HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 07-06MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 6, 1999
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on
July 6, 1999 by Mayor Corrie.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Anderson, Keith Bird, Glenn Bentley, Charlie Rountree.
OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Bob Corrie, Will Berg, Bill Gigray, Dave Bowman, Gary
Smith, Shari Stiles.
Corrie: I want to welcome each of you here tonight. It's kind of hot outside, but maybe
it will cool off a little bit this evening and we'll sleep better. I got a red face. The grand
kids and I went out to the swimming pool yesterday. I forgot to put sun tan lotion on.
So it's pretty warm in here to me. Council, you have the consent agenda in front of you,
items A, B, C and D. What is the pleasure of the Council?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the consent agenda.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second that we approve the consent agenda. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: We have nine public hearings tonight. We're going to cut them off about 10:00.
We may get through all of them. Is there anybody here on the public hearing for the
request for the Wilkins Ranch Subdivision that wanted to testify on that one? Okay,
number 18 is a public hearing request for annexation of Wilkins Ranch, and item 17 the
Tremont Place Subdivision for preliminary plat and the — I think we might be able to get
them hopefully. We'll give it a try.
1. DISCUSSION BY BILL GREGORY WITH SANITARY SERVICES REGARDING
8 CUBIC YARD DUMPSTER RATES AND FRONT LOAD COMPACTOR
RATES:
Corrie: Mr. Gregory.
Gregory: Mayor and Council, Bill Gregory Sanitary Service Company. What we've
asked you and supplied you with for this evening's discussion is a new structure for
front load commercial containers that we will be implementing and providing within the
city probably about August 1. The containers are ready, we're just waiting for a back up
truck to ensure that we will be able to maintain it in a timely fashion in case of break
down and we have problems mechanically with one front load truck. There has been nc
services provided at this point for any containers in our rear load system, which we
currently provide with an 8 yard dumpster. What we're simply asking for is your
approval on these rates for an 8 yard container, which would be the first item there on
the agenda. That is more than competitive with the surrounding communities and other
services provided by other companies within the valley. Second on that list is that with
the rear load container service, we had 1 '/2 yard dumpsters. We're asking that we
convert that currently I have about 12 of those in service and with the front load system,
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 2
a 2 yard dumpster is more common within that service public system, so we would like
to take the 1 '/2 yard rates that are currently within the city franchise agreement and
convert that to a 2 yard dumpster, so it's just a size change on that. We've also asked
for a I think the key point in this next item is habitual. We have some families that are
consistently and I don't mean you know a week here a week there, but I mean
sometimes six, seven, eight weeks in a row. We've been very gracious and pleaded for
their assistance to please you know have it out on time. Some of those are 8:30 in the
morning and I'd rather have someone call and say hey, I forgot. I'm glad to come back
and go get those people. They need to help us out a little bit. We just want something
to say please work with us on that. The commercial can rate adjustment, this is a rate
reduction for commercial can customers. Right now if you'll notice, I mean a six can
service once a week is $43.20. We're asking that that be put into 4 to 6 can level,
service level for $28.80, which right now is the 4 can current rate. The next one would
be a service, a special dump charge on 6 and 8 cubic yard dumpsters, which are not
currently in the rate structure. The last one would be a request for a small compactor.
Right now there are a number of accounts Fred Meyer and Albertson's for example, D &
B Supply and quite a few others that have large roll off 20 to 40 yard compactors. For a
front load system, the customer can now purchase a small compactor that we would
then service with the regular front load commercial truck and those rates have never
been established either because those services were not provided, so we would like
you to consider that.
Corrie: Questions of Mr. Gregory?
Rountree: I have none. I thought their back up information documented well what it is
they're proposing to do, but I do have a question for Mr. Bill Gigray. The change in rate
structure, would that be considered a fee and something we would have to put forth as
a public hearing since these are new services, can we just implement those as an
adjustment in rate structure per the contract? How do we go about that?
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I always think that the safe play is to
advertise the meeting which you are going to adopt the new fees. Whether or not
someone could craft an argument that this would in fact be an increase in existing fees
by reason of the history and the way fees were collected or by some of the changes that
have been made. You know you can't discount that that possibly could happen. I'm not
disagreeing with the report, but I think the safe play and you don't have to have a public
hearing. You just have to give notice of the date of the meeting in which you are going
to adopt the new fees, and I think it's the safest play and I would recommend you do it.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor with that comment, I would have a question for Mr. Bill Gregory.
We've done this before. Does that two weeks cause you any —
Gregory: No, that should be fine. We currently do have some front load container
services actively being serviced within the city. That would be for example McDonald's
and Boondocks, the new Roaring Springs which is going to small front load compactor
starting probably tomorrow.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 3
Rountree: You already established a rate with them?
Gregory: Well it's like establishing a rate without approval and we didn't anticipate that
we would go ahead and using the front load system. It's just that I've been reluctant to
buy more rear load dumpsters knowing that the front containers are there, and I've been
delayed by about three months on my back up truck is what is going on. (Inaudible)
Rountree: But the 20th wouldn't be an issue for you? Okay.
Corrie: Okay, we'll have it on the 20th then. Thank you Bill Gregory.
2. TABLED 6/22/99: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY STEINER
DEVELOPMENT FOR DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES:
Corrie: Mr. Gigray?
Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I just have a report to the Council and
the Mayor. This matter was continued I believe at the last Council meeting on the basis
that there were some inclusion in the development agreement that had been signed by
Steiner that were actually matters of a revised development agreement that should not
have been in there. We have rerun the development agreement, eliminated those
provisions and resubmitted it. I would report to the Mayor and to the Council that Mr.
Bradbury has sent me a letter and we have discussed this. They are in agreement with
the changes and they have full authority for Mr. Bradbury who has represented this
client that all proceedings before the City Council that we have their authority to
substitute the signature page on the existing agreement, which the Clerk has, for the
new agreement which would not require them to resubmit it to their client for signatures,
so you could go ahead and act on this evening and then we would simply supply them
with a conformed copy of the agreement. The letter from Mr. Bradbury is dated July 2,
1999, and I've supplied a copy to the Clerk.
Rountree: Question for Shari. Does that take care of the concerns that you had?
Stiles: Yes, it does.
Rountree: Okay.
Corrie: Any other questions from Council? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on the
development agreement by Steiner Development for Dakota Ridge Estates.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the development agreement for Dakota
Ridge Estates, authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest with the substitute
signature page as indicated in the developer's letter dated July 2nd, 1999.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the development agreement
of Steiner Development for Dakota Ridge Estates as stated. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 4
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
3. TABLED 6/15/99: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY ALICE CULVER AT 911
E. PINE:
Corrie: Mr. Berg, has that been signed?
Berg: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, we tabled this at the last meeting
because the Culvers wanted a couple of lines changed which were agreed with the
attorney and with Shari, and this is a new development agreement and we do have it
signed by the applicant.
Corrie: Any questions from Council? I'll entertain a motion on the development
agreement on item number three.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor I would make a motion that we approve the development
agreement for Alice Culver for 911 E. Pine and authorize the Mayor to sign and the
Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and second to approve the development agreement by Alice
Culver. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
4. TABLED 6/15/99: ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE #830 -- ALICE
CULVER AT 911 E. PINE:
Corrie: Will the City Clerk please assign a number and read the ordinance by title only?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Ordinance #830 (ORDINANCE #830 WAS READ BY TITLE ONLY)
Corrie: Is there anyone from the audience who would like to have Ordinance #830 read
in its entirety? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on Ordinance #830.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the annexation and zoning Ordinance #830
for 911 E. Pine with suspension of rules and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk
to attest.
Bird: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second that we approve the annexation and zoning ordinance
#830 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion?
ROLL CALL VOTE: ANDERSON, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. ROUNTREE, YEA. BIRD,
YEA.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 5
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEAS.
5. TABLED 6/15/99: FINAL PLAT FOR MAWS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION (7 BUILDING
LOTS) BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING—NORTH OF PINE & WEST OF
LOCUST GROVE RD:
Corrie: Council, you have a letter from that that they would like to have that tabled I
believe until August 3rd. Is that correct?
Bird: Mr. Mayor I move that we table the Maws Subdivision No. 3 final plat until August
3rd, 1999.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second that we table the final plat for Maws No. 3 Subdivision
until August 3rd, 1999. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
ANNEXATION & ZONING FOR PROPOSED CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY
JEFFREY L. MANSHIP -- 4375 W. CHERRY LANE:
Corrie: Council you have the Findings of Facts in front of you. Any questions or
discussion on that?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, Decision and Order for the annexation and zoning of Cherry Lane Estates which
results in a denial of that application.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and second to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law that shows a denial of the request for annexation and zoning. Any further
discussion?
ROLL CALL VOTE: ANDERSON, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. ROUNTREE, YEA. BIRD,
YEA.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEAS.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 6
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
REZONE OF.323 ACRES (FROM R-15 TO L -O) BY MATTHEW & DANITA
HARTZ-1990 N. MERIDIAN RD:
Corrie: Council, you have the Findings of Facts on item number seven.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, Decision and Order which approves the zoning request for property owned by
Matthew and Danita Hartz.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and second that we accept the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law on item number seven for approval. Further discussion?
ROLL CALL VOTE: ANDERSON, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. BIRD, YEA. ROUNTREE,
YEA.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEAS.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, just want to check something here. There was no attached
resolution and there is no indication that zoning and annexation ordinance be prepared.
Should there be one on that?
Corrie: Mr. Gigray?
Gigray: Well we need to locate it, because I've got a letter of transmittal here to the
Clerk showing the Findings and the ordinance and a development agreement were sent
over.
Rountree: Subject of another evening.
Bird: There was supposed to be a development agreement along with this from our last
motion that we when we passed it before.
Rountree: It indicates that it's to be prepared, but we don't have it.
Bird: He's got a copy of the development agreement, but we don't.
Rountree: Do you have a signed one?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 7
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, we sent those to the Clerk's office and I
don't know whether or not they've got the development agreement signed yet or not.
They have the development agreement and the proposed ordinance.
Rountree: That answers my question, Mr. Mayor.
8. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE/ RETAIL
BUILDING BY BRIAN CHAMPION -129 E. PINE STREET:
Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, just a matter of procedure and advice
to the Council since this is one of these that is not subject to public hearing by
ordinance, my recommendation is that the Council's action in these matters is either
accept the recommendation of Planning and Zoning Commission since the record has
been made before them and then direct me to prepare the appropriate findings and
order in relation thereto, or if upon your review of the recommendation of the Planning
and Zoning Commission, you feel that there is further information that is needed or you
can't accept it then I would say your choices are to determine whether or not to hold a
public hearing to resolve those issues that would need factually further determination or
remand it back if you see some failure to meet the process.
Rountree: I have a question of Shari, if she would just give us a little rundown on this.
It looks like she is ready to do that.
Stiles: Mayor and Council, this is for the property that's directly adjacent to the city's
parking lot on Pine Street, Piasano's would be over here. There's a single family home
here and of course Stan's Mowers and Dave's Body Shop would be here on E. 1 st
Street. The applicant has gone through significant pains to remodel this house, the
existing house. It would have been very tempting for him to demolish it and start over,
but he has done quite a bit of remodeling. If you have a chance, you should go by there
and see what he's done. The only issue that was really remaining was that Ada County
Highway District wanted the alley dug out and paved the entire length back to 2nd Street.
It's my understanding the applicant has since worked with Ada County Highway District
and they have come to an agreement that he would deposit the monies with Ada
County Highway District so that at such time as they can repave the alley in its entirety,
they would do that, and he has written a check out to them. He hasn't submitted it to
them yet, but that was really the only issue that remained.
Corrie: Thank you Shari. Questions of Council, discussion? Do you have enough
information you believe to act on it then?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we accept the recommendation from Planning and
Zoning Commission and have the city attorney prepare Findings of Fact and
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 8
Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order reflecting an affirmative for this conditional
use.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second that we approve the conditional use permit request
and have the attorney draw up the appropriate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
on item number 8. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
9. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THRU FOR
MOXIE JAVA BY AVII L.L.C.-1800 N LOCUST GROVE RD:
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is the existing location where TCBY and Moxie Java
are, the Fred Meyer site. The storage units are down in this area here. At the last
public hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant did indicate they
will probably be coming back in for this area here. They feel they've saturated the
storage unit market there, and would possibly be requesting limited office use for that
area, but an application has not been submitted yet. Planning and Zoning Commission
did recommend that it be approved. There is an existing drive through lane that goes to
the TCBY here. Originally when this project was proposed and came through a
conditional use permit, the two drive throughs were not approved due to the impact on
the adjacent residential use across Locust Grove. They are now proposing – this is two
way drive way here. They're proposing that the drive through would be coming through.
They'd have to cross the traffic, have the drive through here and then they would be
coming back on this loop road. Staff did not recommend this configuration due to what
we feel would conflicts in the parking area. But that's about it. Do you have any
questions?
Bird: They're coming down the road there Shari and coming up on the east side of the
building is where the drive through is going to be, right?
Stiles: Yes, they would be coming this direction and then cross traffic to go in this drive
through lane and then they would exit through the loop road.
Bird: And they'd have to cross the drive through for the TCBY?
Stiles: Yeah.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 9
Anderson: (Inaudible)
Stiles: Ada County Highway District didn't have any comment on it. The only reason
they did not have comment on it is because they have no jurisdiction over parking lots.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor question for Shari. I don't that I heard, but you may have said
what staff's recommendation was.
Stiles: Staff recommended that it be denied.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor we've done this before and we made a decision before and I for
one would — of course Glenn and I are maybe the only two left, but I would stand by that
previous decision.
Anderson: Would you enlighten us new Council members what that decision was?
