HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 25, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 33 of 75
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve MDA 08-002, the request to modify the recorded
development agreement for Volterra Subdivision and create a new development
agreement for mixed use commercial employment area for Volterra Mixed Use by
Primeland Development Company, LLP, and to take staff, public, and applicant
testimony and apply it to the new development agreement and to make sure that signs
as the applicant agreed to are posted within the location of the development and that,
you know, the plat and everything as noted -- notes on it also.
Rountree: I will second that.
De Weerd: Discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Would the maker of the motion als
agreement that at the development of future
applicable to this project and the intent as
buffering between uses here and neighboring
development agreement.
o include a reference in the development
design review guidelines they would be
stated by Mr. Larsen to accommodate
uses would be -- be referenced in the
Bird: The maker can agree to that.
Rountree: Second agrees with the agreeable maker.
De Weerd: Aren't we agreeable tonight. Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none,
Madam Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 73.10
acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15 (Medium High Density Residential)
(5.68 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (3.22 acres) and C-C (Community
Business) (30.72 acres) and C-G (General Retail and Service
Commercial) (33.47 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by
Hawkins Companies -Northwest Corner of West Amity Road and South
Meridian Road:
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 34 of 75
Item 16: Public Hearing: VAR 08-008 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4
which prohibits new approaches from directly accessing a state highway
to allow 2 right-in /right-out access points (approximately 660 feet from
the north and south intersections) and 1 right-in /right-out /left-in access
point at the'/ mile to State Highway 69 /Meridian Road for Meridian and
Amity by Hawkins Companies - NWC of W. Amity Road and S. Meridian
Road, south of Harris Street:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 15 and 16 were requested to move above Item 12, so I will go
ahead and open public hearing AZ 08-004 and VAR 08-008. I understand these have
been requested to continue to March.
Friedman: Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. I will address that for you. Just
by way of background, on September 23rd of this year Council approved a
Comprehensive Plan amendment for this site and that changed a portion of that site
from medium density residential to mixed use regional on our Comprehensive Plan
future land use map. The applicant, then, brought forth an annexation zoning request to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and at their hearing on October 16th of this year.
The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of the annexation and
zoning request to City Council, but in their recommendation they had recommended that
there only be one access to Meridian Road as depicted -- or as recommended by staff.
Subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Commission's action, the applicant submitted a
variance request to our restrictions on access to state highways, so we thought it would
be best to bring the annexation request and the variance request to you together. The
applicant did inform us that they wished to continue the variance until March of -- geez,
next year. Staff had discussed that with them and informed them that we were not
comfortable with bifurcating the application and that we would recommend to you that
you either continue the variance and the annexation request. They responded, then,
that if Council's implying not to continue the variance separately, then, they would just
like to proceed with the annexation and the variance application tonight.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, what's your direction?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: It would be my choice not to separate them. The default would be the
applicant's request to consider them both tonight, then. One man's opinion.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 35 of 75
Rountree: There is some degree of risk to the applicant that if things don't work out
quite as they anticipate with -- with ITD and the ultimate variance request, so I would
think that it's kind of a hand in glove deal.
De Weerd: Why don't we ask --
Rountree: I'd like to see them go together. But, again, I guess if the applicant's willing
to take the risk and do something on the application that might be acted on tonight and
only to have to change it in March, I guess that's the risk I see.
De Weerd: I guess at this point I'd just ask the applicant or the applicant's
representative to address this specific item. It seems like we will move forward, we will
have staff do their reports, et cetera. If you will, please, state your name and address
for the record.
Evans: Lance Evans. Hawkins Companies. 855 Broad Street. Suite 300. Boise,
Idaho. 83702.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Evans: We have requested the deferral on the variance only because of the staff report
that we received on Thursday that enumerated some things and there was some
politically -- I should say shifts in position in some of the previous meetings with ITD to
the letter that is in the packet and there is other items that we would just like the
opportunity that we think we can go back to ACHD and ITD and potentially -- potentially
get -- get in more agreement. We'd just like the opportunity to work on those. And
those issues are all specific to the access points and we realize we have to work
through those access points one way or the other, sooner or later. We do want to go
forward sooner, but we would also like to do proper diligence in working with those
agencies to get what we need. At the same time we don't want to delay the annexation
and zoning request, because it would -- we are afraid that we just need to keep that
process moving. We want to keep this project going forward as much as possible and
there really are minor issues on that project that I think we can work out here tonight.
So, that's where we are coming from.
De Weerd: Okay. Council? I think you have heard Council at least, too, say that they
would see those two going together or -- anyway, that's what I heard.
O'Very: Hi. Jason O'Very. 5537 North Brigadoon Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83646.
I'm also with Hawkins Companies. I think that the point -- the additional point, we just
want to say we didn't feel like we had to hear that, but I -- in our response to you I guess
at the Council's wishes it's both or nothing and we just want to be clear that that -- when
we spoke with staff we said, hey, look, we don't necessarily see that we have to have
the zoning annexation tied to the variance request for the access. We have been kind
of following some of the other projects and we have seen this Council make decisions
related to zoning and annexation and table a decision for -- or defer a decision as it
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 36 of 75
related specifically to the access. So, our request in the letter we submitted to staff was
that is it possible that we can hear the zoning and annexation today? Let's take that
step forward. We recognize we have issues with the variance request for access and
give us the time to work with the fire department, police department, with ITD, with staff
again, showing how our proposed access drives, tapers, et cetera, are different than
what's existing out anywhere else on Eagle Road, et cetera, given the distance of the
taper, the width of the drive aisle, et cetera. So, our goal, really, is not to say, hey, hear
us or don't hear us, we really want to bring those two items separately to you and say
this is a great project for the City of Meridian, we want to get your support, bring it into
the City of Meridian and can we come back and present to you the variance at a
different time. And that's really what we'd like to do.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I still would keep them together and my preference, I guess, would be to hear
them tonight. I think we need to move forward on the variance as well. And my thinking
behind that is to let you know that it was the City of Meridian that initiated the agreement
with ITD about access to state highways. This Mayor and Council are the reason that
you're asking for the variance, not the other departments or ITD. So, it is germane to
the annexation question, in my opinion.
O'Very: I understand where you're coming from with that. Again, I also know that
Council has granted variances to that, specifically at Fairview and Eagle, and we are
trying to make sure that our presentation to you has the same merit that this Council
could get behind and support that variance access to that development. So, that is why
we are trying to keep those -- keep those items -- you know, we recognize the concern
that this Council would have, but we want to build that support for that. So, again, our
request would be to do -- to bring these to you separately and bring a great project that
we hope that this Council will see does belong to the City of Meridian and at the same
time give us that time to go work with these other agencies and, again, I understand
your position, Councilman Zaremba, at least I'm trying to read between the lines there
and say -- but let us give us -- give you an opportunity see the information that we have
to present on that and not jeopardize zoning and annexing this project, because it may
be conditioned upon what individual thoughts are as related to access and we think that
might be, you know, to the service of the project.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Jake, while I, too, agree with Councilman Zaremba, I'm not dead set on not
splitting it out, but my biggest concern is if the variance is not approved, you don't get
cooperation from the other entities, are we going to be back in here changing the
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 37 of 75
annexation and zoning? Because without those access points is it going to work to
have the zoning and annexation under these classifications?
O'Very: We believe that -- we believe that this will be a good center. We believe that
we do need those access points and what our -- we think ultimately with the information
we confide, that our traffic consultant's prepared to share with you the design of the --
the actual tapers, the design of the decel lane, that we hope, again, merit the support
that this Council could see that this does make good sense for this project. So, I'm --
Bird: And I don't disagree with you, Jake, on that, but the point is some of your retail
and stuff might not be able to go in there if you don't have the access points you need.
So, are we going to be changing it? I mean I realize that getting this annexation and
zoning approved puts a little bit of hammer on the other two entities, because it's saying
the city thinks that's a -- a proper annexation and zoning area out there and stuff, but my
biggest concern is if you don't get the variance will this annexation and zoning work.
