
..
'
. .
j
.,
~y
a•
-
' ~ r
. ~. 7
7
e~
f ~ 9~ ~
~
~
1.
.
-
:. '.~
}.,
a~<' ]
'
8'~1
~~
~ }-. ~.
gy
~. :~...
.
., . .
ti ~
-
:..:.
.:
~.:
'~:
:;
t' '
~Y5
:l.
;~
~' '. •
R
it%• '
~~
;
[
+t;`
:} !'
~ ;!
s
A
.
.
,
4'
~:
~ .'..
. ~i
} `x
:.
.: y .. 1
s~
~s.:
f
f
;
..'
:'..:'
r
......;:
d'
(`
,
•
~: <. .
,~
.'.
~
..:~
!'
:
: {...
' 1
F
~:
i
..*'':
f
,fi
.{ .
f'.
l
.
<
. .
~, ~ ,y
:,
~
. "
i
~
. ,'
:.
~
:
'
y
? >
(•:.:
~ 3
:
.
1
.
r
.
:
.
:
~ *r
..
~::
.., t t. :. ¢: .
1
:: .. 1 ..
'
~
,
...
qq . .
~
~
... is i. 3'~ ~,
..
x
.ti..
.Y
.~
,}
j {
. .~
I::t
.., tt
,.:.:
.
7
i}
: :~`
.
•
M1 ..
~,
.:
H
a•,))
=v..
.
1; f~
.:
.ii
.
~
'l
~
M1
. t
~ :' E
~ ~i ~ ~ ~ a.: ~
~: h5 ~~ ~~ ~ .
:.>..
~ 5.~ ~, ~~ ~
.. >Y
~x~
.,~ la~ .. ~ F V ~
' ~ 1l
y}`, `lj
~..; r ~ V.It d ie~ i ~.t': x•
.. ~
f
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 18 of 54
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions at this point from Council? Okay. Is the
applicant here this evening? Or representative? Please state your name and address
for the record.
Nickel: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Shawn Nickel. 6223 North Discovery Way, Suite
200, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nickel: Here tonight representing the property owners on the north side of Victory
Road.
Canning: Excuse me. Shawn, do you know how that Smart Board works?
Nickel: I don't. I'm not smart.
Canning: Okay.
Nickel: I'm going to get a lesson here.
Rountree: The name kind of give it away, Shawn.
Nickel: Very impressive. As staff has indicated, Madam Mayor and Council, we have
got part of the original request in front of you this evening. We originally submitted an
application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the seven properties totaling
about 15 acres on the north side of Victory. We also had an annexation concept plan
and development agreement request for three of those seven parcels, those being the
ones on the comer of -- of -- excuse me. Northwest comer of Eagle and Victory. Since
that time the applicant for the annexation and rezone has withdrawn that application and
they are no longer part of this process and so what we have is a unique opportunity to
still move forward with the Comprehensive Plan amendment, because we have all
seven of the property owners still working together and still interested in bringing this --
this issue before the Council for -- for discussion. What we are doing is we are
proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan from the low density designation to -- the
proposal is for mixed use community. How do you work this here? There we go. In
recent years the property surrounding these seven parcels have developed in the City
of Meridian as medium density residential, some higher density residential, R-8 zones,
and some mixed use community designations for the Comprehensive Plan on the
eastern side of Eagle Road at the intersection Victory and Eagle. What this has done is
this has created somewhat of an island with these seven -- seven parcels. And what
that does is that -- that creates some problems. As those developments were approved
and developed adjacent to the north and the west, unfortunately, there was no
requirement for stub streets or pathways and so this really is a separate -- a separate
little community outside of the larger picture. In addition, each of those parcels -- there
is six houses on the seven parcels. Each of them have at least one access out onto
Victory Road, for a total of nine access points. So, with the plans now for the
~ ~~,
y' i~
3,
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 19 of 54
intersection of Victory and Eagle to be re -- or designed and improved and the widen of
Victory Road, this seems to be the time to take a look at the land use for these
remaining seven parcels and look at what is the most appropriate future designation for
development. As you will hear from the neighbors that are in support of this and that
are part of this application, kind of being squeezed out of the community with the -- with
the higher density residential and with the continued traffic increasing on Victory Road
and Eagle Road as the community does -does grow in size. Your Planning and
Zoning Commission did recommend denial of this application. However, their
recommendation was somewhat fragmented. You had one commissioner who was
absolutely in favor of the request to change the designation to mixed use. You had one
commissioner that was completely opposed to it. You had one commissioner that was
in favor of a higher density residential designation first, followed by a mixed use second.
And, then, finally, you have the remaining two that admitted that they were tom between
which way to -- which way to go on it. I think what that indicates is that the majority of
the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed that the low density designation does not
-- does not work for these properties and should be changed. Even your -- even your
staff indicates -- and has indicated in their presentation that higher density might be a
more appropriate -- more appropriate use for this property than the low density. In the
purpose statement for your Comprehensive -- in your Comprehensive plan for the mixed
area, it focuses on identifying key areas which are either in-fill in nature or situated in
highly visible or transitional areas of the city where innovative and flexible design
opportunities are encouraged. And we believe that this is the case for these seven
stand-alone properties, that they are surrounded, so they would be an in-fill situation.
They are definitely in a high visible area and because of the configuration of the land,
flexible design would be necessary to create the proper development. It also has been
stated that there are current mixed- uses designated in this area to the east, which is the
area that we -- that's on the screen there. See if I can do this here. Sony. Didn't work.
Oh, here we go. Okay. So, these areas right here that are designated mixed us, in
addition staff speaks of the regional commercial areas at Overland and Eagle Road and
the designated neighborhood center on the south side of Victory. So, regarding of the
commercial regional at Overland and Eagle, just need to point out that those are
business campus type of developments dominated by hotels, high tech, call centers,
professional offices, such as engineering firms. These regional mixed use areas are
destination areas, bringing people from all over the valley to work and receive services.
As for the neighborhood centers, I do not believe that the development community has
fully embraced this concept of the mid mile commercial areas. I think that's evident by
the way that those designated areas are developing with a low amount of commercial or
not developing at all. So, this leaves a rather small area south of the interstate or south
of Overland Road that needs to serve an estimated 11,000 units based on your current
build ou# as designated in your Comprehensive Plan as it exists today. And, finally, it
has been indicated that the proposed use is not in the best interest of the city. We
believe that the benefit to the city is that this proposal helps the city plan for the future in
this area and insures compatible development. It will remove an overabundant number
of access points on a major thoroughfare. Provides neighborhood services that will
continue a consistent pattern of development for the area. Again, we have present
{ ~~
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 20 of 54
tonight representatives from those neighbors that would like to get up and speak. Many
of them have lived here for a number of years. With that I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this time?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Shawn, you indicated in your testimony that possibly higher density was a
better use and in that regard is that something that's -- that's committed to with this
application or something nice for us to hear?
Nickel: Madam Mayor and Council Members, I think it's your -- it's your decision
tonight, as you listen to the testimony, looking at what's before you, to determine what is
the best use for this property. I think we -- hopefully, you will agree like you have heard
previous, that low density is not the best use for the property. You're getting -- you'll get
conflicting testimony as to what the -- what the highest and best use for the property is
going to be. What we are saying is we -- I believe -- or we believe that the mixed use --
that there is a need for service oriented mixed use. Now, maybe the community
designation might be a little bit high, considering what's across the street, but definitely
a neighborhood mixed use would be appropriate if we are really intending to service the
people of this area with those type of services. Again, we are not asking for the
regional, if that's what is designated up at Overland and Eagle. So, I don't know what
the -- you guys have to decide what the best use of the property is.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You didn't speak to the comments from ACHD about their -- their lack of
consideration for aright-in and right-out on Eagle. Does that have some bearing on
how developable that particular piece is on the comer for the commercial?
Nickel: Madam Mayor and Council Members, it did have to do with -- in part with the --
the applicant that was part of the annexation pulling out of the development, because of
the type of use that they were -- that they were looking for. However, we didn't get the
opportunity to present anything to ACHD to rebut their recommendation for just the
right-in. So, the way that we had it designed -- and keep in mind that we are not -- that
that concept plan did not show -- it's not really part of the application now, but the
proposal of the right-in, right-out does meet the highway district's policy. They did not
give us the ability to go in front of their commission to argue that point. So, I think
what's going to happen is at some point when that comer does develop or when the
whole property develops together, that issue is going to that have to be looked at again
by ACRD and by the -- by the current applicant to determine what is the most
appropriate access point. But did they approve -- what they had in front of you today
. ~ t _ :il&`. `$,: ~ s~ 11~,. ,~
j~d'' K'a ` uY is %i~ ,, ",Y I, ~; { ~33~~ y
4~ ~i 5, •i ~!' {
b
~ ~~ y~ i`
•FS ~ i5 'I ~ I i ~ l~~, 5'yji
l~ SI ". i
3
-j if I ~h t. A ^y
,
,
`~2y ¢ :t:
'
'
l
~ ~
7'
~~
f!
~[
{ 3 ~
d~. ;~ Y~ f {
i.
~?' ~ is
':k.
- ,
_
i}.S'. ':
{'
c.:
~~.
t:} t ~ ~
~
~ .
.
..
;
.
. s
.'t
5>bl
3
~ {: .. g Y..'
: A
i .{
i
~ .
~
,
' Ci
i}:' ;,~AUe'.
t ;:z•r ~ 'r ~y?. .'I;,.. - :t •1;:
~: p Sz. ! T
.
!~
~- S ., ~ ;
.
> 2
+ "
-
, i
"i e5
: ylle 4 - 9 S
1 1
x
§ I
r
~ t Y
i
t`
1 ~ ~- ~ ~ ~
i•
i
k' ~ {
.
R
~ i d
~~' .'s e=c ~
~ .1+~• fit{ a
z" ~ '~` l f
;: :
g
2'r .
.~
~` '~' [ Y>, .
F~
'
`
~ .
~ - p
1.
'i`j
~3
I `+~ {" q
:~ ~
~ It 1
~ a
:
~~' .
:
•
r ' ~.! sy, $$
i~
.
Sdr .
#
~.
t•., 1.
` i. ,~? ae c7. ;I t
"~~~~~ .~~ : a.
,t
t l~' ~E
r
"&
II
:
C: q
is
:
` ,
..
<
,
'~
. '
~
~ ~
j':
f
~
1
'
:
w
.
ii
e
.
I'
1
:
~
.;
.
ts.
;
.'~ +:.'"
s'
1 .
.
~!.
i'
~
x'
I
I ii. ~
5 "I '
(:.
a
f
7
r
°
~ 1.
.
'L
~ •
'
I M :
~
.
r
1.'
"
. I
'
k.
1.C'!
::d
.'.~
fff '~
` .
:
d.
IS..
' r
..
t
i
i
ri
'
i
k z
' .
A
$
't
$ •.. $
` 8.
. .
} .
:4
)) t~
yy i'
t' ) ~ t.
Vii
'
~p
~
~~ '~
. y
7
-
f.
i
.,
i:5 '.7 ~:
1"
s
~'
f' .
ei
,a . ~
e :5 .
.
d
:.-
'f• ~
.> f.. 1. ,',' •
.
~ ~
~
.
Y
I
' ~t
:
~'
~'_ ..
.
'
'
.
j
b "' ~. .'.I
.3"r r
.A•~ ~t
* ~
. .K ~ ,1'
I
1
,' _,
~
J
t
t
:
h
.,
1
,~ ..
{
i'''
'J=. ?
~F
.
.~:
_
t..
3
:A .
;~
{
~ '
S
,
:
i
t .
Y
'.7
~
~
~'Y~ 1
`i.: ~~ y
~
`:
t
' j '
4i'~~~
'''
' {{
f . t
~
~ ~ I
i ~ A 1 , ~~~
p 1
~6
l ~ ~j ~.
~ ~ ~ P
,
~ 7x
~
~
s
[ .. 7
e
f
. ~
,
~' }: .' ..
.: 5 ~ .;
.
~ } •. ..~ E .
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 21 of 54
was the right-in concept
with them.
We didn't get a chance to argue the right=in, right-out concept
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Rountree: So, my question was. does ACHD's current position on not allowing aright-in
and right-out, have some bearing on how viable this is for a commercial application?
Nickel: No.
Rountree: You have indicated the previous application it may have had some impact,
but on this concept --
Nickel: Yeah. That was the -- the specific use was a pharmacy and that pharmacy
wanted access on Eagle Road. We are not -- we are not concerned that other uses --
potential uses, the mixed use, would have that same problem with just aright-in, but,
again, we are going to have to figure that out once we get an actual user and they go --
they submit an application and that goes in front of ACHD and we can see what -- what
they will approve. We know we will at least have aright-in and, then, we -- they did
approve a full access off on Victory Road far enough away from the intersection that
met their policy and that seems to be a -- a positive, probably, in the way of design
criteria.
Rountree: Thank you. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: We have had several public hearings in this particular area and further
south. The question of the intersection and its functionality always comes up. The last
application we had before us there was a genuine commitment on the part of the
developer to participate in improvements on that intersection. If -- mind you, if we were
to approve this Comprehensive Plan amendment, is there some commitment on the
part of the owners to weigh in on the improvements of the Eagle-Victory intersection?
Nickel: Madam Mayor and Council Members, I can't make that commitment for the
current property owners, because they will more than likely not be developing this site.
However, we do understand what was approved kitty comer to this property and we
understand and accept the fact that improvements to the intersection are going to have
to take place whether we wait on ACRD to do those improvements or there is a joint
effort between the developers and the property owners of those to fulfill that, if they
want to -- if they don't want to wait for ACHD to improve those. But we do recognize
that and I hope that answers your question.
Rountree: Kind of a nice way of saying no.
rH ~ ~ . ; :
~ F~ ~
~ :... .
;
;.
:
~ :'S ,
r a ~' i'~
r. °r~ ,
_
4' ~ 3 ~~~
~r
~ s
`~ ' 4 r r
i i t )
F
:i ~ ` .
~
~
..
s
..
.
.
..
E .
r
~ `
•
:.
'
' .l.~.r`.