Rountree: The old decision was what Shari said was that originally it was proposed with
two drive throughs and we didn't feel it would work, and I don't feel that it will work today
even with the timing issue that was demonstrated. Once that's a drive through whether
it's a Moxie Java or whatever, I am not of the opinion that it would be a benefit to that
area.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would agree. We've, as Mr. Rountree said, we've gone over this
and it appears to be an accident waiting to happen and I will not support it.
Bird: I think it could have a better way of doing it. I think it can be accomplished.
would like to know what the traffic of the existing drive through is and what kind of
proposed traffic they'd have on the new drive through. I don't know if this would hurt t
have a public hearing on something like this.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor as being a frequent patron of TCBY, I've been in that drive
through line several times when traffic is backed up rather heavy, and I think this would
be inviting trouble. Anytime you put two drive through heading in opposite directions
around the same building, you're going to have people getting irate, mad, more chances
for wrecks. I think it's a bad idea.
Corrie: Anyone else? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to have the attorney draw up new
Findings and Facts.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have the city attorney prepare Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law Decision and Order that reflects the Council rejection of the
Planning and Zoning recommendation and a denial of the request for conditional use for
a drive through for Moxie Java.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 10
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order for denial of the request for conditional use
permit of Moxie Java, item number 9. Any further discussion?
ROLL CALL VOTE: ANDERSON, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. ROUNTREE, YEA. BIRD,
YEA.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEAS.
10. APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REQUIREMENT BY CINDY CHACE d/b/a KIDS CLUB:
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I don't have a graphic of this. They have submitted a
conditional use permit application, but they are appealing our request for them to enter
into a new conditional use permit for modification of the original conditional use permit.
Their proposing an 800 square foot building to be added to the property. If you're
familiar with the property, it's just north of the Post Office on E. 1 st Street. They are
proposing it beyond the setback just on the north side of their property. However, the
applicant when he came in to talk to us, indicate the present structure is only 1800
square feet and we felt the addition of an additional building with a kitchenette or I'm not
sure what the terminology was and a restroom even though the number of children
cared for would be the same would constitute a significant change and that's the
reason we requested a new conditional use permit application.
Corrie: While this isn't a public hearing, we would like to hear what the appeal is.
Chace: Thank you very much. My name is Raymond Chace and I sit on the Board of
Directors of the Parent Company at Kid's Club and why I'm here before you is to appeal
this because our initial understanding of what was needed to add this building was an
accessory use permit based on the square footage of the new building, which is what
we felt and what was initially thought of as incidental to the main building. In
accordance with our previous permit, we will consent to pay all additional sewer, trash,
insure the building conforms to the look of the 1 st Street structures. The addition is to
provide existing space as Shari said for the children in the winter time. No impact on
ACHD, no further staff or children will be at the site. What we'd like to do is apply for
the accessory use permit, pay the fee and break ground pursuant to the building permit.
Thank you.
Corrie: Council have any questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 11
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. So the Council has an idea here, you can either accept the appeal
of the Zoning Administrator's conditional use permit requirement. You can not require a
conditional use permit or you can deny the appeal and stay with the administrator's
conditional use requirement.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I have a question for Shari. If I heard correctly the applicant is
asking for an accessory use permit and that doesn't equate with what is happening
there.
Stiles: We did look at the possibility of whether we could consider it an accessory
building, and it didn't meet the criteria for being considered an accessory building.
That's why we wanted them to come back with the modification of the originally
approved conditional use permit.
Chace: Unfortunately I don't have any documentation that defines an accessory use.
My understanding is that an accessory use is 50% of the square footage or less, and we
are just over 34-35% on this building, which is pursuant to the zoning amendment
requirement and we are still in compliance with our original and existing conditional use
permit when I was before you February of 1997.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, it still seems to me that there's some confusion between the two
parties here, and I guess I would recommend that staff and the applicant continue to
talk through this until we're communicating and using the same terms and
understanding what accessory use is per our ordinance and trying to find out what their
understanding of it is so we can reach an agreement. Without that I guess I would not
have sufficient information to make a recommendation. Other than that, I would be
supportive of staff's recommendation to deny the appeal, but I think there's still some
room for communication here that needs to go on.
Corrie: At the risk of telling him absolutely no, Shari can you two get together one more
time and kind of work out the verbiage here so everybody is on the same page?
Stiles: I believe we've done that. Everything that we've discussed has been
misinterpreted and I think we're at an impasse now where like tonight he comes in here
and says he understood 50% increase was the ordinance and that was not even
insinuated.
Rountree: Shari, I know this is asking a lot, could you paraphrase to us what accessory
use means?
Stiles: I don't have the ordinance in front of me now. It talks about accessory buildings.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, while they are looking it seems to me
that the decision and what the Council has to grapple with in this particular application is
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 12
first there needs to be some kind of analysis of the findings and conclusions of law of
the conditional use permit that was originally issued here. I think I have heard it's kind
of a bold statement that this is in compliance, but I didn't hear any analysis of why that
was the case because I think the issue here is whether or not this applicant needs to file
for an amendment to the conditional use permit that was granted before in order to
accomplish what they hope to accomplish. — have an accessory use permit and I think
we have to look at those findings and I didn't see any brief or anything filed with this
other than what we've heard this evening.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, what we were relying on is one part of the ordinance that
says if you have more than one building on a lot, it would require a conditional use
permit. Things such as a shed, or a garage, we can approve through — call it an
accessory building. Say it's incidental to the use of the approved use and we do
approve those without having to go through this process for the modification. Under 11-
2-405J, modification or amendment of approved application or use. It states all
applications for amendment, alteration or modification of an approved application or use
shall be treated as an initial application and must be processed in the same fashion and
under the same procedures as an initial application. That's what we were relying on in
our determination. We have spoken to them on numerous occasions, tried to work with
them to see if there's a way to get around that. Staff did not feel that we had that ability
to forego that provision of the ordinance. There is also under the accessory building
standards, it's quite lengthy, it would be under 11-2-410D2A, and there are a number of
things that did not meet the requirements to be determined in accessory building. It
would have had to be located in — it said if it's not in a rear yard, an accessory building
shall be connected with the principal building, which it is not. If it was in the rear yard, it
couldn't exceed 15 feet. I think they met that. Couldn't be located within 25 feet of an
adjacent residentially zoned lot. I'm not sure they could meet that. So that's what we're
using is because we didn't consider it to be an accessory building.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor in light of what Shari has read, I don't see a way to approve this
appeal. It sounds like it's going to have to go through modification.
Chace: Is it possible to respond since this is an appeal of that to her assertations. We
are zoned as an R-15. There are no residential buildings anywhere near the building.
We are 15 foot setback. It's on a half acre lot. If you did see the building plat, the
language and the interpretation of the language with the definition of the incidental
building or the definition of the off site building is vague and that is why I'm before you.
Initially we approached this in February or March of this year, and we delayed it based
and we relied on the zoning administration's terminology. This would be an accessory
use building. We therefore did not apply until we were ready to break ground and when
we started to break ground, that when we found out we had to go through the initial
conditional use permit process again and we are in compliance with the initial use
permit. We've had no complaints. We're not tearing down any trees, we're not
increasing the flow of traffic. We're not putting an unburdened use on the sewer system
which I think addresses most of the concerns that a public hearing would (End of Tape)
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 13
Chace: ...that's why I'm here before you today. This is going to add a significant cost
to us in a delay if this isn't granted, so thank you very much again.
Corrie: Comments from Council?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, by way of discussion, I personally see two ways to go. One if the
applicant is willing to substantiate and evaluate the conditional use permit and the
findings and build a case to support his position, I would be willing to table this item for
yet another discussion. Or I would have to take the recommendation of staff based on
the definitions that were read and the basis that they had for their denial.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion one way or the
other and we can see where it goes.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I would have to direct a question back to the audience and —
Chace: Absolutely, I would agree to that.
Rountree: You would agree to evaluate the conditions? I present that no guarantee.
Chace: I understand.
Rountree: But you seem passionate about your position so we'll give you an
opportunity to present that.
Chace: Right now?
Rountree: No, in two weeks.
Chace: Okay.
Corrie: If that happens to be the Council's decision.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I would move that we table this item for two weeks to our next
regularly scheduled meeting July 20th to receive additional information on the requested
appeal.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and second to delay the appeal for information from the
applicant and administrator on item number ten on the conditional use permit. Any
further discussion?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor maybe it would help us if we had some copies of the record on that.
Rountree: The CUP.
Corrie: Shari, can you have that for us as well? Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, also I would like to see a site plan.
Corrie: Okay, I think the applicant can get that as well. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 14
Corrie: If you will check with Shari and well you can get whatever you want to get ready
for it. Shari, you can get the information to us for July the 20th meeting.
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR REINSTATEMENT OF
APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OLSEN BUSH II BY R2
DEVELOPMENT, INC. —WEST END OF LANARK STREET:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing at this time and we'll entertain the staff to testify
first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I do not have a transparency on this. This is the
property immediately west of the existing Olsen Bush Subdivision No. 1. It's where
Wheel City USA, Yankee has some property back in there, and this was an extension to
the west. I would have a cul-de-sac or I'm not sure that these drawings that are
included in your packets are the approved plat. But staff would recommend approval of
reinstatement of the approved preliminary plat with the conditions in that original
approval. I would like the applicant to be able to come and state when they are going to
submit the final plat. They've asked for this variance because the time has expired for
them to be able to submit the final plat.
Rountree: Question for Shari or Gary, either one. Is this the first extension that's been
requested?
Stiles: Yes.
Rountree: Okay, thank you.
Stiles: It's the first variance that's been — I believe they already did a time extension,
no? They must have just missed the cut off for the time extension then. I'm sorry,
don't have the right file here with me, so Brad if you could let them know what the
original approval date was.
Miller: Brad Miller with Van Auker, actually R2 Development. I believe it was approved
Shari in the summer of 1996 and we allowed it to expire because we didn't have the
easement necessary to get our sewer through there, so now that we have sewer, the
easement and the sewer system there, we're ready to move ahead, so we're asking that
the City Council — since to the best of knowledge there's no changes in the ordinances
or anything and the preliminary plat is going to stay the same, it would make sense to
go ahead and extend that time frame.
Bird: That delay was because of getting the right-of-way through the property there.
Miller: Correct from the Elixir Industries to get that easement, which all of you are
aware and with the help of the Mr. Mayor and City Council, we're able to get that done.
In fact I got a call today from Elixir Industries demanding a bill for their portion of it. So
I'll add on some time for the City Council to that bill.
Corrie: It was April 12th, 1999 by the way.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 15
Miller: Any other questions or anything?
Stiles: Do you have a time when you're going to submit that final plat?
Miller: Well as soon as possible is what we'd like to do. I'll get Dave Roylance back
involved in the project and we'll go ahead and get that done.
Stiles: And we need to double check. I think this was one where the development
agreement was never entered into. We'll double check and make sure that gets done
concurrently with your final plat.
Miller: Correct, that would be fine. I just want you to know anything that Ben Barham
has to say in favor of the project, I agree with. If he opposes it, I don't agree with it.
Corrie: Okay, is there anyone else from the public who would like to issue testimony in
this public hearing on the variance?
Barham: My name is James B. Barham, 2950 E. Franklin Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642.
1 do not oppose this. However I would like to see to it that there is a six foot chain link
fence between my property which extends the full length of the property before the
development is put in. Also it will be necessary for a drain to be put from my property to
the drain ditch to the north which is following pretty well along their sewer system. The
Olsen Bush property has cut off the drain to the drain ditch. Other than that, this is as
exciting as the last one was.
Corrie: Is there anyone else from the public who would like to issue testimony on this
hearing? Hearing none, Council discussion? I'll entertain a motion to close the public
hearing.
Bentley: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the public hearing on item number 11. All
those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Council, what would you like to do here?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I got a question. Do we need a development agreement or — Shari,
and you don't think there is one?
Stiles: I don't believe there is. I can't remember if it was a part of all that RC Willey and
was this part of RC Willey?
Bird: No, no.
Stiles: This was a totally separate one?
(Inaudible)
Bird: This is across the street.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 16
Stiles: So that wasn't of that Commerce Park Subdivision all included in that
annexation?
Bird: This is the property west of that YMC out there.
Stiles: Yes, and I believe that the development agreement was probably a condition of
the annexation at that time, but it was never done.
Bird: It never was done, so we need to draw one now at this point.
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Other comments? All right I'll entertain a motion on the request for variance.
Yeah we'll Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. That's correct, but you either have
to conditionally approve, deny, continue for 45 days plus the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I'll attempt it. I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order and a development agreement
and now we need to have a 45 day extension? Okay, with the recommendation that we
pass the variance for reinstatement of approved preliminary plat for Olsen Bush II by R2
Development, Inc.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law with the approval of the variance and also to the order of
decision. Any further discussion?
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, may I ask a point of information? Would there be a time limit with
regards to the extension or is it unlimited?
Bird: One year. That's standard, isn't it?
Gigray: Yeah, but this is a variance, so I need to know what you want in there.
Bird: You want the one year? I do.
Corrie: It's your motion.
Bird: One year.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray, have you got that?
Gigray: Yes, thank you Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: ANDERSON, YEA. ROUNTREE, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. BIRD,
YEA.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEAS.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 17
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING OF 6.15
ACRES (FOR R-40 ZONING) FOR PROPOSED COBBLESTONE VILLAGE BY
IONIC ENTERPRISES, INC.—SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE &
FRANKLIN:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing and have staff's report first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property located at the southwest corner of
Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. It has been known as the Monty McClure
property. We have Medimont Subdivision being marketed as Stonebridge Subdivision,
zoned light industrial. There are existing rural density homes located in R-1 zone that
would be immediately adjacent to this property here. This is a rural transitional zone.