And it's -- and, you know, like Councilman Rountree said, it's your -- you would have to
decide to go forward or not.
O'Very: Well -- and if the -- if the decision is today and given what I believe I'm hearing,
an initial read on -- from -- from Council, that -- then, we probably need to defer to go
spend that time working with the agencies to come back and see where we can get with
them.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, maybe if I can give a little history. As you well know, we
have the ordinance in the City of Meridian that we don't approve access onto a state
highway, other than at the half mile.
O'Very: Right.
Rountree: You referenced that we have varied that. We typically have varied that only
after we made a decision that there will be no access and the applicant has obtained
permission and an access agreement with the transportation department. We have not
granted variances in advance of that and we have denied them and continue to deny
them when there isn't an access permit granted by the transportation department.
That's your risk. Though, your risk tonight is at best you will get an annexation with no
access onto Meridian Road, with the exception at the half mile mark. Now, that's a risk
-- I'm just putting it out there, that's the best you're going to get, probably.
O'Very: Uh-huh.
Rountree: Not that we have had the hearing and made the decision, but I'm just giving
you the history. But I'm willing to hear it if you want it heard and let the chips fall where
they may, I guess, if you're willing to take the risk. And, then, having to come back.
Evans: Madam Mayor and Council Member --
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 38 of 75
De Weerd: If you will just state your name once more for the record.
Evans: This is Lance Evans again.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Evans: I guess we understand that there are some fine tuning details that need to be
worked out, that's why we have the development agreement conditions, which, you
know, 80 percent, 90 percent of them we are good with. And we are willing to go
forward with those -- I just don't want us to confuse the issue of, you know, should we
be in the City of Meridian, should we be zoned these zones. And can we have -- the
third question is is can we work out and develop and address the access issue and can
we get to a better agreement with the transportation agencies. We realize your
authority is -- is definitely there as well, but as those -- those transportation bodies are
also very important and I don't think -- and I could be wrong, but I don't think that having
it annexed and zoned into the City of Meridian helps us at all with ITD. You know,
maybe it would, but I can't believe it would make too much of a difference. And I guess
we just want to keep this process going along. We have had good success with the city
in identifying issues, working through them, and coming back to, hopefully, a successful
situation. I mean we have kind of went through a similar process with the
Comprehensive Plan. So, that's our hope and it's just to keep the process rolling, but --
and that's why the deferral to work on those variance issues and get those nailed down
a little better, but we still need to know if we want to be -- you know, we are welcome as
apart of the City of Meridian or if that's not something that you guys want to see.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If what the applicant's requesting is the annexation and zoning tonight, the
variance continued to a certain -- certain time, while I'd like to keep them together, I can
split it up if that's what they want. They are the ones paying the bills. I have no problem
with that. That's my opinion.
Rountree: So, do we need a motion on whether to continue with our agenda?
De Weerd: I don't think you need a motion; I just need an indication of the Council's
desire.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I can sit here and have a hearing and have the testimony,
but I can't commit that there will be a decision this evening.
De Weerd: Well, I'm hearing at least from two Council Members to move forward with
the --
Bird: Annexation and zoning.
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 39 of 75
De Weerd: -- item and decisions apparently will be made at the end. That's the best I
can offer is --
Rountree: If they want to continue the variance hearing, they can continue that, but we
need a date certain.
De Weerd: So, Mr. Baird, I guess with this open public hearing that there really are
three choices. One, they can ask for it to be continued at the end of the discussion of
the annexation. Two, they could withdraw. And, three, Council could deny it. Anything
I missed?
Baird: Well, Madam Mayor, one of the considerations could be -- rather than having two
open public hearings is to just proceed on one of them -- on the first one and when you
get to the end if there is a desire to continue that, then, continue them both to a date
certain. That implies what you just said, that -- you know, lots of different ways you can
cut it here.
De Weerd: As chair I certainly don't have -- I think it's probably best split and, then, if
Council wants to hear about the variance request, I will, then, open it at that time.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council that would keep the record as clear as
possible. So, if, in fact, there are two open hearings now, you will probably want to at
least table one of them until then.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I table it or just reverse the opening of the public hearing, if you
can do that?
Baird: Either one would be sufficient.
De Weerd: Okay. Why don't I reverse the opening of the public hearing on VAR 08-008
and we will go ahead and move forward with the public hearing on AZ 08-005, unless I
hear differently from Council.
Bird: Fine with me.
De Weerd: Okay. So, we will start hearing staff's comments on Item 16. I'm not -- I'm
sorry, on Item 15, AZ 0-005.
Friedman: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Based on I think what I just
heard from the Council, in the event that there may be a decision tonight, Ithink -- and
Mr. Baird can correct me if I'm wrong, if Council gets to the point and they feel
comfortable in making a decision and if that aligns with the recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, then, the applicant does -- is at the risk of having that
in place and moving forward being annexed into the city with a development agreement
and, then, having to come back with a variance for the access; is that correct?
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 40 of 75
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, your discussion over the last 15, 20
minutes has made that abundantly clear.
Friedman: I just wanted to make sure of that. I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Parsons
to walk you through some of the specifics on the applications and the recommendations
from the Planning and Zoning Commission. There will be a discussion -- Mr. Evans
indicated that there were a couple of provisions of the proposed development
agreement that they have some concerns about. We received those this afternoon and
after we give our presentation and they give their presentation, then, we can, may get
into a discussion of those with you and any other items that you might have questions
on. So, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Parsons at this point.
De Weerd: Well, just a reminder right now we are not hearing any staff presentation on
the variance.
Friedman: Correct. We will discuss the annexation and the recommendations of the
Planning and Zoning Commission --
De Weerd: That's correct.
Friedman: -- on the annexation and the zoning.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This time I'll make sure
to hit the access points for this presentation, as it seems to be relevant to the
annexation of this property. I apologize for that. Again, as Pete mentioned, this is an
annexation for 73.10 acres of land currently zoned RUT. The applicant is proposing to
-- excuse me. The site is located on the northwest corner of West Amity Road and
Meridian Road and does continue all the way up to the half mile at West Harris Street
on the west side of Meridian Road that is. The applicant is requesting annex --
annexation again, 73 acres from RUT for R-15 medium high density residential, L-O's
under office, C-C community business district, and C-G, general commercial zoning
districts. Again, currently what surrounds the subject site -- here is the aerial of the site.
It's pretty undeveloped, the land right now is currently used for agriculture. The only
development, to this -- close proximity to this site is a resident subdivision currently in
the county known as Meridian Heights to the north. Here is the concept plan that the
Planning and Zoning Commission acted on at their hearing on October 16th. I kind of
highlighted the accesses for their concept plan. Again, what the applicant is proposing
is, basically, a large scale retail development and includes large box retail in the
southern portion, kind of a mid box retail site along the northern half, ten individual retail
buildings, including several drive-thrus, three office buildings, and a 7.5 acre multi-family
development, which is located in the northwest corner of the site. And if you can follow
my arrow, those are the three office pads that the applicant is proposing as well.
Buildings on this site are proposed to range from 2,000 square feet all the way up to
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 41 of 75
184,000 square feet and total square footage of office and retail uses proposed on the
site is approximately 478,800 square feet. Now, to the access points for the site, the
applicant is proposing two full access points to Harris Street, which is located here and,
then, an access point from the multi-family development -- proposed multi-family
development. Three access points to Meridian Road. One right-in, right-out, left-in at
the quarter mile. Aright-in, right-out only at the eighth mile and, then, another right-in,
right-out at the eighth mile located and labeled as access three. Two full access
driveways and one right-in, right-out driveway access is proposed on West Amity, this --
where my arrow is on the south, that was proposed as right-in, right-out only. Access
located centrally along the southern boundary and, then, on the western boundary is
another full access point roughly at the quarter mile. These were the access scenarios
that were discussed in the -- the applicant's TIA -- TIS impact study -- or traffic impact
study. These are the four scenarios that they analyzed. I'll let them dive into that more
and provide more of those details for you. The applicant has provided elevations for
particularly the large box in the multi-tenant large retail building along the southern and
northern boundaries. Basically one of the requirements -- the reason why you see a lot
of the side and rear elevations of these larger boxes is one of the DA provisions staff
has required that they provide modulation and some architectural detail on the rear
facades of those larger buildings to kind of help blend in with the surrounding
neighborhood if future -- because of the future residential that is -- is planned to happen
in along -- to the west of this site. And, basically, these elevations were primarily just to
show -- depict the type of building materials that would be used on the site. One other
thing I would let the Council know that a DA provision is in place that requires the
applicant receive design review approval prior to any building permit on the site. So,
whether it's the current provisions in place now or the future provisions coming before
you in January. So, I am going to try to hit on some of the DA provisions that we have
tied to the staff report and Planning and Zoning Commission had heard and acted on
and these are -- again, these aren't all of the provisions, but, really, these are the ones
that seem to be most of the topic of discussion at that hearing. So, again, the biggest
one -- all future buildings will be subject to design review that are current -- and I just
kind of paraphrased that, but it is mentioned that any development standards that are in
place at the time of application submittal. And, then, minimal 15 buildings,
nonresidential buildings, and a minimum seven acres set aside for future residential
uses. One other thing I did want to point out to you is there is a pretty substantial gas
easement that runs through the property, it's currently an 85 foot easement and it's a big
public safety issue from staff's standpoint and, of course, from fire and police and so we
definitely want to make sure the applicant coordinates with that entity and make sure to
give staff recommendations or at least a verification that they have agreements from
that company to proceed. Again, there is a DA provision that requires half of the
backage road be put in place prior to occupancy on the site and, then, again, at that
hearing Planning and Zoning entertained the idea that aright-in, right-out -- right-in,
right-out access point at the quarter mile would be doable from their recommendation,
so we have modified that DA provision to reflect that change. Oh. Excuse me. And,
then, of course, the development of this site shall be generally consistent with the
conceptual site plan. So, basically, what you're acting on with the annexation request
and, then, we also have a requirement for the landscape buffers as well. So, if I can get
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 42 of 75
back up here, let you look at the concept plan while I go over some of the items -- the
key items of discussion at that Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. I guess the
biggest point, again, was access onto Meridian Road. Again, Commission felt it was --
had recommended that they be allowed to have one right-in, right-out only at the quarter
mile, not aright-in, right-out, left-in, as proposed by the applicant: Again, they talked
about -- if you could follow my arrow, this is -- this depicts that gas easement that I had
referenced to you earlier with a DA provision. So, there is discussion there by the
Commission that they have some concerns and they wanted to make sure that the
applicant coordinated with the gas company as well. Again, when the staff originally
took this project before the Commission, staff had originally recommended that the
backage road be constructed -- the entire length of the backage road be constructed on
the site and P&Z felt like the -- or recommended that only half of this road be
constructed with first occupancy. So, it was the intent of the applicant to, really, develop
this southern portion first, so the intent was to really construct this portion of the road
once this large box kind of came in. One thing that wasn't discussed at the hearing and
I think it's important, staff still feels it's important to have that backage road constructed
with the first building -- the entire backage road constructed with first occupancy I will
explain why. If this portion of the site were to develop first and there is a DA provision
that only requires this portion of the backage road to be constructed, theoretically, these
folks that live in this subdivision would have to get on at Harris Street, turn onto
Meridian Road, and, then, drive all the way down on a 55 mile highway just to access
this retailer here to the south. So, staff -- if this motion can be changed, if either one
requires that entire backage road be in place or at least have the northern portion here
constructed to have that connectivity with that subdivision, so if this site does develop
first, these folks will not have to go onto a 55 mile an hour highway just to do some
shopping, they can actually access -- access the project from the backage road and
provide a separate safe travel route for those folks. One other thing discussed as well
was one of the DA provisions we have in place is to construct the entire 35 foot
landscape buffer along Meridian Road, which the applicant was in agreement with. The
Commission also discussed the traffic impact study. During that hearing the applicant
did present some information regarding accesses and regarding the TIS study and so
that was discussed and, then, again, one other DA provision that was changed during
the Council hearing was the fact that because this will be a collector road in the future,
there is a requirement in the UDC that requires a 25 foot landscape buffer adjacent to
that roadway. So, P&Z granted the applicant's request and just required a 20 foot along
the northern half of the backage road and, then, from the center drive aisle here at the
quarter mile south to Amity that would transition to a ten foot wide landscape buffer. So,
basically, what staff has done, the changes to the staff report since the Commission key
changes -- one, at that time we had not had parks department comments regarding the
pathway proposed for the site, so staff has attached that in the staff report. We
modified DA provision number three to add verbiage for reimbursement agreements.
We modified DA provision number four to include as generally depicted on the concept
plan. Basically, that referenced this open space area here that was centrally located to
the site adjacent to the pathway that is proposed to be constructed on the site. We
modified DA provision number 13 to reduce the landscape buffer as mentioned earlier.
We modified DA provision number 14, allowing a single right-in, right-out access along
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 43 of 75
Meridian Road at the quarter mile, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. We modified DA provision number 18 -- basically, the reason why staff
initiated this change and the reason for it is we are okay with that backage road -- we
are okay with Commission's recommendation to allow the -- allowing the applicant to
construct their half -- a portion of the backage road, but we didn't know how to have the
timing in place to require the additional half and so, basically, what we have done is ask
the applicants to provide a phasing plan, so we can have an appropriate timeline and
have that in the DA to require the addition -- additional half of that backage road. Again,
if the Council is inclined to require that entire backage road be constructed with the first
building on site, we can modify that condition to do that as well. We modified condition
number 19 to, basically, have the applicant provide staff with written verification from the
pipeline company in agreement that the applicant has met all of their requirements for
upgrading the pipeline, so that they can commit to development on the site. And, really,
as Pete mentioned -- Mr. Friedman mentioned, number 14, number 18, and number 19
are, really, the development agreement provisions that the applicant wants to discuss
tonight -- has to do with the access, the additional phasing plan for the requirement for
the other half of the backage road and, again, that additional language staff put on
condition number 19 that says we need written verification from the pipeline. They are
in agreement that they want to work with the pipeline, they agree with that portion, but
they feel like that condition might -- staff will let them go forward with a building permit
on the site. So, outstanding issues for Council tonight, again, is three access points -- if
Council is so inclined to recommend no access to Meridian Road or one access point or
however -- however it comes out, staff is recommending the applicant revise the site
plan to depict whether no access, one access, or three accesses -- I guess with three
accesses we wouldn't have to change, but if there is any changes to those access
points we recommend a revised site plan, so we can evaluate it. Two is annexing this
property the best interest of the city. Staff -- again, staff had recommended the
applicant construct the entire length of the backage road. P&Z Commission
recommended the applicant construct half of that roadway and so staff has asked
Commission -- or, excuse me, Council to act on whether or not it's appropriate to have
that entire backage road in place. And, then, of course, the other thing is is this mixed
use development and intensity of these uses suitable for a site next to a major natural
gas facility that not only serves this area, but, basically, serves the whole northwest
region. You know, with that staff will be happy to answer any questions Council may
have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this point?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant --
Evans: Good evening. My name again, Lance Evans. 855 Broad Street, Suite 300,
Boise, Idaho. 83702. We appreciate you hearing the request tonight for the annexation
and zoning to the City of Meridian. The concept plan -- I have been wanting to show
you this for a long time you may remember, the --- all the changes that we have made
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 44 of 75
and we just want to, first, go through some of the changes that we have made to the
site. We have a -- I guess the first thing would be that we have addressed as the buffer
concerns along the western property line, increased the setbacks and the landscapings
as much as possible. We have requested the reduction to the ten foot landscaping
buffer, because we have a canal issue and the roadway and there is quite a bit to go on
there, so we hoped to work with the adjacent property owner on that to increase the
buffer beyond on the west side of the property. We have relocated the pathway
network, instead of -- we originally had it going around to -- to the south and around the
site. We now have it going directly through the middle of the site and have added a
landscape pedestrian open space amenity and we have also committed to and provided
the backage road along the western property line to provide connectivity for the existing
and future developments in the area. We believe this plan has improved quite a bit and
it will utilize the land and serve the needs of the growing community south of Interstate
84, as stated in the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan. We agree with staff on their
recommendation for approval of the annexation and zoning. We'd just like to address a
few of the comments in the development agreement provisions. We agree with 16 of
the 19 provisions, but we have got three items we'd like to address and modify. First,
on condition 14, that limits our access to Meridian Road to one right-in, right-out access
at the quarter mile. Our proposal will allow us to pursue a variance. We want to change
that wording so that we can pursue a variance for these three access points on Meridian
Road as shown on the concept plan. It's critical -- this access is critical to the
functioning and success of the development. Retailers investigating the site continually
raise the importance of the multiple accesses for their customers as a factor in site
selection. In these tougher economic times these accesses are absolutely necessary to
complete -- to compete with other potential development sites throughout, really, the
entire country. Our proposed language simply allows us the opportunity to pursue the
variance. The traffic impact analysis shows that three access points, constructed with
dedicated deceleration lanes, will allow traffic -- sufficient traffic flow on Meridian Road.
We are only proposing three of our seven deeded access points, which have been
deeded by the state of Idaho and are valuable property rights. We have continued to
work with Idaho Transportation Department and ACHD on these designs and we are
asking for your support in exploring all these agent -- these details. We really want the
opportunity to have these -- this variance -- all the work that we can put into it go
forward and really see how it plays out before we have a decision on that. The second
condition that we would like to make a modification to is on number 18. We would like
to require -- which would require us to submit a phasing plan. Unfortunately, this would
not be based in any economic or fiscal basis. tt would be very hard for us at this time to
say, oh, this is exactly when that second half of that development is going to go forward
and we have discussed the issue at length with the Planning Commission and at that
Planning and Zoning hearing they decided to have the backage road sections
completed prior to the certificate of occupancy of the north or south side of the
development. So, as a -- anytime a certificate of -- the backage road will have to be
completed say on the northern portion prior to a certificate of occupancy there.
Staff is in sort of -- their concerns and comments on this at this time after the Planning
and Zoning Commission, we would just like to go back to the Planning Commission
recommendation and delete the additional language. The third item is condition number
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 45 of 75
19, which addressees the gas pipeline and it adds -- what it does is, essentially, adds
another level or regulation to a use that is already controlled by the federal regulation
through the Department of Transportation and an easement agreement between the
two private parties, the pipeline and the property owner. We have met with the pipeline
company and we feel we have an understanding of how we can best work together on
the pipeline. It's not necessary to add an additional layer of oversight requiring their
approval of whatever we do prior to, really, anything going forward. They acknowledge
that there is growth in the area and that Department of Transportation regulations will
eventually trigger an update to their pipeline, it's just an issue of when it's going to take
place and how and we would like to leave that open and flexible to work on. We agree
with the recommendation for approval and we'd just like to have these modifications to
the development agreement. And we respectfully request your recommendation of
approval. I will stand for any questions.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: We have asked for a reduction in the landscape buffer on the south end on
the west side or the back side of what you're referring to as a big box. The graphic that
someone provided, whether it was you all or staff, the one that's being displayed now
shows an area to the west of the backage road that is landscaped, but I'm not sure is
that part of this proposal?
Evans: Council Member Rountree, the property line is the somewhat dashed line that
you see going along the inside of the backage road.
Bird: That's what I thought.
Evans: So --
Rountree: So, my concern, if that's a fair misrepresentation of what could happen
there --
Evans: Well, it certainly -- it's meant to show simply what is a potential that -- that there
is plenty of room, should that development come in. We had a significant amount of
landscaping that was going to be behind these buildings, even with access points, but
we elected to add in the backage road to provide that access. So, I guess, yes, we are
asking for a little bit of leniency in exchange for that backage road that's being put in
there.
Rountree: Another comment and it's on -- it's on this letter to the city dated, apparently,
today. And I will quote from it -- Hawkins Company's comment: Access to the site from
Meridian Road is critical to the successful operation of the center. So, back to our
earlier discussion. Based on that statement from you all, this annexation and zoning
would not be successful with no access, other than Harris Street and Amity.
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 46 of 75
Evans: Well, Council Member Rountree, I think what we are saying there is that the
access needs to -- is a critical element, that without it, you know, the retail sites are not
going to -- you know, you're not going to have a viable site that's really going to function
and be profitable and stay full and active.
O'Very: Jason O'Very. 5537 North Brigadoon Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. I'd like
to elaborate a little bit on that. I think what's critical is we -- Hawkins Company has
been an Idaho developer for over 30 years. We are doing projects in 17 states. And
what we are seeing in this economic environment is that the number of deals that
retailers are pursuing has shrunk significantly in half or greater than in half today. So,
the viability issue related to access, we want this project to be as attractive to these
tenants when they are going to their boards and saying we are going to build 30 stores
this year, not a hundred like we did last year. Where should we build them? What
gives us the best opportunity to be successful? Where do we think we can garner the
highest sales and -- and make this site the one they want to be at. So, while, yes, is
there a way that they could make sense and today if we are -- if we have the limited
access, maybe. Are they going to be as attractive to retailers when they are
considering site across the entire United Stated to do? I don't know. I don't know. And
I think that we want to make this as attractive to bring the tenants to Meridian, because
the goal isn't just to get it zoned and annexed, the goal is how do we get the tenants to
come to this site so that they open up their business, we have a construction project, we
have projects to lease up in that will ultimately be jobs and services provided for the
people south of the interstate. That's really why that access is going to be so critical
when we say to the viability or the success of the development. And if you -- if I could,
Commissioner Rountree, I would also point out as it's related to the -- to that southern
portion, Mrs. Laidlaw that owns the property directly to the west, we have met with her
several times, she's come to our meetings, she's very much in support with what we are
doing. The reason we requested the change on that landscaping was we will be
obligated to build half plus 12 feet and we were just trying to get a portion of that back.
She's not opposed to the building of the road, but today she's just saying, hey, I sold a
portion of it to Mr. Johnson to the north, I plan on living in this until I go meet my maker
and we are -- and I'm just -- I'm happy to support you with what you're doing, but I don't
know that I want to do anything else until her heirs have to. So, that was the reason
that we requested that. Planning Commission and staff had also requested how might
this property develop to the west. So, what we did was draw adesign -- and this may
even be a smaller version of it that showed, hey, here is how this could function, here
they tie into the backage road. So, the intent of that design to the west of our backage
collector's road -- collector road, let's really give a feeling for how that might develop to
the west.
De Weerd: Any follow up? Council, any other questions?
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Hoaglun.
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 47 of 75
Hoaglun: Just an odd question. I noticed on the zoning map and, then, it shows a little
bit here between the label Amity Road and access point three, there was a little jog out
that -- a cut out. Tell me about that.
O'Very: If you drive by that you will see there is -- it's, basically, the transition point
between the gas lines and Intermountain Gas. So, there is a little parcel there -- it's,
actually, two small parcels that the Northwest Pipeline people run.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: It's prettier in green.
Rountree: Yeah.
O'Very: Well -- and one thing that we did, you know, include in our site plans as it
relates to that was we are bringing the pathway along the frontage of Meridian Road, we
are not dead ending it at that parcel and we are -- we are sweeping it around it and so
we have some connectivity. I think we see a lot of developments where people have hit
a property line and the development just stops. So, we are trying to address that, so
that there is still connectivity all the way through the intersection.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council?
Rountree: A technical question, I guess, and something that I'm not necessarily looking
to regulate, but what are the federal regulations on that easement? How close can you
build to that line?
O'Very: Well, Commissioner Marshall and Commissioner Rohm at the Planning and
Zoning Commission questioned Mr. Hamilton pretty extensively on and in our meeting
what we learned was there is, basically, a sliding mile scale that says as long --
whenever there is ten or more people within one mile of that pipeline, they have an
obligation to upgrade that pipeline and so they go out every fall, they have their system
where they run along that pipeline to determine what -- what residences or businesses
are located within that pipeline parameters. Once a building is located in there, they
have a 24 month trigger to take action. What we learned in that meeting was it doesn't
necessarily mean they have to replace this pipeline, they simply go to the federal
regulations and say, hey, here is some testing, here is some -- here are some results
and we are requesting a variance, because this pipe was sound and it will not require
any action at this time irrespective of the density of the population that's there. This
pipeline travels through Seattle, through Portland, we recognize the importance of it and
you have -- we have significant meetings with Northwest Pipeline and we started this
process fifteen, sixteen months ago. So, we have been meeting with them periodically
through this process. So, how it may impact us and the concern that we have as it
related to that specific development agreement item was we really didn't want to give
one side or another, as Commissioner Rohm had statement, an unfair advantage on
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 48 of 75
how we may deal with this, because if there is an obligation to upgrade that pipeline,
then, we don't necessarily want it to have to be solely on our shoulders to say, you
know, you built this through an area that was going to grow and if we design and build
the site and do buildings and such that they can come in and still do that, that they
would potentially share that obligation to upgrade that pipeline and we offered to work
with them to say maybe we do it now before anything happens and we can alleviate
some of those concerns. When we worked with Public Works to determine how the
utilities will get to this site, that was part of the other reason of our concern on why we
only wanted half of this backage road to be constructed at that time was we said, hey,
wait, we are going to extend utilities from Victory all the way down to this side, we are
taking on some pretty significant financial exposure and we would like just flexibility to
say if we do something on the south half, we will put in a backage road that covers that
south half. If we do something on the north half we will put in the backage road that
covers that north half, but give us the flexibility to do that and if we do something on
both sides, then, that entire backage road would be put in place and that's the nature of
why we responded to the comment to those two items that we did.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I very much appreciate your enthusiasm and your wealth of information, but
my question was how close can you build to the east side?
O'Very: Oh, we can build -- I'm sorry if I didn't address that correctly, Commissioner
Rountree. I -- or Councilman Rountree. You can build right on -- right up to the edge of
it and, in fact, in that meeting they stated that it goes underneath buildings, underneath
garages, et cetera, and there are easements that govern it. We will not build over the
top of it any building. We will build parking over the top of it. It can be used for
detention, it can be used -- it varies at different depths. But, you know, as they -- as
they stated, it just goes through Seattle, it goes through Portland, I mean they have
buildings directly adjacent to the easement varying width differs as it goes through the
country. And it will impact us as others come on -- online in this area, as well as density
of homes are built up adjacent to us on what they have to do.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions? I guess I do. I see a couple of green spots there at
the -- let's see, I guess it's the northeast corner of your development. Yes. Right there.
As well as that stated park. What are the plans for those? I know that there is a
concept plan, but I don't know how much can change, but if you'd have stated intentions
or amenities in those, a vision.
O'Very: We do have a vision in that area and that -- if you drive -- if you drive out to the
site you see there is some topography restraints and -- that we will deal with. We look
at that corner as more essentially a detention area with a water feature that maybe we
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 49 of 75
could attract some restaurants or something that would like an outdoor patio
overlooking that water feature and that's kind of our vision for the corner -- this corner. I
don't know if that's -- where that -- at the corner of Harris and Meridian. The second
area that we show green space -- looking with staff we said, hey, look, we understand
we are not going to build a big wall of buildings and let's break that up and let's open
that up and let's -- everyone talked about this pathway network that doesn't lead to
anywhere or doesn't lead to somewhere that you can go if you come to the shopping
center, so that's where we said, hey, let's put together a green space with a -- with a --
maybe acovered area or some seating area or something to that, so that if people do
come to shop and want to go get ice cream or go get what they have, they have a place
to go sit and enjoy and, of course, it breaks up what's perceived as a wall of buildings
along that western boundary.
De Weerd: Thank you. Now, you did show some elevations I assume for that first set
of buildings on the north -- on the south in the big box. Will that have different
modulation and -- or are you following that same design?
O'Very: It will have that same concept. And, again, as staff alluded in the development
agreement, it is an entryway corridor and it will be subject to the design review
standards. That's what we try to -- that Kohl's is not, obviously, as large as that other
building, but we wanted to pick up the same spirit in that architecture that you have,
the --
De Weerd: For the side and the back, but for the front?
O'Very: Well, the whole -- the whole project would be -- the whole -- every building I
think is -- I believe was subject to the design review standards that would require the
similar breaking up of the front facade.
De Weerd: I know, but sometimes there is a different application. So, t'm just trying to
get a better idea of what -- what your vision for that application would be. We were in
Orlando and saw, for example, a big box like Wal-Mart that was very esthetically
pleasing, because it was more like the amenity that you show up there. It was one big
box, but it certainly didn't look like it. So, I'm just trying to get a better sense to -- is your
vision for that big box -- that big box of Kohl's or is it a big box that doesn't look like a big
box?
O'Very: Well, obviously, we don't know who that big box might be, but it's similar to
those pictures that you saw in the previous application. We would envision it to be that
same quality architecture where you can see how they have broken up a food center
and broken up a -- you know, we would like to attract a Fred Meyer or a Target or a
Wal-Mart type user for this and we would love to have that type of -- similar type of
architecture that you're describing.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council, anything else? Thank you.
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 50 of 75
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would comment that if you're reference to Orlando was at
the north end of International Boulevard where there is a large complex of shopping
centers, there are accesses around the half mile only.
De Weerd: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to
provide testimony on this application?
Anderson: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Oh. Yeah. I was looking out in the audience. Yes.
Anderson: I'm hidden over here behind the screens.
De Weerd: Chief Anderson.
Anderson: The fire department has expressed a concern about the pipeline and just
like to elaborate a little bit on what our concerns are. These are 22 inch and the 24 inch
natural gas pipeline that run through there. They are high pressure lines. They are
significantly greater sizes than what we see in residential subdivisions when we are
talking four inch, two inch lines, you have about athree-quarter inch line coming into
your house. So, when one of those lines gets hit, the fire department normally
responds. We evacuate the area. Keep everybody away to make sure that there is no
ignition sources, those types of things, until the gas company can get there and close
that off. If one of these lines gets hit it's a major deal. We will make the national news.
And if you look at the drawing here, there is going to be a whole bunch of excavation
that's going to be going in, around, on top of these natural gas lines. That green space
that Councilman Hoaglun asked about is a metering station and the fire department
over the last ten years has probably responded out there over 300 times because of
people driving by on the road and they smell the natural gas. If you put this type of a
development next to that metering station you may as well build a fire station out there,
because we are going to be out there all the time unless something is done with that --
that metering station. I don't know what Sea-ttle and Portland have done if these lines
run through there, but it would probably be worth investigating and finding out what kind
of setbacks, what kind of requirements they did. I have real concerns about putting high
density residential and commercial this close to and on top of the pipeline, because we
will have to deal with it when an emergency occurs and I don't want to necessarily
always, you know, seem like I'm worried about the doom and gloom, but this has some
major impacts. If that line was to break and we had to evacuate that area, 22 inch gas
line, we wouldn't be talking about evacuating a couple of houses, we would have to
evacuate a mile. Can you imagine what that -- that would tax your fire department and
your police department trying to get that many people out of that area that quickly
before that gas finds an ignition source?
De Weerd: So, Chief Anderson, my question to you would be, as we plan the Ten Mile
area -- the Ten Mile plan we have a big chunk of this pipeline going through there.
What were the discussion points in that area? Because that is very vertically integrated
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 51 of 75
with a lot of high density and an employment center and all of that. Was that part of the
discussion there?
Anderson: I'm not sure it's even been brought up or discussed. I think it needs to be
revisited and I think we need to look and see what some of these other cities have
done.
De Weerd: Were those in the staff comments for this applicant?
Anderson: Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay. We will ask them to respond to that and see if they have done some
of that research and the plans for the metering station. Thank you.
Anderson: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I would suggest, though, that we haven't contemplated this same thing in
the Ten Mile area that as the pipeline -- this area starts to develop, because most of it is
in green field, it is something that we need to certainly help and get a plan for. Mr.
Zaremba.
Zaremba: I can't comment on the entire Ten Mile area plan, but I'm just -- in the area of
the south redevelopment where we are talking about putting fire station number six,
there is a pretty wide easement over this pipeline as it goes through the -- I think it's the
same pipeline.
Bird: It is.
Zaremba: As it goes through that area there is a very wide easement over it that is
different than what's being proposed here. I don't know how far north and south that
same width of easement goes, but I do know that in the neighborhood of our discussion
of fire station six it's pretty wide and I think that's wide.
Friedman: Madam Mayor and Council Members, not having the Ten Mile plan right in
front of me, I do recall though, that part of the open space network that we
contemplated in the Ten Mile plan did incorporate the gas line easement. I will look into
it further and, obviously, we have an opportunity, because we don't have any
development proposed out there just yet, but there may be some coming that we do
have an opportunity to address those. I'd just like -- if I may indulge the Council, just
build on what the chief was saying, because I think the condition that they are referring
to in the development agreement isn't specifically prohibiting development on that, we
were concerned that the condition was that the applicant coordinate with the Northwest
Pipeline Company and in our opinion because of the public safety issues involved and
because of the far ranging impacts, essentially, to the northwest, should a rupture
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 52 of 75
occur, we felt that it was critical that we not only have coordination, but that we have
written verification of the result of that coordination that we would like to have that in
hand before, essentially, a spade of dirt is turned, for a couple of reasons. In his
testimony Mr. Hamilton at the Planning and Zoning Commission indicated to us that 22
inch diameter pipe was constructed in 1955. Twenty-four inch diameter pipe was
constructed in 1981. And as he indicated that these gas pipelines not only serve
southern Idaho, but most of the northwestern United States. So, building upon what the
chief said, you know, we would not only make the national papers, I could imagine the
reaction of some of our neighboring states. And so he said, basically, they like to see
open space, but recognizing the development proposal that was before the city, we just
want to insure that there have been not only coordination, but written verification that
whatever concerns have been ameliorated through whatever means, that the two
parties could come up with and that we receive verification from the pipeline company
prior to the approval of any site development plans. Because as we do know, we have
experience on -- you know, call before you dig, that accidents do occur and given the
magnitude of the accidents that could occur in this area and as I recall, these aren't very
deep pipelines, we just felt that the public health, safety and welfare was a predominate
concern here. So, again, the recommendation was noted on it, it's just how do we
anticipate and ameliorate for development in this area.
De Weerd: Very fair discussion.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: I just -- in support of staff, I would say that while I would like to take the
applicant's word that they are going to work with the pipeline company, I think we need
to hear from the owner of the pipe -- that all of their requirements have been complied
with. There may be federal requirements of which is there is no discussion, but Ijust -- I
still feel that the due diligence that the city needs to put into this to me requires us to
have the owner of the pipe write us a letter and say this works for us, what the applicant
is doing is okay.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other comments, questions?
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, question for Pete. I have a question about deeded property
access rights. There is a -- you know, that's -- the state highway is in rural property.
Does -- if there is a home or an access point for an agricultural field right now, that
remains with the property, even though the use of that property changes or -- what can
you tell me about that?
Friedman: Well, I can tell you a little bit and, then, I may have to refer to Mr. Baird down
there. As Council Member Rountree had indicated earlier, of course, our city codes
have mirrored the state transportation department's access requirements, thus we have
the requirements for the single half mile access. We also have provisions in the code
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 53 of 75
where access is available from something other than an arterial, then, that access is to
be utilized or provided for and the other accesses are to be abandoned. There have
been some discussion where there are deeded accesses between -- you know, from the
Department of Transportation that is unclear whether or not they have to honor those or
not and, you know, we are getting into a legal area that I'm really not privy to or
comfortable discussing, so I can't really directly answer your question, all I do know is
that through our current code we have amended the code to say where access can be
provided via another street, other than an arterial and it should be taken that way and
those accesses should be abandoned.
Hoaglun: Okay. Madam Mayor, could I have Mr. Baird take a crack at it?
De Weerd: Yes. If he would dare to venture.
Baird: I'm not sure I can dodge this one. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council,
Council Members Hoaglun, the ones that I have seen they appear to be sort of site
specific, so I would -- we always attempt to rely on what ITD is telling us about them, so
rather than looking generalities, I think we would need to -- the inquiry would need to be
more specific as to what's on this site. And, really, I don't want you to see this as a cop
out, but much further discussion about access is intertwined with things that you've said
you're not going to talk about with the particular application. There has been quite a bit
of talk about access, to be honest with you. I think it's -- it's a good question and the
one that needs to be answered perhaps with regard to the variance application, if you
get there.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: This is not a legal opinion, but this came up a number of times while I was on
the Planning and Zoning Commission and the response that we got from transportation
agencies and advising attorneys at the time was that a farm driveway access was just
that and while it may be deeded for that purpose, if the use changed we have the right
to change the access.
De Weerd: Hi, Mr. Vance. Please state your name and address for the record.
Vance: Tracy Vance. I am at 4840 West View Place, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Vance: I thought maybe if you wanted a little bit more information on the deeded
access points -- I don't know if I can --
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 54 of 75
De Weerd: I'm not sure if we really do, but --
Vance: If you don't, I can sit down. If you want a little bit more information on just what
the deeded access points are and where they are located at and the documents
themselves, I'm more than willing to supply the Council and Mayor that information.
De Weerd: It's probably more pertinent to the variance application. I don't want to blur
the process here.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I know, you started it.
Hoaglun: I did and I apologize. And I think it's something that I would withhold -- have
that answer if it was only to the variance portion of a public hearing, so -- but that is a
question I have and would like to hear some sort of answer at that point in time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Certainly the applicant has the last word. Council, if you
have no further questions for the staff at this point, I would invite them up to --
Evans: Thank you very much. Lance Evans again. Basically we just -- there are two
issues. One is access and we will discuss that with the variance. In regard to the
pipeline, I guess we would just like to -- you know, we understand what staff is
requesting, that some sort of verification and Council -- Commission -- yeah, Council is
asking for is some sort of verification or something that will allow us -- you know, you
the assurance that, hey, we are doing our job right and the pipeline is doing their job
right. And I guess the language in the development agreement now gives them, really,
the -- the ability to say yes or no to us. If they don't like how we are proceeding, even
though it may be within the federal guidelines and regulations, even though it may be
within the easement, they could still -- they still have a hammer hold over us and could
effectively prevent us from going forward with our development and that's our concern,
that we have to go get written verification that we have done everything correctly -- I
appreciate what that's trying to do and it is not easy, but it does state that the applicant
shall coordinate with the Northwest Pipeline Company and submit written verification
that all requirements of the gas company have been met. That is why we have
submitted our -- we'd like to propose the alternative language that just says if we will
coordinate with the Northwest Pipeline Company regarding the construction and
development with the gas line easement, pursuant to the terms of the easement and the
governing federal regulations. We want to leave those as the two guiding documents.
Not that we don't want the City of Meridian involved, you certainly should be aware, you
know, the correspondence on the federal regulations would be out there and would be
available, but to have to take that extra level and that extra step and require us to get
written verification that we have met everything poses a challenge to us.
O'Very: Jason O'Very again. I'd like to just kind of expand on that. We are okay giving
the city some level of assurance, but I think what we are trying to avoid is if they don't --
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 55 of 75
I mean they have submitted, hey, sure, we'd like to have a green space, that gives us
easy access to this easement, but if they just don't like what we are doing, we don't
want them to say, oh, you didn't do it, you didn't -- we don't -- we just kind of want to
figure out how we can get the assurance to the city -- and whether it's working through
with Public Works as a comment or something that relates to that, because we are
going to work with them, we have roads that cross this pipeline, I know it seems like it's
a scary thing, but the city and everyone is already dealing with these -- these issues
anytime utilities cross underneath it, over it, or roads cross over it. So, I don't want you
to come away that we are saying we don't want to provide you with some level of
assurance, but we are just saying how can we structure that that you can be
comfortable with it, but it doesn't give them the perception that they have a -- some third
level of approval over us, that, yes, the city supports our development and we have
given you the design, we have worked with you on the design -- in fact, we asked them
who do you recommend we use for our engineer to lay out these utilities and they gave
us one name and so I mean we are definitely trying to do that and we are just trying to
figure out how we massage it that it doesn't give them the perception that they don't like
it, that they don't have to do it, because there is significant amount of money at stake
here on the phasing and if they have to replace the pipeline or they don't and if in their
mind they are saying, well, you know what, in three years or four years or five years we
may have to, if you build this building, so we don't like it, don't pave over it and we are
just trying to avoid that. They can take the practice dances like today, which is let's
figure out an agreement to replace it before the construction starts and we can work
through that. But we just -- I hope I'm making myself clear on that.
De Weerd: I think you are. And I certainly understand your conundrum. I guess I
would look to staff, what we want you to understand is first and foremost our
responsibility is public safety, whether it's with this pipeline or it's with access points and
traffic flow and in causing traffic accidents. It's all the same. That is our first priority is
public safety and how it impacts -- it has everything to do with annexation and the
development agreement and what we -- what assurances we can secure at this level of
approval to get those in the development agreement and I believe that's what the
attempt is in this, it's not to give them another party authority. Were they not a
commenting agency?
Friedman: Madam Mayor, Council Members, they were not a commenting agency. I
would have to check and see if it was transmitted to -- however, Mr. Hamilton did
appear at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and did offer comments at that
time.
De Weerd: Have those comments wrapped into expectations in the development
agreement that are in black and white that we can have the applicant agree to in
advance? I guess what I'd like to do is -- is not create a moving target and -- because I
understand what they are saying. Are they going to be requiring something over and
above what the federal governing, federal regulations do require and, if so, what is that?
And is that something that is probably also a requirement or a recommendation by our
fire department and our Public Works Department. I don't know how this goes, but I do
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 56 of 75
know what a moving target is and how difficult it is getting signature and getting the
building permit waiting for the next thing to change and that's what I don't think is right,
but we do need to help stop the potential of a moving target.
Friedman: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I'm just going to, if I may read verbatim
from Mr. Hamilton's testimony, I have the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes
here. It's probably better than me trying to search my memory for exactly -- or
paraphrase what he said. And he talked about the age of the pipeline and he said it's a
critical item for us that we do numerous inspections for corrosion. We are able to do an
electrical inspection over the ground and that will help us find areas we are having
problems with coating or corrosion and if we find anything like that, we have to excavate
the pipeline and repair it. We also run tools through the pipeline and these tools will go
through and measure the wall thickness, look for any areas of corrosion or damage to
the pipeline, dents, or anything along those lines. Once again, if we find something that
concerns us, we have to be able to excavate it immediately. So, we have to be able to
access these pipelines and, in fact, our easements do give us the right to have these
accesses. We have had some conversations with the applicant. I think it's been more
than a year since we have spoken and I don't think we have reached any conclusions at
that time. I'm sad to see that there was an indicated open space trail system here and
I'm sad to see the applicant has changed that. So, I guess that's about the extent. I
could take any questions you have. So, I think one of the things we really need to do is
get together with Mr. Hamilton, because I certainly can appreciate the Mayor's concern
about not having a moving target. On the other hand, we need to somehow at least
recommend to the Council that it's in the best interest of the public that it not be left wide
open. I get a little nervous when I see terms like coordinate and consider and, then,
without any book ends on those types of terms.
De Weerd: Like book ends. Yeah. I would like to have more of the details, too. And,
again, it probably goes to future applications, as well as this is trying to figure out what
those are appropriate to detail. I do understand -- and in your case you'd like to build
that system now with an agreement in advance with the pipeline on what the
reimbursement or -- if they do latecomers or whatever it is, would be and that's
something we can't tell you. What we can tell you is what you have heard the chief say,
this has been an area of high level of volume of response call, because the perception
of the smell and you start putting buildings like this out there, you might as well put a
substation in one of your buildings, because they will have to be on site. I won't tell you
you have to build us a substation, but you get the drift; right?
O'Very: Right.
De Weerd: Don't look at me like a deer in the headlights. I was just making a comment.
Anderson: Madam Mayor? I was curious. The one comment that I read, too, in this
staff report dated November 25th was it said that Mr. Gordon Hamilton from Northwest
Pipeline had informed staff that the gas company was not in favor of paving being
placed over the easement and the pipelines would need to be upgraded before
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 57 of 75
development could begin on the site. The gas company also informed staff the
upgrades to those pipelines may not be budgeted until 2011. The gas company has
acknowledged discussion with the applicant, but no agreement has been reached
regarding the upgrades to their facility and so I see in this plan there is asphalt over the
top of it and one of the things they talked about in that report is if they -- if their
equipment detects that there is a thinning of the walls in the pipe, they need to dig down
immediately and repair that. I guess there is just a lot of things that are in the staff
report and Mr. Hamilton's comments that really concern me about pushing ahead
without knowing more from Northwest Pipeline about how this pipeline is operated and
how close people can build to it and what kind of access they need and all those kind of
things.
O'Very: I guess I would also just kind of like to respond, because I understand the
comments Pete made --
De Weerd: If you will just restate your name --
O'Very: Oh. Jason O'Very again.
De Weerd: -- so Dean knows who's talking.
O'Very: Following the information that Pete shared with the Council is when the
Commission began their questioning of Mr. Hamilton. So, subsequent to his testimony
there was a round of questioning by both Commissioner Marshall and Commissioner
Rohm, which led to the revelation that, yes, this does go through these very dense
urban areas and that it crosses under roads and utilities cross it and they went through
these items and subsequent to our approval at Commission, Commission said, hey,
we'd like you to pick back up discussions with the pipeline and we met with Mr. Hamilton
again and shared with him our plans and what they shared with us is, yes, they do need
testing stations, but they would be approximately four inches and every 50 feet or so in
the asphalt and so they were very small wells and we definitely are doing our homework
with it. I mean, obviously, we are going to have a vested interest in making sure nothing
happens to our shopping center and, again, if we can find a way to address the
concerns of this Council and come up with language that we are comfortable with that
says we are assured and the governing terms of the easement agreement, the federal
regulations are met, and safety -- by all means we have safety. I have kids and I live in
Meridian and I understand the concern for safety. So, how do we class that and we are
happy to work with staff to do that, invite Mr. Hamilton to a meeting with them to
formulate something, so that they can -- staff now understands our concern and
Northwest Pipeline can get their concern out there again and we can craft some
language for that specific development agreement item.
Friedman: Absolutely. Madam Mayor, Council Members. Yeah. I mean in the minutes
he did indicate, obviously, their pipeline runs through major urban areas and, you know,
ideally, they have certain expectations, but, realistically, they have others. Again, our
concern is let's just get those specified to the best of our ability, because to do anything
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 58 of 75
less than that probably would be remiss on our part. So, again, you know, if we need to
rework this language we -- so be it, but I think just left saying we shall coordinate with
them is just a little too open ended, at least in our opinion.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would add that the evidence that their pipeline is subject to urban areas
already would be an indication that they do not reasonably hold up agreement for
people to build such, so I still support hearing from the owner that they think that what is
going to happen is going to be okay. And after discussion with Mr. Hamilton. It doesn't
sound to me like they have prevented urbanization from happening over their pipeline
other places, so I guess I'm not as uncomfortable as the applicant is with their potential
requirements.
O'Very: Well, I can share with the Council their position, which they clearly state in the
letter they submitted was any development would require one hundred percent
reimbursement by the developer for any work that needs to be done. So, you can tell
we started all the way on the far end, which said, hey, guys, if you come do anything,
you're responsible for everything. So, if that helps explain why we have concerns
saying, wait a second, why is that fair and reasonable, we have an easement
agreement and there is rules and regulations and because your company chooses to
address a potential development in the -- in the path of growth, whether it's in Meridian
or any other entity by saying we don't have money for two years, Idon't -- that's why we
have concerns about giving them too much approval and, again, we are happy to sit
down with Pete and Bill and Gordon Hamilton and sit in a room and say let's craft some
language for the development agreement that gives the city the assurances that they
need to say you're happy that the design is going to take place, but we are not
necessarily putting that lurch all the way to say, sorry, guys, you're -- no matter what
here is your bill. And that's -- that's why I say we are a little bit more leery, I guess, of
them. And I can't comment to what circumstances surrounded the -- the prior
developments or the existing path.
De Weerd: Ted, can a development agreement before this Council approves it, can that
be crafted in if Council were to take action tonight with the premise that both parties
would sit together and craft that language? Is that --
Baird: Madam Mayor, I think the Council would want to see the language before it's
approved. I would point out that the a-mail from Gordon Hamilton that's been
referenced that was submitted -- it's in your packet under the P&Z items, it references a
developer's handbook that the pipeline had. It's possible -- I haven't seen that
handbook. It says they gave a copy to the city planning. It's possible there may be
some objective standards in there that you referenced. That's just another idea. But
~~
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 59 of 75
given the -- what seems to be a very important issue, I would think that you would want
the exact language brought back to you for approval.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'm having real difficulty with this argument, but Ted makes the most sense
so far, but it seems to me that if there is hesitancy on the part of the applicant that the
city requiring them to provide us notice that they've done their appropriate due diligence
with the owner of the easement across this property, then, I'm not sure where they are
coming from. All we are asking for is have you done it. If you haven't done it and they
are not satisfied, they are the ones that are holding you up, not us. All we want to know
is have you satisfied them. I'd be perfectly comfortable if you'd guarantee or tell us you
have met all of their safety requirements for -- but we are not going to hold you up,
because you can't work out a deal with them. I'm really disappointed that you don't
have better sense of what your deal is going to be with the gas company. I mean that to
me is a major obstacle. And I have the same problem with the access word that we are
not supposed to talk about now, that you haven't got that worked out. And, Madam
Mayor, this project is starting to fall in my category of not quite ready. But I don't agree
with your argument that it's going to cause us to be -- put a heavy hammer over this if
we annexed it and waited for some assurance that the thing's been done right. I think
that -- I think the language that staff submitted on Item 19 gives no approval to the City
of Meridian. It gives all the approval between you and your easement holder. All we
want to know is have you done your work. I don't see that that gives them any approval.
De Weerd: Any final comments?
O'Very: Again, you know, we believe this is a great project to bring to the City of
Meridian and we think it does belong in the city and Tracy would like to say something,
too.
Vance: Tracy Vance, 4840 West View Place. Mr. Rountree, ma'am, I'm responding to
your concerns, Mr. Rountree. I agree with you that it doesn't give the city a hammer.
What our concerns are is it gives Northwest Pipeline the hammer. In that condition,
you're right, it does not give the city the hammer. The way that it's drafted is that at the
Northwest Pipeline's sole discretion they can approve or not approve and there is not
objective standards in place. If we meet all the safety requirements like you're talking
about, the way that it extracts it, the Northwest Pipeline can still reject the project. So, I
hope that goes to your concern.
Rountree: Well, Madam Mayor, Mr. Vance, I --Igo back to I guess if that's the case
and that's your sense, I don't want to put the city in a position of either helping or
hindering leverage on your part or the gas line's part to resolve this issue. Get it
resolved and bring it back to the city.
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 60 of 75
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I need to support Councilman Rountree. I agree with him. I would say in
comment that there are elements of this proposal that I hope to go forward. The layout
of it, as I recall, this required a Comprehensive Plan change and I was in favor of that.
I'm in favor of the ideas that you are proposing in the way of annexation and zoning.
There are a couple of very serious issues that I think need to be worked out before I
would be ready to go ahead with it. I want to give you the feeling that I'm not against
the proposal. I think it would be -- when these other problems are worked out, I think it
would be a good addition to Meridian. Before I could vote for it, the other issues need to
be worked out, so I -- that's my comment. That has to do with the pipeline and it has to
do with the accesses.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I, too, have the same feeling that Councilman Rountree and Zaremba, but I also
believe that there has been enough development between developers and Northwest
Pipeline that I don't understand why this development is having such a problem of
getting clarity of what they can do. If you -- if you read the minutes of the Planning and
zoning, Mr. Hamilton seen one concept he thought was pretty good and, then, when this
one come back through planning the concept had changed without -- and from the way I
took it from his testimony that he hadn't talked to anybody from the applicant's company
in a year, but, you know, they have got this pipeline that runs miles -- hundreds of miles
through the northwest and I can guarantee you it's not all open land and agriculture that
they go through. So, I, too, believe it's dependent upon the developer to go get the
agreement of what you can do within that easement and bring it back to us and tell us --
and I'm -- I like your project, don't get me wrong, but I can't vote on it without those
things in place, to be truthful with you.
De Weerd: Well, it sounds like this Council would like to have more detail to build into
the development agreement on what those stipulations are, so, again, like Councilman
Rountree said, we are not the hammer. Those -- those are clearly delineated between
yourself as the applicant and the pipeline and it can be put into the development
agreement, so there is no question. And I think that -- that is fair, so there is no
remaining question on what those expectations are and we are not put in the middle of
something that could potentially turn into something we don't want to be in the middle of.
And I think you can understand the position we don't want to be in.
O'Very: Sure.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
November 25, 2008
Page 61 of 75
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I just wanted to add my two cents worth. I think something can be worked out
here down the road. It has to be resolved. I'm in agreement. We just can't let this go.
We have got to have assurances from Chief Anderson that, you know, he's reviewed
things, he understands it, he knows what's happening, if there is an agreement that
what he sees or what they tell him is something that other communities have dealt with
and it works. It is something that I think we could put in the development agreement
down the road, find the right language, that gives us a lever to make sure it happens,
but at the same time not giving the gas company complete veto power over the project.
t mean if -- if they do their due diligence I think we could find that language and that
common ground. It's just we have go to -- we are going to have to work at it a little bit
longer to make that happen. But I think we can get there.
De Weerd: Well, I guess to the applicant, because this is still an open public hearing,
would you desire to have a continuation of this item, so that that language can be
worked out?
O'Very: Madam Mayor and Council, yes, we would look to have a continuance of this
and we'd ask, I guess, for some -- for an ample period of time to work through that. I
definitely heard Councilman Rountree's concerns related to additional issues related to
access and this pipeline and our initial deferral request for the variance was for March.
We are coming into a holiday period with the pipeline people. They are based out of
Salt Lake. It took us almost two months to get that first meeting scheduled and so if we
can have an ample period for the continuance to try and resolve some of these issues
and share not only those issues that were discussed tonight, but those issues for our
pending application. So, we'd ask both of those applications be continued.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I'm sorry. Just a moment, Mr. Zaremba. Do you have, then, a date that you
would like us to consider?
O'Very: What was the date, Bill, that we submitted? Was it March?
Bird: March 10.
O'Very: March 10. Would March 10 be acceptable? That would work for us to give us
ample time to at least give us the couple months after the holidays to try and work
something out with them.
De Weerd: It looks good on our end. Mr. Zaremba, did you have something in addition
to that?
Zaremba: Actually, I was going to make two comments. One, I was going to suggest
that we use the early March date and March 10th sounds good to me. The other was I