. ~:..
t : ': _
(
A
r ~~
'
~
-
i
v
~
s
y
.
.
'
.
...
_
s
m
4
~
,ti
'
.: .:
'
,. ,
'.~:i
.
'
ty
:'.'
^{
':.
~
: ;;
F'
e
K
~.
~.:f.
3~
. j.
1:.
,
,.;::
~ -
-
"S ;;a:
.
:;
L
.F •!'%"' 1.
3t 33
9
'
°
{'
1
t
~'
.
3
~ x,
[.
t ..
~Y"
,.
~
Y,-.
1
~ <.1.<~
~ ~"
~
+
'
1' .
.
::
~( .
L
,
~t •i ~t
:
{
i ~'
ay!
~
.:
.
~
<
`.
'h
f .
~
. ~~:
;;..
`.
;
+"
{.
(~
F
T
'
$
i~
:'R
..
~ ~
~' .
.
:x.:i
~i;'
~
~:
4 ~
~~
~
~
.
.
~
~
i
S
,
.
r.:
~
,
A
x
~'
r -
e
f
1
. A:. i4 .
5.,~
t'
r
~..(
'
. ~ .~
.
s
. :
.
,.
.
..
~ ,
.
,
. ,
.
.
.
, ..
.
...:: Y.
(
.
~
¢
~j
z~
j
~
~ c[ ' 3.
i
i {
+ . r
x':3
.
•''
~: d
:
t •
~
; y
.
i
.~r.
#' i
c•
.
;
.
~.
~•
'
.
S
'
s
.
~
.r
'i'
;
R4, °
i .
~ 1
~.: ~'
."~'::t
.
`
: i
' 2 .
.
s ~
;~ ,
~
.
t ~..
'~~ -
_t.
,
t:
.
y
;
:~
-
~
~
i
-
~>
S,
'
:
~'
>X F
a
>'
„•
4
:
~
~,..
1.
r.
~,
r<
.
~
. :
:
i
'
~
t ;
j
,.`
i
...3'.
:
~, r
..~
~::
F.
c
,,., .
..
%3"
;
#
.
,i
~:: .
y
s
~ x
_
_
.
.
.
;
:
.
~
:
i
iF
'
.
.;: e:
~5
i:. . .
,. ,
_
~..,; .
'
te
'
.~
'
~
e
~
:
~: ) a x~
A
:.3
~ .
y
F~.
~.
'
] ,~~
~'
a,.
t• t
~~'
~`
'
.r.
'
1
~
J
~ '
y
!:d}
}
:.
a: .
+1,,
~
'
~
i
{=~:
~
R
~
^
'
4
-
r
~ e
~ L.
"
'~
Y
{t t
{
q.'.
}}
~f
~
'.' 1...
r~
`.
:~ r
r:
,`
.
S.L.
.5•~i'.
5{ .
j
:.
i (
j
~
r
^
.
.
.
:
.
:
'
k
~ - "a '
3'
r .
Y
F
~
~
"
'.E :
•
;
~.:>
7'. i
~{
4~>
~
-
`
!
~
,
!
~
is
~
.
.
;
~
i
..
.~.
'Y
?y
i
T
: .
.
.
j
.
:
.
:5
~.
~
k
:
.
. <Fi
,
,.:
' }
v
4 `d
i F.,
7
~'•~''.
~I; i:. !.
k'i ii
F .
.
s
'
'
-
•
"
f.
t
?
.
.
~
i
,
t
t
' 1"
~~
:. '
`
.9.
,:;
..
4
g
>~
r
yi~':
~
< ~.
a,!
y. .
F.
{
'
r;
%i
~:~
i. :t'.
ar:
.
.
.
.
'
.
j
c
-
.
.
~
.
F
F
-
" j _
~
r,=e.
4i ....
r ,
2
L
.a
_
~iA,'.
{
t
~
~
,
.
.~
;
.
6
'
e
.
j
)
i`'.[
k.
j .
,
~;:~,., a.
"~:. ~
.
3'.S . 3
t
:(
A
1
'..~s
S:.
- S
^S
,
,&.' i.~ . ` . ex ar' a ',._l<,i. ~ a,. .;E ;±. ~ric...-. St ~~4 ;.~ ~.; ; +'I ~F :. ~. ~+4 "'J'~.:.
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 22 of 54
Nickel: It's more of a maybe.
De Weerd: Anything else from Council at this time? Okay. Thank you. Okay. I do
have a number of people signed up to indicate their support or opposition for this
application. When I call your name, if you desire to provide public testimony at that
time, if you will, please, come forward. Otherwise, I will read into the record what your
position is on this application. Rex Young is signed up for. Good evening. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Young: My name is Rex T. Young. My wife and I, Marva, live at 2950 East Victory
Road, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Young: Our property is directly across from the entrance to Tuscany Lakes. My
driveway is directly across from that entrance onto East Victory Road from Tuscany.
We moved there 37 years ago and we saw a lot of changes. One of the big changes --
right after we moved there -- I think it was the first morning after we had spent the night
there, I went out to get my newspaper and something seemed wrong and I couldn't
figure it out until I started back and, then, it hit me. Everything was so quiet. Not so
anymore. Things have changed drastically. At the time that hearings were held for
Thousand Springs Subdivision, we weren't particularly interested in a subdivision going
in there, but we knew it was coming and we had some concerns. We wanted larger
transitional lots. We wanted single story houses behind us. And we were successful on
getting the larger lots and they restricted those homes which abutted our property to
single story. When Woodhaven Subdivision went in we had those same concerns.
Nobody listened. We didn't get any concessions. The largest lot that abuts our property
in Woodhaven Subdivision is smaller than the smallest lot in Thousand Springs that
abuts our property and we have several two story homes. When I'm working my garden
I have got an unrestricted view of the back side of a two story home, where I used to
have a view of the mountains. When Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. went in, I objected to
the placement of the entrance road into Tuscany off Victory, because it was directly
across from my driveway. I suggested it be moved to the east and lined up with
Brandy's Jewel, which is the exit from Thousand Springs. I didn't get any consideration
on that and now I can sit in my kitchen in the evening and watch car after car leave that
subdivision, making left-hand turns onto Victory Road and the lights flashing on my
kitchen window. Each of these actions that have taken place have resulted in my
property being less and less desirable for residential purposes. To the north of the
property there is an easement which was aNampa-Meridian Irrigation easement. I
have some pictures of that easement.
De Weerd: Sir, if you can give those to the city clerk and we can maybe show those on
the overhead. And, Anna, we will go back to the -- go back to the map. If you will show
the -- the lots that are affected that would be helpful.
C ~. .., ~i ,~
5f
Y ~:~ „ It
~F
~
~A ~~
f
~ ' ~ ` ~ *~ ;
• { _ 'y
,
,~ .~ i
s
';•€ ~ ~
' s
~
.
4
yy
F
4 `~.
r~) I 1
i »:
~
'
S'• ~ S
~ ~ 111 ~~
+
s 1
.
str'F. } .{
~
1 ~_ •
to- ~ ~
t ~ `j w £: _
~
7 F~ ' ' i ~
i l i.:~l~:
y'y. _
'~ .s.
7 :I,.: Y I
5 'i
1.
g
r
.. 1 . . ,
f i.
~
~
;.
.:.
~
e }
'
~
"
~
.
;~
;
:
5,
t
E
:E:.;.
~.
.:
. F
1
.~
;
1
+
j
f~
K
n
,-:
{
"
t
:
i
.
.
!
1;
I
:~ . i
1.
p
1& :q:r
~lI
3:
i
~1
~
ag
t
I
a
.;~{ :
~ ~ ~
a t •
'~ { {.; '9 ~ 3.~°:.:6v~ ~`.`#
j
•
~
p . ~
, ~i',; '!, ;r: Y; 1 ~ F;
i:.= 7
•
Y~ '~ ~7 yi
~
~ {
:F{
.
~
A
.
+
a
s
: 4SF S,' s 6 #.... $
!Ux
:
, 1 4~ f 1'~ ~
i
Il
~
h
.T ~
. 1
3
i
~
,
E
{
s
.;
1
: ,
~}p ~ F-,{{7 ` ie ~
,
r
: q F' ! "' ~ Yf
..
4 ~1~' ~ I 22,
Il. i\ ~
.
. ij {
M1: 'r i
4
. ~
:.
t}
.
.. ,f
.
.: i
.
, ,
{
,.~ '
'.4; , a., :a: .. 3''? 9
' '{ ii "
it ~i
a~
. ,
.
£^`
';j is J, ''t• [
2 ii
..{_
h
.{
.
,,.
{
i
...
. ~7 .e~'•'. sr
x
dit
F:.
:
S ' :G:
c ~.7 l i.:
;~`
{.
A
•`
;.j
'I
'
1
~
.
A
f
{.
;
~
i
5 ;
yy
~..
P ~ §' ~
.
t
~
tl
t
..;,
>
i
:~i {
.
~ ~
. ! ~ x t ;~:'; ', ~~.. r~ ~ ~,~€ ~ e ~ ~. ~ ,~
~~~
.' ~.. Imo= t Ii ~ . '.~ ~,~.~
,~ i~' ~ ,{~" ` :
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 23 of 54
Young: That one is -- is looking to the west. The distances between those fences are
right around 30 feet. The other picture is looking to the east and those were taken from
the -- from the center -- kind of the center of my property and you can see the natural
buffer which is there. So, I think that would certainly mitigate problems with future
development of some kind if -- if this was approved. It's interesting to note that when
they had the hearings for the Thousand Springs Subdivision, when we were -- before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, one of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners
told me -- he said, Mr. Young, whether you like it or not, one of these days your property
is going to be commercial. Anyway, we favor the project or the change to the
Comprehensive Plan and would urge you to give us some consideration on it. Do you
have any questions of me?
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Any questions from Council? Okay. Thank you. Okay.
Bob Aldridge signed up against.
Canning: Madam Mayor, did you -- these were the affected properties. This --
De Weerd: That would be helpful.
Caning: This is the one that was in question.
De Weerd: Okay.
Aldridge: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Bob Aldridge. 3300 Falcon. I
approach this with fear and trepidation, so we will ~ see if this works or not. I own the
property -- it's not being highlighted here. Yeah. Right there. I have lived there for 23
years. When I move there -- as Mr. Young said, there was no entrance off the freeway.
Things were quiet. I used to say I could go out and lay down in the middle of Eagle
Road, go to sleep for two hours, and not worry about it, because the only coming by
would be a farmer in a combine and it would drive around me. That's, obviously, no
longer the case. I'm here tonight wearing approximately four hats. In addition to
testifying on my own behalf, I have been requested to speak on behalf of Thousand
Springs homeowners' board. They are here tonight. If they'd stand. That is the entire
homeowners' board of Thousand Springs, representing all of the 400 units in that area.
I have also been requested to speak on behalf Woodhaven homeowners subdivision.
Their representative, who is mentioned, was here at the prior meeting. They have a
funeral in their subdivision tonight. So, I'm speaking for them. And for Tuscany I have
been in contact with that board. They are in the midst of trying to complete a survey of
their entire subdivision. They have authorized me to speak on their behalf from written
communication to me. Dozens of members of Tuscany have so far been contacted and
who are in opposition. And Iwould --
De Weerd: Mr. Aldridge, then, we will give you ten minutes for your testimony. If the
clerk would, please, note that.
!,
,: I:
,}
,I
~; ~~
s
~b
S ~ 4
gs !
i ~? i
i' i
ri
~'
i
a_
'~ ~
t b ~ ;
a~
I
~. ~ .: ~
;y ~
;~
~ ~ :i
''.'
,u ,-
4 ,
r
~ ~
k ~
~ r
;~
i.
al:
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 24 of 54
Aldridge: Thank you. I would also note that the Irelands, who were mentioned as
having turned in written prior testimony in opposition, are members of the board of
Tuscany and there has been petitions by all of the surrounding members and by people
on Falcon Drive, my area, as well. The problem is from our point of view are simple. If
you look at this piece of property, yes, it's problem property. Yes, it needs to be solved.