This is the Tamura Berry property that they have zoned as commercial and light
industrial. The right-of-way has been dedicated through at least to the railroad tracks.
However no development has taken place at this time and of course the construction
has not taken place. Five Mile Creek runs through the corner of the property. Most of
the creek would be included in the future right-of-way. This will be 96 foot wide right-of-
way on Franklin Road. Also Locust Grove is another arterial that would be a five lane
roadway at some point. I would like to state for the Council's information and for
anybody testifying tonight. The issue is not whether this is subsidized housing. I would
hope that there is no discussion at all of that issue. Any decision made by the Council
needs to be made solely on the basis of whether this should be rezoned and annexed
with a designation of R-40. The applicant has requested the R-40 because we only
have the R-15 and the R-40. There's nothing in between and they're going slightly
above the R-15 density. Although the conditional use permit application is being held at
Planning and Zoning Commission until they get your decision on the annexation, I do
have a transparency of a proposed site plan layout. It has been revised from what
Planning and Zoning has seen, but if you feel that would aid in your decision as to
whether this is appropriate for apartments, I can certainly present that, but again I would
like to reiterate it is only to decide whether the R-40 zoning is appropriate, and we can
put conditions on it as part of that through a development agreement to limit the density
to 20 and buffering requirements and those types of things, but that is why you're only
seeing the annexation and zoning at this time.
Rountree: Shari you said that ACHD had had a 60 foot from centerline setback
requirement. Didn't they change that to 48 feet or did they go back to 60?
Stiles: They changed it to 48 feet from centerline. We went through probably three
different scenarios for that. The first one they said they wanted 60 feet from the
centerline to allow for a left turn lane. Then it was they wanted the 60 feet to include
this drainage the Five Mile Creek natural creek. Then the last correspondence we had
from them it's going to be the five lane and they only need 48 feet from the centerline.
That was their latest communication.
Rountree: As well as on Locust Grove.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 18
Stiles: Yes.
Rountree: Thank you.
Corrie: any other questions of staff?
Rountree: Not at this time.
Corrie: Thank you Shari. This is a pubic hearing. Is there anyone who would like to
testify on this annexation and zoning request?
Butler: Good evening Council members, JoAnn Butler, 607 N. 8t" Street representing
the applicant, Ionic Enterprises. With me here tonight I'm going to be speaking about
this project especially the annexation and rezoning, and I've handed out a little synopsis
of your criteria on the annexation and rezoning and will try to just summarize that a little
bit and try not to do it too much in verbatim. With me here tonight is Moe Therian, an
appraiser who has published the Ada County Area Apartment Study and is going to
speak to the Council briefly after my presentation on the state of apartments in Meridian
and in Ada County. Mark Sanders is here, an architect and he is not going to address
the Council directly unless you have specific questions because we are not focusing
specifically on the site plan, although I will make reference to it, but he is here in case
you have specific questions. Gary Lee, an engineer, whose firm produced a traffic
study for us is also here tonight but won't be addressing the Council directly unless you
have specific questions about traffic and transportation. Also with me tonight is Paul
Stamas, Bryce Peterson, and Lisa Gould representing the applicant and they although
they won't address you directly are here to answer any questions. As Ms. Stiles pointed
out P & Z has made its recommendation in connection with annexation and zoning, and
that's all we're here to do tonight. That CU application was tabled and we will ultimately
be back before the Commission we hope. So we're briefly going to go over these
criteria with you on annexation and zoning and of course we are respectfully asking that
you approve that annexation and zoning because we think we do meet all those criteria.
As Shari pointed out, the property owned Ionic Enterprises is zoned in Ada County as
Rural Transitional, and Ada County Code provides that's more or less a holding zone
that when it winds up being located in your area of impact, your urban services planning
area, it's appropriate to annex that property and zone it so that when urban services can
be provided and urban densities can be achieved. Meridian in essence made the
decision to annex this property and have it developed as a planned development. When
it adopted its Comprehensive Plan when you place this area as part of your area of
impact and when you place this property as part of your urban services planning area,
and so this annexation request honors the Meridian area of impact boundaries as
designated on the boundary map. Looking at the annexation request, we do meet the
following four tests of the city. One, you have received a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission on annexation and zoning. You have followed your
notice provisions as provided by your code. The owner of the property has requested
annexation of you in writing and as I mentioned the property is presently located in the
Meridian urban services planning area. It's contiguous to the city. Thus it is appropriate
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 19
for annexation at this time. With regard to zoning, the purpose of the R-40 zoning
district that we requested and Ms. Stiles is exactly right the overall density of this project
on 6'/2 acres is 15.6 units per acre so we don't quite make the 15. The purpose of the
R-40 district as described in your ordinance is to permit high density residential uses at
a density not exceeding 40 dwelling units per acre and connection to municipal water
and sewer systems as required. Services are available at site. The first criteria and the
longest so bear with me is will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance
with your Comprehensive Plan? And yes it is. It does achieve your Comprehensive
Plan goals. You encourage through your Comprehensive Plan future population growth
within the area of impact where municipal services and utilities are both available and
planned for. Your policy is to improved unimproved land in this area to quote from your
Comprehensive Plan, maximize public investments, curtail urban sprawl and protect
existing agricultural lands. You require that no new residential development be
approved outside of that urban services planning area. You acknowledge in your
Comprehensive Plan the challenge of providing services to your citizens requiring the
expansion of both your economic base, creating new jobs and with that creating new
residential opportunities. Your Comprehensive Plan states that housing is a dominant
physical feature in Meridian and as the city grows, that housing demand is going to
increase. The only way for you to develop the ideal community that you propose in
your plan is to maintain and upgrade the quality of existing and new dwelling units at the
same time providing that strong economic and commercial base. The location of this
project does support your Comprehensive Plan goals to encourage a wide diversity of
housing types and choices between ownership and rental units for all income groups in
a variety of locations throughout the city. It's your goal and of course I've cited these
within the document that I've given you so that you have a good reference to your Comp
Plan. It's your goal to provide a sufficient choice of adequate housing in the community
to meet the needs of all individuals whatever their socioeconomic background, their age
and their ability or disability. As I said Mr. Therian will be up here in just a few minutes
to talk about the fact that at the present time there is a shortage of housing opportunities
in Meridian in the apartment area. The city promotes the development of housing for all
income groups and hopes that they are close to employment and shopping centers. I
want to back up just for a minute. Although I really appreciate what Ms. Stiles has said
to the Council here. The issue of who will rent apartments and what their income levels
will be or are is not appropriate in considering whether or not to zone this property, but I
do want to address it for the Council. I know it's a separate issue, but I certainly heard it
at the Planning and Zoning Commission. So I want to address how this project may be
financed. The developer of the project, they try to work with the Idaho Housing and
Finance Association to get bond financing. They may not. These may be straight
forward apartment complexes with a stucco interior with an extensive fitness center,
with a pool, with a half basketball court, with tot lots and equipment and a fitness center.
It will have those elements anyway, but if Idaho Housing Finance Association and this
developer work to finance this through bond financing, all that means is that this
developer will be able to get a slightly lower interest rate loan meaning that the debt
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 20
service on that loan would be slightly lower and in return for that, they would have to
provide a minimum of 20% of the units would have to be rented to people who are at
60% of the median income in the area. That's 20 units would have to be rented to
people with median income — 60% of the median income. Those people are our kids.
Those people that are just starting out that may have one child, maybe have two kids
and they're just getting on their feet. Those are you and I unfortunately probably more
than 20 years ago now for me, but these are the people that we are trying to provide for
in Meridian. So with that the applicant has presented to you a unified integrated
development near major access thoroughfares as promoted by your Comprehensive
Plan. It fosters your policy for compatible land use and design including an extensive
landscape treatment for the site to buffer surrounding uses. You Comprehensive Plan
does call for the timely provision of adequate infrastructure including roads, sewer,
water and drainage to allow this development, and the applicant will be extending
services through this area and is keen to continue working both with you and Ada
County Highway District and others to provide the infrastructure. In essence what this
project helps the city do by extending services is help you continue providing services
ever further out into your area of impact. This city has already made the determination
by defining what its area of impact is going to be. You've already said that you are
going to annex into that area and provide services into that area within a reasonable
time. You won't get to the rest of that area of impact unless you start where this project
is which is right next to the city where services are available so this helps the extension
of services. The next criteria is whether the area is including in the zoning amendment
— whether the area included in the zoning amendment is intended to be rezoned in the
future and I think I've answered that by saying yes this is intended to be rezoned by the
virtue of the fact that it's in the area of impact. The project is with the next criteria
intended to be developed in accordance with the criteria proposed or set out in your
ordinance and what I've done for you is just on a little table showing the standards that
your ordinance requires and how the project would be built. With regard to you're going
to see under the building, just to be clear on this, I've indicated how many bedrooms
would be planned for the unit and you'll see a second column on proposed revisions.
Something that we will bring up with the Planning and Zoning Commission when we
hopefully get there is that we will probably if the Commission will let us redesign a little
bit to allow for fewer one bedrooms and more two bedrooms and that's what that
particular column is about. With regard to your criteria asking about whether or not
there's been a change in the area that dictate the area should be rezoned. Well there
has been a change and it's exemplified by the provisions of your Comprehensive Plan
by defining this area as an area into which you are going to annex and defining it as a
planned unit development area makes it appropriate for the city to rezone it into this
area. The next criteria as stated in your plan, higher density residential development
must be provided to meet the growing demands of the community. This project helps
maintain the character in the general vicinity and it won't change the essential character
of the area. You can ask me how much you want to get into overall site planning issue,
but it does offer you the opportunity to provide a unified development of apartments in
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 21
what we call a park like setting with extensive landscaping which sets an example for
attractive, heavily landscaped, well signed, an innovative project for Meridian close to
jobs and urban services. This is essence can help create an example for Meridian. I'm
all too aware of the fact that Meridian like many communities in what was once rural
Idaho has seen farm home housing section 8 housing, housing that is not necessarily
given you the best example or others the best example to work off of, and that's exactly
what we're trying to stop and trying to create a better example for Meridian. This use is
not hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhoods. This residential use
again is next to jobs and services. We've had many discussions with residents in the
are and with staff trying to find out what people want to see in terms of buffering
between this residential area and the other residential areas. We're fully confident that
the Planning and Zoning Commission is likely to give us several conditions of approval
regarding increased setbacks. Some neighbors have asked us for example for a
masonry wall along the southern boundary. That's certainly something that the
developer is willing to do and willing to work out the details of that with the Planning and
Zoning Commission. You work hard to ensure compatibility in Meridian and that's why
in an instance like this you require us to go through that conditional use process or the
public hearing process. I want to just again pick up on the fact because we heard it at
the Planning and Zoning Commission. You are likely to hear that multifamily housing is
incompatible with single family residential right next door. Commentators and our
courts have made it really clear that different types of housing cannot be viewed as
incompatible with other housing. Our legislature in this past couple of years has made it
really clear that a home is a home is a home. Whether it be manufactured home,
mobile homes, or multifamily home, we can't discriminate based on the type of housing
it is. There can't be any real serious statement that implies that housing is incompatible
with other housing, but it is true that this city has a right to consider design issues and to
make sure that this project is conditioned in a way that ensures that compatibility and
we fully expect to do that with the Planning and Zoning Commission and with you. Your
next criteria and if the city had fewer criteria, it would take a little less time, but you do
require that essential public facilities and services are available and we will continue to
work with you and the Ada County Highway District to ensure that this provision of
services coordinated. Cost of services in connection with the project will be paid
substantially by the developer. You've received written testimony and verbal testimony
from agencies and your departments including the Meridian School District that were
asked to comment on the project and there have been no objections. So this project
meets the next criteria. It won't create excessive additional requirements at public cost
for public facilities and it won't be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
This really is a natural progression of the development of your area of impact, which
you've identified for development. It's your intent to provide services and to help you
provide those services. This project does not involve uses, activities or any other
process or operation that will be detrimental to people in the vicinity, and we know that a
number of conditions of approval will be attached to the project so that there's no
possible detriment from say lighting in the area. With regard to traffic, you are likely to
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 22
hear tonight from people making presentations to the Council because we heard it at
the Commission, that rezoning for apartments will create traffic chaos. For many even
one more car is chaos, but there is no factual evidence to indicate that this project will
be detrimental from a traffic standpoint. The city's professional traffic engineer, ACRD,
has determined that this project will not unduly burden the road system, and they
provided you that information. In addition, although it's not required by Ada County
Highway District, we have hired a traffic engineer to do a traffic study for our own
comfort and for further comfort from the city. That study will be presented to the P & Z
Commission when get there. That study demonstrates that the level of service at the
intersection of Franklin and Locust Grove at the most heavily traveled time of day and
the p.m. peak hour is presently level of service C. The goal level that Ada County
Highway District and the Ada Planning Association strive for. What this study shows is
that the level of service will remain at C after the development of the project. Not only
does it show that, it will remain at level of service C even with the anticipated growth in
this area, so this project is not going to impair the level of service that exists now and
neither will much of the other — the rest of the development that's presently anticipated.
With regard to road designs, Ada County Highway District is working and is continuing
to work I know with you, your Chairman Mr. MacCoy at the P & Z talked long about this
with us and the various committee meetings that he's working on and I know there have
been numerous presentations to Meridian with alternative road designs for this area
trying to push forward capitol improvement plan for Ada County. With regard to
vehicular approaches to the property, there are two intended accesses, one on Franklin
one on Locust Grove. Site distances have been determined to be adequate from both
locations by the traffic engineers. So there won't be any undue interference with
existing or future traffic patterns. This will not result in the loss or damage of a natural
scenic feature, and finally whether or not — the project is in the best interest of the City
of Meridian. It's designed to be compatible with and further the goals of your
Comprehensive Plan and those goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan are there to promote the public health, safety and welfare and that's why you
adopted it. You've identified what the city considers to be in the best interest of
Meridian and this request for annexation supports those goals and objectives and
makes it in the best interest of the public. It's an excellent example of this private
property owner using the property in a manner that takes into account all of your goals
and objectives. So we believe with this that we meet all of your criteria for both
annexation and zoning. We are respectfully asking you to deliberate tonight and to
approve our request so that we can go back to Planning and Zoning Commission and
review more thoroughly the conditional use permit so with that I'll stand for questions
and then turn the podium over the Mr. Therian.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Rountree: Ms. Butler, could you explain to me the ownership of the property?
Butler: Ionic Enterprises, who owns it I'm sorry?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 23
Rountree: Yes, who owns it.
Butler: Our client the applicant, Ionic Enterprises.
Rountree: Shari indicated that it was the Monty McClure property. Is there an
economic interest there?
Butler: It no longer. It was closed at the end of June.
Rountree: Okay.
Corrie: Further questions?
Butler: Thank you.
Therian: Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Moe Therian. I'm a real estate appraiser.
My office is in Boise, and I've been asked by Ms. Butler to talk about the demand for
apartments in Meridian and its area of impact and I'll restrict my testimony just to the
demand segment rather than identify which particular sites in your community are best
suited for apartments. I would leave that up to you. As some background for myself, as
a real estate appraiser I've been practicing appraisal for over 20 years in Boise and Ada
County. My primary areas of expertise are Ada and Canyon Counties. My specialty is
apartment appraisal. I have appraised over 200 apartment complexes in the last ten
years. I also complete numerous demand studies for different clients and government
agencies as well as private developers and lending institutions regarding demand for
apartments in different cities primarily in southern Idaho. Finally we've been surveying
through a subsidiary company I have called Ada Real Estate Surveys the entire Ada
County apartment market, every complex over 16 units each quarter for the last 13
years, so that background just to give you an idea, I feel like I have a position to speak
on apartment demand in Ada County and in particular Meridian and its area of impact.
We found through all the studies and all the appraisals that I do that for strong growth
communities, there is a demand for apartments and through a series of studies that
we've completed over the years, that demand typically is 15 to 20% of the total housing
stock for multifamily residential rentals. In reviewing Meridian's pace of construction for
multifamily, it's obvious that you've been lagging significantly in the construction of new
multifamily during the past five to six years at least. That has created a fairly substantial
demand for additional multifamily in Meridian. Ada County overall has a demand for
about six to eight hundred units a year in the 1990's. Meridian with its growth both in
population and employment probably has anywhere from 20-40% of that depending on
the year that the growth study is undertaken, so that would indicate that 200 units at
minimum per year in Meridian and its area of impact is needed, and it could approach
300. That situation will actually become even more acute, meaning vacancies will
decline and the demand for multifamily will increase with all the growth that's going to
happen in the next two years in the Meridian area. We look at the St. Luke's medical
campus, Jabil, Family Center shopping center and all the other employers and
population, there is a demand for more apartments. Now that being said I always like to
step back and say well, how is the market? Is it full? And so in our last survey in the
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 24
Meridian area counting the apartment complexes, vacancy was less than four percent.
That is on a declining trend, meaning it's going to go below four percent near term, and
if we look at the absorption of new apartments, the last real significant project in
Meridian City was Aspen Hills in 1996. It absorbed in 90 days, 120 units. The closest
project absorbing right now in the Meridian area is really actually in the Boise area. It's
the Renaissance Apartments near Hewlett Packard. It's 288 units, it's a huge project.
The last two months they've absorbed almost 80 units leased up. The demand is good.
Now this being said three years ago, I could have came up here and said we've got
enough apartments in Ada County because we built a lot of them in the early 90's, but
that situation is reversed. New construction starts are way down, and the demand for
apartments is continuing. So that's really all I had to say. If you have any questions, I
can answer that.
Rountree: Two things, and I don't speak real estate and apartments, but you talk about
these complexes absorbing in 90 days. Does that mean they're being occupied at a
certain percent?
Therian: Yes, correct. They fill up to about 95% occupancy, so the 120 units, they
leased 110 units in 90 days and Renaissance leased 80 units in the two months.
Rountree: And you mentioned a four percent vacancy, give me a point of reference. Is
that good, is that what the market strives for? Is that on the other side of good?
Therian: That is on the strong side of good indicating there is a demand for more
apartments. The balance market is five to six to seven percent. A soft market would be
ten to twelve percent vacancy. With you at four and on a declining trend, it suggests
that the growth in Meridian both population and employment, you need new apartments.
This probably won't be the only project that you hear and I'll bet in the next six months
there's three or four more coming in for the same thing, but these developers are
recognizing a need, and trying to meet that need within the next year.
Rountree: Thank you.
Corrie: I think this is going to be a long one, so I would like to ask if you would just limit
your comments to three minutes and no more than five. If it gets to five minutes, I'll tell
you and we'll kind of cut you down here. Anybody else would like to testify in favor of
this zoning?
Fish: My name is Lance Fish, and my address is 4232 Adam Street, Boise. I'm here in
favor of this. I happen to reside in a project which Mr. Peterson was involved in which is
a single family residential neighborhood and has apartments. They've worked out very
well for us. It's called Lakewood in Boise, and we even share some services. Those of
us in single family we've used their facilities, their pools, recreation facilities so I think
that it has not been a detriment. If anything it's helped maintain the value of our
properties. So that's all I'll say. I won't reiterate anything anybody else has said here.
Corrie: Any questions? Thank you. Anyone else like to testify in favor? Those
opposed?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 25
Witherell: My name is Jim Witherell, 215 S. Locust Grove, Meridian. I'd like to briefly
address institutional memory. Those of you who have been on the Council for a long
time know that we've been coming in here to testify for a long time and I want Bob and
Charlie to know this is the first developer I almost like.
Rountree: That will be a first Jim. Thank you.
Witherell: I even accepted a cookie. It is a brilliantly designed complex. There's no
denying that. It will increase traffic, yes. It's 200 cars. They're all going to leave and
come back the same time of day when I'm trying to leave. The landscaping is superb.
But it's entirely too dense and that's why Planning and Zoning turned it down. Forget
how much it's going to bring sewers around the corner. A dog kennel can do that. Now
the critical part to me is that Bryce said when his daughter and son-in-law bought this if
this wasn't approved, they're going to apply for something else, and I would rather wait
and see what the something else is. But I would like to point out too three things that
come up from ancient history which I assume are still there. This was at one time going
to be (inaudible) Aspen Grove, high density R-15. In those Findings of Fact it came out
that — well in the testimony and in the documentation it came out the Five Mile Creek
was listed as a federal wetland. I don't know where the documents went, but they're
going to be some place in your files. The owners might not want to bury through them,
but I think the applicant should look into this. Five Mile Creek is also part of the Luck
Peak Flood Evacuation Plan for the Corps. Of Engineers and it maybe prohibitions
because that's suppose to be under water if the worst went wrong. That was also
presented. Comprehensive Plan they left out one point of that is that is Shari very
specifically said that the Comprehensive Plan required that next to R-1 houses, one
house per acre, it had to go with transition. It had to go to no more than R-3, then from
R-3 to R-6 and so on. Or I think there's probably a little pull there for an extensive
transition which is not just a masonry fence. Let me explain the masonry fence. In one
of our meetings it was asked — my neighbor, Mr. Roberson what he would like. Well the
first thing that came to mind was a masonry fence. That's what we have been fighting
for with the industrial park behind us. Well yes the masonry fence is fine if it's got 50
feet of landscaping in front of it. But it keeps being thrown back at him now that all you
asked for was a masonry fence. That's all we plan to give you and there's got to be
something more than that. The only time you can get away with the thing, you didn't
ask for it. (Inaudible) and that's basically all I've got to say. I think the rest of the
neighbors will probably address the other issues. Oh, I do have two questions on that
traffic count. How many days was it I was it out there. One day it was counters and
one day was little clickers which is not a random sample make two days out of 365 and I
didn't see any school buses in it. It's in the middle of the summer. Is it an accurate
sample for year round and it doesn't really matter anyway because ACHD specifically
said in Planning and Zoning, the rain will not follow the plow. They have no
improvements planned for either of those roads. Yes, they're talking about five lanes,
but they're not applying the real estate for it. It's way down the road, so whatever you
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 26
approve or don't approve what you see now is what you're going to get with more
buildings on it. Thank you.
Rountree: Jim, you indicated there was some discussion about a buffer and —
Witherell: It only got as far as the fence.
Rountree: A fence was mentioned and then you talked about some dimensions —
Witherell: All that was mentioned was the fence on the property line.
Rountree: In your mind what would be a reasonable buffer?
Witherell: A masonry fence probably will be needed, because of all the motor noise.
Now I've got a two story house so it's going to get to me anyway. But for the
Roberson's who are the closest to it, there should be some sort of masonry fence. My
ideal, I don't like tall masonry fences. I would go for a four foot masonry fence with a
berm. That will also cut down with landscaping of some sort on Roberson's side of the
fence. Now on both sides of the fence, but on that side especially so they have
something more than the Berlin Wall to look at. Now another issue on the landscaping
is between this development and the industrial park, they're extending that Berlin Wall
along the back so it's going to be fenced on two sides. Masonry is nice, it keeps down
the sound. But we're going to start looking like Ogden, Utah.
Rountree: We don't want that.
Witherell: Or even worse, what's the example of somebody on Council hates, Phoenix?
Some town in Arizona.
Corrie: Thank you Jim. Anyone else opposed?
Smith: My name is Robert R. Smith. I live at 335 S. Locust Grove (End of Tape) and
Locust Grove Road is only two lane old country road right now for access, and we were
informed that this facility will have a major access on Locust Grove Road to get off of
the premises for this unit. There is some discrepancy because the Ada County
Assessor says that that's 5.527 acres rather than 6'/z acres. So there density is way
over what the Ada County Assessor says that the property is. The Planning and Zoning
emphatically denied this, and we went through quite a process to get this denied. I
really highly oppose this because I have nightmares of another Hope Arms and a
James Court in my front yard. Days of retirement turn into horror when I look at what's
going to happen on that corner. I think that property would be much more adequate as
a professional center or something of that nature to where there wouldn't be that kind of
traffic that's going to try and flow at a major intersection in the near future. According to
Ada County Highway District, I attended a meeting of Locust Grove at Linder
Elementary on May 27th which you have probably in your folder all this information, but
also have a letter that was sent to me about Ada County Highway District by a Dale V.
(inaudible) I guess who is a design engineer and he says there is no plans for a long
range improvement for the year 2000 to 2020 of Locust Grove Road and it will be last
piece of Locust Grove that will ever be enlarged because of the cost of putting the
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 27
overpass over the freeway and I discussed this at length with him because there was
some emphatic information about the impact fees that would go for this project and
make this road widened. He informed me that just the impact fees alone will only make
the width of the improvement on the property that these developers have. It doesn't
have anything more to do with the size of the road. We as taxpayers have to put up that
money. The improvements right now are for Locust Grove from Fairview to Ustick first,
and they said that they would take those to Chinden and then Franklin and Overland
would be the next two roads widened before that piece of Locust Grove so we're looking
at probably a long term of piece of road that's going to be probably densely populated
because that 80 acres that's just south of our property is going to develop to homes and
I have a real fear that Meridian really doesn't need this kind of housing. We can put in a
lot more beautiful subdivision than we can this kind of thing. Three story units really
(inaudible) up the landscape in my own estimation. But here's the letter that was sent to
me. There is more testimony and I'll sit down now at this time, but if you have any
questions.
Corrie: Questions of Bob?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
Corrie: Thank you, Bob. Anyone else?
Plant: My name is Morgan Plant. I live at 300 S. Locust Grove. I think Mr. Smith has
quite adequately discussed the traffic issue there, but I would invite each of you to go
out and see what the traffic is right now for an extended period of time to see what
problems we have. There's not that much problem turning back to the east. But to turn
back to the west towards the good old City of Meridian is virtually impossible most any
time of the day, and I don't know or really care what their designation zone C traffic is.
We can't get out of that intersection right now. I'd also like to point out that this is the
wrong project in the wrong place. We do not need three story apartment buildings next
to a commercial development, Stonebridge, and we also know that Franklin Road is
going to be widened down the road in the future for future commercial developments.
This project simply does not fit. We have five acres just south of that and we look
forward to turning that over some day to a respectable development preferably
commercial office buildings, commercial manufacturing, light manufacturing, and
probably my last comment is whatever you people do here tonight in approving or
disapproving this zone change, the people right across to the east on Locust Grove
Road is going to be in here if you approve this project, they're going to be in here
because they have about 18 acres in there that they're just waiting to see what you
people do. This is the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time. Any
questions? Thank you.
Roberson: My name is Archie Roberson, I live at 185 S. Locust Grove Road adjacent to
this proposed development. I would like to refer to the article in July 4t" Statesman. It's
a prime example of what we are facing regarding the growth in this area. It talks about
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 28
funds for schools, roads, services, etc. Because of the high density developments in
Ada and Canyon Counties. The project we are discussing here is exactly the kind of
development that's causing these problems. Of course the obvious solution to the
problem according to the developers is the taxpayer to raise taxes again. As a tax
paying property owner, I think another solution is to encourage projects that broaden the
tax base rather than undermine it. The inhabitance of this complex would put more load
on an overloaded system and they do nothing to support that system. I have a question
about the traffic survey that was mentioned here before. That survey was done just
prior to the long weekend and I submit that it may not be valid due to the fact that school
is not in session. There's 180 buses going in and out of that bus barn when school is in
session. There's 180 bus drivers that have got to get to those buses and there's untold
numbers of teachers and students that would be using Franklin Road when school is
operating. The other thing I thought maybe Shari mentioned Five Mile Creek there
going through there that's involved in this property. I have a letter and I believe Shari
has one, maybe you have it too from the Idaho Department of Water Resources and
that Five Mile Creek is a flood way. Now part of this property is in a flood plain. The
man that gave this to me is Gene Gibson of the Department of Water Resources, and
he tells me this letter says that the applicant has to get a permit from them and also
from the Corps. Of Engineers to build next to this creek and the example he gave me
this morning was when Franklin Road is widened that creek has to be moved, and it will
have to be moved south and so it looks like there may not be as many acres there to
build on when that happens as we've been told here because according to him that
stream will prevail. It has to remain there. That's all I have.