No, it's not going to remain low density residential forever. However, the correct usage
of this -- and that was thoroughly discussed in Planning and Zoning and that was, really,
what the division was about, is that it should be, probably in the long run, high density
residential. That's what's been done across the street in this area to the south and that
has turned out to be a pretty good project. The last time I was over by there it looks like
it was pretty well filled in. It was able to buffer itself pretty well from the surrounding
areas and it's able to get by with lesser access problems than would be the case of a
commercial development. We currently have in this area on the northeast comer
approximately 16 areas that have been designated for potential commercial usage that
currently has not been developed. On the southeast comer -- and that was recently
before you -- has been approved and will have a commercial development on it. In that
case, as you noted the -- and the staff noted, the landowner-developer worked very
closely with ACRD, with staff, with the surrounding landowners to come up with access
situations and is going to be working with ACRD. The last time I looked ACRD had
otherwise pushed this road project back again in their project list. So, without that
developer coming in and working on that, the intersection's probably not going to
happen for quite a period of time. At the present time the area to the south of this on
ACHD's project list says that, quote, that Eagle Road will stay as a two lane road until at
least 2017, despite the fact that there are thousands of units to the south. The traffic
there is an absolute total mess. And, therefore, traffic is what's going to drive how this
develops. Unlike the area on the northeast corner, which has substantial frontage both
on Eagle Road and on Overland Road -- on Victory Road, this area has extremely
limited ability to have access. As noted, ACHD has given aright-in reluctantly. That's
over the top of the canal there. Not even on -- really on the landowner's property, they
got as far back as they could by going over the top of the canal and they have refused
to go forward with the right-out. That reason was very obvious, because the right-out
would be going right into the middle of what would be a right turn lane when that
intersection expanded to five lanes each direction. In terms of the traffic on East
Victory, there is an area in this first part that will probably be expanded when the
intersection is expanded, but beyond that it not going to be and trying to create some
kind of an in-out, especially the one that was originally proposed with the car
application, is an absolute disaster. You already have an intersection that will have a
stop light, rather than a current full stop. You're going to have traffic going there at least
at 40 miles an hour, perhaps 45 miles an hour, going into in and outs on a very
restricted area. The real problem, in addition to that, is the surrounding territories and
that's where all the homeowner subdivisions are very, very worried about this
application, because on the north, the Woodhaven area, has nothing but cul-de-sacs
that back up to this. There is no way to have any interaction between those two. areas,
despite requiring some plans for doing that. To the rest of the area of Thousand
Springs, .the only potential interactions are either on the existing exit, which is probably
not doable, it's a split level in terms of having a big center area on it and the only right-in
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 25 of 54
pair would even be adjacent to this, and at the back the only potential area would be the
attempt to come through the small entrance within Thousand Springs. But that's
commercial development and what you're going to have is people coming out to this
area looking at Victory Road and traffic backed up in all directions and/or going at high
speed through that area and if there is any kind of out going back into those areas,
you're going to have commercial traffic spilling out in these subdivisions and that's a
disaster. Simply not the way the plan is supposed to work. This is something that
needs to be done in terms of being high density residential. With proper plans I think
that certainly I would be in support. I have been before this Council now a whole bunch
of times with all these surrounding areas and despite the fact that this is, from my point
of view, absolutely choking my lifestyle out there and totally removing what originally I
had had, I recognize that change will come, but it needs to be correctly and it needs to
be done in an organized manner and it needs to be done with forethought and that in
this case says that you need to have something that's clear, that's explicit, that has
express types of design built into it, clear methods of what's going to be coming in and
out in terms of the access points, clear methods of interacting with the surroundings or
you get buffering problems. You have a huge number of trees on this property that are
going to have to be mitigated. We have no concept of how that would happen currently
and, frankly, it would be very difficult to do in a commercial setting, the amount of
parking that would be required and so forth would make it almost impossible to do a
commercial development here and still mitigate all the tree damage. So, we have
immense problems with this as a commercial development and so this is simply
something that needs to wait. Number one, we need to see what happens with the
intersection. We need to know what ACRD does with these surrounding streets. We
need to see what happens with the economy and how these other areas develop up in
the northeast, so we know what kind of development is there and how to track it. Is that
going to be something that comes out as the original plans -- they were submitting a
concept on that property, it showed that something back from the comer or are you
going to have traffic coming out onto Eagle Road. All those things are going to have a
huge impact on how the traffic is going to flow to this particular site. I feel extremely
sorry for these people. They are in much the position I'm in. They are surrounded by
things that they didn't want to have. Their lifestyle has changed. But you can't change
one mistake by making another mistake and so I would ask that this commission refuse
to -- this Council refuse to allow this particular usage, turn this down, and let them come
back with something that is a correct plan, that has the right kind of high density
residential that can work here, that has explicit plans, instead of coming in with rezoned
annexation, plats, and so forth, so we can clearly look at what's being done and you can
have correct comments from the neighbors, based on the actual plans, as opposed to
what right now is a lot of maybes and yeses and as Councilman Rountree pointed out, a
polite way of saying no in terms of interacting on the intersection. It is simply too soon
and it's the wrong project. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
De Weerd: Counsel, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 26 of 54
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Aldridge, you mentioned a lot of trees and tree mitigation. Is that per city
ordinance if it were annexed?
Aldridge: Madam Mayor and Councilman Rountree, yes. And on the southeast corner
that was one of the major considerations that was done and they are creating a -- they
are moving all of the large trees down towards the east end of the property and putting
in what amounts to a park in that area of those large trees and over mitigation. They
are going more trees than were requested. I think that's the difference here. You have
got a developer in the southeast comer that was trying to work with the city staff, ACRD,
and so forth, and come up with answers that work. Here you just a lot of vaporware that
we don't know what's going to happen and that worries us tremendously.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Thank you.
Aldridge: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Cindy Mendota. Okay. Signed up against. Jane Bums. Signed up
against. Gordon Harris signed up against. And Tom -- and I'm sure I will mutilate your
name, but -- thank you. Signed up against. Okay. Jon Glick signed up for. Hi. If you
will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Glick: I'm Jon Glick. I live at 2860 East Victory Road, which is the west most property
closest to Thousand Springs Subdivision there on the west. And I would just simply like
to very briefly add my support to amending the Comprehensive Plan to the mixed use
with -- with the mixed use addition to the south -- or the northeast and southeast comer
there at Eagle and Victory. To me it just seems consistent with what seems to be
happening in the general neighborhood in terms of providing services for the
neighborhood. So, I would just simply like to request consideration for that. Thank you.
Any questions?
De Weerd: No. Thank you. Bonnie Glick, I believe, signed up for. Maybe it's also
Glick.
Glick: I didn't write very clearly. Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, I'm Bonnie
Glick. I'm Tom's wife. And, again, we live at 2860 East Victory Road, which is down by
the entrance to Thousand Springs. Lived there for 26 years and like Russ Young, love
the country feeling and certainly that's changed now. We are an island. When I drive
out my lane to go to work in the morning I sit there and wait -- somebody has to let me
in, because I can't get on the road with all the traffic out there. So, stuffs really
changed. I would implore you to consider the mixed use, because I think it would give
the city the flexibility for whatever comes in the future and certainly we don't know
exactly what will happen there, but I think it would give you the flexibility, so that's what
would ask you to do. Thank you.
s j
l
1
~ f
r
~~
~ ~
i
i
f
s ~ i ~~
~:I
'
,
a
i
~t ~
,C,
f
~,
~F
~;
;; ;
R; ;.
r
,4
r;
.,
i
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 27 of 54
De Weerd: Thank you.
Glick: Any questions?
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Barbara Marquart.
Marquart: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council. My name is
Barbara Marquart. I live at 3100 East Victory Road, which, is the third piece of property
from the corner. First of all, I want to thank you for listening to our request this evening.
We have only lived on Victory Road 12 years, which makes us the youngest
homeowners in the vicinity and change has definitely come to our neighborhood. As in
the case of this growing community, as in many, many neighbors, we have the four
subdivisions that we have been talking about and the apartments, so we are no longer
in a rural setting, which we were just as few as 12 years ago. We have a lot of change
and with it we got a lot of traffic and a lot of noise. Traffic has been mentioned so many
times tonight, but I want to take a minute in case any of you were a part of the Locust
Grove overpass. You can't believe the improvement it's made on our comer. When I
go out in the morning to get the paper, because I'm fortunate to tell you now I'm retired,
I don't have to get out into traffic. There is a tremendous difference, though, in the
traffic. You are all to be commended because Locust Grove has done a good job of
making a positive change for our area. We are on our acreages that were rural. That
country living is sadly gone and I'm asking you to approve this Comprehensive Plan, so
that we can move forward with our property to be consistent with the other properties on
the other comers as they have already been approved. It's interesting that the term
commercial has been used a couple times tonight and I as -- to me the mixed use
Comprehensive Plan amendment that we are looking at isn't speaking in terms of
commercial like people think of a lot of traffic, to me if a doctor's office is on that
property, it's only there at most eight hours a day and I don't see it bringing a lot of new
traffic, I just see it accommodating the traffic that's already on those roads of people that
are going to and from their homes and work and as accommodating those people. We
are not talking about commercial property that brings hundreds of people into it. The
mixed use doesn't designation that to my mind and maybe I'm not accurate on that. So,
I don't see it as a big problem to all of those property owners, I see it as an opportunity
for them to have some kind of commercial -- I'll use that word development -- that would
enhance their homes and mean they wouldn't drive miles to get to somewhere for
services that could be provided on Eagle and Victory and I think our properties are
appropriate for that. Thanks for listening. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Thank you.
Marquart: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Lynn Asay signed up for.
Asay: Madam Mayor and City Council, appreciate this opportunity.
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 28 of 54
De Weerd: If you will state your name and address.
Asay: Oh, yeah. I'm a little nervous.
De Weerd: That's okay. So are we.
Asay: Lynn Asay. Me and my wife, we live at 2910 East Victory. Farm two acres in --
in that area. We have been here -- we have been in that location about three years. In
fact, everybody else would see, you know, lots of changes and the growth pattern and
everything else. I, too, would like to say what adifferent -- what an improvement the
Locust Grove overpass has made. It's -- some mornings around 7:45 to 8:15 traffic was
almost all the way from Eagle down to Locust Grove and so that's made abig -- a big
difference and I appreciate that. I am in favor of the amendments. The change. I'd like
to see the mixed use stay the same as the southeast comer of Eagle and the Victory
area. We bought the home as a small acreage to where we could have, you know,
small livestock, but the problem with the property is not only the traffic and being an
island and such, that we can't get any kind of quantity of irrigation water to -- to grow
grass for horses or, you know, for a cow or something like that, which -- so, we definitely
don't have the best use for the property and I would like to see some consistency with
what's been approved on that -- on that other comer. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Teddy Heller. Signed up for.
Heller: Madam Mayor and Council. I wrote it all down. I'm Teddy Heller. 3130 East
Victory Road. I'm the second acreage in. I have lived 31 years at the intersection of
Eagle and Victory. The first 16 years on the southeast comer and the last 15 years on
the northwest comer. I have seen it go from a gravel road to the way it is now as a
major intersection due to all the residential growth. I would have been content to live
there forever if it would have stayed a quiet acreage where I could have had my sheep
and cats and dogs, but there is no denying it is in the path of development. With
Tuscany, Thousand Springs, and Woodhaven, the subdivisions have completely
surrounded us. We have watched the northeast comer and southeast comer be
amended into the Comprehensive Plan. We ask that you do the same with our comer.
It's not the quiet country acreage it was years ago. The best use for this northwest
island of acreages is mixed use. When I walk my dog I come out of my dirt driveway to
a dangerous road with backed up traffic. My dogs and I head north on Eagle Road and
all of a sudden there is sidewalks and we walk all the way down to Overland, with just
beautiful commercial developments all the way down. When ACHD widens the road
around our northwest corner and the sidewalks continue west, it will be as it should be.
We all agree our acreages need to be amended and it would be in the best interest of
the city. The traffic and noise have made it unsafe and ruined our quality of life. We
were all very understanding when the subdivisions went in. Also when ACRD bought
our frontage to widen the road. We are now asking that the progress continue. Please
let our acreages be changed in the Comp Plan, so that this major intersection can be
used for its highest and best use.
ii~~~ir~
~,
:~i
'; ~;
3
a,,~
if
~ ,~ ,~
.;
jF ~
3''I,
f1 •:
S i
i
1,t
~',i ..
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 29 of 54
De Weerd: Thank you. David Currier.
Currier: Madam Mayor, Council Members. My name is David Currier. I live at 3130
East Victory. It's also the same -- the second one in. That's where it is. Yeah. What
used to be a nice quiet place to live has turned into a noisy busy area. What Mr.
Aldridge was saying about the Corey Barton four-plex across the street seems to be
working. That will be until the road gets put in and you have got 30 feet between those
buildings and the road. Right now you can stand on the road and look right into those
buildings and see the people sitting at their dining tables and stuff like that. It's very
noisy at this point. We are not right on the road. However, we at times have had
pictures fall off the wall, because, you know, motorcycles and all kinds of construction
equipment driving through that area. It isn't a place you want to put residential. It's
definitely a commercial place. I recommend mixed use zoning. It's impossible to get
out in the morning, being as close as we are. I'd love to have aright-out and right-in to
get out onto Eagle Road. That would be pertect. But that doesn't happen. Being as
close to Eagle as we are, it's -- it's very hard to get out of that property unless you're
turning right. We are an island in a sea of subs. All the subs have built up around.
They have all been allowed to come in there and now it's created us an island. We
have got the canal in the back, which kind of, you know, closes us off from everything
else. There is no stubs coming in there. As far as I'm concerned, the mixed use zoning
would be the way to go. I can't -- I can't see higher density in there. Like I say, it's so
noisy in that area Ican't -- I can't see people actually wanting to live in those buildings
once that intersection gets put in. That's about all I have got to say.
De Weerd: Thank you very much.
Currier: Thanks.
De Weerd: Dave Marquart. Opposed.
D.Marquart: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, my name is Dave Marquart and I live at 3100
East Victory Road and let me see if I can make this little jewel work here.
Canning: It doesn't seem to be working.
D.Marquart: It doesn't work on this one?
Canning: I don't know why it's not working.
D.Marquart: Okay. Well, where you see the arrow up there, I'm the one on your left.
Right there. Thank you, Anna. The use that we have for this right now is I think
inappropriate, considering that we have, directly across Eagle Road to the other side, to
the east, we have what you have here, it's RUT, that's already been approved by the
City Council as mixed use. What we are looking for here is -- is your support to make
this change so that we have a better use of that property. It's been said many times
before about the noise and the traffic and, you know, if we take that to the next extent, if
'W ..l '. mss` 5 .~ `FT~~~ t{ ' k •e; T y _. ', f f ) ~ ; _-
E~ vi ~~ i p ~F 1 6 ~,~ ro y 1': ~~ T.
` '~~.'
.
}
'~
i' ~~~
n
~ ." a
4:
s.
a:.: ~: ..~.`~~.4
~-f~ ~
ti
~
~
t
i
'
,
l
:i £~.::i~
3: i ~.
~ F.
{.
~
.
{
=
~
:
T
i
~i
~Y
k tt
~'
~ f~:.
,
:.
y{{
k
~.
E
[
~3'
.
~V.'
.
j
:
_
:~':
I'
e s~ t
~
S•'~'
~
F
k'
t
F
~E''
~, .
,
F
A.
i.
at
~,'
;a
~ (;'
,
}
i
.':
-
'<~
i
` '
i.
iiii
,
:y
~.
~ ~ ~~
~
~ ~
~
i, ~:,"-
d.1
'.
.
'~, : : ~
j:
t. .
;~;
3,..
s 4 'J.
~'.K 3 1.t ..
}
;:
'3 :i
:.
i-
'a
' 9:'~
~
~,
s
~
'
' .
.
pp
i .i
~
+:i
~: ) .
ye'...
f.
,'•`ri
,..
tt.%~'
a.
t
v
N '
-1 ;)i
jn''
r.
s..
.~
;~ ~:
e
i ;
::
i >'
I`
'
Y
~:
i
r'
w
. .
.'
:: ,.
Z:
'
~
.
:
•:s
3~ j
j
.
a. r
~
i
l~~ .'
~i~'
ZZ
.
~
.
.
?.'
.
$ .t. }
~#
r
.
7 i
i
.
~.:
: ..
e: .:
i;:
a4.
m:'
` is t s ' i
z: . ~ .
.
'
y.
_ .i.
_..
9
~~.J :
4~
~
~ .
~g
~
y-
:
rt ~.'
`
i• W`
.,
p
i.
i'
'.E'i :: ~
~.
`'4 . e.,
. f':.
~
.
i'„
~<:
i
«~~~#
~
~.ffi
;~:.,
t.
~ h'
~i
_
,
x ~
1'i..
6
.'Y3
P
~;.
a~
.
..E. .
M. u.
•
~
,
_
6i^'
~•~.:
1
~Y
:
'f ~E':~
Y:~
.
i
S =
*
I
,
l
,~'
3
~:
M
a
~:
+
s:
i
,
_
t
*Ci'.
4=:
'
~
t,
i
..
f
.~
.
{.
. ~,
Y
t
v :?
Ifr.
'A ~..
+
4
:
.
~
S.
~
~w,•:;
y
$SS
i'
~
#
~.
}'
y:'
='.
~;~
Sr:.'
.
g~
{
k•
f
I
p
st
.i
}.
7'
s~A
g„'
''F
k
f
r
.
.
_
i
'~
.
7~
¢
t
rC
~
y,
~ .
>•i
,
Z`
1.'~ '.
. "'
i, 'z::
3 :
,.
~.
{
:
.
N
e
~~..
t~'
~ :l : ~S'.
f
:! s
!~ ,
{;
.~
.
:}
•
.
.
+
:
.
•
E
,
•
..i.
.
~•
r
.
< k~;
($y
.~ :i i
'',i.
Vii"
? }
'.
.~ .~... ~ 2..
~
~.
~yy
1
. w
Si.
..,
s. °:
3
i
:~%; ''
8 .i
i
;
~~. ,.:`
'rt
> `~
Y;
~i:--..
~.
9
`
;L.:.
,k s.
t
`
: T;'.
f.
,.
;. ~.,.,
x~~~: ~
~~:.: '.
(:
- .
'
( ~.
: c, s
:!
Ge
;i ~ ?.
~ ..
. ~ i
31
4
}
Y.
C
~,
,
,
}
~•:
x a. ~ .... ..
.
.x,
F
~ k,:
:
:;
..
;;
x.
~
., ..
t
. y..t;
i[Y
..i.'
c.,
#:
;
(
~'
'~'x
S
,
.Y
.~:.
; .
g
':
.Fi~~
..i
~.,
gg
3 ..:.
''.
$•
"i
~~
:~. ~nk~
;
~~
A:
'a
3~
'
'
~
.
.~
. t
.
;~<
~
. .. ~,
....
~ .,
:f
~J
i` ~.~ s
C
.
}'
;.
ltk,7
r..
Y !x S4.K
3
t
,
.:'.
;,
,
fit.
i„':
t':.
G':.. .
I s~
t
,
~:
;;:.
~~
1
T
~
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 30 of 54
this were to be, you know, something very high density residential, R-8, 12, whatever it
is, think about the additional traffic that's going to be impacted within that property. So,
you know, I think that mixed use is -- is a very good plan for this and I would really
support that the -- that the Council does support us in that area. In all regards to ACRD
and the road on Eagle Road, interestingly enough, when I spoke with the engineers at
ACHD they are limiting that Eagle Road to 35 miles an hour, even with five lanes, which
questioned, but they said, no, we are going to sign that at 35 miles an hour. So, it's
really going to be a low speed -- relatively low speed five lane road. Again, it surprised
me. As far as commercial, people moving into that area, whether they will or not,
really think that's going to be determined by anybody who wants to buy it. I mean I think
our marketplace sets that. If there is somebody who wants to buy that property, if the
depth isn't what we think it may be, and they are willing to do that, that's up to them.
And I think that's what's nice about what we do, is the market kind of sets that. But we
are an island in amongst a bunch of subs and a number of other areas that we would
like to be and I would really encourage you to support us in this Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Becky McKay signed up for.
McKay: Becky McKay. Home address 1100 East Vali Hi in Eagle. I'm here this
evening as an individual. I just wanted to kind of give the Council a little bit of history
this evening as far as how we got to where we are today. I met the Youngs, the Glicks,
the Allens, the Marcorts, Ms. Hepper, ten years ago in 1999 when I was working on the
Thousand Springs project. They were not pleased to see the urban development
encroaching into what was largely an agricultural and rural residential area. However,
they accepted the change. They worked with me on irrigation, collectors, services, and
et cetera and they understood that things change and I feel like I played a major part in
reshaping their neighborhood and changing the character of this area, since I did work
on Thousand Springs, Thousand Springs Village, and I also worked on Tuscany, and
Sherbrook Hollows and the list goes on. I saw their application struggling at the
Planning and Zoning Commission and I contacted Shawn and I asked if -- if it would be
okay if I came here this evening and testified before the Council. I volunteered my time,
because these residents have been very tolerant and very cooperative with the
development community and they have been directly affected by the increase in traffic
and the mixed use that has happened within this Eagle and Victory Road corridor and I
would ask the Council to think about a mixed use neighborhood designation as
appropriate. Obviously, the low density residential is not appropriate. It was slapped on
these seven parcels because of what the existing use was, but not looking into the
future. I'd like the Council to provide some flexibility for these residents and I think that
mixed use neighborhood would do that. It could be a combination of commercial, some
office, some multi-family.. You have an opportunity here with seven property owners,
who have come together, and they are coordinating, as a joint effort, on the
redevelopment of these parcels and this is just a Comp Plan map amendment this
evening. and I think it's a little premature to talk about, you know, accesses. I know
that's going to be an issue and I think the Council can make it quite clear that their
coordination and cooperation in working with the improvements at the intersection is
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 31 of 54
going to go far and I would ask the Council to, please, consider their application and
give them a more appropriate designation. Thank you.
De Weerd: You did that in three minutes and left. That's quite amazing.
McKay: I have to say these are pretty fancy digs over here. I feel just a little like a fish
out of water.
De Weerd: So do we.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Becky, you talked about the history and I guess I'm part of that history as
well. At least back into 1999. And I can remember that process. Not vividly, but as
good as my old mind will allow me to remember. And there was a fair amount of push
back on the part of several of the folks that are now here this evening looking for
reconsideration of land use classification. You mentioned that the mixed use
neighborhood could be a way to make this property more usable, as opposed to the low
density and lower medium density residential. Given your expertise, I'm going to take
advantage of if and ask you a question. What kinds of things would you consider would
be appropriate here and what kinds of things would not be appropriate at this location?
McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, you know, obviously, the property is not
exceptionally deep, but it is very long, as far as going westward on Victory, so, you
know, they would have some flexibility in access on Victory. The Eagle Road right-in
issue, I mean it seems to be working quite well at Overland and Eagle Road on the
Winston Moore project. I whipped in there to the Taco Bell this morning -- or today to
buy the staff lunch and, you know, it works real slick and you don't create any hazard,
you don't delay traffic, so, you know, there could be an opportunity there. I kind of
envision more of an office type component. The multi-family, it just doesn't really have a
configuration that would lay to high density multi-family. You might get maybe some --
you know, some -- a mixture of some townhomes or -- but like as far as apartments, it
doesn't have the size, it doesn't have the depth. Maybe a commercial component.
They were talking about maybe a pharmacy or something along that line. You know, I
don't see this as a big retail type parcel. It's more neighborhood supportive type
services and I think that mixed neighborhood designation is going to give them the
maximum flexibility to come up with a good plan and I think it's awesome that all seven
of them have came together tonight and, obviously, have spent a lot of money to come
before you and try to figure out how can we make this work, because as Mr. Marquart
said to me years ago, we will reach a time where we will not be able to live here based
on the high volumes of traffic. Do you understand that's what's going to happen to us.
And I do understand that and it's happened. So, does that answer your question in a
lengthy manner?
--~~
'
~ aF
'
~. ~
t s r
a~
~: r
E
~
i; f
,.IC I ~~i
~
~ ~~ ~ ~.
~.
$
r )) ~
1 ~
~
r
n ~
¢
,~
~ ~
r f {
.
~ ~ f {~
~
1 ~ IY
,
i t i ~ 4
i
r ~
~
~ ~
i
~ . 9 {~ ''
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 32 of 54
Rountree: I won't hold you to it. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Canning: And she did it all without a foam core board.
De Weerd: Okay. Those are the names that signed 'up to testify. Is there anyone else
who would like to provide testimony? Yes, sir.
Allen: I'm Jim Allen. I live at 3040 East Victory. I happen to be in the middle of all this.
The middle property. We moved there in 1990. We enjoy our house. We enjoy the
location. We keep horses. Traffic is bad. If the horses got out there is going to be a
terrible wreck. The other things that I can see -- some of the other neighbors keep
sheep, some of them keep calves. The same thing can happen. It wasn't us that
created our island. You folks created our island for us. We know that Victory Road is
going to be increased to five lanes. At what time I don't know, but it will be. We have
been assured of that already. Like I say, we enjoy our house. We enjoy where we live.
And we are central. We are ten miles to Boise. We are five miles to Meridian. We are
seven miles to Kuna. We are right where we want to be. I don't know what is going to
take place with our seven pieces of ground, but it would seem to me that it would be an
easier transition if we were allowed to go to a multiple use zoning or whatever you call
it, so that the transition, if anybody should happen to decide to buy us, one or all, that
that transition would be easier into whatever the next phase of our properties will be.
Thank you. .
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Further testimony? If there is no further testimony, I
would ask the applicant to come up with his closing remarks.
Nickel: Thank you again, Madam Mayor and Council. For the record Shawn Nickel. I
want to thank the neighbors, both for and against, for coming out and thank Becky for
coming out. I was happy to get her a phone call the other day and I think she adds a lot
to the -- to the history, as well as the -- well, let's put it bluntly, she created a lot of the
problems out there. And she's proud of it. We do have aunique -- again, a unique
situation here that we have got all seven of these property owners in one place at one
time. That was extremely hard to do from the get go and they are all asking at the same
time, look at our situation and see what you can do to help us with it and that's what
they are asking. We also have the -- even though we did lose the annexation portion of
this application, we did have the ability by running that up through and past the Planning
and Zoning Commission, to take a look at some of the design standards that most
simple comp plans don't look at. Now, we always say, well, we will take a look at that in
the future. When we were designing this comer we -- we went through ACHD, we
designed the property. I do have -- if Anna can go to that concept plan with the whole
property. It might be on my presentation. Is that still in there? That will do. If it's going
to -- I understand we are trying to get the bugs out of this Smart Board. Again, we do --
we have the ability -- as you can see by this concept plan, the uses do fit that were
original proposed in that annexation and concept plan. The -- the way that ACHD
~ ~~
i i i
~~ ii ~i~ i '~ i ~
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 33 of 54
approved the access -- well, specifically on Victory, is they had a stipulation that that
was a temporary full access until future -- until the properties to the west came back in
for a specific application. The reality is that the main entrance into this -- into these
seven parcel area is probably going to align with that access road -- there you go. And,
then, that access that's set closer to Eagle Road, will eventually go away. That's all
done through cross-access, through -- through requirements that are set in your code
that will be analyzed and looked at once a specific design and project comes in for your
review. Keep in mind you guys are going to -- you guys are going to look at an
annexation and most annexations that I bring before you require a concept plan and you
lock us into a development agreement on what's going to -- what's going to happen on
the property. You look at lighting. You look at walls. You look at landscaping, Height.
Setbacks. Those are all part of that concept plan and that's -- that's still something that
would come back in front of you. What we are asking today is designate this property
now while you have consent from all seven of the property owners to plan for the future.
We do understand that until Eagle -- the intersection of Eagle Road and Victory gets
improved, there is not much that can be happing on either of these properties on either
side of the -- of he intersection and we understand that and that's, obviously, going to be
acceptable, because you guys have the final say on that. We also have a unique
situation on this -- this is actually -- this site -- this portion of Victory Road on this side of
Eagle is actually one of the better parts, because there is actually a center turn lane
about a third of the way west into the property. So, there is the ability to get in and out
without blocking traffic if you're coming east on Victory Road. So, that is a unique
circumstance that has been looked at, has been analyzed by ACRD when we did have
the specific plans in front of them. We are still unsure what the ultimate access point is
going to be on Eagle Road and we do understand that ACHD is going to make that
ultimate decision. Right now we do know we can get aright-in and that seems to be a
safe alternative that -- as Mrs. McKay spoke, has been used in other areas of the city
and is working quite well. So, I think that's -- that's a good thing that we understand
going in what's going to occur on Eagle Road as far as access. And just to wrap up real
quickly, the mixed use does allow for a combination of uses. I think if we are concerned
about -- I think the reason we asked for the community mixed use up front was because
of the specific use that was associated with that annexation, if that's a concern of the
neighbors and the Council, it sounds like the neighborhood mixed use would be a
compatible substitute for what was originally requested. That's going to allow for the
mixture of office, of probably some light commercial, and also some multi-family, some
four-plexes and some townhouses as well. So, I thank you for your time and if you have
any further questions I'm here and thanks again.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shawn, in your planning experience, the shape and configuration of acreage on
that, do you see a very large retail property being developed on that?
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 34 of 54
Nickel: I don't. And I wish I had the -- I purposely took out the -- the concept plan that I
had, to just to not convolute the issue. I could pass that around. What we showed on
that plan we showed some small retail right on the comer -- or, actually, the pharmacy
was on the comer. Next to that a bank. And, then, we transitioned to an assisted living
facility kind of in the middle of the property. And, then, I think we had some four-plexes
and, then, a couple of small offices towards the western end. So, it did show a good
variety of uses. I don't anticipate that really being a strip center of just commercial on
the property.
De Weerd: Now, what you just described was more a mixed use neighborhood.
Nickel: Mixed use -- yeah. Exactly. And, again, I believe the reason we asked
originally for the community was for that specific pharmacy use that was on the corner
back when we originally submitted.
De Weerd: Anna, could you for a moment maybe describe the mixed use neighborhood
and limitation of building size and what the requirements or the qualifiers are?
Canning: Madam Mayor, I don't have it memorized. If you give me just a moment I can
pull it up.
De Weerd: You don't?
Canning: Sony.
De Weerd: Because I was a little concerned with -- and I know we can't see very well
from that monitor, but it looked like a very big box to me and I would understand why
there would be some concerns with the surrounding property owners.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if it would have been a pharmacy we know it would have
been a box.
De Weerd: And we'd know the shape, too. Can you lighten that? Hit the iris button.
Canning: I shut it way down, because it was kind of glary.
Nickel: In front of you, Madam Mayor and Council, is that -- that concept plan and,
again, it was just a concept, other than the -- the blue building is what were originally
proposed with the annexation for the concept plan. But, again, this illustrates the cross-
access that I agree wholeheartedly with staff is very important and especially if we are
going to try to get nine access points on Victory down to one or two, you got to have the
cross-access. That is something that is part of your code requirement for the mixed
use, that even though one of the properties might develop first, there is going to be a
requirement that cross-access is granted, so that as properly -- say all of a sudden
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 35 of 54
these properties don't develop at one time, those cross-accesses will be in place when
those properties do develop. Oops. You lost it.
Canning: You want it back?
Nickel: No. That's okay.
Canning: Okay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the difference between the
mixed use neighborhood and community are shown up on the screen now. It does say
up to ten acres may be nonresidential. Up to 100,000 square feet of nonresidential
building area. Residential density up to three to eight units per acre. Commercial units
include grocery stores, drug stores, coffee-sandwich shops, drycleaner, Laundromat,
salons, day care, professional offices, medical-dental clinics, retail gift shops, schools,
parks, churches, club house, public uses. And, then, a mixed use community would
include all of the above and, then, it's up to 25 acres of nonresidential. Up to 200,000
square feet of nonresidential building area. Residential density up to 15 units per acre.
And it would include clothing stores, garden centers, hardware stores, restaurants,
banks, drive-thru facilities, auto service stations, department stores. With regard to the
acres and the number of square feet, one of the flaws of our Comp Plan is that it never
said out of how many total acres. So, we tend not to rely on the acres -- the acre and
the square foot numbers as called out in the Comp Plan, we tend to look more at units
per acre for the residential and sample uses.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant or staff?
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Hoaglun: Question for Anna. Just to be sure, since I'm the new person on Council, if
we approve a mixed use commercial, for example, some of the examples you gave was
a restaurant and a service station. But once you give that zoning approval, do we have
any authority -- and I don't think we do from my reading -- that we can say yes to a
restaurant, but not to the service station. Is that correct? Or do you have any leeway
once you give that approval to the zoning, you're pretty much -- if that's within the
approved use, whenever they come in --
Canning: When they come in for zoning. Right now it is just the Comprehensive Plan
amendment. They did withdraw the annexation and zoning request.
i~
~f
Hoaglun: Okay. So, just -- Madam Mayor, follow up with Anna. Just clarify, then. So,
at that point with the annexation, then, we can look at the -- a site plan and determine
exactly what is going in and, then, determine what's the best use of that within that
zoning mix.
'; ~ x j ,~ ~ `' `'
.
.
.
- 1 x •1
r 9' i f ~ t: ,{} '~ li ,~ '
fug ~ ii ~. ~;~+
~
.
F
:
;
..
.
.
e
i
_
`~
•
r _
R:•
':.
} t
:
'~%
ri`y ~: ?d! , i
' ~
~.
.
.
,
1 ~
.
g
:
:
.
,:. {
g
i
.
~~-~;:
,
~
a
:
~k
/
~t
f
~:
3
: 5 ;j: ~'.
,:
"
+
7
~ i
i
`~
.1
.~.
_
.
~
1
.
.
' +
.
:
. '
.
.
n
..
g::
:
.•
.:~
~
:
•y
':.
_
.. '
..
::
~ .
'
~
:
..
:
"
Y
.
.
;
;R
.
~n
i~"
:: ::
.
d
~: i
f 3!
.
s
';.
~#
l.' 4
y
i s
1•
.
.
i
w
.
,
~:
.X
4
i
~
}p
.
..:
,
+
}
}
.
:
~ iv
~
:
. e' :.
g
i'
i'
t'
I~'~i:~:
i:.
j
e'~.
~~}} 1.
R::'..
$-
'
D
t
4`
1
L.
# _
_
N.
..
'
~
~
x
~
~
+
i
i
•
~
n
:
l
:
?
'o- -
' .{ c
L
.
'
}
'
(?
•
Y
55
~t
y'
.i1
'~1:.: _ ~f k
:t .J":
;.
a~~
{S.
<{.
` ;
.
...
€._
F:
~
.
:.
(
{
.
'
'
.
"
-
.
.
t ~
1
.
'
,
^
.
..a
.
'
f
~
~
g
~
:
~
•
t
~
'
!
~
-
~
sx
. ~.
.:
`T .;...:. -
.
::
~~.
..I:
'
'_
~ .,. x
'i!-
,
F
}
.d- ~ ~.~;
%
.
~ ~
::
I~
t
i •I
,
X
f
s
_
:
r
3
:
1"'
i
:
N
'
, !
~ :..
A3
~
'.3 i
i.;'..
'
n
~
V~.
.
~.~
' '.
F
i
q .
pp
r i
~
~~;:
$
~ .
< 1 ~
i
.
r
~
;
,
i; .
.
i ~~
~
,~.=.~.
E
i
r
'
~
' .~
q
Y::.. -
y
~k .
.:.
,
;~
:x
,
i~.i.
•n
,
` .
f
..
:
..
.
.
.. ..
.~
i
.
~
.
'
.
~~~
r
1
4.
:
~
,(.
F
y
~
.
&
.
~~1
~ c
.
'
' i
~.'
~~
.Y';
~
~
.
;
;
,
r ..
~.
.
;
a
:
i
.
i
~.
~
8
k
:
~
.
.
r
"
. ..
~
x
rn
~
. 4
!
'
; .
.
.:j ':'i51- o.S ~.
~:!
7.:.
~
i
1
E
_,
. `"Lr
.
.b . Y' .
I qq
~.~~
,.p
`i ~ 3.
~• .
4 t
f
i
E ~
i
h.
i
.
:
3:;:;
.
-
~
.
#:~~
- ;~ ;
r
g..::.
.
r a
e
y
q
:
~
~ai
.
.L..
i:
i . ......
'.
e
~
.
:_
i
1~.
~
.!~
~
'
:{~
^t
'~J
:~:
(
$
..
...
a .
. .
. :
. .
. .:i
.. .. . . ~ ..::...
..
.. a. ~ t
.
~
~.,' $
~.
y
7.. . t= ~ =S .
;• ri~
,:
.',
•
Y
.
.
Z
~
".k
~
.
~
.
.:.s:
y
~~ L
~ '
'
.
T~y
S
i
:
y
p
}
. ~ +~z ;.a~
°i, r ..
.
s
c
f ' Ili
i"' .
r Y
1 ~ e9 ~• ..
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 36 of 54
Canning: Correct. And the Council and the applicant could decide to go and -- to
mutually agree through a development agreement that certain uses would be excluded
if Council and the applicant felt it were inappropriate for that area.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: And that would be at the time of annexation, not at the time of the Comp
Plan designation.
Canning: Correct, ma'am.
Nickel: And, Madam Mayor and Council, that's one thing Iwas -- in explaining to the
neighbors what this action would actually do. It was important that they understood and
hopefully I explained myself that change in the Comp Plan designation is not annexing
them into the city, it's not rezoning the property, the property is still going to be RUT, it
will be at the time that they come in and request annexation that the zoning would
change. At that time you would have a specific use.
De Weerd: However, Council, I know that it is on annexation that many of those
agreements and stipulations can be placed. I think it is fair if you feel there are
inappropriate uses that would not be seen favorably from this Council and it was fair to
state those tonight and at least give a little direction as the property owners look at their
options with whatever action you take that cross-access is going to be important,
because access will be limited and what -- what uses you don't support seeing in that
area. So, I thinks clarity is always good.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: In that regard, I would have a question for Mr. Nary or Mrs. Canning about
what kind of vehicle would it take to do that, to limit uses if we were to move forward
with the change in the Comprehensive Plan?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't know that you can. I mean I think
you're just making your feelings known, so that these current property owners would
know if they chose to develop and if someone were to review this record as to how the
property was reclassified, but since it isn't an annexation request, all you're doing is
creating the Comprehensive Plan area and changing that, you really don't have any
means to limit that until you -- unless you actually change the text in the Comprehensive
Plan to limit what mixed use neighborhood can be.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
i
I!I
i
i
~~
~,!
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 37 of 54
Rountree: Thank you, Bill. Where are we going. I just wanted to hear it. But follow up
on that is if, for instance, mixed use neighborhood might be felt more appropriate, would
that have to be reheard by P&Z or since that's an up or down zone, depending on how
you look at it -- I mean it looks how you look at it, is that something that we could do
without having further public hearing and public process?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess from a legal standpoint, unless
Mrs. Canning has a different perspective from a planning point of view, because it's
more limited use that's allowed than what the mixed use community allows, it would be
my opinion you don't have to re-notice it or send that back for another hearing. Anyone
that would have had concerns over what the develop would occurred on that property
with mixed use community, has already been heard in relation to the uses on that
property. Now, because there are lesser uses that could be done, less intense uses
that are on the property, so it's my opinion you don't have to rehear it or send it back for
the Planning and Zoning to rehear it.
Bird: MadamMayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Nary, actually, the use of the property we could tie to the development
agreement when annexation comes about couldn't we? That's one way of tying to what
you can put in there and what you can't?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Bird, absolutely. If -- when
and if an annexation request comes along, whether it's all seven properties or one, you
could certainly do that. Council Member Rountree was asking if on the Comp Plan you
could make limitations and you can't.
Bird: No. But we can do -- we can take care of that problem, if we feel it's a problem, at
the time of annexation with a development agreement.
Nary: Yes.
Bird: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just to give my opinion, I --
De Weerd: We need it in the microphone.
Zaremba: Oh, yes. Over here. I agree that low density residential is not going to
continue to be practical in that area and something else does need to be found there.
,
~;
~ i
,~~
~~
a~
~~.
~'
i;
~,
,l.
j ~1,:
j,~
~_t
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 38 of 54
would not be in favor of a mixed use community, that the items that are listed there as
additional to the mixed use neighborhood are probably the ones that I would try and
exclude. I would be supportive of the mixed use neighborhood concept. The one
caveat, as Director Canning pointed out, up to ten acres may be nonresidential use and
we are talking about an entire property of about ten acres. So, the intent of it being
mixed use I would want to preserve, rather than having all ten acres be nonresidential.
That, again, is something we do at the annexation and development agreement point.
But my feeling is that if we were able to re-designate this as mixed use neighborhood, I
could be supportive of that.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any -- anything else from the applicant or --
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question Mr. Aldridge. And I know we are keeping
you from a hockey game.
Aldridge: Yeah. The team, actually, may be happy, given my scoring performance so
far.
Rountree: You testified within your allotted time against this application and access
commercial, that sort of thing. Do the folks that you represent have specific things that
they are concerned about might happen on this property in terms of development? High
density apartment, multi-level apartments, we know aren't popular adjacent to
residential areas. Drive-thru, pass through, large commercial shopping -- anything
specific?
Aldridge: Madam Mayor and Councilman Rountree, I think all of the above. The
problem is that's a very narrow site and almost anything that you're talking about in
terms of these things that are listed here under the mixed use neighborhood are drive=
thru. They require an allotted amount. If you look at that concept plan, that's a mighty
full set of lots in there. Again, I'm not sure how you do tree mitigation. There is a
tremendous amount of space being used up by building, by parking lots, et cetera, and
you still have a huge problem of access that is going to be less so with something that's
much lower density and less walking through. That's why from our point of view this is
simply too early. You need to come in with something very sane. Let's rezone it to
something specific, let's annex it, and let's have a plat plan in place and, then, we can
talk about those specifics. Trying to tie in things to development agreements can be
very difficult in advance. If I could have that list again of the -- a lot of uses in the
neighborhood. We certainly don't want a grocery store. We don't want a drugstore in
that area. There is already a drugstore across the road. We don't need to duplicate
that. Coffee-sandwich shops might be good, but it depends a lot on how the flow is
going to work getting in and out of them. Drycleaner laundromat, again, I'm not sure
that they are going to want something -- just as the pharmacy indicated, they want
access off Eagle Road that they are not going to get, realistically. In terms of salons,
day care, all those are pretty high use. Professional offices, it totally depends on what
kind of professional office. Some of them have a large amount of coming and going,
some of them don't. So, you'd have to be getting something from ACHD on the flow.
;;
<<
,,
f, {~.
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 39 of 54
They can use those numbers when they have specifics, but until they get that we don't
know. In terms of medical dental clinics, again, what kind? Where are they located on
the property. Which end? Retail gift shops, how they would flow through there. The
access can be extremely difficult. Schools. No way. Parks -- I'd love to see a park in
there. Churches. Way too small. No access. All kinds of problems. Clubhouse isn't
going to work. Of course, public use is just a general statement. So, the problem is
that, number one, I don't know if you guys are going to be here when this comes back. I
know that you have given a great deal of consideration to what you would do, but there
has been changes on this -- on this Council just since this whole thing started.
Councilman Hoaglun is new here. Others may well be gone. I believe Mr. Bird is
running for an office. So, there are things that could happen. And we would -- rather
than relying on your guys being here and bringing the rationality that has worked on his
areas that you plan, we can't guarantee that's going to be here. And so what we are
simply saying is if, in fact, this is something that can be a good mixed use neighborhood
with a specific plan and get a developer in place, get the plans worked up, and come in
with a complete plan atone time, because, realistically, the road usage is going to push
this down at least a year and something before you can even start doing planning.
ACHD is not going to have those improvements in there, even if the southeast comer
developer comes in and does those, you're down the road a considerable period of time
and that would be just the intersection, that's not going to be other parts of this, you're
still going to have a big problem on Eagle Road as to goes north. It's going to impact
this. So, that's our concern that, yeah, you can go and say we will handle this later.
Unfortunately, your record out there in this area and other areas is replete with people
who for good reasons said we will handle it later, other people come in and have
different concepts, different ideas, and things got done that were not in compliance with
what should have been done. And so we are simply saying wait. There is no reason
this can't be -- can't be put off until the next time around when you can have, number
one, a better idea of what's happened down the road. Number two, some kind of an
actual plan, not just a designation that you hope you're going to be able to control when
it comes in, that you hope you will have the forces on the -- this Council to do that with.
And that's our concern. So, trying to come up with a list right now, I don't know how we
do it. You know, as was testified to, what's going to be here? They weren't able to get
an answer on that. Maybe some of these things, but, frankly, looking at that particular
plan, there are major problems with that. I don't know that staffs going to find that that
meets your standards in terms of the amount of mitigation on trees and the amount of
open area, et cetera. So, right now we have nothing except change the use and wait
and see. And to my mind that's very dangerous. Let's get something that's
comprehensive, that really does come in with a true defined use of this property. And if
you get that in proper form, I think you're going to have support of the neighborhood.
We want to see something correct happen there. But we are very nervous about having
an open ended commitment that has all of those kinds of uses in it that can't be done
and sometimes, unfortunately, the economics drive things. I would like to think that the
motive would be pure in the future, but often economics drives things. Just as you have
gone to a lot of work to try to create those half moons for the half mile retail centers.
You have got one. of those just down the road from this. But the message this gives to
developers is come in and do retail in the corners, despite all of that. And so we are
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 40 of 54
saying wait, that this really can be done as a mixed use to bring back a mixed use plan,
with the annexation, the zoning, and a plat. At that time neighbors are very likely to be
in support of something fresh. They recognize the problem. They want something done
that's correct. I want something done that's correct. That's why I'm taking my time to do
all of this. My preference as an individual, get this thing just high density as possible all
around me and sell my property as commercial. I don't want to do that. I want to live
there for another ten years at least and the only hope of doing that and allowing other
people to have their reference and concerns in the area is to get something that doesn't
create a gigantic traffic mess. And that's why I'm afraid current use of the Comp Plan
change of this type would create. It just gives wide open -- because you are going to
have people coming in and piece-mealing this. That's why that annexation rezone was
withdrawn on three acres, was piece-mealing it. That was too obvious. And that's
exactly what you have facing you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions?
Aldridge: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nickel: Madam Mayor and Council, I would agree with what Mr. Aldridge stated if we
were asking for an annexation and zoning, because zoning is, then, going to give
someone certain rights to what uses can be submitted for that property. All we are
asking for is the Comprehensive Plan, which as everyone knows, is a guideline. That's
all it is. It doesn't grant us any rights to do anything, all it does is it designated what the
future consideration is going to be for that property. We come in and we have to do an
annexation. You guys get achance -- or your predecessors are going to get a chance
to look at this and determine is -- are these compatible uses. Can you put conditions in
these applications that make these compatible uses. Keep in mind that this whole
northern side of this property -- or these properties has a 30 foot wide irrigation buffer
already built in, so it's not like you're going to be throwing incompatible uses right up
against existing residences. I have already discussed the issues with the traffic. Those
will be utilized -- or will be reviewed again once a specific application is before ACHD. If
their standards have changed, those applications will have to meet those new
standards. It could mean no access on Eagle Road. The -- the intersection could be
already built before this develops. And at that point there might not be an access or the
new access on Victory will be further down and aligned, as I stated earlier. This is all
part of the development process that is understood by developers going in. What the
Comp Plan designation does is it allows these folks to market their property to someone
that does want to use the property and none of these people are going to -- are going to
develop this property commercial or residential or anything, they are going to move on,
they are going to give it to somebody who is going to do that and they are going to have
the whereabouts to come in and design it to take care of the trees and mitigate all of
that. So, when I spoke in my presentation I said one of the reasons that the developer
dropped out was because of the access. Well, the other reason was because of the
time. It took over a year to get in front of you for this Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 41 of 54
So, no potential buyer of this property wants to have that in front of them saying, well,
need a year just to -- just for them to decide if the use is appropriate before I can even
annex and zone. So, that's something to consider. We are not asking for anything
that's going to allow us a right to do a specific use. If .you look at the mixed use
neighborhood uses, I believe, as I read this, drive-thrus are not allowed in the
neighborhood. Is that correct, Anna? I think that's what the mixed use community does
make is the use of the drive-thru.
Canning: Madam Mayor, as we developed the UDC we did look at the Comprehensive
Plan designations and suggestions from those designations and I do believe that within
the corresponding zoning districts, which would be C-N, that there are not drive-thrus
allowed. I believe that's the way we did it.
Nickel: That's my understanding. And also there is that 300 foot buffer that's required
on any -- on any drive-thru and so Mr. Aldridge was correct, that does limit the property.
Now, as you saw from the concept plan, we were able to design that with that -- with
that -- that pharmacy and that bank, but, again, if we -- if we agree -- and I think you're
hearing from us that we will agree to the mixed use neighborhood designation at this
time, I don't think you're going to see those type of uses really focusing on uses that are
compatible with things that seem residential. Just wanted to add that.
De Weerd: Council, anything further?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nickel: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. If there is no further information needed from the Council, I
would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the public hearing on Item 12.
I-loaglun: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 12.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
~~ .
y :. i ~ .' ~ er. '4 Sd}ii
~,
~
~I:;
!.
ee K .
e>
t
'
~
^.
( N
~
,., ~:
f.
7' .
~:"
': a
3:?"
a
:`t
~.
'
.
:
.~
:~
E`
:':~
3
..
:
s .r
`'
:~
r
:: :
~~:~'~"
:v s
~~:~
~
.
i.
f ~ t t`.
t.~
~'~ if:~' ~ o-.
.
~~
~.
~ .
:.
a
• .
~s
fir.::
,.~ ~ ry;" Fie
`• -
t
<
Y
~
..
.
:,;
:
.~ N .. .:e.::
• :. . ~.t, t' .a. a .:
::
i.
i ..
..
r
~.
t.
,
.
. ~:
:~
t
(
F
V'.. :1
a.7 ~~ .. f ':s
~.
[:
}'
~
~
~
,
_
y
{
.
~. .. :"
Y
•".}f.
_ ., y. s... :. r:: ..
* g
}
FF
,..
.
~
::
`S i Z `fi
~..:
.:~~
r
i. Y
}.. ~'[
~ ....~ § t
.
i
~.
'
' ....
1 ~ Y:: -
.; :.
1'-°i
1
k : -
>•
Si
':~:
.' 5
d::*
~':~i Y:'::'
it
:•i.
, L
,'•~
t
y!~p - .p .
t
~
- ,i,
..;z _
.
1' a r F: :.t ~ Vii' ~ . ~.. 3. € 3 .
~%.~ :;.
'.~t•
j
`
.
7
e
i'
.t.F'.
.~
,•
~. i'.
~
, :
~
:
• F'.ti '
ti. "~
~:
~'~ .:#.v is .
L:
}'
#
~*
t
.
..
Y
~:.
':
N.
.
, }::
.
~.''t
r.
ffi
~:
i,
1.
.~."~
..
~
.
~~
; 'f;.
.
„
,~,
.
~::i
g; t'.
4
i
~j':
..
):.,
'
i
~
r
'
~
~
.
g
`
.
j
.> ... .. ,y .. .:. ~.:..: ~
P
. :. .. .. - •:r r
~
a
.
i: {
~
S'~ _
t;,'
F.
, s:.~~'
r
~_,
+~.
it
..
...
n
,.. i s
.' j~'.
~ 3
#.r~
tF~ ay ':
o
~
? .
'
~
~:
.
'E:. ~ ~' ,..
ti.r :.; :.
. ,. .,
... ':.
A
:~ ,:
3
. µ
..
3
4'
9
. a..
..
a
I~::
<
...
.
~,<
:i r
. .
;:
~~ ,,
s'
;.
r..<
r
.
~ •F ....
~ .... .,~
1
~g
t .~.;y ~~~: ~ :~;r~ ~~~s:
ii 7.
:
!:1'~' 'I.4'~~ '~' 3
;
~
,
.
.. ?
..r k?...
..•
. ~
~ ~' ~~.K:.
!.
..
~~~ F ~ r~.. . I
i
i ~i+
t
Y.' ~i1:4 f ~'
.~
'
u:
~ ~
'~
f
v .: ::.e:
ii
.
L
. ~.
=
' .. ..
s ~. i'
.T,:: ~
r :kr ~~'
1
::.ry ~p
i. e::t
f
b
5, ~';'
S; "+~
~• 'Y.:. Y ~~{.
~.~...
;~.:°. 1:
{
i~3'c
'
!
c~. ,.
~ .
. f: Er.
~~~ .
..: :,
.; - :;
,..
is
[.,
.. i
-
'
~ ~
~ ?.~.
~
_ ,~
2. ~1~'.^~
{ i.r'
K..
l' 1
S f ~ ~'.
;
-
~~u:"~ -
yp
'~~
~'~
.'F
i
S~
(
I Y ~` $ .'
:
.S
,: ~.:
E:..'. ;
}:
"4.
,,~
i
•..S
H
: Y ~: ' ~~~ ~ Y~~.
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 42 of 54
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I expressed an opinion earlier and I -- I feel it's been reinforced by the
continuing discussion, but leaving the designation as low density residential doesn't
make sense. They have had other things thrust upon them. While it's uncomfortable
not to have a better idea of what might happen there, the mixed use neighborhood
designation to me is specific enough. I would not be in favor of mixed use community. I
think that's too intense, some of those uses. I don't think solely limiting it to high density
residential is appropriate either. That probably isn't going to happen. That's not going
to be attractive to a developer, they are going to want some mix and even with a
neighborhood center a half mile away, I still think there is opportunity for some office
uses here and mixed use neighborhood and as I say, when it comes back we will have
to make sure that it is, in fact, mixed, since it is only a ten acre property, but I have had
my opinion reinforced that if we could designate this as mixed use neighborhood, what
would follow in the way of an application for annexation and concept plan probably
could be worked with satisfactorily.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: .Madam Mayor, may I correct some testimony? I'm sorry. Drive-thru
establishments are allowed as an accessory use or conditional use, depending if they
are -- if they are too close to the neighborhood, so it would be a conditional use. So,
that is true with the C-N district. I apologize.
Zaremba: But even there it's not automatic; right? It would be --there would have to be
a hearing.
Canning: If they could meet the 300 foot separation standard it would not.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Staff has indicated they'd like to hear if we had conditions what they might
be, even though we can't condition this action. I agree with Councilman Zaremba in
terms of its current designation it's probably not appropriate. I don't believe what's
being asked for is necessarily appropriate either. I'm thinking a reduced scope of the
activities on the property could be addressed by the mixed use neighborhood. I still
have some reservations. And I fully appreciate Mr. Aldridge's last comments about you
don't know and things do change. I have experienced those here and I can say that
Council has done the right thing over the years as things do change and have turned
some folks away, thinking that they could do something on a piece of property and, in
fact, they were not allowed to do that. So, I think the history is -- may not be great in
~~ . ~
' ~
~
+yk
q x
;
i
'
Y d q Cx> ~ 9i ~i
~ x iy'
!,
~
~
~ ~ ~
J '~~ !
A
V
~ . y-,{
iy
it 3' .
~'
.
(
~ .
~ i s~,~ (t
~ ~.
.; IF .~. ' fix. ~. ~ 4` ~ ~ .
f
(
~
~ l
i~ ~ J ' ~{' 't E
~ 13
'
F ~ !~, - x
$Ra .
f~ ~ .' i
~ ~.~ s
~
1 . ,,"
6 1 1
F ~~
~
•
.. i
q
t _iz.~ '~ `
G
j. ~i ~ t. 1
'
, i
~~ ~~ ! ~' t
t '~:i
1 .I ~ j
i!~ di.
iI
~ {:
~I ~.
~-
;;
~'
,;
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 43 of 54
Meridian, but the history is that we have listened to folks. Quite honestly, if we would
have listened to folks in 1999, there is a bunch of folks out there that wouldn't have a
house to live in. I would be concerned about drive-thrus, fast food restaurants. I would
be concerned if more than three acres of the ten acres would be developed for some
kind of a commercial activity. Unfortunately, we don't have a concept that we could tie
this through to an annexation action and a development agreement. That would be my
preference. I'd also like to see -- even though we are talking -- I believe everybody is
saying seven parcels, but I count eight -- that they be planned as one and not come
before the city before in seven different parcels and seven different actions on the part
of a future Council. I'm tom with having to have a future Council deal with that kind of a
situation, even though as I said previously, the Council has done that and I believe has
done it rather well. I think our current land use planning map does a disservice to the
current property owners, however, and I think we should adjust the designation and get
the folks that own property there out of the Catch 22.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Just to weigh in on this. I listened carefully to Mr. Aldridge, he makes some
very good arguments. You know, not coming in piece-mealing. But the other side of
that is the fact that you have the current owners of these parcels unified here and, then,
Councilman Rountree mentioned that, that now they are working together and I don't
know how much longer -- if we don't do something, if that's going to be the case down
the road. And the preference would be to have this come before us all as one piece
coming in, with the change and the annexation and everything all together. That would
be the preference. But it:s not. And they are locked into something that's not going to
be there in the future and now it's a matter of what do we change it to and that -- and
that's a tough one and there is some challenges to this piece of property, even in my
limited experience I can see, compared to other sites, that there is some things there
that are going to make it tough. And my advice, what I would see -- if I'm on the Council
down the road when this comes forward, is something that really reduces the level of
volume of traffic in and out of that site. If we are looking at professional ofFices that are
not high volume, you don't -- of course, not drive-thrus. And I think I look at folks over
there and they are smart enough to realize they are going to need- their neighbors
surrounding them to be supportive of this, because if they- are up in arms about what
they think they want to go forward with and it may not be allowed and I think they are
going to have to work very carefully with whatever developers come forward with what
they are proposing and make it workable for everybody in that neighborhood. I think it's
doable, but it's going to take some work and -- but Ireally -- my counsel, for what it's
worth, would be look at how much traffic those buildings would be generating and I think
that's akey -- key part to it.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 44 of 54
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: This is a difficult piece of property, but I believe that the mixed use neighborhood
fits it now. All of us on the Council has come in on the Council when we have had
developments that's been .done prior and we have had to go through the stuff, so I don't
have any problem passing it onto a future Council, because I know they will make the
right decision. Personally, I think the market's going to tell what's going to be out there
and I don't see some big retail place sitting there. I see stuff that -- that the neighbors,
Thousand Springs, Tuscany, and all them, can use instead of having to drive through
our neighborhoods to get there. That's what neighborhood community outlets are for.
So, I can definitely support it and any problems we can take care of when the
annexations come through. That's my opinion's worth.
De Weerd: Thank you, Council.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Anna. I think it was you who said it
would be good to get on record what kinds of things we did not wish to see.
Canning: I would like to take credit for that, but that was Madam Mayor.
Rountree: Was that Madam Mayor? Okay. Sorry.
De Weerd: He knew it was brilliant, whoever said it.
Rountree: Maybe I could ask can't you or Bill. Is that of value?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what you think is always of value. But
does it have any precedence or does it bind any future Council? No, it certainly doesn't,
but it certainly -- at least lends some -- I guess history to what your decision is and what
your basis for it is. Again, the Comp Plan may change, the text may change, what's
allowed under the neighborhood -- mixed use neighborhood may change at some point
in the future. You know, I think Mrs. Canning raised. a legitimate concem that there are
mixed use neighborhood things that may be allowed that aren't in that specific list and
that may be of some concem to you, that may or may not have a public hearing
attached to them, because they may be perceived to be less than that and the issue we
had with McDonald's over the last year on Cherry Lane was one of those. But that was
allowed without a public hearing, because it did fit what was allowed on that use. So,
certainly what their intentions are is always valuable. It may be relevant to a future
Council to be able to look at. But, again, is it binding? No, it's not.
Rountree: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, President Rountree, it's certainly
helpful to staff as applicant's come in seeking annexation to the city that we can at least
# - ~
1 l~ tt ., ~ t~~~. i 2~. 1. Y ~ i
~
~
tt ~: - i ` ~I ~1
} l; ~ {
` .
Y
~
gg
~ .!' k. ; ~~ d
F; cry ,~". } ~
! iF° { <d~, i ~d. ~ , ~ ;
s{( {S ~
{
{kk,,''
{ `i' ~ ~;~ . is k'` ''.x:
r
~ _
'>
~ -
t~::
` ~'_
J
~~ ~
~ 1
.
:
1
s
.
-'
, .
} .a.
.~P~~. ::F i..
~
9
~i
I:,.,
.~
}
~
~
'
E
. I
j .
:
~
t
I
c~
f
x
~ `Y
".
;.
. .
`.7.: 6 f:L
~ :.
`
I
~
,,
;~-.
~:~
1.
~
~
:
>
t:
.
x '
~
!
~ ~ .
~
;~ f~ ~.
3~ E,
p~1 ~t ~S,
'~
g 4
~
'
Y ~ , ,~ ~ g ~ t
~
S
ts: ~
a
f
y 4
~ e"
T"
i
& ~' Y
5
t
~
~
d
I
1 t
f
e
I
f f
.
f
.
i
~. .
i
.`~
;. "2>
3 't?.
~f
~:
~ ~9.•
~~. !
t `. a .~ F. ,r. 3- '~
I
,
~ f
.,
.
.
'
~
i
,~.
,
~
~~.:
.
~ '1 .
~
ra
,:
j..
:
1. i.
' °:e k ~I'" 4
i
' i 5 ;l I ~+ 1 ~
f
! j
3
t;~. ; a..4`. is ~
,:,
;:
~.
~
~
'
~
~
-~
,:
I
I
~
.
r' ~t 3;
.
.
z
e
. . ..
~_: -
:
.
{ ~
< {
~::
r
-
'i
~ Y
~~
~
j
`
`
.
,,
~
; ,
t .
~
s
S
.
t
....,
_
.
.$ f
:: n`"
: ..
. .~
, .:
i...
t.
F
~' ~
'
~
'
~
{
+
f
A
,
~.
s . j
1
i
x : 1~;.~... -.1..
.
t ~ .I;. ~z .a. ~.
~.~ r :
i'....~, :fie..
''II }
:t. !
t :
• ~
.
,
..
i
.
} ~.
'
.
y~ pp
'Y :. 'J 't:: ~'if. ...3 fyir' .l. ~,!
^
~l 7
~I
~
1{ 1
~'
a{,
t
1 ~
~
r S
.,d t ~ {,i
,
F
3
~
I
'..< ^:' 6''
?7.
~5 ~: 1
'
j
sl.
.
-.
{'
c
;
l
'{
~
~ '
. g
~
~
x 4 Y ' ~,i !~1 4ys ~ ~ ~; ~f ~ ~P~.`a 'i.4~ !~ ~ } S~'. _:: ~ ~
' ,. .f
. ~ ~.. 4 . ~ t.~. r ~.
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 45 of 54
guide them if it's something you clearly indicated you're opposed. to, they like to know
that.
De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further needed from the Council? Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: In the tone of supplying ideas, I probably would suggest that when it got to
the annexation portion, I would want to make sure that any drive-thru required a CUP.
That's just my poor thinking on what might happen. That being said -- Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I'm not inclined to approve the application as it is, but if we can change the
application, I would suggest that the Council approve CPA 08-002, the future land use
map change, changing the designation of approximately ten acres from low density
residential to mixed use neighborhood and I'm specific about that mixed use
neighborhood, not mixed use community as was applied for.
Nary: You might want to close the public hearing. You haven't closed the public
hearing.
Bird: Yeah, we have. We did.
Nary: Okay. I'm song.
Zaremba: I think we did.
Nary: Didn't hear it.
De Weerd: We are ahead of you. Do I have a second?
Rountree: I'll second it.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve item an amendment -- I don't know how
to term this, but approve a Comprehensive Plan change, not the per the request is as
noted on the agenda, but for a lesser use as mixed use neighborhood. Discussion?
Rountree: I have nothing more.
De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
L :~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ } _ ~ 1 ~
~:)
~~
i :_ T
> VV cif 3 _
~ T
i
`
; t ~ !' ]
~ . ,
1 ~'.
j
'
F'
.
•. I ~ ~ j is
-
e. n
~'
J ~
w
h
7~
~
a
] ' t
I
d ~ I~
L i
z
~
7
~ 1 y
! ~~ I
kr
i ~ ~ }'
~ ~
~
~
'
~ ~
~ 1
~ s
~ ~ !
~
E i 1 ~• ~ I E l
1 o- .
~.
~ ~ ~ ~'~
~ r ' ~
~
~ ,~ ~
l x
~
j t r ! 1 ~
~ {{ ~ i
{
K ~~ 7 ~ ~
I
SS Y
~ ~ ~
~ 1 ~
G b ~ ' ~ ~ ~l f~ q~'
1 ~ "~,
F f ! u r ~ ~1 ; f ]j +~{ ~ F
! -
1 ;
~
~ ~ i
~
~ tl r
~
'~ ~
~~~ ~ ~ r
~
~ '~ 7 F
' E.
f * kz , ~ k'
~
~ ~
~~ .~
t~ t. ~. ~ 1 i
'~
~~
~ ~
~ qfq~: ~
' ~f;j ~~
~
i
~ r
~I ~; ~
t ~;
' ~
i ;
,
~
1
I i ~ ,, II
I '
1 ~ ~
~ ~
~'
~ ~
J S ' > (
f k r p~p
4
~ ~
~
1, i t ~
~ j ~
~ 1 Y ~ ,,
d,Q i
I .
~ ~ q7q z f
¢ 5 n
Y? f A
~ Fy ~' I D I P.
ic' ~ 'd ~ C
~
I 1 ~ I
~
:1 i. 3 t ' i
F
~ ~ F ~
6 }}
G ~I i ~~ ~11?
~ ; ~ ~I
~ ,
f t y
r~
~
7 _ }
t 1 k~ f ~ {{
` ~
g 'E 1
~e I. ~ I ~ 1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:#`~ ! ~ ~~!~ ~ ~s ~ ~ r 3 4
' ` ° f 111 ;' ~
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 46 of 54
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13: Continue Public Hearing from September 23, 2008: AZ 08-010
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.75 acres from RUT and R1 to C-
Nzoning district for Eagle and Victory by Rose Law Group -Northwest
Comer of East Victory Road and South Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 13 has been requested to withdraw.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we accept the applicant's withdrawal of AZ 08-010.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the withdrawal of this applicant.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 08-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.06
acres from the RUT & R1 zoning districts in Ada County to the C-G zoning
district for Overland Villaae by Relo Development - 3330 East Overland
Road:
Item 15: VAC 08-001 Request for a Vacation of the existing right-of--way of S.
Rackham Way for Overland Village by Relo Development - 3330 East
Overland Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 14 and 15 have been requested to continue to December 2nd.
will open these two public hearings -- or the public hearing on AZ 08-001 and VAC 08-
001. I did open the public hearing and these two have been requested to be continued.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we continue the public hearing for Item 14 and continue
consideration on request for vacation on Item 15 until December 2nd, 2008.
Bird: Second.
{
a ~ ~
I
~ i.. 4
~s
E ~
,
~. 1 ~ f'
d
i i 3
i t
3
t ~ ,
~. ~ •,
;i K, rib. ~ ~ d p yj• .;' 4 5 ~ ~~ 1 {] 7 .y ,
•jf,. s3. ~ uj '~.~, •.Y ~, .{ ;; ~ `~ ~ is {:' I SA' ~i 1. .i
t
:4LEM1 i'k±r! .ij I~; ,f ''i~f .~ 41. ~~' ~
4 3
i~
Y
`' f{ 1 ~
i!
~ ...j~kkk I S I± ~ jl ,; `,{
-~5
_
~~
~
~ f
{~, ~ g i
~=a +~: !:
{z ~
z R ~ 3
~ I I ~
~
" ~
~
t
[
,
.
y
r
' ~
~
~
~ ~
~
K'
~ I
a I~, 5
~,`
~
=tr
(
~;
i
g
. !s
'
'
$
;y~ : ? 7 R~
l
i = ~
,
°
~.. 1.
.7
y :~
~~ i {
"
k~ 6
Ix
~ fe ~ ~
f
,
~
.
y
r <
J
~:.::3 .
J f , A
~~
}, ~ ~ ' rc a ~ °{:~ l: 4 i F iii/// ~~ g
~~ i ~ `
.
F b ss ;
,
33
3y s > It, iii ~ ~#~ I ~~ i
ii. ~ ~ 1 ~ .~ s 1: i. j{
': a~:. a3 s. ~ -+{ ~
1: ~ i ~ I ~
'
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 47 of 54
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second on Items 14 and 15 to continue to December
2nd. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16: Public Hearing: MDA 08-005 Request to Modify the Development
Agreement of Mussell Comer for Emerson Park by Kuna Victory, LLC -
Northeast Corner of South Meridian Road and East Victory Road:
De Weerd: Item 16 is a public hearing on MDA 08-005. I will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Canning: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, we were told that the audio was not loud enough in
the audience, so I was moving it up and I got behind. I apologize. Madam Mayor,
Members of the Council, this is the Emerson Park project.
De Weerd: And now you get a hum.
Canning: We seem to be getting a hum now, yeah. I'll try that. Still a hum. Testing.
Testing. That's good? Is that better than it was?
Rountree: That works.
Canning: That's about where it was. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Sony for the
interruption. This project is located on the northeast corner of Victory Road and
Meridian Road. The application before you tonight is DA modification, although as it
turns out it's really a new DA, but we will get into those details. As a condition of
approval for the Emerson Park preliminary plat, the applicant was required to apply for a
modification to the original DA for the Cole Mussell comer property and to the original
DA to -- to include the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat, so that that subject
modification to the DA application satisfies this plat requirement. So, that's why they
submitted this application, is because we asked them to as part of the preliminary plat
requirement. So, the applicant is requesting a new DA for Emerson Park Subdivision,
which has been platted as Lots 1 and 4, Block 1, of Mussell Comer Subdivision. It
reflects the conditions of approval for the preliminary plat for Emerson Park. The
proposed DA will also include provisions from the original DA and the later addendums
that are applicable to the subject property. So, the original DA and the subsequent
addendum covered the entire 21 acre area that was annexed and platted as Lots 1, 2,
3, and 4, Lot 1, of Mussell Corner Subdivision. In 2007 a preliminary plat of 17.84 acres
was approved for Emerson Park Subdivision, which is a re-subdivision of Lots 1, 2 and
4, Block 1, of Mussell Corner Subdivision. Lot 3 down here in the comer where the --
the feed store and the convenience store and the fuel sales facilities and a great taco
truck -- they were not included. They are all on Lot 3 and that's not part of the Emerson
Park Subdivision. So, although Lot 2 of Block 1 of Mussell Corner Subdivision was
replatted with Emerson Park, Mr. Mussell retained ownership of that and so it's not in
the same ownership as to the remainder of Emerson Park. So, that is not being
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 48 of 54
requested to be part of the DA modification. Okay. That's the whole history, so -- the
history is really all there is to this application. All we have done is ask them to take their
preliminary plat conditions of approval and put them into the DA. So, I don't -- I'm not
going to go through all those in detail, because you approved those at a previous date.
so, if approved, the original DA and the addendum will remain in effect for Lots 2 and 3
of Block 1, Mussel) Comer Subdivision. And, then, the proposed DA will only apply to
Lots 1 and 4 of Block 1, Mussel) Comer Subdivision preliminary platted as Emerson
Park Subdivision. We have -- I can't remember if we have elevations or not. No, we do
not. Staff recommended approval of this DA modification. We did receive an a-mail
from the applicant stating that they are in agreement with the recommended DA
language in the staff report. But they did note that two of the preliminary plat conditions
have already been met. So, to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before
City Council.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Would the applicant like to have a moment?
Tverdy: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Chris Tverdy, 519 West Front Street. I am
the project manager on this and I guess I just wanted to comment that staff has done a
wonderful job helping me through this really messed up comer and so, yes, we do -- we
do accept the staff report as written, so thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to
testify on this application? I think you were just going to get up and agree that it was
messed up. Okay. Seeing that there is no further comments or public testimony,
Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the public hearing on Item 16, MDA 08-005.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 16.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
~ III
i I I~III
II'
~~~`
~.~ ;
~~
~ 4
1
f c
~!
,e
`~
r, .
1~
1
~.`t i
7'I
~~
r
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 49 of 54
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the requested development agreement modification
MDA 08-005 with staff comments and applicant's comments.
Hoaglun: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 16. If there is no discussion,
Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17: Ordinance No. RZ 07-021 Request for a
Rezone of 27.89 acres from R-4 to C-N (2.75 acres) and L-O (25.14
acres) for the property located on the southeast comer of North Locust
Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive for Education Campus
Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 -Southeast Comer of North
Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive:
Item 18: Ordinance No. RZ 08-002 Request for Rezone
of 0.55 of an acre from the R-4 to L-O zoning district for Meridian Library
Parkins Lot Expansion by the Meridian Library District - 1727 North
Leisure Lane:
Item 19: Ordinance No. AZ 08-008 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of approximately.5 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone
for Redmont Health Services by The Land Group, Inc. - 5075 West
Cherry Lane:
Item 20: Ordinance No. RZ 08-003 Request for Rezone
of 27.17 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Kennedy Commercial Center by
DBSI Meridian 184 LLC - 1250 West Overland Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 17, 18 and 19 are ordinances No. 08-1384,08-1385, 08-1386,
08-1387. I will ask Madam Clerk to, please, read those four ordinances by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. To clarify, I'm reading -- I'm sorry -- 1384, 85, 86
and 87?
De Weerd: Items 17, 18, 19 and 20.
1
~ i
f ~ 4 ~
i ~ ~~'
i ~I
~,
t~I
s
,' ~ €
,,~ '~
r!
~~R ,~
~~, Vii. i I-
~F
t' ~' 7
~9
F i ~~
F ~ ~~
~ l E
,r
F,~
~_
i
':;'i
~~
:~
';
F
~. ~ , l 'f
s~ F I
{ ~ ~`
~ 1
~ ` ~ ~~
v ; '~
~~R ,', ~F
F
C t'
k
~ :1-
k.
i
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 50 of 54
Holman: Okay. Thank you. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1384. An ordinance
finding that Joint School District No. 2, the owner of certain real property, has made a
written request for a rezone of the zoning classification RZ 07-021, Education Campus
Commercial for real property being Lots 1 and 2 block of Education Campus
Subdivision as filed in Book 86 of Plats at page 9804, records of Ada County, Idaho,
located in the north one half of the southwest one quarter of Section 32, Township 4
North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in
Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning certain lands and temtories situated in Ada
County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian and rezoning the
land use zoning classification of said lands from R-4, medium low density residential
district to C-N, neighborhood district, and L-O, limited office district in the Meridian City
Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County
assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission as required
by law and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the
reading rules and providing an effective date.
Holman: City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1385, an ordinance finding that Meridian
Library District, the owner of certain real property, has made a written request for a
rezone of the zoning classification RZ 08-002, Meridian Library District for real property
being a parcel of land in the southeast one quarter, southwest one quarter of Section 1,
Township 3 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as
described in Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning certain lands and territories
situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian and
rezoning the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-4, low density
residential district, to L-O, limited office district in the Meridian City Code, providing that
copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County
recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission as required by law and providing for a
summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing
an effective date.
Holman: City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1396, an ordinance AZ 08-008, Redmont
Health Services, for annexation of a tract of land situated in a portion of the northeast
one quarter of the northeast one quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 West,
Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain
lands and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the
corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian,
establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-1,
Ada County, to R-8, medium density residential district in the Meridian City Code,
providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the
Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission as required by law and
providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver if the reading rules
and providing an effective date.
Holman: City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1387, an ordinance finding that Meridian
Library District, the owner of certain real property, has made a written request for
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 51 of 54
rezone of the zoning classification RZ 08-003, Kennedy Commercial Center, for real
property being a parcel of land n the southeast one quarter of the southwest one quarter
of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning certain lands and
territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of
Meridian and rezoning the land use zoning classification of said land from I-L, light
industrial district, to C-G, general retail and service commercial district, in the Meridian
City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County
assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission as required
by law and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the
reading rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Yes, you were fading in and out on that one. You have heard the reading of
these four ordinances. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to hear them
read in their entirety? Seeing none, Council, do I have a motion to approve these four
items?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Ordinances No. 08-1384, 08-1385, 08-1386 and 08-1387 with
suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. That was a motion to approve Items 17, 18, 19 and 20 and a
second. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 21: Ordinance No. Amendment to Massage
Ordinance•
Item 22: Ordinance No. Private Sewage Disposal
System Ordinance:
De Weerd: Item 21 is ordinance 08-1388. and Item 22 is 08-1389. Madam Clerk, will
you, please, read these two ordinances by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1388, an
ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Title 3, Chapter 6, Section 16 of the
Meridian City Code, relating to massages and minors and providing an effective date.
~ I h
:~ ~~
~~
. ~i
~' ;~ }`
~ ~4'
~ I F.
~, ~~ f
~~ i -~
}~r _ ~ ~_
~ jl f
i11 f
h i
3 ~
I
} ; ~
1 }!
~ ~ ~ ) ~
its f i
~
i f ,
~~
; t
~ t
' € i ~
.,
, i
~
E
~
~i~ f~ ! €
~
~a f
: ~ ~~
~~
~i 1 ~'
} i ~
# ~ ~ i
~
~ ~~
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 52 of 54
Holman: City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1389, an ordinance of the City of Meridian
amending Title 9, Chapter 4, sewer use and service, of the Meridian City Code
providing for private home sewage disposal system requirements and providing an
effective date.
De Weerd: You kind of heard those two read by title only. We need to work out a
couple more bugs on that, uh. Okay. Is there anyone who would like to hear either of
these read in their entirety? Seeing none, Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we approve Ordinance 08-1388 and 08-1389 with suspension of
rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Items 21 and 22. If there is
no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 23: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(x) - (to consider
hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, not to
include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective
office):
De Weerd: Item 23 is an Executive Session. Do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we go into Executive Session per State Code 67-2345(1)(x), (c) and
(~•
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session. Madam
Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
v .. -- ~~. ,• a
z .
} r ~
e" t
4~ ?
r t : i
'
.
.
f
i ~
.3~, '
4 4
t
s
Y.
t ,~
~
j.
,~ .
18 f
f a
.~
x~ f }
i i
j ~
r
~
1
S
i
I i
t
i
:
.:
^: 'r
, .,.1
~[ 3
::'
F ~.
• i
y
r
~. '.
:} \:f1~' ~ ~:.:'~ ~ .
.
b: ',~ ,' ~. r: :~ e:~• ~'~. ~I ~
7 .fit :Y +g~' ' A
. t
" iS
45
~
e`
~ ~ i~* i, ds f t i
~~
~
~ Y i
~
.
: sj
F S : },
.
'.
•. v i
,
.
:~ .x
..
.
n.
d.: ' Y:.
a
%
+,
i'
N ,,
:
~ 4.. x'
. 8:
~
~' `
~{'
i
'
~ ~„
al
.t
:
,
. :.
* 2 ;
,
s
.
~ .
:} :
e~iN C
..
+
..
~:'. :.
T
- ;3
l: .'+ a .
H
T `~
~.~'
~
~
i
a i:.:. ,i
~ .t..
~ ~
:,
. .
.
y °n' r ~~~~ 1' I
..
~~
.i
-.:
,
' t
''}' l
~
y
, Ai ~
~
> ((
{
4'.. ~ `
.
:
9.•
y
~
i
~.
'
1•
j
1 '
i
2
:
k
, i $ i
; t
e tl
'' ~
j
tY !
~
~ , :~ 4 . '~ 3
d
{
{
k :.F` i,' --
~
i .
3 '
: .:
'
'{ 'f.
/.. ~~~~yy~
.~.; ..ti;.,
.f .:. i'
S'
s
X
i
~'
~
9
% ~
i ,~
.~ .`fit,
~,
j, c"
.
~
:
`
~
a f
C .
: I
:
Y
;:
t".
ct
.. ~3' ..%
~
}
':
6
~ ~i. #
'
.
.::
o is ~ P:.: ~,:~
:x. ;:;
-
; ;.~ .
{pi
r 3
Ei
}
;
i
{
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 53 of 54
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I move that we come out of Executive Session.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to come out of Executive Session. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: One final bit of business. If you don't know, staff and myself met with Ada
County last week, planning and zoning, our Comprehensive Plan amendment. We had
a tremendous tum out of citizens in support of our Comp Plan amendment, both north
and south. Very complimentary to the -City of Meridian and the processes we have
done and the fact that they want to be part of the city. Nobody spoke against it. Neither
Kuna nor Eagle showed up. And we got unanimous approval to move it on to the
county commission. So, with that I'd move we adjourn.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjoum. All those in favor say aye. All
ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:05 P.M.
(AUD
THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR TAM De WEERD DATE APPROVED
t i r ~ i~ .
a ~
~ ~ ~ . CC~ $'~ ~ g
•A '~' .,
9S
F q ,k„ r i ~ ; ~ 1~. 6 ~ E + ~
y ~ t
.~ kl 1 t 2 2 R }
'
:,.
..,
..
4'
;.~
e
~
,l~ s1;. ~~ ZZ 1,
• ~ .:
y.:
.. • ~ ;
^`~9
.
~
i
,
.:
: :
.
n
~
. k,.
i
~~.
i
f::
.
i
'
:
`
t
:
*
.
.~..
~:
~F
- .,...
..
~;
,, : .
~N
.
~
~
:
F
.
i
i
:
~
,
.
,
~
~.:1
p
`s
~:::...
'i :
-
:
~
:..
3,
-
!:':• r
?
s
'f
%":ii
.
;..
:
!
1
d
~
^.
~. .
v:.
f
`..
' ~
~s
:`: . r t
.
i
i
{
A
:
Y
'' .
.
f'. .
..n
r
~'
: ,
."::.
:l
.
,
t,
L±
F~.
{
,
«~
Y'
pp
.
:•i
t >.
2
N
d
's '.. f 's
i"
.,t
i .r
i
.' i .. x
¢
.
,~.
x
.•
~ ~
f
z
.
.
;
~ ;
.
±. ?.
f.:e
.;
-.:~'
9
s :x
:
~ ~• .
I','.
;g:'. .~:
t
.•
:
s'
~
2,
'.
:
F
4
~
F Vii!
g
~
t
.
'
~
.
.i
Y ..y
.~
S.
..
z.
~'•
t..
1
.
.
~
{
:
;
.
.
F
:
'
}
~
.
.
~' .
::
,~...
h'
t
;
~::: .
:
~'+?.
('
-
~
G
1
'
i
1
. .
l
e
'i:
.
~:
i $
.6.
•
~
~
..~.
P
1#'~~'. !; p.
i .' i.. .
..
..
1
z g
y
;;f
~ .
: t~ ~ t .; . .~.
f ~ ,
t ~
~ r
:
i ~
~.
MM ~ #' . . ;
.' x. :
: ,
~'i .
'
j~' '
'~
~ .
f
r
S'
. .
~'
y 44
. ::
~
:~ ~~ ~ .'
xi
.;
s.
f -
S.
~
.
y
3
~
.;
Y
i x
.
.
4
~`
:#' ..
~... .3.. .
i .::'.:
~
i
•k : ~
.
f
.
w
.
,
,
.
.
' F 5~
,
.~
~ 3
~'r ~:il
!.
-
•
5 '
..k
,
.
:
'
~
;
{
•
.
~
i
'.
.
.
}.3s..
~
§ . ~' Y'. ~
AC
.:.;1 .
.
~
E
?
~
:
,
. ?i
t7~1~. :
:
i
{
'
' _
~
i?:
+::
S
;:tit.
t ~
~
.,
.:i~
~... 'a ' e: . ~.
5
~
y'
F
`
.
.~~
; : !
.
5i'.
c •"
- t s
Meridian City Council
October 28, 2008
Page 54 of 54
ATTEST:
JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY
s: , ~ ~,s t ~'_
s I
S' i ~ 1 Y f F ~ t{ ~F £ ~ i ,
~ ~ '~~ e ~ ~, r,~~
I k
i~ ~~~ ~iFs~;~ ~~
I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~~ + 4~i )~~~ ~~
t {f Y 5~. 1 ! ~.
7 q ~i ~ t la
3
3 `j' ~
i , i r, ~~~t 1.
I ( ~_ ~~F~~; as
E [r' y
1 9 i i tj C kt t5~ 3
1 {jt L}? 1 I ~
I
~ t ~ r4
1
' i
} 1 ~ ~ ~rt~}.. 7 i
II YYYYYY~
I a , ~ ! 1 3 k'f,'Ke~ 1,
jy "~ r~
o i
EER
~JEAI, _
~ ~cS, ,'
E ~"
r
$i x~ ail ~: j ;
5 fk i ~ ~i ~ -. ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ N
~ ~ t ~ , f h ~ ~ ' tij i
~: ~ ~ 3~1 it `f~ ~. F ~` 1 ~: ~ ~ ~ ii
i ~' {~, u ~~ 1~ , f ~ ~. ~ a~ 4 i .'J l 4
f ,~~ gtat~ 4 ~, ~. l ~ ~
ri ~~ - ~. ' ~E ~ a ~~ ~
~ ~. > 1. ~, f + ~~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.
t ~" ~, ~ ~, t. t~ r r o ~ i i, ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i , 1
~ ~ ~ k ,, 'ir ~ ~ t ' ' w .~
, d ~f? ~ ~ t ! i ~ -~ 5