Corrie: Thank you Archie.
McMillan: I'm Reece McMillan, 870 S. Locust Grove. My main concern right now is
they didn't want to bring up the traffic issue, but we're looking down the road at Jabil
Corporation is building a manufacturing plant there. They will have up to 400
employees right off the bat. They are putting a road from their manufacturing plant on
to Locust Grove just past my driveway, which could mean up to 400 more cars a day
could go up and down that road. They're going to put in rumor has it 240 houses on
that 80 acres sitting right just across the road from that. There's another additional
bunch of cars on that road. And if they put their driveway coming out on Locust Grove,
all this traffic coming together, there's going to be one heck of a big wreck down there,
and I would suggest that Mayor Corrie go back to Washington D.C. and try to get the
money to put that freeway here. I suggest you table this thing until he gets his money.
That's all I got to say.
Corrie: Thank you. I don't know how successful I'm going to be on that one.
Hanson: Ted Hanson, 1882 Bentley Avenue, Meridian. Mr. Mayor and City
Councilman, in regards to several of these issues that have been spoken about what
I'm curious about is they have compared these apartments to other projects they have
built, but we haven't talked about square footage. Now there was a comment earlier
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 29
that they had increased them from one bedroom to two bedroom apartments. As far as
the discussion with the Corps of Engineers, I talked to them quite a while ago about this,
and they have not been contacted in regards to this particular project and the traffic
pattern for this Jabil is not 400 cars. Their project is, it was in the newspaper, was 1500
employees up to 2000 employees, so I presume we're talking about several shifts
involved there. But what I can't understand is in the Planning and Zoning the testimony
there was that Jabil does not have a right of way to take their road down to Stratford in
front of the State Police Headquarters. So this is going to be really something. I mean
they brought I presume it's a sewer line out to S. Locust Grove at the present time, but
right-of-way to that property of Jabil is a very narrow deal. It will be a two lane deal.
They propose to have two soccer fields down there so that will impact that on the
weekends as far as traffic getting in and out of there. It just doesn't look compatible for
our area to continue to increase our traffic and whereas we all have acre properties in
there. This completely changes the context of the whole thing. Thank you.
Presley: I'm Gene Presley from 255 S. Locust Grove Road. I've resided in this are for
about 30 years, and the road is very small and I don't think we need this type of — this
latitude of a development there in my opinion. Right now if you take a walk, you have to
take a walk between 8:00 and 10:00 or 5:00 and 7:00. 1 mean you don't take a walk
then is what I'm trying to say, and that's about it. Everything I think has been covered
except I'd like to say quote a phrase that Mr. Bentley made a while ago with a stop sign
and a small road. This is an accident looking for a place to happen. Thank you.
Roberson: My name is Ernie Roberson and I live at 185 S. Locust Grove Road. Our
property is right next to the property that Mr. Peterson wants to develop. As you know
Planning and Zoning turned this project down, but Planning and Zoning said this project
violates the city's Comprehensive Plan which states Meridian will continue to develop
into the ideal community only by maintaining and upgrading the quality of existing and
new dwelling units. So I'm not sure how this project speaks to that. Under section 1. 19,
high density development where possible should be located near open space corridors
or other permanent major open space and park facilities and near major access
thoroughfares. As far as we can see this project does none of those things. This is a
light industrial, there is light industrial to the west, commercial on the north, but to the
south and east it is all single family residential on one to five acres. JoAnn Butler may
say it's compatible, but we don't feel it's compatible because we are right next to it and
it's difficult to talk about the zoning and not talk about the project that they're putting, the
building that they're putting on there when we know that we're going to be faced with 2
'/z or three story apartment houses right next to our property. It's not real pleasant to
think about. Mr. Peterson said that it's not low income housing, but JoAnn Butler said at
the last meeting and I quote, "The Idaho Housing and Finance Association does provide
tax credits and bonding availability whereby the state sells bonds and can provide
developers with lower interest rate loans, whereby they can charge lesser rents to pay
off those loans thus helping people in the rents and making it easier for people to afford
housing." That's the end of her quote. Sounds kind of like low income to me. The
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 30
other thing Mr. Peterson says that people with moderate incomes will need comfortable
housing in this neighborhood and he is planning to provide it. Why does he think we
need that in this neighborhood? Where does he think all those people will be
employed? Are they all going to work for Jabil? I don't think that Mr. Peterson is doing
Meridian any favor with this project. I have just a couple of other comments, kind of
long ones. I talked to Jim Carberry today at the School District, and he said that the
School District did not comment on this project. They made no "yes we approve the
project, or no we do not." He says their main concern is the traffic congestion there
where their buses come out. That is a big problem when you got 180 buses. I think
maybe in your folders, you probably have heard all this if you read all the stuff that's in
the minutes from Planning and Zoning, but I just wanted to also clarify something that
Mr. Peterson thought our petition where we gathered over 200 signatures, he said that
was kind of a joke to him. We should all get a laugh out of that, because he indicated
that those signatures were not from people who live within 300 feet of this project. But
you know we did not ever imply that they were people who lived within 300 feet of this
low income project. Signatures were obtained from people who are impacted by the
traffic on Franklin and Locust Grove roads, and you know out of all those people we
probably had four that turned us down for one reason or the other because they knew
someone, but everyone else was absolutely against it, and I want to comment on what
Mr. Smith said. I did call the County Assessor's office today, and I have copies here of
the descriptions of the property that either Mr. McClure, I guess Monty McClure does
not own it now, so Mr. Peterson does, but it's definite that this land has two parcels of
land and it has a total of 5.52 acres, not the 6.15 that Mr. Peterson has quoted. Also
Mr. Peterson said the management will be done by the Idaho Housing Finance and
Services Association. I don't know if he's got the name wrong, but if he means the
Idaho Housing and Finance Association, if so they do not manage property because I
also talked to them today. I think in talking about the traffic as you know the traffic on
Franklin Road right now is awful and it's frightful and of course it will increase after Jabil
is built and they also are going to have soccer fields down there. You have Harbor
Freight is on Nola which feeds into Franklin and occasionally traffic from 1-84 gets
diverted to Franklin. The fire department will soon be located on Franklin Road and
then you add 96 plus cars from this project and you have a real nightmare. I guess —
one other thing I want to say here. I thought this — I'm going to quote Keith Peterson,
planning and zoning, I just thought this kind of told the whole story. He said, you can
see all of Franklin developing and changing and the rural lifestyle in that area is
changing forever, but these people have lived there for 30 years and if we are going to
go in and be approving projects that are different zonings and things, then we should be
doing what our Comprehensive Plan says and our zoning ordinances say and provide
adequate development. That's the end of his quote. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I
think that kind of tells the story.
Corrie: Any questions from Council? Anyone else issue testimony against the zoning?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 31
Smith: I'm Jeri Smith at 335 S. Locust Grove, Meridian, I would like to comment on the
fact which Mrs. Roberson touched on, but with the new fire station and the emergency
ambulances that either come off the interstate and I have met them several times on
Franklin Road and you get in the area of Locust Grove you'll be in the ditch to try to pull
off the road, and the traffic is backed up, if you want to turn on Locust Grove Road and
go south and you're going west there is no place that anyone can get off of that road
especially when you meet — when you're putting fire and the ambulance there, there's
no place to go and if this is going to go on for a long time and it's going to increase that
much in traffic. I don't think that this is feasible at this time. Thank you.
Corrie: Is there anyone else?
Butler: Thank you Mayor Corrie, members of the Council, JoAnn Butler again 607 N. 8th
Street. This decision like maybe all decisions for the Council is going to be hard
because we're hearing from people that have lived in the area for 30 years, 20 years,
for a long period of time. They've been Ada County residents from a time at which
Meridian was very, very small and the concept of Meridian being the size that it is today
or the concept that your area of impact would be the size that it is today was beyond
probably anybody's comprehension. But back in '92 and '93 when you developed your
Comprehensive Plan and I sat in on many of those meetings for the city, you went
through a long period of time and a lot of public hearings where you tried to create that
vision for the city. That city is clearly a lot different than it was 30 years ago and so
making these decisions are not easy, but having been involved in the Comprehensive
Plan, which I encourage all the present residents and the Ada County residents many of
whom spoke to you tonight to get involved in that process as I believe the Council and
the city will be involved in it in the not too distant future. So it's a difficult decision, but
it's not an unexpected decision because these issues came up in the last ten years as
you put together your Comprehensive Plan as you negotiated your area of impact and it
just indicates just as we planned for that things are changing and we need to
accommodate that. I'm going to address a couple of the issues and forgive me if there
are a little disjointed here. I don't want to get too involved in the site planning issues. I
know that that would have to come before the P & Z, but of course with regard to
buffers, this will be brought up with the P & Z. This is not just an issue of a masonry
fence. Although I'm not presenting it to you here tonight, we have done some
renderings that we would hope to present to the P & Z which shows more of the
buffering that people have mentioned to us with the hopes that P & Z and the neighbors
will work with us to provide what they consider to be adequate buffering. This is not a
Hope Arms or a James Court. I know that your commission is going to be looking at
how this is constructed in great detail. That's all I really can say about that, except to
say this project is the right project and is in the right place. It's near commercial, it's
near job centers and a major thoroughfare. Somebody read to you the very policies in
your manual that provide this to be the right place at the right time. The fact is that this
city has been actively pursuing a broader tax base. You've brought in commercial,
you've brought in industrial because ten years ago, five years ago you saw that you
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 32
were doing mostly housing and very little of the expansion of the tax base. But you
can't increase the tax base in the city without also providing housing for your residents
unless you want to produce sprawl in the area. This project allows the city to trap trips
in the immediate vicinity helping you to reduce car trips, because you are going to have
major employment centers in the area. Likewise somebody provided the goal that talks
about being near open space. This project provides over 40% open space. What
you're getting with a project like this is a provision of private parks, parks that can serve
these people without having the expenditures of public funds. With regard to roads and
traffic, Larry Sale from Ada County Highway District, made a great presentation or a
long presentation at the P & Z trying to explain how roads were funded in Ada County
and the use of impact fees. He did this for the commissioners explaining that because
of our limited ways to produce funds for municipalities, we're very much reliant upon
impact fees and without the development the impact fees are not produced to improve
the roads in the area, and remember as I said before this project will keep the traffic at
level of service C. The counts that were taken for the traffic study were not taken just
before the long weekend, but on a Tuesday and a Wednesday of the week and we hope
that you give appropriate to your traffic engineers at ACHD and the professional traffic
engineers that have provided you with facts to indicate that this will not produce lower
than level of service C on the roads. With regard to something other than residential
zoning, the traffic study that we will present to the P & Z which is a conditional use issue
indicates that uses other than residential will actually produce more traffic in this area
than the residential. Just so that the Council is aware, the management of the project
will be done by Neighborhood Housing Services. Neighborhood Housing Services is
the premier not for profit corporation in this state that has managed many projects like
this. They have won awards throughout the state and federal awards for their
management abilities. There have been several articles that some of you may have
seen in the Statesman at time, so with that I would just like to say we understand that
the Council has in essence a difficult decision in terms of acknowledging the fact that
the city has changed, but that you planned for it, and this project meets or fits with those
plans and we hope that we can prove to you through the conditional use project that a
project that will be developed that the city can be proud of. If there are no questions?
Bentley: JoAnn, there's been evidently some discrepancy in the amount of acreage
available.
Butler: I can only tell you that it's 6.15 acres according to the survey that was done. Am
I correct?
Bentley: And also have you contacted Bureau Rec. concerning the flood plain and the
wetlands issue?
Butler: The Army Corps of Engineers? I cannot speak to all the conversations that
have been had, but I know that it will be a condition of approval of the conditional use
that all requirements of state and federal agencies will have to be met and so if it hasn't
been done, and it's just that I don't know that, it certainly will be done.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 33
Bentley: Okay, thank you.
Corrie: JoAnn, there's an Ada County Highway District report to us April the 71h it said
that this development is estimated to generate 634 additional vehicle trips per day. Do
have that report as well?
Butler: I do. I don't have it in my hands.
Corrie: Okay, I just wanted to know if you had seen that. Any questions? Council, any
questions at this point?
Anderson: We heard a lot of testimony about the state of the roads and the traffic and
we understand that there was a traffic survey done by a consulting firm. Could we
maybe hear a summary result of that survey?
Lee: Good evening, my name is Gary Lee with JUB Engineers 250 S. Beechwood in
Boise. As stated by JoAnn Butler, the developer of this project Cobblestone Village had
requested JUB to conduct a traffic study. As most of you probably know I'm not a traffic
engineer. This study was prepared by one of my colleagues, Jerald Flats (sic) who is a
professional traffic engineer. Unfortunately he unable to attend this evening due to prior
commitments, but I will attempt to give you a summary of what his report said. The site
was evaluated for the amount of traffic on Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. The
counters were set out between June 29th and July 1St of this year. The average daily
count on Franklin was 11,060 vehicles per day and the average daily traffic on Locust
Grove was 1,075 vehicles per day. These numbers were compared to data that was
provided to Mr. Flats from Ada Planning Association, and they were within 2 or 300
vehicles per day of being the same amount on Franklin Road, so Mr. Flats felt the data
that he collected in that short period of time was fairly representative of the actual
counts. Through specific highway manual procedures, the level of service is
determined and the amount of traffic movements calculated for that intersection of
Locust Grove and Franklin Road. The existing morning peak hour on Locust Grove
resulted today with a level of service B and showed an average wait time of about nine
seconds per vehicle. The p.m. traffic which was higher use was identified as level
service C with an average wait time of about ten and a half seconds. The future level of
service, now the amount of traffic that Mr. Flats included in the study was that generated
by Cobblestone Village and a six and a quarter percent increase in traffic as identified
by Ada Planning Association and through those numbers and the increase the morning
peak hour was level service C, with about 13 '/2 second wait time. The afternoon was
level of service C as well with about 17 second wait time. In his summary page, I'll just
quote this verbatim here. One of the items identified in the recommendations was
basically the highway capacity manual is stating that under these conditions, the delay
is not excessive and a separate left turn lane on Franklin Road will not improve the
conditions dramatically and the reason for that is the amount of traffic traveling
eastbound on Franklin as you're making that maneuver. You still have to wait for the
traffic whether you're in the turn lane or not. The second remark, the traffic volumes at
this intersection would not most likely meet the warrants for the installation of a traffic
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 34
signal. The major road carries enough traffic but the minor road, which is Locust Grove,
must have over 150 vehicles per hour for an 8 hour period. So at this time the minor
street volumes do not appear to be heavy enough to warrant a signal. He did compare
land use using a general light industrial use similar to the Stonebridge project next door.
And the traffic generated there was actually a slightly higher rate than a residential
development shows. The only difference is you have a reverse in your a.m. and p.m.
peak travel movements. In other words in the morning your traffic is coming to industrial
instead of leaving and vice versa in the afternoon. I'd be glad to answer any questions
at this point.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Gary, you may have stated it, but I didn't pick up on it. What was the length
of time from current to projected level of service?
Lee: The wait time?
Rountree: No, what was the period of time five years, ten years, twenty years
projection?
Lee: It was actually it was 2001. So it's two years what we anticipated was full
occupancy of Cobblestone in about two years.
Corrie: Gary, I know you're not a traffic engineer, but what is your estimate or have you
even talked to this Gerald about if when they straighten out Locust Grove which will
come in there. Right now there's no street there. When they come out, do you have
any idea how much that will generate with the C -G zoning?
Lee: I really don't have a —
Corrie: I understand.
Lee: It wouldn't be on the scope of what he studied.
Corrie: Other questions of Gary?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I have a question for Gary. Just for the record, sewer and water
sufficient to accommodate?
Smith: Yes.
Rountree: Okay.
Corrie: Any other questions at this point? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to close the
public hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor I move we close the public hearing.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 35
Corrie: Comments, decisions?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor I'm going to state that I don't feel this project belongs here. I think
the density is too great, and everybody has spoken about the traffic issues. We know
what they are. I disagree with the thought that this is going to help the situation there,
because it will generate less trips. There's no stores or shopping centers close by here
to where we can see people walking instead of driving and right now I wouldn't want to
try to walk across Franklin Road. I'm going to — my vote will be to support denial.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I can sympathize with the position of the residents living in a rural
environment and watching it go by the wayside day by day. However my position on
this particular project is that it has the makings of a good project. I personally feel that it
probably is the right place for high density residential. I believe it can buffer what
residential that remains in an R-1 form or an R-2. You're going to have industrial
complex, a commercial complex that this type of housing can accommodate, work with.
We hear continually that one of the fundamental problems with our transportation
system is that urban sprawl and everybody has got to live on their own acre. This is a
situation where you can concentrate traffic, though we do not have public transportation
at this point in time. These kinds of projects lend themselves to getting that. They can
serve a lot people conveniently and a lot of people utilize these kinds of projects. It is in
an area that we have identified in our Comp Plan as a mixed use. That could be
anything. We've seen all kinds of things, so someone said well maybe we would like to
see what the next application brings. You may not particularly like that one either, but I
guess I have a feeling that I'm comfortable with the annexation and zoning at this level.
I'm not a bit comfortable with the recommendation Planning and Zoning gave us, and I
would hate to have to defend that recommendation if I were them.
Anderson: I guess I have mixed emotions about this project and I agree with partially
with what Councilman Rountree and partially with Councilman Bentley has to say. I
think this is a good project and could be a good buffer, but I think it's a project that's
probably just a few years ahead of its time. In light of the traffic situation, roads not
being able to handle it. No stoplights at Locust Grove, so I guess my tendency at this
point is I think it's a good project, but I would vote against it at this point just because I
think it's a little bit ahead of the infrastructure being there.
Bird: I might as well make it two and two. I agree with Charlie. I feel for the residents
out there, but I think it's something that is going to happen. Everybody is worrying
about Jabil dumping out there, but I got a letter right here from Larry Sale that he
misstated himself in the public hearing, and there will be — Jabil will not dump on to
Locust Grove until the ground to the east of it is done, developed, so that takes care of
that part of dumping "x" amount of cars there. It probably isn't the best development out
there, but I think it's better than a lot that could be proposed for being there. So I would
be in favor of it.
Corrie: Well you're going to have to vote I guess and I'm going to make a decision. I
can see the possibilities of both the traffic and everything else and the density is good
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 36
taking away the fact that we might have not doing this would cause a little bit more
urban sprawl. We've got some areas down there that's going to have some people that
is going to have to live close to there working there I think. I hope that Ada County
Highway District follows through on some of the things that they've told us that they will
probably have to do rather quickly rather than later. I would probably have to say that
based upon what we're doing here tonight is to request annexation and zoning. I think
it's okay. There's some problems that I think the developer needs to make sure they've
got their ducks in a row, because one of the things is flood plain. We're not here to
approve or disapprove any kind of construction. We have an idea what is going to be
down there, but that's going to come at a later date. There's going to be a lot of
questions asked. So if the vote goes two and two, I will vote for the annexation and
zoning at this point.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I would like to make one point too and there were some allegation
or some allusions that the City Council would be discriminating against residents and
residential pipes, and I guess I want on the record that I for one wouldn't support that
and can't support. We need to accommodate all the people that want to reside in
Meridian, so I want that, at least my position, stated. Having said that Mr. Mayor, I
would move that we direct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order and a draft annexation ordinance that would
annex and zone this property as requested by the applicant.
Bird: I would second it.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we have the City Attorney draw up the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for annexation and zoning of this property with
the R-40 zone. Is there any further discussion?
ROLL CALL VOTE: ANDERSON, NAY. BENTLEY, NAY. BIRD, YEA. ROUNTREE,
YEA.
Corrie: You're going to do it to me after all, aren't you? I agree with Charlie. It's a very
delicate program here. We've got to be very careful in what we're doing so I'm going to
vote yes and break the tie.
MOTION CARRIED: 2 NAYS, 2 YEAS. TIE BREAKER, YEA.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I guess again for the record, really we haven't made a decision on
this. It depends on the Findings of Fact and conditions that are stated.
TEN MINUTE BREAK
Corrie: Okay, I'll call the meeting back to order. We'll try to go through as many of
these public hearings until about 10:20 and see where we are and then we'll probably
have to put them off. The others will be the first on the agenda the 20th of July. We've
got some other things we have to take care of this evening as well.
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
GROUP DAYCARE OF 6-12 CHILDREN BY VOANNA C. WARD D/B/A VO'S
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 37
DAYCARE -924 E. 4T" STREET: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY
20, 1999)
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and start with staff. (End of Tape)
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is the location of the house where Ms. Ward
proposes the daycare for the six to twelve children. This is an existing alley that's been
unimproved. 4t" Street has gutter, no sidewalk. I do have a letter from Ada County
Highway District. The applicant had appealed their requirements which were extensive
requiring paving of the alley and also providing sidewalk, and in this report they have
taken out those requirements. I'll give this to the Clerk. This would be the northerly
direction. This is the applicant's site plan. As you can see there's three feet behind the
house currently. They have a wire fence there. It's basically unusable property. Our
comment was to remove the weeds that were presently there taking up this entire area.
I haven't been back to the site to see if that had been done. As staff our main concerns
were that the fence, the existing fence, was not of a height normally recommended to
enclose a play area. They do have very limited play area as you can see, there's 8 '/2
feet between the structure and the adjacent property line. The chain link fence does
apparently go clear to the property line. The parking that they're proposing would be in
the driveway. Again our main concern was the number of children that would be here
and the limited amount of play area and the provision I believe it's a four foot fence that
goes to the property line. That is the maximum height of a fence that would be
permitted this close to the right-of-way. Do you have any questions of me?
Bird: Shari, do you have any problems with any of the recommendations of the
Planning and Zoning Commission? Like the off street parking or any of that?
Stiles: They will be able to provide the off street parking in accordance with city
ordinance. I guess 1.11 on page three of the recommendation shall provide for a fence
of appropriate height and construction to enclose play areas and screen adjacent
properties, no guidelines were given for that, but again what is typically recommended is
a six foot fence to enclose play areas. If the six foot fence were to be provided, it would
have to be at a 20 foot setback, and they would lose this area for any play area. So the
only play area remaining would be this maximum 8'/2 feet wide for the depth of the
structure.
Corrie: Any questions of Shari at this point? The applicant.
Ward: Voanna Ward, 924 E. 4t". I was applying for the conditional use permit. Since
we have removed the weeds in the back. We have covered it with plastic and put chips
back there and it's entirely closed off. We also have landscaping in the corner as to not
encourage any of the kids to even try and go back that way. We also put in a chain link
fence across the driveway so it's completely fenced in so there's no way they can
escape. I have three children. They are 13, 8 and 6. You drive by my house any time
of day and you will see at least six, seven or eight of their friends in my yard, in the pool,
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 38
and I feel that between the square footage of my house, my living room is quite large
and I have the bedroom that I have marked, I would be designating as a play room and I
would be using the den as an additional part of that and the living room area and my
plan was to do different activities as to not — with the children so we have room for —
we're inside with them doing crafts while some of them can be outside. My husband is
there, plus I have someone going through the process right now of being fingerprinted
to help me. I have one friend that would like to bring me her three children so that's one
car picking up three kids. I have another friend with a baby and then there would just be
one more lady with two children. When school starts, I would only have my three and
one little one. I applied for the conditional use permit for the six to twelve because my
three children are counted, and I recently quit a job as a Subway manager so I could
stay home and watching two kids wouldn't quite help us out as far as income. So that's
why I'm applying for the conditional use.
Bentley: Have you read the conditions?
Ward: Yes.
Bentley: Do you concur with all of them?
Ward: Yes, I do. The problem as Shari stated really for us would be the fence to make
it the appropriate height of six foot. Because obviously bringing it back I would have no
play area whatsoever.
Bentley: Thank you.
Bird: Is this a two story house, isn't it?
Ward: Yes, it is.
Bird: Are you going to sprinkle the upstairs? I see in the recommendations —
Ward: The upstairs will be gated off so no one is allowed —
Bird: No kids will be up there at any time?
Ward: No children, not even — when I'm in operation my own children will not be
allowed to go up there.
Bird: Okay. Also if I read that right, it's three foot from the wire fence to your south wall
of the house?
Ward: Yeah.
Bird: And is that the property line?
Ward: The wire fence, yeah.
Bird: So you're three foot from your property line to the south wall?
Ward: Yeah, to the neighbor's backyard.
Bird: Do you have any windows in the back there?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 39
Ward: Yes, I do.
Bird: Is that a fire wall?
(Inaudible)
Bird: When you're redoing something, you've got to bring them back up to code. I've
got a question on that.
Ward: We bought the house and it was in the original house was from the — you see
the bathroom and the den over to the kitchen and the bedroom. That was the original
cottage home. Then they had just built the rest of that on severely reducing the
property —
Bird: But you're making this home into a business now, and you're wanting the variance
for that so I don't know — in a public facility which you have to consider that as a
business, you've got to be five feet or farther or you have to have a fire wall from the
property unless there's variance on that. In my mind this ceases to be a house when
you bring in the daycare center, so then it goes under the rules and regulations of a
business.
Rountree: I don't necessarily disagree with where Keith is going, but I don't think it's
been past practice to consider these group daycares of six to twelve as a commercial
business. Shari, am I wrong? I think we always considered them as having to meet
residential requirements.
Stiles: There is a provision in the ordinance that said as part of a conditional use, it will
considered a commercial use and I think that was more for sewer and water rates, but it
makes no difference as far as the rates. But there is a provision in the ordinance saying
that it will be considered a commercial use.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council just a matter of information you can ask
for a report and you could ask the fire marshal to do a report on how they would
interpret this because I assume they are the ones that would have to enforce the
provisions since it's probably under the Uniform Fire Code.
Bird: It's already in there in the conditions. On the approval of the conditional use, the
applicant shall coordinate with the Meridian Fire Department for inspection prior to
operating. Operation of daycare without proper approvals will result in revocation of
conditional use permit. You have no problem with any of our conditions, right?
Ward: No.
Bird: Okay. That takes care of it then.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I have a question. When you were talking about going by and
seeing kids in the yard and playing, you mentioned a pool. Is this a wading pool? A
swimming pool?
Ward: It's a wading pool. It's a little wading pool.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 40
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to
issue testimony on this in favor of the request? Seeing none, anybody who would like
to issue testimony in disapproval of this request? All right, Council have any other
questions that — anybody else? I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on
item number 13.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the public hearing on item 13 request for
conditional use permit. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Council, discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor I guess Keith has brought up some interesting questions. I not
sure that we all know the answers to so I guess I would like to see this thing tabled and
maybe have staff get with building department and fire department and find out whether
this meets the requirements or not and come back and let us know one way or the
other.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Ron, I feel real comfortable with that condition that she has agreed to
and it is within the thing we would pass tonight, it covers that or she loses her
conditional use permit.
Anderson: But I think they probably look at it from the fire standpoint as far as exits and
sprinklers and things like that, but the question you raised about the code and distances
and fire wall, I'm not sure that the fire department would answer that as much as the
building department would.
Bird: The fire department I think would — your fire marshal is the one that would enforce
it. I think that not only in the code is under the fire code too; isn't that right Chief?
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and Councilman Bird, it is in both codes. It's in the building code
also and Daunt would have to at that also. Another thing we would have to look at I
guess would and I didn't realize it was that close either until you mentioned it the exits if
there are exits out the back and if we are using those for our main exits. If we've got
other exits out of this building, that might not come into effect.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question on that then, which the public hearing has been
closed, but this is discussion. When this is part of that deal, exits doors can't swing in,
in a public occupancy. I think it's B occupancy or above, and I don't know what six to
twelve, I don't know how many square feet of actual area they're using there, so I don't
know but the doors would have to be made to swing out for exits and most house
residential swing in.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 41
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and Councilman Bird, yeah, that is correct at that time and we
would have to look at it a little farther and see and go into our code and go into the
building code and see.
Corrie: We're into public testimony again after we shut it off. Let's if you want to open it
again, we can do that.
Bird: No, I think Councilman Anderson had the idea.
Corrie: You had an option to continue it or table these proceedings and continuing it
would be a public hearing on the 20th of July.
Bentley: I think if you're going to have some research done, it's going to have to be
continued.
Corrie: If that would be your choice, I'll entertain a motion to continue the public
hearing.
Bentley: Yes, but you already have a motion to close it so you're going to have to
reopen it.
Corrie: We can open it if that's what you're asking for.
Bird: We didn't vote on closing it, did we?
Corrie: Yes. So I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing.
Bentley: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to reopen the public hearing. Any further discussion?
Hearing none all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Mr. Mayor I move that we continue this public hearing to July 20th, 1999.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion is that we continue the public hearing to be on the first of the agenda on
July 20th, 1999. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DEE JAY
SUBDIVISION (14 BUILDING LOTS ON 15.04 ACRES) BY J-U-B ENGINEERS,
INC— EAST OF STRATFORD DR & NORTH & SOUTH OF WATER TOWER
LN: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY 20, 1999)
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM 1,000 FOOT
MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH FOR DEE JAY SUBDIVISION BY J-U-B
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 42
ENGINEERS, INC – EAST OF STRATFORD DR & NORTH & SOUTH OF
WATER TOWER LN: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY 20, 1999)
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF .967 ACRES (FROM R-4 TO
R-8 WITH CONDITIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR
TREMONT PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY LARRY & KAY HANSEN—
BROADWAY & 8T" STREET (951 W. PINE STREET): (CONTINUE PUBLIC
HEARING UNTIL JULY 20, 1999)
17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TREMONT
PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 2 (ONE EXISTING, FOUR NEW BUILDING LOTS)
BY LARRY & KAY HANSEN—BROADWAY & 8T" STREET (951 W. PINE
STREET): (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY 20, 1999)
18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING OF 27.86
ACRES (FROM RT & R-4 TO R-8) FOR PROPOSED WILKINS RANCH
SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC—SOUTH OF USTICK &
WEST OF TEN MILE: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY 20, 1999)
19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS
RANCH SUBDIVISION (89 BUILDING LOTS ON 27.86 ACRES) BY STEINER
DEVELOPMENT LLC — SOUTH OF USTICK & WEST OF TEN MILE:
(CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY 20, 1999)
Corrie: Due to the lateness of the hour, it's 10:30. We've got some other things to go.
would suggest with the Council's approval we table the public hearing on 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, and 19 at this point .
Bentley: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and second to table items number 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 to
be on the first of the agenda on July the 20th. Is there any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay they will be on the first of the agenda on the 20tH
20. FINAL PLAT FOR SHERBROOKE HOLLOWS NO. 4 SUBDIVISION BY GEM
PARK II – EAST SIDE OF LOCUST GROVE AND NORTH OF VICTORY:
(TABLE UNTIL JULY 20, 1999)
Corrie: Staff comments from Shari?
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 43
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I also do not have a transparency apparently for this
project. If you'll remember this was a section of the property being developed by
Westpark Company at Locust Grove and Victory. They had come in with another
proposal for this particular portion of the property wherein they would remove the
access to Locust Grove Road. That project was denied and they have come back with
the final plat reflecting the originally approved preliminary plat that has the roadway to
Locust Grove Road. I would ask that you incorporate staff comments, particularly the
comments from Bruce Freckleton and myself dated June 22nd, 1999. We do have a
response from the applicant. I don't know if you have that in your packets dated July
2nd
Bentley: Yes, we have it.
Stiles: And Becky is not here. She said she would address the drainage comment at
the Council hearing so I don't know — there was a significant drainage problem. As far
as I know they've been working with the Public Works Department to try to resolve that.
It was particularly in the area adjacent to John Shipley to the north, and I believe they
have been working that out. The other one we highlighted was number 8. That is our
letter from Ada County Street Name Committee was that that was not approved, the
name, but you know that's really a technicality that can be taken care of before we sign
the plat. Other than that, it appears they have agreed with all of our recommendations
and we ask that the plat be approved. We would like the fire department to have some
input on when the bridge would need to be constructed so there is an access to Locust
Grove Road. Currently they have two proposed roads going to Victory, but we feel it's
important that they have some kind of a restriction as to the number of homes that are
built until that's built. At first they said the Ada County Highway District they were going
to wait until it was in their plan, which could be who knows. So that was our comment
number 14 under site specific. Her response is the applicant understands and will
comply. Our comment we would recommend building permits be prohibited until the
bridge connection to Locust Grove is constructed. So if they understand and will
comply, I guess we don't have a problem.
Bentley: Yeah, I have a problem with going through with this without having her
response to that drainage issue. We've met with Mr. Shipley several times in the past
on the very issue and I think that needs to be spoken to before this is passed.
Rountree: I agree with Mr. Bentley. I kind of miss not having John here this evening.
Stiles: I could call him.
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion then for tabling it.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we table this to July 201H
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 44
Corrie: Motion is made and second that we table item 20, final plat for Sherbrooke
Hollows No. 4 until the July 20th meeting. Any further discussion? Hearing none all
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
21. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR FINAL PLAT FOR TEARE
COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION BY ANDERSON -DAVID & ASSOCIATES, INC.:
(APPROVE ONE YEAR EXTENSION)
Corrie: Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is Van Auker property that's on Overland Road.
There are buildings on two of the lots. The only remaining lot I believe is the one
adjacent to Overland Road. They submitted this letter just prior to expiration of the
preliminary plat, and maybe Mr. Anderson could let us know when that final plat will be
forthcoming so we would know. Are you requesting one year extension?
(Inaudible)
Anderson: My name is Gordon Anderson with Anderson -David & Associates. Right
now the status of the plat is we need to get Central District Health's signature and a
letter from the city of serviceability and then it's going to go right to Gary for his review
and then from there to Priester, so it will be about two months probably before it gets
finally signed and recorded.
Corrie: So you're talking about the 21St of September? That's two months.
Anderson: Sooner if I can push it faster. But yeah, I'd say realistically two months. I
don't know what Gary's back log is and I know Priester's is three to four weeks.
Corrie: Gary, does that sound plausible to you? Okay the 21 st of September, we're
going to have two months and —
Anderson: The owner is motivated to get me motivated to get it done beings that I get
called every day. It's going to get done.
Corrie: I understand.
Rountree: Question for Shari, this is the first request for extension?
Stiles: Yes for recordation of the final plat.
Rountree: Okay, Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the request for extension of final
plat for Teare Commercial Subdivision by Anderson -David & Associates for a period not
to exceed one year.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we approve the request for time extension
for final plat for Teare Commercial Subdivision by Anderson -David & Associates, Inc.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 45
would be extended for a period of no longer than year. Any further comments? All
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor just a point of procedure and information. I'll prepare an order for
the Mayor's signature on that just so we have a record. That would be appropriate.
22. ORDINANCE #831 : DOG RESTRICTION IN TULLY PARK:
Corrie: Mr. Clerk, if you will give us an ordinance number on this and then read it by
title only please.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Ordinance #831. (ORDINANCE #831 WAS READ BY
TITLE ONLY)
Corrie: Is there anyone from the audience who would like to have Ordinance #831 read
in its entirety? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion for Ordinance #831.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we approve Ordinance #831 with suspension of rules,
authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve Ordinance #831 with suspension of rules.
ROLL CALL VOTE: ANDERSON, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. BIRD, YEA. ROUNTREE,
YEA.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEAS.
23. ORDINANCE #832: LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING ACT:
Corrie: Mr. Berg, if you will please read the ordinance #832. This is kind of a
housekeeping thing. Isn't that correct, Mr. Gigray?
Gigray: Yes. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I believe this is generated from
House Bill 1203 that kind of amended the local land use planning act language. We
checked with the codifier. If we do an ordinance like this, they'll just reference the act in
accordance with the state statute. Just a house cleaning matter.
Corrie: Mr. Clerk, if you'll read Ordinance #832 for the Council.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor. (ORDINANCE #832 WAS READ BY TITLE ONLY)
Corrie: Is there anyone from the audience who would like to have Ordinance #832 read
in its entirety? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to accept Ordinance #832.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 46
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve Ordinance #832, authorize the Mayor to
sign, the Clerk to attest with suspension of rules.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve Ordinance #832 with suspension of rules.
Any other comments? Hearing none, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: ANDERSON, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. BIRD, YEA. ROUNTREE,
YEA.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEAS.
24. WATER, SEWER, TRASH DELINQUENCIES: (DO NOT HAVE LIST,
CHANGING SOFTWARE)
Corrie: Water and sewer delinquencies. I just have a letter that we're changing over in
the system now from Hit and it's going to be about ten to fifteen days behind because of
the transfer over.
Bird: I'm not going to vote on it until I see it.
Corrie: So we're not going to do that tonight. You're absolutely right, Mr. Bird, and I just
got that letter today, and we're changing from Hit to —
� 1]21WGl0-49&121012V21901:41611
A. TOM KUNTZ:
1. APPROVAL TO SELECT CONSULTANT FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: (APPROVE WITH
RESOLUTION #243)
Corrie: Eli.
Roberts: Hi, I'm filling in for Tom tonight. Mr. Mayor and Council in your packets you
should have a copy of the professional services agreement from Landum and Moore
regarding the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. I'm here tonight to ask your
approval to enter into this agreement so that we may move forward on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Corrie: All right are there any questions of Eli on the selection of the consultant.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 47
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I have a question either for Eli or Bill. Has it been reviewed by
Legal Counsel, the agreement?
Roberts: Mr. Rountree, I believe so.
Gigray: I would like to say I like the language in this agreement with regards to the
responsibility and liability more than what I've seen in a lot of the other consulting
agreements that have come my way, and this one is one of the cleanest ones I've seen.
Corrie: Any further questions?
Anderson: I have one question Mr. Mayor. Is this budgeted in the Parks or is this in the
City Clerk's budget?
Bentley: Councilman travel budget.
Corrie: This has been budgeted in Parks. It's been budgeted already in Parks.
Roberts: I believe so.
Corrie: This was budgeted in Parks already. I checked it out. It was. Any other
questions? I'll entertain a motion on the approval or disapproval of the consultant for
Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the consultant for Parks and Rec.
Comprehensive Plan for the figure of not to exceed $25,000 and authorize the Mayor to
sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the consultants for the Parks and
Rec. Comprehensive Plan not to exceed $25,000 and the Mayor to sign and the City
Clerk to attest. Any further questions? All those in favor of the approval, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. GARY SMITH:
1. 1999 WATERLINE PROJECT, PHASE 1 BID AWARD: (APPROVE
BITTERROOT CONSTRUCTION $318,561.70)
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members. The bid results for the Ustick
Road waterline project. I didn't get all the information to you so I'll hand out these
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 48
results. I've highlighted the pertinent part. The bids were opened on June 17th for our
Ustick Road waterline improvement project. We received 11 bids. Bitterroot
Construction of Boise was the low bidder at $318,561.70. 1 would request your approval
for Mayor Corrie's signature on the Notice of Award and the attest.
Bird: Mr. Mayor I got a question before I make the motion. Bitterroot hasn't left
anything out or anything because they're ten percent lower than anybody else around?
Smith: Yes, I called and talked to Bill Cook, one of their principals and ask him if he
was comfortable with that bid, and he said he was.
Bird: And of course he is furnishing a bond.
Smith: Yes, sir.
Bird: Mr. Mayor I move that we accept the bid by Bitterroot Construction, Inc. for
$318,561.70 for 1999 waterline project phase 1, Ustick Road improvements and for the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and second to approve the Bitterroot Construction, Inc. on the
project $318,561.70 on the 1999 waterline project phase 1. Further discussion?
Anderson: Gary, could you explain for me where does this go, what part of Ustick?
Smith: It's east and west of the new water tank that's being constructed. We're
connecting the waterline system our distribution system from the tank to the east. I
don't remember what subdivision is — Bedford Place, and then to the west we're
extending the waterline to Linder and connecting to the Stubblefield development on the
corner, Tumble Creek and then south on Linder to where the waterline exists right now
going into Meridian Place just north of Tully Park.
Bentley: Does that mean my water pressure is going to go up?
Smith: No.
Anderson: So it's like a mile two miles of pipe?
Smith: It's a mile from Meridian to Linder, it's about a third of a mile south on Linder and
it's probably a quarter of a mile east on — so it's a little over two miles. A little over a
mile and a half.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 49
Anderson: Thank you.
Corrie: Further questions? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Smith: I had one other quick question I wanted to ask. A week or more ago I sent out a
little flyer to everybody concerning this is a deal that we're working out with a person
that had a water — I'm not quite sure how to phrase this. There was a substantial
amount of water that went through his meter that he didn't realize was going through his
meter and he didn't have a leak. It has to do with pressurized irrigation systems and in
response to this second time this happened to this gentleman, he came forward with a
proposal to help prepare a little brochure that we can send out to all the residents in the
City of Meridian explaining a little bit about the problem that he incurred along with a few
comments on water use during the summer, and I'd like to have your approval on this
before I mail it out because I remember one time before one of superintendents mailed
out a little notice and caused us some anguish.
Bird: Gary had put that in our deal. I think it's a very, very fine idea. I think there's a
lot of people that had this same idea that guy did. I didn't realize the problems that that
can cause and I think it would be very beneficial to mail that out in the mailings to the
residents.
Rountree: I agree. I think that personal experience is something that is far more
powerful to the community than us passing an ordinance. It might be a good foundation
for our next step.
Smith: All right thank you. I'll get this mailed.
26. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (NOT NEED FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION)
Corrie: We have a notice here that item number 26 is an Executive Session. I think we
can handle this one without going into Executive Session. I agree with the Council
President that we need to talk about it right now and get it over with.
Smith: Mayor and Council this item concerns Mr. Joe Siminuch. Joe has a residence at
955 W. Ustick Road. Back in I think it was 1993, don't hold me to that date, but
believe that's when we made the south slough trunk line extension, the sewer trunk line
extension. This trunk line crossed Mr. Siminuch's property with an easement in an
easement that he agreed to or gave us and the sewer line was positioned in alignment
that he approved that would facilitate future development of his property. At the same
time services were put into that sewer line and Mr. Siminuch paid for those services but
they were done at the same time that the trunk was constructed. Sometime after that
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 50
and I don't remember exactly when it was, he notified me that he was experiencing
some soft ground on the east side of the north leg of that trunk line. The majority of the
trunk runs north / south along his near his eastern boundary. Anyway, I contacted the
design engineer, they went out and did some put some test holes in and monitored the
groundwater levels and found initially that yes, there was a differential of water level
elevation between the two sides. I don't know if I've covered all of this with you before.
I guess maybe you're probably aware of it. Does it ring a bell at all?
Anderson: It sounds familiar but it's a good refresher.
Smith: Anyway over the years, we watched this thing and the engineer Keller and
Associates was the engineer on the project and they would go out periodically and
measure the depth of the groundwater in these test wells and there were a certain
number of them on the west side of this sewer line and a certain number on the east
side of the sewer line and it was finally determined that probably the northerly 200 feet
or so of this trunk line was being subjected to his differential of water level. At times
though the water level differential wasn't explainable, it wasn't uniformly different on the
east. It wasn't higher on the east than it was on the west the way it started out
originally. The contention of Mr. Siminuch is that when the backfill was placed over the
sewer line after it was installed in the trench, that it was compacted to a degree that
created a damn for the groundwater to move from east to west, which is normal path of
travel and I finally told Keller some months ago, we needed to get this thing resolved
and he subsequently hired Teracon who is a soils geotechnical consulting engineering
firm. Teracon looked at all the information, went out and looked at the site, drafted a
report and sent that to Keller and we subsequently met with Mr. and Mrs. Siminuch. We
always meet with Mr. and Mrs. Siminuch on this project and discussed it. At the end of
the discussion it was decided that there was an alternative and that was to place some
pipes across the sewer trench. These would be in a east / west direction. These pipes
would be placed in an excavated trench of I don't remember the length of the trench, but
it was significantly long enough to get across the sewer trench and so that it could pick
up the groundwater from the east and transfer it to the west. I believe there were three
or four crossings that were proposed to take care of this problem. The caveat to all of
this was that the soils engineer couldn't say for sure that this would solve the problem
and so we posed this to Mr. and Mrs. Siminuch that here's the proposal, the proposed
remedy. We're not sure that it would work, but we're willing to do that for you on the
one hand. On the other hand, it would cost about $4500 to cause this remedy to take
place and if you want we will give you the $4500 and that will be the end of the deal. So
Mr. and Mrs. Siminuch said well, we'll think about it. So they went away, and they were
gone for a month or so and they finally called back and said well, we'd like to come back
and meet with you again and they did. They said finally after our meeting, we'll take the
$4500 if you will allow us to connect our existing residence to the sewer at no charge.
And the idea here was that his septic tank and drain field had been installed 20 years
ago or more. He was concerned that even though he built it, and it was done in a very
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 51
deliberate manner and with a certain degree of craftsmanship that there was a
possibility that it was going to fail in the near future because others around him had. So
he was proposing that he would pick up the effluent out of the septic tank and pump it
across his property into our sewer line and that I said well, I can't agree to that because
you're outside the city limits. If you're going to connect it takes Council action. So not
too long ago he came before you and I think you probably remember that discussion. I
know Councilman Rountree does. You granted that connection. Mr. Gigray, our legal
counsel, suggested that we have a release and settlement agreement prepared and
signed by Mr. and Mrs. Siminuch, which was done. It was sent to Mr. and Mrs.
Siminuch for their review and signature and I subsequently received a telephone from
Mr. Siminuch saying that he wasn't going to sign it. Number one there was a paragraph
in there concerning liability that he wanted removed from the agreement. It's called
section five, no admission of liability. I think the copy that you have is a very short
version of what Mr. Gigray started out with. He wanted that removed entirely and he
also wanted the sewer line connection for his property rephrased to say that it would
(End of Tape)
[•919]=
Smith: ...I told Mr. Simunich that I could not, verbally, that I could not do anything with
that request because it was a request that was approved by the City Council, it was a
specific request approved by the city council. Specific use, and in my mind that was
changing now, because a connection could serve more than one residence. I mean
physically, a four inch connection can serve an apartment complex, a four plex, eight
plex. And the issue with the section 5, no admission of liability being removed. So
that's why it's here before you again. I didn't know what to do with it other than bring it
back because of the sewer issue. I'm perfectly comfortable with sending it off, but with
section 5 still in there and it's been massaged by Bill Gigray to a point where I think it's
acceptable. He took offense to it because he felt that there was an admission of liability
or should be by the city. Mr. Gigray can explain that because he had to explain that to
me and I'm not sure I totally understand it, but there's a reason it's here. A legal
reason.
Rountree: Well, they could turn around and get us again.
Smith: That's exactly right. Or someone else with a similar situation.
Corrie: (inaudible) Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Two comments; one- in Gary's explanation discussion with the engineers,
there's no evidence in conclusion on the part of the engineering firm that what we did
caused the problem. And to determine that would be rather expensive and extensive
and we didn't feel and don't feel that that's worth a public expenditure to determine that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 52
The second point I wanted to make is that it's odd that, no it's not odd, I fully expected
that the Simunich's only wanted to negotiate on their terms and did not want to
negotiate on the terms that we presented back to them the first time. And I guess my
position would be as previously to. We've made the offer. I thought it was more than a
fair offer, I wasn't in favor of it at the time and I'm not in favor of it now, and I wouldn't be
in favor of offering them any more. That's my personal opinion.
Bentley: Agreed.
Bird: I think this is the first one we tied and Mayor had to break.
Rountree: Yeah it was as a matter of fact.
Bird: (inaudible) I've got motion go. That was to his residence wasn't it?
Rountree: Yes
Bird: Existing residence?
Rountree: Yes.
Bird: I'm not for changing that at all. I'm like Gary, you can put a four inch line down
there, he's got the land to do that.
Smith: Right. And as I understand it he could sell off a piece of ground off that original
part that he has.
Bird: He could bring it up once couldn't he?
Smith: One time.
Rountree: Yeah he could split it one time.
Bird: One time. I thought the motion that we had voted on was the forty- five hundred
plus sewer connection hook-up to his residence.
Smith: Yes it was.
Bird: And that didn't say to his property.
Smith: Yes.
Bird: I agree with you, Gary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 53
Corrie: I think Mr. Gigray's proposal, which you have given him should stand and if he
doesn't like it then he can forget it or come back.
Bird: You could just meet with him Mayor.
Gigray: I would just for the record say that that is a pretty standard provision in any
release agreement and if Mr. Simunich wants the city to admit liability, which is
sounding to me awfully close to, then I think I would never recommend that you do that.
Rountree: Not with him.
Corrie: I certainly wouldn't sign it.
Gigray: We tried and Gary is real good about communicating with me on every single
point that was raised in this and Gary, I think made me explain my position about some
of these things which I think is only fair. And we did try to work a little bit with Mr.
Simunich and I worked on softening language and trying to get it down to exactly what I
thought were bare essentials and that's why it's written this way that neither party
admits any liability here in case Mr. Simunich was somehow offended by this. But it's a
settlement. That's part of what it is
Rountree: Yeah, we don't want to see it again.
Gigray: (Inaudible) of your at fault, you don't get settlements if you do that.
Bird: (inaudible)
Gigray: And we got a proprietary fund here that we have to be concerned about
because I don't' know how far that line goes and whether it could be other problems and
we wouldn't want this coming back to haunt us.
Corrie: Well, that's our proposal and if he doesn't like it (inaudible).
Bird: He can what?
Corrie: (inaudible)
Bird: Ok. Did you get that on tape? Thanks Gary.
Corrie: Anything else; there's a baseball academy at 2:00
Bird: Friday
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 54
Rountree: I'll be in Pocatello
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: It's going to be a big blowout.
Corrie: Next meeting is the 20th of July. Mr. Gigray?
Gigray: Yeah, I just report, I think we got everything in to the codifier. I think we're
going to have a code out pretty quick and we may need to work with the Mayor here
and figure out, and the council might think about how you want this reported on. I'm
sure you're going to want to review it and you're going to want some kind of an overview
report of how this was assembled and of any major changes that are in it. We've been
working closely with all the department heads on all of the proposed revisions and the
Mayor's office, and the Clerk's office and I think we're there.
Bentley: You're not going to bring this thing to us and tell us to read the whole thing are
you?
Gigray: I'm deferring to your wishes as to how you want it handled.
Rountree: Well, I guess I'm not understanding what you're saying. We're not talking
new codes and ordinances, we're talking an (inaudible) and a new order and
organization of our existing.
Gigray: But there's some language changes in places because we had numerous
worksheets and there were little corrections like to bring this current and that current
and little words here and there because you adopt them in total when you adopt a new
code and the new code will stand as it is. I mean, we're not talking like, you know,
putting in a whole new chapter or whatever, we're talking little wording changes here
and there.
Rountree: Are we seeing this electronically or are we going to see a bound version of
this or both?
Gigray: Both.
Rountree: So I would guess just in legislative format to indicate what had been
changed.
(Inaudible)
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 55
Gigray: It will be like a regular ordinance. As you adopt it, it's all in one fail swoop.
Rountree: Well, that's going to take some real deliberation if you're willing to do it.
Gigray: Well, I think I can do a report hitting the major highlights of the thing.
Rountree: That would be good
Gigray: I just want to know how you would handle it and you may want to have one
workshop on it before you adopt it.
Rountree: I think that's probably in order. That would be the best way; to dedicate an
evening to talking about it.
(Inaudible discussion)
Gigray: Just having the code work book has been an immense help.
Rountree: Well, I can imagine.
(Inaudible discussion)
Bentley: I can hardly wait to throw that fallen apart thing away.
Bird: I'll be glad to bring it back to the city clerk.
Rountree: I move to adjourn.
Corrie: Motion carried.
Gigray: Excuse me Mr. Mayor, we had had an agreement for the fire station for the
exchange for some real property rather than a $1900 payment on the impact fee and
they proposed an agreement to do the property. Well, in order to comply with state law,
in order to effect the transfer, we've either got to go through a procedure where we'll at
least give notice twice in two consecutive publications of the paper before the meeting
and then there's another statute entitled 50 that we're looking at and I'm working with
Neil Newhouse who's their in-house attorney about how to do this. But I would
recommend that you just set that for the July meeting to come back and then direct the
clerk to give notice in accordance with the instructions from the city attorney. I'm still
working with Neil right now on this and that's agreeable.
tH
Berg: It wont' get on the 26
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 56
Gigray: It won't?
Berg: I have to notice it twice.
Gigray: In two consecutive publications. So you want to set it to the next one in August
then?
Rountree: Maybe the first one in August.
Gigray: Ok
Corrie: One question; how are you coming on the ordinances as far as the Mayor and
council full time?
Gigray: They've been drafted, you don't have them?
Corrie: (inaudible) talk to you about that.
Rountree: Haven't seen anything Bill.
Bird: We haven't seen them.
Rountree: I haven't seen anything either.
Gigray: I approved the draft, I thought it was over there.
Anderson: (inaudible) daycare ordinances.
Gigray: I don't have a communication on the daycare
Bentley: You haven't gotten a chance (inaudible). They're still meeting, I've got a call
them, every meeting they've scheduled has been on Tuesday night except for the first
one and I've sent her an e-mail to give me a buzz and let me know how it's cooking, so.
I haven't heard back from her yet, I'm sure she took off over the weekend.
Corrie: I have the motion to adjourn on the floor, do I have a second?
Bird: Second.
Corrie: All in favor say Aye
f•[*IIto] 0KOY-11711aID]I_1IWTIVAc 61 9
Meridian City Council Meeting
July 6, 1999
Page 57
Rountree: See you in the morning.
Corrie: No more public hearings at the next meeting, we got enough.
(Inaudible discussion)
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:09 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK