HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 11-21Meridian City Council Meeting November 21, 2000
The regularly scheduled City Council Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at on Tuesday, November 21, 2000.
Members Present: Robert Corrie, Keith Bird, Tammy deWeerd, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Dave Bowman, Steve Siddoway, Ken Borup, Tom Kuntz, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Will Berg.
Corrie: I’ll open the Regular City Council Meeting for November 21, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. We’ll have the City Clerk call roll. I’d like to welcome everybody here this evening and particularly
Troop 30, I believe, of Meridian. I’m glad to see you guys here and I hope we do a good job here for you tonight.
Item A. Approve minutes of November 8, 2000, Special Meeting:
Item B. Approve minutes of November 8, 2000, Pre-Council Meeting:
Item C. Approve minutes of November 8, 2000, City Council Meeting:
Item D. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.29 acres for proposed Waltman Court Subdivision
by John and Sandra Goade – Waltman Lane and SW 5th Street:
Item E. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: RZ 00-004 Request for rezone of .55 acres from I-L to L-O for a proposed licensed childcare facility for 48 children for Healthy Beginnings
Daycare by Kasha and Wendell Lawrence – Linder Road and Pine Avenue at 737 North Linder Road:
Item F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-046: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a licensed childcare facility for 48 children in an I-L zone and a
proposed L-O zone for Healthy Beginnings Daycare by Kasha and Wendell Lawrence – Linder Road and Pine Avenue at 737 North Linder Road:
Item G. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-047: Request for a modification to the CUP of the front landscape setback in a C-G zone for Centennial Motors by Sam Fishel
– west of Meridian Road on Franklin Road:
Item H. 2001 Beer License Renewal: Maverik Store by Hyde Stauffer – 1805 Cherry Lane:
Corrie: Council, you have the Consent Agenda in front of you. Is there any questions on the Agenda Items?
Anderson: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to approve the Consent Agenda A through H.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda, Items A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda A through H. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 2. Tabled from November 8, 2000: FP 00-018 Request for Final Plat approval for of 61 building lots and 3 other lots on 23.02 acres by Packard Estates Development for proposed
Packard Acres Subdivision No. 2 – south of Ustick between Locust Grove and Vintage Lane:
Corrie: We move to the Regular Agenda – Item 2. This was tabled from November 8, 2000 – request for Final Plat approval for 61 building lots and 3 other lots on 23.02 acres by Packard
Estates Development for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 2 – south of Ustick and between Locust Grove and Vintage Lane. Let’s have staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, we did receive a letter from the applicant requesting that this be deferred due to the short amount of time we have until the next meeting and the other
commitments we have and the agenda that we have already for December 19th. I would ask that that be deferred to January 2nd.
Corrie: January 2nd?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Any questions of Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: That being the request from staff, I’ll entertain a motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table the request for Final Plat approval for 61 building lots and 3 other lots on 23.02 acres for Packard Estates Development for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision
No. 2 – south of Ustick between Locust Grove and Vintage Lane to January 2, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table Item No. 2, FP 00-018 until January 2, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3. Continued Public Hearing from November 8, 2000: Proposed changes to the Landscape Ordinance by the City of Meridian:
Corrie: Item No. 3 is a continued public hearing from November 8, 2000. It is the proposed changes to the Landscape Ordinance by the City of Meridian. At this time, I’ll reopen the
continued public hearing and have staff comments first.
Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I would simply direct your attention to the memo dated November 17th, last Friday, that was distributed with the revised landscape ordinance
that included all of the agreed to changes through the meetings with the Building Contractors’ Association. The memo spelled out four areas that are still the issues to be resolved.
The first is the width of the parkways – the parkway being defined as the area between a curb and a detached sidewalk. The original draft proposed five feet. The draft that you have
tonight proposes that that remains that five feet. There has been some concern expressed by the Parks Department as whether that should be enlarged to ten feet. I did some research
into it at the other jurisdictions and have that documented there. I’d be happy to answer any questions about it, but don’t want to take your time going through it line by line. The
second item that’s still
outstanding is the width of the detached sidewalk. The BC has requested that if they detach a sidewalk along a local street in a residential area that they be allowed to reduce the
width from five feet to four feet. That’s not really being disputed. The only reason I bring it up here is it would require a change to our current ordinance, which requires five feet.
The draft in front of you proposes to allow that four-foot detached sidewalks in residential zones and I should also note along local streets. The third item is the definition of open
space. The BC would like to have the five percent open space requirement be modified to allow street buffer areas to count up for up to half of their open space required. I have done
some research into the surrounding jurisdictions and what they require. This draft proposes five percent exclusive of the street buffers to be internal to the subdivisions. The fourth
and final issue that’s outstanding is regarding the landscape plan preparation. The issue is whether or not a landscape architect should be required to stamp the plans. In short, BC
would like to see the wording modified to say “landscape architect, landscape designer or a qualified nurseryman.” We have several letters in the record from landscape architects supporting
the requirement for a stamp and giving reasons why. The motion from the Planning and Zoning Commission was that small projects should be allowed to be designed by a landscape architect,
a designer or a nurseryman, but that the larger projects should require a stamp. That issue is still remaining. Those are the four main issues that I see. With that, I will stand
for any questions.
Corrie: Does Council have any questions for staff?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: Steve, what determines the small and the large project where you would cut off whether you had to have a licensed landscape architect or not?
Siddoway: The Planning and Zoning Commission’s motion was originally residential projects greater than five acres or containing more than one acre of landscaping and open space or commercial
or industrial projects greater than one acre in size. During a previous City Council hearing, we had modified that residential acreage from five to fifty, so as it stands today, if
you look in the Draft Ordinance, on page 9, 3.6, it notes the residential plats greater than 50 acres, multi-family projects greater than five acres or with more than one acre of landscaping
and non-residential uses with a gross lot area greater than one acre. That’s a modified version of what the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended.
Bird: Thank you, Steve.
Corrie: Any other questions from Council to staff?
Siddoway: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Siddoway: I almost forgot. I also want to make sure that – there is in a memo dated today, that I hope you’ve seen the copy of – it’s simply one line that’s an additional sentence.
One of the BC members contacted me today and made me aware of in addition to the ordinance that I had left out and it’s just one sentence that goes into Section 15.2. Did you receive
that? It would’ve just been delivered today. Anyway, that needs to be incorporated as well. That’s all.
Corrie: That’s H.
Siddoway: That’s the H, yes.
Corrie: Any other things?
Siddoway: That is all. Thank you.
Corrie: Council, any other questions for staff at this point?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: We do have a continued public hearing on the proposed change to the Landscape Ordinance. Is there anyone from the public who would like to issue testimony?
Corrie: Richard.
McCaughy: Mr. Mayor, honorable members of the Council, my name is Richard McCaughy. I am with the Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho. We have some members here
that are probably going to testify on some very specific issues. First off, I would like to commend staff for really going the extra mile and working with this. I think a lot of rough
edges have been kind of smoothed over. Some unnecessary language has been removed. I think the ordinance is much more clear now – much more easily understood for both you folks and
we folks out on the field. There still are some points of contention mostly revolving around the four points that Steve did bring up. We do believe that kind of a joint analysis of
these issues is that they are truly policy issues. As the draft is written, it has addressed the parkway width issue. It made sense that requiring a 10-foot parkway width would probably
result in no detached sidewalks whatsoever. That’s just simply too much land to be used for that purpose. As long as you correctly restrict the types of trees that are allowed to be
planted in there, it should not be a problem. The detached sidewalk width also – we are very happy with what’s been changed in the ordinance to allow within along the
local streets in a residential subdivision to reduce those to four feet. The two points of contention which are really policy issues are the five percent open space requirement without
allowing any of the landscape buffers to be counted toward that five percent. We had proposed a two for one. Each two feet of landscaped buffer to be counted as one square foot against
the five percent requirement. That, I think is a policy decision. We are concerned, as I think Mr. Turnbull will explain if he chooses to testify, that the risk we run there is that
the landscaping that most of the people in the community see, for most of the new development, are those buffer zones – not the internal open space. That tends to be seen by the residents
and visitors to that residence in that subdivision. It’s a legitimate concern that some folks may tend to minimize the amount of landscaping they do in those buffer zones. If we’re
trying to achieve a more beautiful city, that’s the concern that we have. Also, the landscape plan preparation – the requirement for a licensed landscape architect, I think is frankly
overkill. There are literally dozens of practitioners in this valley who have – whether they be nurserymen or just people in the landscape business, or unlicensed landscape architects
who have got track records that substantiate their knowledge and their experience in the field. They know what trees grow here and what don’t and how to plant them and how to irrigate
them. I think, and as I read the basic requirements, all but the smallest developments under these requirements would require a licensed landscape architect. We have concerns with
that. It’s great. It’s full employment for licensed landscape architects, but I’m not sure that’s where we want to go on this. I do believe that some of the members will address the
specific points on this, but again, I would like to thank Steve for a tremendous bit of work. We have had some very positive meetings and we’ve worked productively together and that’s
the way it ought to be. I think eventually, if this isn’t it, which we hope we can put this to bed – this is a good effort and I think we’re going to wind up with a landscape ordinance
that we can all live with. I’ll stand for questions.
Corrie: Any questions? Thank you, Richard.
McCaughy: Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony?
Beecham: Scott Beecham, 100 North 9th Street, Boise, Idaho. I’m here representing O’Niell Enterprises. I apologize for distributing this letter at the last minute, but I will quickly
in my testimony summarize what is included there. We have two points of clarification we’d like to make. The first is that applications are projects that go through the Conditional
Use Permit process, we feel very strongly that they should not also be required to go through the alternative compliance portion of the Landscape Ordinance if there is a variation to
those standards. We understand that there is a process in place through the PUD allowance that would allow us to request specific deviations to the Landscape Ordinance, but I would
just like to, on the public record, make that point. The
second point of clarification is that an already approved project that has gone through the PUD process – phases of which have not been developed, should not be subject to this new landscape
ordinance when it’s adopted. I’m sure that’s a question for legal counsel, but it’s my understanding that they should not. Specific comments – first is the definition of common open
space. We feel very strongly that we’ve made some good changes to that definition, but it should include required street buffers at a minimum standard of 50 percent, if not all of it,
because as Richard pointed out, it is a very critical issue to the beautification of the city. Under 3.2, the applicability, there is a lot of discussion regarding this in our meetings
with staff. The concept plans that are to be submitted with a Planning and Development application or a Conditional Use Permit, as well as a Preliminary Plat, need to be just that.
They need to be concept, very non-specific to tree species and so forth. We had that discussion. The changes to Draft 4 here, we removed a lot of language, but I didn’t see that that
language was included. Landscape plan preparation – again, Richard touched on this. We have, in the past, typically used a landscape contractor in the valley who is not a licensed
landscape architect, but I think by most people’s standards, he does a very good job. On 3.7, landscape plan modifications, we feel that language is subjective – that staff should probably
identify a list of specific modifications that can be made. There is actually some very subjective language throughout this that put a pressure on the Planning Director. It’s a hard
thing to keep track of over time, in our opinion. We think the more specific you can be on this, the better. On Section 7, 7.2, Location of Street Buffers - there is a statement in
there that sidewalks should be excluded from that. Our feeling is that a buffer is a combination of obstructions as well as distance or separation and a detached meandering pathway,
as well as an attached sidewalk should be included in that buffer measurement. Section 12, Micropath Landscaping – planter width of five feet – we feel that in a residential, whether
it’s a standard subdivision or a Planning and Development, there is an opportunity to have a reduced width there of ten feet. You can essentially utilize the side yard areas and increase
setbacks of the adjacent properties. In many situations, we don’t include fencing along micro paths. In some we do include it, but it is open fencing. We feel that if there is a requirement
to plant a tree, and there is a tree in there, then yes, you should make sure you have that minimum five feet of planter width. As it’s written, it requires a 15-foot area to be set
aside for that micro-patch. Section 12, Fences – I think that you should also state this requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance that – 12.9, Open Fencing Regulations – it would be
repetitive, but I think it would be helpful for those who have to review the code in advance of an application. Section 13, Residential Common Open Space – again, 13.3, we feel that
the definition of that should be modified to include required street buffers. 13.4, Location, Size and Shape – there is a statement in there suggesting that open space be contiguous
to adjacent communities and their open space. This is a worthy goal if what you’re looking for is private parkland. If you’re not, and staff has indicated that you’re not, we feel
the developer should be allowed to decide where that open space goes. That, again, leads up to staff’s discretion. On our alternative compliance – and I have to apologize. My packet
was missing a page
and it was a start of this section, so this change may have been made and let me get Steve’s reaction to this. On 15.3, this middle requirements required a submittal in advance of your
other development applications. In many situations, you need design flexibility throughout the process. We would request that that language be changed and allow for an application
for alternative compliance after the original submittal of a Preliminary Plat application or a Conditional Use Permit. On Timeline 15.7, a 15 working day turnaround is really quite
a while. It’s a three-week turnaround period. If you are trying to put together an application process in order to wait for that process to go through, we feel that’s an excessive
time. We’d like to see that reduced to possibly a two-week. On Section 16 – 16.1 – issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, we feel very strongly that in a PUD, you should not be required
to complete landscape improvements. There was a modification to that section, but we feel even the required landscaping, when you’re developing a community with 15 or 20 percent open
space, it’s a burden to the developer and the staging of that is somewhat problematic. 16.2, there is an allowance for an extension and my final comment is that while you can get an
extension through bonding, it’s very important to distinguish between the required improvements and private improvements. I would define private improvements as anything beyond the
minimum requirements. We don’t feel that we should be required to bond for anything above and beyond the minimum requirements. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: On the 3.7, you indicated that the language was subjective. Do you have any proposed language that you would offer then?
Beecham: I wish I had a comprehensive list that I could suggest. I don’t think that this is a difficult task and should be a sticking point, but there are some very obvious changes
that could occur – tree species, location, et cetera. I do apologize for not having a list put together. I believe that staff had done some preliminary work on this and he may – Steve
may have some suggestions for that.
Anderson: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Scott, I would have one question on 16.1 – your suggestion on “should not be required prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.” Then it would be very difficult to enforce
it. If you don’t have that requirement in there,
how often do you want our staff to come back and check and make sure it’s been done? These are specific checkpoints that we have some kind of control over. You say maybe not by the
first one, but by the tenth one, and he’s keeping track. It makes it very difficult to enforce. I think they wanted to kind of put it in an enforceable scenario.
Beecham: Mr. Mayor, Council member De Weerd. It’s a very good point. I think there are two issues. One is a standard subdivision where you do run into an enforcement issue and put
the burden on staff to continually make inspections on the property. Under a Planning and Development through the CU process, you do have a larger hammer, and you can revoke a Conditional
Use Permit if landscaping is not installed per the approval. I’m not sure I answered your question or concern there, but under the second scenario, there certainly is another avenue
for enforcement. Under the first scenario, I don’t think it would be difficult to put a timeline to have those improvements done. After that set period of time, whether it’s six months
or a year, if they are not done –
De Weerd: Then what? You cut the families out?
Beecham: Well, you don’t cut the families out or kick the families out, but when you develop a property, the proformer (sic) really only works if you build it out and sell it out.
So, nobody is going to stop midstream on developing a large community.
Corrie: Anything else from the Council?
Bird: I have none.
Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, if it would please the Council, I can respond to these individual items now or I can wait and just respond at the end.
Corrie: Let’s wait and get them all in. They’ll be last and then we’ll – anyone else?
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is David Turnbull. My office is 12426 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I, like Richard would like to thank Steve for the effort
he took to come out to the BCA and meet with us on a few occasions. We ran out of time a lot and so we had to meet multiple times, but I think we made a great deal of progress. There
are probably a lot of things we could go through and pick apart for months and months to come. I don’t know whether we’ll ever get a perfect ordinance. I am a lot more comfortable
with it now than I was a month ago. I would like to focus in on the issues that Steve has addressed in his cover letter to this red line version of the ordinance. It would be helpful
if I could get any input or thinking back from the Council after my presentation. The first items are No. 1 and 2 which I kind of view as one in the same issue – that’s the Planter
Parkway Strips and the Detached Sidewalks. I
believe, and we’ve been for the past number of years, a proponent of detaching sidewalks. We’ve done it in our last several projects. We’ve done anywhere from a four-foot planter strip,
which I think is probably too narrow – we’ve done five-foot. We’ve done six-foot. We have done them in Meridian city, where they’ve still required a five-foot sidewalk, which really
puts an extra burden on in terms of extra right-of-way that we have to add to the project and also extra expense. The first point would be that the City should encourage detached sidewalks
for the following reasons. Number one is safety. I think the obvious safety benefits are apparent. The second is – and I think I mentioned this to Steve. I was reminded of this on
Halloween when I was in a neighborhood with my children doing trick-or-treating on a neighborhood that had attached sidewalks, and I almost plowed over a mailbox. The mailbox conflicts
on attached sidewalks are a concern, and maybe as important of any of them is the aesthetic value that detached sidewalks provide. We believe a five-foot planter strip works with a
Class Two tree. I think Steve has mentioned that in his brief. Then we get to the issue of a reduced width for the sidewalks. Four-foot sidewalks are justified on local streets for
some of the reasons I’ve already addressed. The additional safety factor is introduced. I can see the justification for attached sidewalks being five feet. But when we have a detached
sidewalk and we have the additional safety factor, then a four-foot standard, I think is appropriate. We have no more conflicts with mailboxes. Another reason to reduce the sidewalk
width is to reduce impervious surface and I think I can demonstrate to you that a four-foot sidewalk is adequate for side-by-side pedestrian traffic. I do believe that five-foot sidewalks
should be continued to be required for attached sidewalks, and of course, any detached sidewalks along collector or arterial roads, which is the ACHD standard. My final point on this
is that without a five-foot minimum parkway and a four-foot wide sidewalk provision, we will see very few neighborhoods that will choose to implement a detached sidewalk scenario because
it costs us extra to do a detached sidewalk. The extra – you’re basically doing a two-concrete pour. You’re doing the curb and gutter. Actually, you do the sidewalk first, then you
come back and do the curb and gutter. There’s extra setup time for our contractors. Going to the four-foot sidewalk helps to offset that cost some. Also, the net loss of usable land,
because of additional right-of-way requirements is a disincentive. If we can go with this standard, I think you’ll see more and more detached sidewalks, which I think would be a great
benefit to the City. Boise City – the proposed standard here would comply with what Boise City and Eagle City are allowing. The number three issue on Steve’s list was the open space
requirement. I understand the goals and objectives of the City. I believe they’re laudable, but I think they present a few problems. One is affordable housing, not only because the
additional cost of installation of landscaping, but also the ongoing maintenance. I think we’ve heard of instances in some of our work session meetings where developments are actually
coming back to the City of Boise and petitioning for them to take over the landscape maintenance because the residents there cannot afford to maintain their own landscaping. It might
be laudable to have additional landscaping, but if the owners can’t afford to take
care of it, and it goes to disrepair, then it’s not going to be of benefit to any of us. I think we need to strike a balance there. I think a lack of recognition of any street buffer
landscaping is a little bit short sided. I guess my point which Richard alluded to before was if there was no credit given for street buffer landscaping, what you will continue to see
is the bear minimum. I think we should be encouraging more street buffer landscaping. To me, that’s some of the most useful and some of the most beautiful landscaping that we can
ask developers to provide for this city. I think it’s very useful open space because that is quite frankly some of our best pedestrian space. Out on the major arterials, that provides
some of our best connectivity between neighborhoods. I think we should be encouraging more street buffer landscaping as a way to beautify the city. The way to do that is to give some
of the credit toward this five percent open space. I am not going to argue necessarily with the five percent open space requirement, but unless we allow some credit with street buffers,
again, you’ll just see the minimum. You’ll see the bear minimum on street buffers, and I don’t think that that’s something that the City should necessarily encourage. Another point
would be that there could be some possible inequities between different properties. For instance, a 40-acre parcel that sits on a corner of two arterials could be required to have as
much as nine percent of its area dedicated to open space if you count the five percent plus the street arterial buffers, where as an 80-acre parcel that’s on an interior midsection line
could only be required to have its five percent plus an additional one percent. So it creates some inequity between different properties. The fourth item, and I’m trying to be as brief
as I can here, was the preparation of plans by landscaping architects. I read Steve’s comment regarding some input from the American (inaudible) Landscape Architects. It should come
as no surprise to any of us that they would submit a letter asking you to require us to use their services. I would do the same thing if I were them. I must tell you that disqualifying
– this would disqualify a number of professionals. Scott mentioned that a landscaper that they used – the Barbonus (sic) Brothers – Hans Barbonus, I think he would recognize as one
of the finest landscapers in this valley. He’s not a licensed landscape architect. I think there are good landscape architects. I think there are mediocre landscape architects. I
can tell you that I have had as many probably poor experiences as I have had good ones using landscape architects. I think I made a point to Steve in one of our work sessions that landscaping
is as much a work of art as it is a work of engineering. I would encourage you to allow some flexibility here to use qualified people that don’t necessarily have the stamp that’s being
required by this ordinance. I don’t want to get involved with the minutia, but there was something that just occurred to me on 11.2. I believe it’s Section A that talks about landscape
storm drainage facilities that would be acceptable under the open space requirement provided that they meet all of the other landscape requirements such as trees. The though just occurred
to me that there might be some conflict there between this ordinance and an ACHD requirement whether they would allow trees within certain areas of landscape or drainage facilities.
I don’t know if that would be a conflict. I think it’s something that ought to be checked out. The last point, which I think Scott dwelled on a
little bit is the timing of the landscaping. I have a specific project right now. It’s within the City of Boise, but if I were building it in Meridian, I would be in a little bit of
a pickle here. I’m wondering if this doesn’t apply more to commercial development where you’re looking for Certificates of Occupancy, but I suppose it applies to both residential and
commercial development. We are just paving out streets right now, and you really can’t start your landscaping until your streets are paved out. After this time of the year, you’re
really shut out from landscaping for the next four, five or six months. There’s got to be some flexibility there. Obviously, we are going to be building houses in these neighborhoods
that could be occupied as soon as 60 to 120 days. So to say that we can’t have Certificates of Occupancy until every last blade of grass is planted is an extreme hardship that I don’t
think we really could live with. I think the City needs to have a way of dealing with it, which I think can be accomplished through the bonding process and having time certain expiration
dates. Landscaping is always the last thing that goes in, and if you want to do it right, it can take a long time to get it done. In the meantime, you need to be able to build your
houses. You need to be able to have neighbors move in – or property buyers move in. Those are my only comments. I would be interested to hear any of the Council’s comments, particularly
regarding the parkway strips and sidewalk widths and the open space requirement. If you have any questions for me, I am open for questions.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I do have one question. That is in regards to the open space. Are you bringing up an issue where those would exceed – if your street buffers exceeded the minimum,
that you would want that counted or you want the minimum counted? If you start counting the minimums, how do you even incentify (sic) giving more than a minimum?
Beecham: I think in our discussion at our workshops – of course, our position to begin was that we wanted the minimum required on a one for one. We kind of came to a – this is just
a discussion with Steve as to what would be acceptable and what wouldn’t. We kind of all compromised and said maybe 50 percent of the minimum would be allowable. Then, if you go beyond
that, I would think that even a one for one on anything beyond that might be an appropriate standard to accept for landscaping. Again, I think that our arterial streets and our collector
streets, the more generous we can be with the landscaping, the better for the City. Those provide a pretty darned pleasant pedestrian atmosphere if you do them right with detached meandering
sidewalks and that sort. So, I think there should be some kind of a middle ground that we can reach there. I would hope.
De Weerd: I have nothing further.
Corrie: Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
R. Yorgenson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Roman Yorgenson at 2304 North Cole Road in Boise. First I would like to thank the Mayor and Council and Planning and Zoning staff
for their joint effort in coming up with a good landscape ordinance. I think it’s a very good ordinance. I think there are still some things we are fine-tuning, but I think in general,
they’ve made a lot of progress. There are four issues that I would like to cover, and I’ll be brief. The first one has to do with the micro paths and the definition of the micro paths.
It says that they would be generally less than 250 feet and we would like to hope that they would not be applied to pathways. Others will speak to that. I know that there are others
here that are prepared to speak to that tonight. Secondly has to do with the landscape buffer. My concern also has to do with the cost issue and the maintenance issue. It’s been our
experience in some subdivisions the cost of maintaining these open areas gets to be rather – I won’t want to say excessive – it gets to be burdensome to the homeowners. We would like
to say these people can’t afford to live in the subdivision if they can’t afford the upkeep and the maintenance. One of the early subdivisions that we did in Meridian was called Meridian
Park. It was on Meridian Road and we put in two large parks in the interior of the subdivision. We helped maintain those parks until all of the lots were built out. The homeowners
were not really happy with the costs of maintaining those parks. We didn’t think it was excessive. In fact, by today’s standards, it was really quite reasonable. The first Homeowners
Meeting, after it was turned over to the homeowners, they voted to turn down the maintenance of those parks and let them go back to weeds. They didn’t want to pay the maintenance.
I was mortified. We had spent tens of thousands of dollars to have them built and during the build out process of the subdivision, all the homes were being built and we didn’t have
all the homeowners paying dues. We were subsidizing it until all the homes were occupied. Now, for them to say, “Well, we don’t want to pay for the maintenance,” and it was the water
and the fertilizer and the mowing. It wasn’t excessive, certainly by today’s standards. They were upset about having to pay and it wasn’t increase. It was just the same fees I have
been paying all along. When it got turned over to them, they decided that there were enough of them there and they decided they would just shut it down and not maintain it and let it
go back to weeds. Well, the first year, we worked with them. We said, “Look. We’ll work with you. Let’s cut down the watering. We won’t fertilize. We’ll only mow it every other
week.” That’s what they did. They had enough money in their budget that they cut down the watering. They cut down on the fertilizing and they mowed it every other week. It still
grew. It looked okay. It wasn’t green. Then the second year, more people came out because they were complaining about the appearance. More people came out and they over-voted. They
voted to go back to the schedule that we had originally had. I am concerned. I’ll give you one other example. We had a project in the foothills. We might say, “Well, if we upscale
our projects and have nicer projects, then the people can afford them and we won’t have that problem.” There was a problem
with a project in the foothills called Quail Ridge. We have a nine-story waterfall right at the entrance. The waterfall is $100,000 plus to put it in. There’s a five-acre park right
at the entrance. It’s beautiful. We’re a little biased, but we think it’s beautiful. The first time it was turned over to the homeowners, the very first year, the homeowners voted
to shut down the waterfall and fill it in because they didn’t want to pay for the pumps to run the water. That’s Quail Ridge. Fortunately, we owned enough lots that we were able to
overturn the vote. My point is I’m concerned about what it costs for the Homeowners Association and it doesn’t seem to matter if they’re more of a budget project or a real high-end
project. There are certain people that are very concerned about it. We’re all concerned about what the cost is, but it doesn’t seem to matter how much money we have or how expensive
the homes are. The concerns are still there. Back to the question at hand, on the open space, certainly we would like to see the entrance and the buffer to be included and the open
space count. But at the very least, half of it should be counted so that at least half of it has to be on the inside, but a good portion of it could be on the outside. Also, if it’s
not counted, then the incentive is to make it minimal. I hope that what are incentive is to make it really nice. I would hope that’s where our incentive is. If our incentive is to
make it nice, then let’s put some incentive in it so that the developers will be encouraged and we’ll have an incentive to make it nice. We’ll still have open space on the inside –
much more so than we’ve had in the past. My next question has to do with the landscape architects. It’s our experience that certain landscape architects have more training, but not
necessarily do they have a nicer looking subdivision. We’ve had good experience with both of those who are architects and those who aren’t. We’ve had very good experience with both.
I think that maybe we can have another qualification rather than the fact they have to have a stamp and we would encourage and hope that we could do that. The last has to do with the
landscape timing. On our homes, we require in our covenants, that the landscaping go in within 30 days after the completion of the home. We think that’s appropriate, but we had a clause
excepting weather. In the four months or three months during the winter when we have frozen ground, we allow them then to have 30 days after the weather is permitable to go in and do
the landscaping. We would hope that we could add to that a weather clause so that during the winter months that we wouldn’t have to have a subdivision sit idle and have all of the roads
in – all the improvements. The lighting could be in. The entrance could all be in, but we don’t have all the sod in. It happens for reason of not cutting sod anymore so now the subdivision
has to sit for four months. We would like to propose that we put a weather clause in there. We think that would be acceptable. It also could be covered with a bond situation. That’s
all that I have. Again, I want to thank each of you and your staff – Planning and Zoning staff. We think this is a win-win situation. We think it’s good for the city of Meridian and
we think it’s good for the future residents of Meridian. We applaud you for your encouraging your developers to be involved in this. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Corrie: Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. Go ahead.
D. Yorgenson: Hi. My name is Dave Yorgenson. My address is 2304 North Cole Road in Boise. Again, I’d like to stand before you and tell you a – Council, thank you. Many of the staff
have spent significant amount of time and hours in adding and enhancing this landscape ordinance and wanted to express my appreciation to the time and effort they put into generating
what I think is a fine –
*** End of Side 1 ***
D. Yorgenson: -- certainly as much improved from a month or a couple months prior. I’d also like to stand before you in echo of voice of agreement with much of the comments that have
been made today. I think that you’ll find that most of those who are landscape experts and others in the building and development community have experience that have added and enhanced
the landscape ordinance that’s before you now. The comments that I would like to add to these comments, and maybe more of a specification or clarity on one or two items, and that’s
specifically on micropaths. One of the developments that we’ve recently completed is Bristol Heights Subdivision just east of the Meridian City limits. We think that’s a nice subdivision.
We’ve been very pleased with the results. In fact, we’ve found that the number one amenity in that subdivision is landscaping – the pathways particularly as well as the frontage along
Eagle Road and Chinden. I believe that without the significant amount of landscaping that we’ve done, the project would not have been as nice of a project. Again, I would like to echo
those comments that have been made so far tonight. I would hope that there would be some kind of inclusion of an incentive clause – inclusion of the landscape buffers is part of the
minimum acceptance of the landscaping. In addition to that, regarding the pathways, pathways, I think are nice. In my personal residence, I back up to a pathway. Almost every hour
you can see somebody walking by. They’re used that much. I think it’s a really neat amenity for not only my family, but for others in our subdivision. However, one concern I have,
and I’d like to point to the definition of the micropath in the ordinance. It talks about, and I’d be glad to read it to you if you like. It talks about the word “generally” that I
would like to focus on. It’s on Page 6. “A pathway providing a micropath is a pathway providing access by way of a short travel link between points of destination. The length of the
micropath is generally less than 250 feet or two lot-depths.” The word “generally” kind of scares me. Since this ordinance has been brought to discussion, I’ve met with more than one
member of City’s staff, and they’ve expressed that the word “generally” is a loose term and they admit that and acknowledge that. That is not the intent of this definition, but rather
the intent is more or less down two side lot lines to connect two streets. So you have one home and the other one backs up to each other, so it’s generally two lots. So it would be
down the side lot line where you would have a
fence for this micro path. I don’t know if we ought to have the word “generally” in there because if after the current staff are in place, they may still follow and believe that intent,
but two years, five years – certainly ten years down the road, they may not be in the same position. Different interpretation may come into play. A subdivision like Bristol Heights
may then have the requirement of – I’ll get to that in a second here – a requirement of fencing to be built by a developer along the entire stretch of the pathway on both sides. Well,
in Bristol Heights, that would have been approximately $2,000 – just less than $2,000 per lot just to build an acceptable fence for a subdivision like Bristol Heights. That’s a cost
that we cannot pass on to the homebuyer to the lot owner. Therefore, it’s a distance then to even have a pathway system like you have in Bristol Heights. That points me to my other
point regarding micropaths. I believe that Section 12.9 – in there, in the third sentence, it says specifically, “The developer is responsible for the construction of the fences adjacent
to all micropaths.” I’m not aware of any city in this valley that has that requirement – the developer responsible to build a fence along the micro path. I’d hope that the City Council
could recognize that that again would encourage the disincentive of pathways within the future developments in Meridian and maybe by striking that sentence, you can eliminate that disincentive.
Those are my comments tonight and I stand for any questions if you have any for me.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Council.
D. Yorgenson: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else? If there is no one else, Steve, would you like to address some of these?
Siddoway: Sure, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I am going to take these in somewhat of a reverse order since the micropaths are fresh in your mind. It is our intent that the requirements
of this ordinance be restricted to – or we are calling them micropaths, and not the extended pathways. It’s not our intent to require the developer to install fences along the entire
edge of a pathway that they may be providing. The issue comes up in the micropaths which are on side lot lines that either connect to an open space area or to a pathway. The intent
is to have the developer put in the see-through fencing so that it’s clear at the time the property is purchased that it comes with those restrictions for see-through fencing along those
micropaths. The word “generally” -- we can take that out. Our intent here is we put that “generally 250 feet or two lot-depths” as an indication that it was those connectors, not
the lengthy pathways that they may be providing. The concerns that have been raised about Certificates of Occupancy puzzle me, frankly, because I think we’ve addressed the concerns
that have been raised and I’d be interested to hear we’ve truly haven’t. On the last page, 35, Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, we’ve added in italics that
private site improvements that are above and beyond the requirements placed on the application do not require completion prior to occupancy. For example, a clubhouse in a residential
subdivision need not be completed prior to occupancy of the residences of the subdivision. The comment about weather and being able to bond, we have that in there in the next section.
We limit it not to exceed 180 days due to weather or other circumstances that the landscaping or other required site amenities cannot be provided. I feel like we’ve got that in there.
The landscaping that’s required is not everything that’s been approved on a Preliminary Plat, for example, for the entire subdivision. It’s just whatever’s in the phase of the Final
Plat that they are doing. I would ask if we haven’t addressed the concerns. The way I read it – the way I heard their concerns, I felt like our intent was to agree with those. I thought
they were addressed in the ordinance. I’m going to leave the parkway width, the sidewalk width, the open space definition and the landscape plan preparation alone because I think those
issues are fairly clear as far as what the debate is. I’ll simply focus on the new points. 3.2, I’m going off of the letter from Scott Beecham. Applicability – I think that you’ll
see on 3.2 – it’s a little bit difficult to see, but on the next to the last line, on the other end side “and species” has a double cross through, which is indicating that we intend
when we move this to the application that those Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary Plats do not have to show species as he has requested. It is conceptual in nature. Landscape
Plan Modifications, 3.7 – we agree this language is subjective. It says “no significant field changes to the plan are permitted.” This was kind of discussed at some length in the meetings
that we had together. It’s originally said just flat no changes are required without you coming back to us and getting written permission. Their contention was, and I think rightfully
so that some things can be changed without significantly altering the plan and you shift the tree a few feet one way or another or you change a species to something similar. You shouldn’t
be wasting our time as staff trying to sign off on all of those little changes, so we tried to come up with a list. What changes should require a signoff? Well, anything that changes
the number of parking spaces, or the number of trees, or the location of sidewalks, or some of the things that we came up with, but then we decided we couldn’t really come up with a
complete list. If we can, I’m happy to include it. It would be clearer for us as well. What the group decided was to simply insert the word “significant” or “material changes” so
that if it’s a material change to the plan, which is somewhat subjective, then they have to get written approval from the Planning and Zoning Department and those little ones, we’re
frankly just not going to worry about. I would point out that on alternative compliance, as requested that if we have added the language under – did you find it – 15.3 on page 33, that
if a project is being submitted as a planned development, a separate application for alternative compliance is not required. If they are proposing some modifications to this through
a planned development, then that suffices. Other big issues? I think I’ve addressed everything in my mind that was brought up.
Corrie: I think the five percent buffering or five percent open space was one of the major ones.
Siddoway: Oh, yes. The five percent open space is what we came up with originally as a committee – is what we felt was the minimum required to create some break up internally for these
lots. The concern that was raised over excessive fees, the Meridian Park, which if I’m not mistaken, is now Waterbury, which is where I live, and with the example that I used in the
presentation to Council has almost 15 percent, which we’re frankly not asking for that much. We’re asking for a third of the amount that’s in that. That’s exclusive of their street
buffers. I think it’s around 13 or 14 percent exclusive of the street buffers that they have. We feel that there does need to be internal open space. We agree that the street buffers
are a benefit. The question is if they widened those beyond the minimum and are able to simply meet their entire requirement along those street buffers, is that what we want, or do
we want to require open space actually internal to the subdivisions? And we have the provisions written into the ordinance that allow them to double count, or count if you will, the
storm water detention areas that they are required to have as long as they meet the design criteria. David Turnbull brought up an issue of if ACHD requires trees to be or disallows
trees through their design standards. If another government agency is imposing restrictions that are in conflict with their ordinance, then that is one of the scenarios under which
they can file for alternative compliance at a staff level and not have to go through a variance through the Council to get approval, so there is an outlet there. I think that’s it.
Do you have other questions?
Corrie: Council.
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I had one. How’d you vote on your homeowners’ decision on whether to maintain the parks or not?
Siddoway: I wasn’t there when it was apparently voted to turn down. I can tell you that it’s – it’s used and it’s a great benefit to our – I applaud them for putting it in. It’s a
great place to live because of it. Frankly, I’m glad it’s there. The other extremes with the waterfalls and things that they were giving examples of, I would just point out that we’re
not requiring that. Our minimum standards on these open space areas are graphs or some type of vegetative ground cover and one tree per 8,000 square feet. That’s the minimum. The
things they do above and beyond that are at their discretion.
Corrie: Any other question? Rather than getting into the back and forth, I think he had a – did you ask him what it was?
Siddoway: Mr. Turnbull is wanting to clarify the issue on 16.2.
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, David Turnbull again. I think that when Roman testified regarding the time restrictions on landscaping being required for Certificate of Occupancies, I’m not sure
– actually, I’m missing page 37. Maybe he was missing page 39. I think it is covered in part in Section 16.2. I think that’s what Steve was speaking to. I believe what I was speaking
to is we have an extension provision not to exceed 180 days. If you take a look at where we are now, the months of November, December, January, February, March – sometimes in April,
it’s too muddy to do things. You could take up six months right there where you’re not really able to do anything. We did our first couple of phases of a major project, Harris Ranch
and we were paved in November, but we were working on landscaping through the entire summer of 2000, so it took longer than that 180 days, so I think Steve’s got the provision here that
handles it. I just question whether 180 days would be long enough and I think it’s everybody’s goal to get it done as quickly as possible, but if you have a strict not to exceed 180
days, I know that there are instances where that is not going to able to be met. I think you would have an enforcement in administration problem that you might not want to have with
that kind of a timeframe. I wanted to clarify Roman’s comments. I think he has, in part, addressed it here. My comment before was I just think that that period needs to be extended
some.
Corrie: To what, David?
Turnbull: If it were – what’s nine months – 270 days? Typically, bondings or letters of credits are good for a year, so that’s another alternative.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other questions or discussions of Council?
Anderson: I don’t have any questions.
Corrie: Well, if there are no questions and further discussion from the panel and the City staff, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 3 – proposed change in Landscape Ordinance for the City of Meridian. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Council.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: After listening to both sides here, I think the private sector brought up some very good points that I think we don’t need in this landscape – I happen to agree that some of the
nicest landscaping has been done by some non-landscape architects. I don’t see why that has to be in there at all. I don’t know qualified landscape designer or a qualified nurseryman
can’t be there. On the five percent open space, I don’t know why we have to stand out alone and why we can’t give them at least 50 percent of the street buffer. On the extension, the
180 days, sometimes you’d be lucky and maybe be able to do it within 180 days, but I’ve seen winters when you probably couldn’t do it, so I’d like to see that extended to 250. Your
escrow or your letter of credit is good for 12 months anyway, so, that wouldn’t hurt. That’s my comment.
Corrie: 250 or 270.
Bird: Yes, 250 or 270. I really don’t care. If we had a long winter, it would at least get them through. Sometimes the cold and freezing isn’t as bad as the wet. It might be warm
enough in the spring, but if it’s wet, you can’t get in there anyway.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess just a few comments. I think there was probably some good points made by both sides on some of these issues. I guess from my standpoint, if I was to look at them
one by one, the parkway width in our proposed ordinance talks about five feet. I’m pretty comfortable with that in limiting it to the Class 2 trees. I wouldn’t really have any problem
with the same allowances as ACHD uses and the separated sidewalks is allowing that to go to four feet in certain areas on local streets and then five feet on the major arterials and
heavy traffic streets. Open space – I don’t really want to reduce our standards, but I don’t have any problem with 50 percent or a two for one deal on the outside landscaping in that
particular case. I think our ordinance is pretty adequate in the area of giving them allowances to post the letter of credit. I guess I’ve lived here 40-some years and I haven’t seen
too many times where we’ve had six months in my life that you couldn’t go out and plant shrubbery. That would be an extremely wet spring and fall, but I understand there may be large
projects where time constraints may not allow you to complete all the landscaping in that time frame, though. I don’t know if our ordinance needs to change the wording or if common
sense there by staff and the developers could simply handle those kind
of situations. I also think that some of the other issues that were brought up, as far as the micropaths, I wouldn’t have any heartburn with taking the word “generally” out of there
because those things are hard to interpret and it could be 250 feet. I think Steve was very clear on what the intent was. I know that we’ve had a number of problems in residential
subdivisions now where we have allowed people to put six-foot high wooden fences and those have created problem areas in those subdivisions from vandalism to law enforcement problems
and everything else. I think that’s our intent in keeping those so that their open fence isn’t viewable. The only way to guarantee that, it would actually be to have the developers
help us in those situations. I think it’s clear that the intent is not to enforce the developers to put a fence along the entire pathway versus a micro path. Those are some of my comments
before we take a vote on it.
Corrie: Any other comments?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I generally agree with what has been said to this point with the exception of the open space. I can understand giving credit for anything that exceeds the minimum to allow
them creativity to have that entrance or that buffer over and above, but to give them credit for what is minimally required anyway, I don’t see what you’re really gaining. You’re trying
to gain a sense of an area which is usable by the residents and gives a break between the house after house. It would benefit if you had something that exceeded the minimum on the street
buffers, but anything outside of that should be in the interior where the residents would benefit.
Corrie: Anyone else? Let the record show I agree with Mrs. de Weerd on that last statement. I don’t feel that we should lower that five percent interior. I can see the developer
making a nice entryway and I think it’s an advantage of the subdivision, but I don’t agree that we should cut back on the five percent interior. Anyone else?
Anderson: Comment on that. What I have seen normally on that five percent interior, a lot of that is the storm drainage, and they stick that in our lot somewhere in the back of the
subdivision and to me, it really doesn’t do anything to open up that subdivision or to decrease the long row of housing that we talk about. If there was some other way that we could
disperse that five percent, I guess I would agree with what you’re saying. Present practices to me show that it’s really not working the way we would like it to – to accomplish that
goal of spreading things out and making it look more open in the subdivisions.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Ron and after going out and looking at some of the green spaces that were the drainage areas, I don’t call them much green space. I think that if we are – there
was some way that you could keep them from using that as five percent, but I don’t know any way that you could. I think you’re looking at a different situation. I would have to agree
with Ron on that.
Corrie: What guarantee are you going to have that they won’t use that and does the total still not give you the right-of-way coming in?
Bird: You’re right.
Corrie: You’re leaving it in the hands of the developer and I’m not saying they’re wrong, but they’re going to find some developers that we’re not too sure of how they build that you’re
not going to get that. The ones that spoke here tonight, I have no question that you’d get it, but I’m not too sure about some of the others that might come in.
Bird: Well, if they don’t have any buffer, then they’re going to have to come up with a five percent interior. They’re in a competitive business, and if they want to sell their lots
and stuff, they’re going to be competitive and do a lot of the same design. I realize that we have different developers, but I don’t think that’s something we legislate.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I’d guess I’d like clarification. So you have a concern that they’ll just do their five percent as a drainage ditch, so you might as well give them a percentage on the minimum
required of their street buffer, so that they have less of the drainage issue in the interior. Is that the motivation? I don’t understand why giving them a two to one on your minimum
street buffer has anything to do with what they would do interior wise.
Anderson: I guess I’m not maybe clear on what the two for one is. The way I’m understanding that is we’re still going to have the five percent minimum and that we would allow them
50 percent on the outside buffer to count towards that five percent. Am I not understanding that right?
Bird: That’s the way I understood it. We give them 50 percent. Say they got –
De Weerd: So then you’re asking for 2.5 percent interior open space if they do the minimum.
Bird: What’s the minimum?
De Weerd: Or up to – on the street buffer.
Bird: What’s the minimum on the street buffer?
De Weerd: It depends on if it’s an arterial or a local or –
Bird: If they do – say it’s a 40-acre and five percent is two acres. So an acre of it is in street buffer. We give a half-acre allowance and then they’ve got to do another acre and
a half interior. That’s the way I understand it.
De Weerd: Is that what we’re talking, Steve?
Siddoway: Is that what I’m talking or is that?
De Weerd: I know what you’re saying. What was the intent of the recommendation from the BCA?
Siddoway: Well, the compromise that we had tentatively come to was that up to 50 percent of the five percent could be met in the street buffer, which is different in my mind than counting
up to half of the street buffer because that could be potentially more than half of the five percent, especially if they go the way the trend seems to be going, which is widening them
out to 50 or 60 feet with large berms and they could get the entire five percent easily in just street buffers if there wasn’t a cap put on it. Our intent was to have the – require
a minimum street buffer and then to have at least five percent of the gross land area be internal. Does that answer your question?
Anderson: I think it clarifies if for me because I was thinking it was the other way around. I was thinking that it could offset that, but it would only count for half as much land,
being if it was on the buffer.
Siddoway: I would also like to point out to Mr. Bird that I agree with you 100 percent. What you see out there today as storm water detention areas, quite frankly are awful and shouldn’t
be counted. That’s the full intent of Section – I think it’s 11, of the ordinance which sets forth the minimum design standards that those have to be designed to in order to count towards
the required open space. If they’re not – if they’re just a gravel pit, they’re not going to count.
De Weerd: Some people might argue that they’re usable.
Siddoway: That’s why it’s spelled out the minimum design requirements.
Corrie: Anyone else.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I just want to restate I think what every member that has got up to speak has said. P and Z staff has been phenomenal – especially Steve with this. I know it’s really changed
quite a bit since the first draft that we put out, and I think it’s because of the participation that it’s become a stronger document. I appreciate the input from every side. We did
get a lot of different input with each section as it came about from people that had to work with these kinds of ordinances, so we kind of try to minimize the load that it would put
on staff to interpret and that sort of thing. I appreciate Steve for what he did for our piece of work.
Corrie: Anything else from the Council? Would you like to have the ordinance drafted in present form or changes that you want to see for the draft in the ordinance? It would be Draft
No. 5. Any changes?
Bird: Draft No. 4 was the one we –
Corrie: That’s the one we did, but – if you’re going to make some changes for the final draft for the ordinance.
Anderson: Is everyone on the Council pretty much in agreement on the requirement about a licensed architect or are we in disagreement there?
De Weerd: You could give me that five percent.
Anderson: Now that I understand it, you’ve got it.
Corrie: You didn’t ask me. Did you ask me? I’ll tell you anyway. I think that the people make a good point tonight that you don’t necessarily need an architect’s standpoint on everything.
We’ve got some good people out there that can do it without a stamp. I don’t want to lower the standards too much, but I think we may be swatting at small flies with a hatchet. I
agree on that one myself. Any comments.
Bird: I agree 100 percent. I’m like Ron. Does everybody agree with that?
McCandless: I certainly agree.
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: How about the park pathway thing? We didn’t have any problems with it, did we?
De Weerd: The parkway width?
Bird: The parkway width.
De Weerd: No. That’s fine.
Anderson: What’s fine? Going with ACHD?
De Weerd: ACHD’s. Yes.
Bird: I agree there.
Anderson: Of taking the word “generally” out of the definition on micropath?
Bird: On micro path, yes.
Corrie: That’s a very subjective word.
Bird: The time – does anybody – you make and bond or letter of credit for 12 months, so why would 250 or 270 days make a difference? I differ with you, Ron. I’ve seen – you’re not
only talking about landscaping. You’ve got asphalt and everything else to think about.
Corrie: I agree with you. Probably 250 would be adequate to 52.70. You can’t have a year when it gets really bad, but if they’re bonding for a –
Bird: Yes, they’re bonding it for a year, anyway.
Corrie: They’re getting a temporary occupancy certificate anyway. I think it was probably a very minor –
Bird: Then we agree on everything but the –
Anderson: Just as long as we’ve got the letter of credit, it doesn’t matter if –
Bird: It’s for a year anyway, Ron. Now, the open space. I guess that’s the last disagreement.
Anderson: Well, now that I understand the definition or what the intent was, I would agree that we ought to keep the five percent open space on the inside.
Bird: You want five percent open space inside, period, and no counting on the buffer.
Anderson: No. I completely misunderstood the intent of that.
Bird: I can’t.
De Weerd: I would conceive to anything over the minimum counting, but not the minimum.
Bird: I agree with you there. The minimum, no. Anything over, and I think that’s all these gentlemen were asking for was anything over the minimum to be counted 50 percent. I have
to – if they go above and beyond – I think sometimes your small inside open spaces can cause problems. If you’ve got fences built around them, they’re unsafe. They’re not kept up.
They get shrubbery around and stuff. They can be hiding places. I think they’re kind of like your pocket parks that we just discussed about getting rid of. I’m not –
Anderson: Could you live with over the minimum?
Bird: Fifty percent over the minimum? Yes, I could live with that.
De Weerd: Yes, I would go for anything over the minimum should count toward the five percent.
Bird: Mayor, you were against it. Let’s hear your view.
Corrie: It doesn’t make any difference if it’s three of you. I don’t have any problem with it. I think it will happen whatever you agree to let it happen. Under those circumstances,
I would still like to see a nice entryway in any subdivision and I just don’t want to take away from the interior of some green space. I think a legacy of asphalt to our kids is terrible.
If they can make it the entrances to these subdivisions – I’ve seen – the ones that talked today have some beautiful ones, but I’ve seen some that are really lousy, too. That’s the
only thing that I’m concerned about. I would probably go with that.
Bird: We’re going 50 percent over the minimum.
Corrie: Over the minimum requirement of landscape.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Bill, yes.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. If I can paraphrase this and you tell me if I’m interpreting this correctly. I understand that the last discussion to mean that to the
extent that the landscape buffer – street buffer exceeds the minimum, that part that exceeds the minimum counts toward the interior space up to 50 percent?
Bird: Fifty percent. If they’ve got an acre above the minimum, they get to count a half-acre toward the five percent.
Nichols: Okay.
Siddoway: It was unclear if that was up to 50 percent or just 50 percent of the additional space.
Bird: I think I just said 50. I didn’t go any minimum when I originally said that, but that’s fine. We’ll go with the minimum requirement – 50 percent over the minimum requirement
will count toward the five percent of the open space.
Siddoway: Which is different that what Mr. Nichols just said.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. If we take Councilperson Bird’s comment that if they’re an acre over their minimum on their landscape buffering on their streets, that acre
allows them a half-acre credit on their five percent interior space. That’s the part that clarifies it. Now it’s mine and Steve’s job to put that in writing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, if that is in agreement with the Mayor and the Council, I would make a motion that we let Steve and Mr. Nichols draft No. 5 with these changes and bring it before the
Council.
Siddoway: And prepare an ordinance?
Bird: Yes, prepare an ordinance with these changes and modifications.
Corrie: Do I hear a second to that motion?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, please on this one.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4. Public Hearing: Proposed Sign Ordinance:
Corrie: Item No. 4 is a public hearing on the proposed sign ordinance. At this time, I’ll open the public hearing and have staff comments first.
Hawkins-Clark: Good evening. Thank you for your patience. At your pleasure, I can spend the next three hours going through the 39 pages line by line. I may
not go through all of these. I just wanted to hit the issue – the main key points on this proposed sign ordinance. Again, it’s going to – currently, we have a zoning ordinance that
does not really provide design standards or guidelines. The 1993 ordinance lists only eight types of prohibited privated (sic) and that’s the extent of what we have currently. Some
of the issues that the sign committee came up originally as to why are we doing this coming up with new standards – the increasing commercial growth – an increasing amount of our time
and Planning and Zoning Commission time. On sign reviews, the draft ordinance, this ordinance does not address old town. The goal is to get other standards that will be more historically
compatible there. Really, there is not an old town category in this draft. Then in terms of increasing the aesthetic harmony and getting some consistent standards and maintenance so
we have that to back up on. What’s the ordinance process been to date? There are about 12 people that worked on the Sign Committee comprised of small business representatives, commercial
developers, residential property managers, sign company and a citizen representative. We started this just a little over a year ago and we did use some other cities there as a base
to kind of work off of. The Planning and Zoning Commission did review this ordinance at a workshop and then last month, they had a public hearing.
*** End of Side 2 ***
Hawkins-Clark: -- the real estate signs. I won’t necessarily go through all of these. I think you have in your packets background on the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
changes to the ordinance and you should have an ordinance draft that incorporates most of these. I think I’ll just leave that right now and if you do have questions on these changes
from your packet, we can address those later. There are a few recommended changes that have come up, both through discussions since the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing last month
– with a couple of sign company representatives as well as just us looking at it internally. One correction there – the first one – there’s a wrong date and the recommendation that
you received from Legal Department – Item No. 1, just correcting that, it’s not January 17th memo. It’s my October 17th memo. I guess the thinking with putting these up here was if
you agree with them all, I could give these to the Legal Department in terms of incorporating them into the actual ordinance in your motion. The Section 4, Paragraph B on page 10, which
deals with the abandoned signs definition was just an oversight on the Planning and Zoning Commission and my part for not bringing it up. Basically, we just wanted to have the same
definition on Paragraphs A and B – “A” being abandoned non-conforming signs and “B” being abandoned conforming signs. That’s what that second bullet point is. The third one, adding
a new second sentence to define what “covered” means – there was a couple of people that wanted some clarification. We say on page 12 that pole support structures for signs shall be
covered, but we don’t necessarily say what does that mean. Does that mean you can wrap it or does that mean you can paint it and that suffices? I have a proposed sentence there just
saying covering shall be designed to fully
enclose the poles. Paint or wrap shall not be permitted types of covering. Basically we’re looking at just some sort of wood or metal. Actually, a predominance of signs these days
– you’re seeing more of those covers just to kind of avoid the bare pole look. The fourth bold point there is also on page 12. This was something brought up by Tom Kuntz. To get some
clarification on prohibited signs – just adding, instead of just saying signs within the public right-of-way as being prohibited, add to that title, “Signs within the public right-of-way
and upon City owned property,” which I think would match sort of the intent as far as not allowing miscellaneous signs to be put in the parks, for instance. Those would be prohibited
unless they were posted by a City officer. The next bullet point there on the next page, 13, the off-premise sign to exempt the real estate signs at subdivision entrances. That’s Section
5, Paragraph I. These are prohibited signs. We’re just simply saying that in terms of an off-premise sign, the way that we have it proposed is real estate companies could put their
directional signs at the entrances to subdivisions, which technically would be an off-premise sign, since it’s advertising something that’s not on that. We’re just simply saying that
that would be added to an off-premise sign exemption. Page 14. This is another item that Tom Kuntz raised in terms of getting some clarification on our real estate. There is one instance
where the entrance to a subdivision in the City is not owned by the subdivision Homeowners Association, but rather is owned by the City. The goal with added this on here would be to
simply give the City – instead of allowing real estate signs to put at all subdivision entrances, that the subdivision entrance lot would need to be owned by the Homeowners Association
in order for them to put those directional signs on there. The last recommended correction from staff we had there was on page 21 regarding wall signs. The third line there – it says
one additional wall sign. This is the number of allowed wall signs allowed per business, is what this refers to. The way we have it is that one additional wall sign shall be permitted
on a building wall that does not face a street. There was some concern raised that that’s confusing. We aren’t saying that we’re only allowing wall signs on just one side of a four-sided
building. You could still have one wall sign per exterior wall. It would need to be the reduced percentage. We’re not saying only on walls that face a street. We’re saying if they
want to do one on the side of a building, then that’s acceptable. A few other highlights, the table of contents is there. Just some examples here for the definition section. These
are going to be added in. I’m sorry your copies don’t include – our intent is to add some of these graphics into the first Section 1 so that the definitions aren’t just text. They
do have some renderings. 18 percent is the number that our committee came up with in terms of figuring out a ratio. That’s an example of an awning sign there. Again, in this case,
as far as Idaho Independent Bank – in terms of figuring this 18 percent, we’re not saying that it’s 18 percent of just this face of the awning. We’re saying that when you’re actually
on East 1st and you’re looking at Idaho Independent Bank, even though it’s an awning sign, it actually acts like a wall sign in terms of being seen as part of this whole wall. The wall
area would actually be from the corner to the roofline and over and down. The 18 percent is calculated on that whole area. Here’s an example –
Anderson: Clarify that for me. You said “the roof area,” but Shari is pointing halfway up the building or you’re pointing halfway up the building. That’s not the roof area.
Hawkins-Clark: No, it would be. I’m sorry. It’s not – unlike some cities that take the roof interior ceiling – they base the wall sign on that. We’re saying that it would be up to
the roofline in this case.
Anderson: So if you had a three-foot façade, you would count that in there too?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, in terms of calculating the total wall area.
Anderson: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Canopy signs – just an example. These are again in more detail on the 7 tables at the back of the ordinance. 50 percent of the face is what we’re proposing to allow
for the background area of a sign on that. We would take per canopy, so this would be one side – one face would be this and they could take 50 percent of that area in terms of signage.
Only one of our zones – we’re saying the C-G – the commercial, you can actually do two separate signs on a face. Most of the other zones are just allowing a single sign on one face
of a canopy.
Anderson: Can I ask you a question there, too? On a canopy, we’re seeing a lot of them now that are lit, but they’re not a sign. Does that make any difference? If somebody wanted
to take and light all four sides of this canopy, it’s internally illuminated. It’s not a sign. It doesn’t say anything. Is that interpreted as a sign or –
Hawkins-Clark: There’s no logos and no text.
Anderson: But it’s all lit up.
Hawkins-Clark: It’s all lit.
Anderson: They build it just like a sign. They just don’t have any lettering on it.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. On the way that the sign is defined at the beginning of the ordinance now, I don’t believe that we would interpret that to be a sign because it needs to point to
a product or a service available on a site. That’s the function of a sign and if you just have l lighted canopy – we do have our other lighting standards in the Zoning Ordinance that
would have to be shielded as far as residential areas.
Anderson: That’s what I’d be concerned about. It could cast considerable amount of light into surrounding areas, but it may not be a sign. It may not meet the definition of a sign.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We could look at that or we could look at the illumination component of our zoning ordinance, I guess – either way. In the back, these are just some of the calculations
that we’ll be using. Our example of a freestanding sign – if you notice, we don’t actually use the word “monument sign” anywhere in the ordinance. We’re just simply saying if it’s
free standing, it’s free standing and it can be designed sort of as a low profile monument looking sign or it can be a pole sign. The copy area is actually calculated just on this dash
line surrounding the text. The sign background area is this entire white area here on which copy can be placed. Actually, all of the calculations and the tables where it says they
have a maximum background area of a sign, it is using that area there. This is an example of an architectural. This would – we’re saying we’re allowing 15 percent of the sign – of
the background area can be in an architectural pertinence, so that’s an example of one of those. Not seeing too many of the Mansard signs, but just to clarify what it are, a Mansard
roof – we are again saying that the total wall area would be from the top of the roofline to grade. That is what the Mansard sign would be calculated on. It’s calculated actually as
a wall sign. This is incorrect – this wall area on this case – it would actually be to a roofline. An example of a projecting sign – which we’ll probably see more of these in old town,
but we’re saying we are allowing these as part of a planned sign program. Otherwise, they are pretty much prohibited. They are really more designed for the central business district
kind of setting. That’s what we’re looking at as far as the dimensions – a maximum of 10 feet extension from the wall and a minimum of 12 feet clearance. As far as animation, the sign
code currently just allows animation only in our C-G and I-L zones and 20 percent of the total sign area is what we’re saying is allowable as animation. Some of these – this is an example.
Some of these you’ll see where you have greater – the actual surface or the printing areas is greater than what the text is. We’re saying that the 20 percent is calculated only on
the animated portion, which would just be this one-foot height, I think is what’s common. Some of the – the cabinet that the animation is within would not be part of the 20 percent
necessarily. These last couple are just examples of signs that are the maximum size that the code is proposing. This is approximately about an 80 square foot multi-tenant sign, which
is the maximum sign that we would allow in a limited office zone. This is an example of the maximum size that we would allow for just a single – if there’s just a single tenant - just
a single building, it’s about a 45 square foot sign. That’s an example there for our limited office zones. An example of a 15-foot 80 square foot sign, which is the maximum height
and the maximum background area in two of our commercial zones and then the center sign in a limited office is – can go up to that 15-foot height.
Anderson: Would this sign be illegal under the new ordinance? Wouldn’t it have to be enclosed? It’s a freestanding sign. It would have to be wrapped and closed somehow?
Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct. I believe – I’m sorry. The picture doesn’t really reflect it, but I believe that those are just simply painted galvanized steel posts there. It may
have a slight rounded covering on it. I can’t remember. The goal of that would not necessarily be to eliminate round poles covered with a round sort of cabinet that that would work.
Just an example of a vehicle sign, which are at this point prohibited in the draft and they’re defined as basically signs that are serving as – they’re just – they’re not being used
actively in the course of a business. Our bikini-clad van, at least under this one, would be a prohibited sign. Here’s an example of wall sign calculations and multi-tenant building
where we would base the 18 percent on the storefront widths. So we would more or less take the – following these red lines in terms of taking storefront width across the top down to
the grade and over. That would be the 18 percent. That would be the wall area and then 18 percent. Bear in mind that the 18 percent would go down to nine percent in most cases since
they are combining a poll sign with a wall sign. That’s the way it reads. Although, nine percent is still quite adequate, particularly in these multi-tenant situations. Here’s an
example of a wall sign at eight percent of the total wall area. We’re saying that nine percent, if they have an associated poll sign – free standing sign and 18 percent, so you’re looking
at more than double that size would be actually allowed. With that, I’ll leave it for questions.
Anderson: How would large buildings like a J Bell or something like that qualify under a wall sign? Is it 18 percent of that big wall or is there a maximum?
Hawkins-Clark: There is a maximum right now of, I believe, 100 square feet.
Anderson: Is that in all zones, or just a couple of zones?
Hawkins-Clark: It’s just in a couple.
Anderson: So there are some zones where you could go 18 percent of a wall if you had a 300-foot long wall?
Hawkins-Clark: No, I’m sorry. The 100 are just in a couple – we do set maximums in all of them. 80, for instance, is the maximum for the – like the limited office buildings. Although,
I believe, for instance, like the Idaho Center, if you’re going down I-84, that sign – I believe Golden West did that. If you’re looking at the Idaho Center bill, I believe that’s about
a 10 percent – or I’m sorry – 20 percent of the total wall area there, which is really all about proportion. You would never know that it’s 20 percent of that wall particularly at a
distance.
Anderson: If you have a wall sign then, does that reduce any free standing signs if you may want to put those up or are you still allowed to do the maximum square footage on them?
Hawkins-Clark: On the free standing maximum?
Anderson: Yes. If I had a wall sign that took up 18 percent of my walls, am I still allowed the maximum on a freestanding sign in addition to that?
Hawkins-Clark: No. That would be – if you had both, it would cut in half the size of the wall is the way that the draft reads.
Anderson: What do you consider a wall sign? Does it have to face a road or – for example, some of these businesses that are quite a distance from the freeway, if I had a tall building
on Franklin Road, can I – or I guess back off the back of Franklin Road or on the south side of it – is that considered facing the interstate? Can I put a wall sign on that?
Hawkins-Clark: We have a separate category for interstate signs and it’s within 300 feet of the right-of-way of I-84 – is actually what we have as that sort of overlay zone for signs.
They would be allowed both if I hear you right – I mean both the sign on Franklin and a sign facing I-84.
Anderson: If you are within 300 feet of it?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Actually, yes, even if you weren’t.
Corrie: Any questions of staff on the signage?
Bird: I have none.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: On the existing signs that are there now, when the ordinance passes, are they going to have to change or would they to conform with the ordinance or would they be grandfathered
or – how would that work?
Hawkins-Clark: The way we’ve got it right now, if they are – if the building is abandoned in terms of the use for six months and the sign is non-conforming to this new code, then we
could go in as a City and enforce compliance. Otherwise, if they remain – if it remains occupied and as long as it’s not a hazard of any kind, then they would be able to keep existing
signs. We’ve got that six-month abandon clause in there.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think also, Council member McCandless, if they can’t come in for a major change, then we can also bring the sign up to code. Is that not right? I know the committee talked
about that at one time.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: When you remodel a building, you have to bring it up to the current code even if it had been grandfathered. Once you start – and I think that is not only sign – it’s building
and everything else. ADA and everything else once you go into the structure to remodel, then you have to bring it up to current codes.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Page 17 is where we outline the point at which a legal non-conforming sign would lose its status. There are six – there are seven items there that we’ve listed.
I think probably the one that will be the most dispute is number one. If there’s a change of the background area constituting 50 percent or more of the total existing sign background
area, then that is ground for the City to be able to say you have to take your sign down and put up a conforming sign. I think some of the others are pretty straight forward as Councilman
Bird was pointing out. We do have – No. 5 – if there’s a change in the use of the property that the sign is located on, then the sign does – the legal non-conforming status is lost.
If there’s alterations or enlargements to the site or the building in excess of 25 percent, then that would also be grounds. Of course, if the sign is replaced – if the sign is moved
two or three – I think the committee was pretty – especially the developers that were on there felt that that would be at times difficult in terms of changing the face of your signs
that are there that we would go in. Now that would – Damage is No. 7, which is another one. The last paragraph of that, B, says that upon occurrence of any of the above events, a non-conforming
sign shall lose it’s legal status. Thereafter, the sign owner shall remove the sign within 60 days. So they are given a period of time to comply.
Anderson: On page 19 on center signs, it talks about existing developments which do not have a comprehensive sign program. Could you maybe explain what a sign program is and then how
that would work on existing developments if someone wanted to come in – if they have got a big tenant panel or something and a new business comes in and they want to add to that, is
that a change and how’s that going to work?
Hawkins-Clark: To get your first point, the planned sign program is pretty much any project that is more than a single building and a single tenant. Multi-tenant buildings like Elm
Tree Plaza, which I gave an example of – projects where there
are multiple principle buildings, like an office complex campus type thing. We’re saying that in all of those situations, we want to see up front sort of a theme stated and they do
have an application form that they’ll be submitting with those so that we have – we’re able to track that program basically throughout the life of the project. We do address existing
development. Let me see. You’ll need to find the paragraph.
Anderson: The bottom paragraph talks about existing ones.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay.
Anderson: I guess the way I read that is if I was part of a tenant panel sign and that business changed hands and they came in to reapply for a new sign, we’re then saying that that
whole sign has to meet the new ordinance. If that sign is larger right now than our new ordinance would allow, that would mean they have to tear down that sign and put in a whole new
tenant panel sign and meet the new square footage ordinances?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. No. Actually, we’re not saying that they have to meet the new sign ordinance. We’re just saying they have to submit a sign program so that – well it says “existing
developments which do not have a comprehensive sign program shall be required to adopt one. When the first tenant in the project requests a change of signed background area, so then
all subsequent changes shall be required to conform to the adopted program.” I could see the confusion and maybe we do need to clarify, but we’re not necessarily saying that all the
signs have to conform to the new code. We’re just simply saying we want to have a program on file in the Planning and Zoning Department that when in the future, signs come in for that
development, they meet the adopted program, which could involve color schemes. It could involve having some kind of unified theme architecturally on the signs – a font type. All of
those things would be part of the program.
Anderson: It almost sounds like staff is then going to kind of get into a design review process on some of these signs.
Hawkins-Clark: In essence, that is what it says.
Corrie: Any other questions of staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I believe this is a public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony? So far it’s been one-sided. Hearing none. Council, any other questions
of staff? Hearing none. I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item No. 4, the proposed sign ordinance.
Bird: So moved.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 4, the proposed sign ordinance. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Discussion on Council with the ordinance? Hearing none. I’ll entertain a motion then on the proposed sign ordinance.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I may interrupt. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Brad had a list of items of clarification at the first. I had one thing I differed with a little bit and
that was on the prohibition against the posting of design on City owned property. The conjunction should be “or” rather than “and” on that so that it covers either situation. On the
first –
Bird: Right there.
Nichols: Yes. That portion right there should be “or” rather than “and.”
Corrie: Okay. Any other corrections? I guess that would be – the proper form is to have the attorney draw up the ordinance as changed. Is that correct? That being the case, I’ll
entertain a motion to have the attorney draw up the sign ordinance with the correction.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Mayor, members of the Council. There is one point that was brought up here. Our animated signs being restricted to two zones would in fact disallow animation for
most of our schools since most of them are not in C-G and I-L – which that had never really been discussed before. We have seen Meridian High School and the middle school. Library
is L-O and that would as well. It may be something that before you give us –
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Nobody is going to make a motion. I’m not going to sit here all night. I would move that we have the attorney and staff draw up the sign ordinance – the new sign ordinance with
the changes and recommendations as stated. Also the animation signs with schools and stuff, I believe they need to work on that. I also
the question that Councilman Anderson brought up – if we were going to be – how did you put it?
Anderson: Design and review on it.
Bird: Design and review on all these signs, I think, need to be worked over so that we aren’t doing design and review on every sign that comes in. With that, I’ll close the motion.
De Weerd: Along with the changes.
Bird: I’ve already said that.
Corrie: Who’s going to do it?
Bird: The design and review.
Bird: I think that we can write it up so that we don’t have to do a lot of design and review. I think you will once in a while but I believe that it can be written clearer between
Brad and Bill.
Corrie: I have a motion. Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorney and staff draw up the ordinance as stated with the corrections and alterations. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I’d just like to comment a little bit. First of all, I appreciate the staff work that was done on the sign ordinance and it’s been something that we’ve been needing
for a long time. I was a little disappointed, not necessarily in the staff, but in just the response that we’ve got in general from participation on the Sign Ordinance Committee. I
would have liked to have seen more input and I think that’s part of my concern is that when I read through this, I guess I see some issues in there that had we had more input from other
people, that we might have had some opposing opinions, but there are certain issues that I think are actually going to cause us more variance requests and more contention between people
installing signs and business owners with some of the language that’s in here. Like Keith, I think we did look at other Cities’ sign ordinances and some of those cities – you’ve got
to look at the whole picture. Some of them actually have a design review committee that does that and I don’t think we’re set up like some of those other cities. Therefore, we’re leaving
a lot of those things
up to the discretion of staff. Sometimes, that’s not a really comfortable position because then you get lots of opportunities for not necessarily consistent adherence to your sign ordinances.
I still have some concerns with the ordinance in certain areas.
Corrie: Any other comments?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I think it would be important for Brad to get an overview of who has reviewed this and if you got any comment back.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner De Weerd, it was sent. I don’t have the list readily available. I believe to four sign companies, the Chamber of Commerce received a copy and made a couple
of announcements in their newsletter that it was available for review. The standard notice of hearing, of course, in terms of newspaper publication, and then the Ada County Association
of Realtors received the copy early on and all the way through they received copies. Idaho Transportation Department received direct mailing copies of the ordinance.
De Weerd: Ada County received a copy too, right?
Hawkins-Clark: The Planning Department, yes.
De Weerd: And the Meridian Merchants’ Association.
Hawkins-Clark: Right – which was represented on the committee.
De Weerd: So there was opportunity, but I would say that if you feel there are going to be some issues, then why rush it? Why not continue this and look at it next month if you think
there are some issues of contention here? I don’t think one month is going to be a big issue when we delayed the Landscape Ordinance for two to make sure that we got it – any kinks
out of it that we felt would be bottlenecks or points that would cause variance requests and that sort of thing. So if you have those feelings –
Anderson: I guess I have them, but I’m not saying that’s the fault of the staff. I think the staff has done everything possible to solicit help. I’m more disappointed, I guess, just
in the people that are going to be coming to us in the future for wanting applications for signs because I think that some of the language in here is going to cause problems in the future.
Like I said, I think the part when we start getting into design review and that kind of stuff, it’s going to cause us problems because we’re not set up to do it.
De Weerd: Well, at this point, this is better than what we have, which was nothing and they were doing even interpretation at that time.
Anderson: Well, I agree. It’s better than what we have, yes.
Corrie: Question been called for. Mr. Berg, if you’ll do roll-call, please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, naye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would just like to thank Brad and extend the thanks for the rest of the committee. I know there’s been a lot of time into this one, too. These were two really time consuming
ordinances, so I appreciate staff and everything they did.
Item 5. Public Hearing: The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 8 Land Swap:
Corrie: I can understand Ron’s concern here, but we’ve gone through two public hearings now and everybody had a chance to talk. We could drag this thing out like Florida is doing right
now. Not to be facetious, but we need to get along. I think we’ve got a fairly good ordinance here. If we’ve got some mistakes, we’ll find out about it. Item No. 5 is a public hearing
for the Lakes at Cherry Lane Land Swap. At this time, I will open the public hearing and staff comments.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I would like to excuse myself from this item, please.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. It’s not typically my job to present anything as a staff report, so please forgive me. The Council has already entertained an agreement
to enter into a proposed change of land with Steiner Development Corporation and Mr. Bradbury is here and can describe the properties involved. The appraisals have been done of the
respected parcels and the proposal from Steiner trades dollar for dollar and value for value on these parcels, but the statute requires that any time City land is exchanged or sold,
that a public hearing has to be scheduled for public input on the issue. It’s essentially some property which the City now owns that is next to the golf course, which is not usable
by the golf course. It can be exchanged for a piece of property that would be available to the golf course and also the developer would supply the pipe for some tiling of the – I believe
it’s the eight mile lateral that goes through there with the work to be done by Nampa / Meridian as part of their work, but it’s a dollar for dollar exchange. That’s really all I have.
Mr. Bradbury is here on behalf of Steiner Development.
Corrie: Mr. Bradbury, I’m glad to see you’re here in Meridian and not in Florida. I had to get that in. I’m sorry.
Bradbury: The fees they’re likely to be charging, maybe I wish I was in Florida. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I’m Steve Bradbury. My office address is 225 North 9th in Boise.
I represent Steiner Development – one of the two parties to the proposed exchange. As Mr. Nichols has explained, one of the duties of the Council is to hold a public hearing on the
proposed exchange agreement. You’ll recall that last month, in October, you adopted the exchange agreement that was presented to you. What I wanted to do just very briefly is to provide
you with the background and answer any questions that you may have. You can see on the screen a map of the area of the exchange parcels and what I guess I will tell you – the way I
will describe it is that the parcels to be exchanged from the City to Steiner Development are those two parcels – one that’s marked in the orange and the other that’s marked in the yellow.
Then the property that would be exchanged from Steiner Development to the City is the one with the red dot on it. These are all, of course, in the vicinity of the proposed Lakes at
Cherry Lane No. 8 Subdivision, which I understand, by the way was recorded today. There was an appraisal – appraisals of the three parcels were prepared last summer, I believe it was.
Your staff has copies of those appraisals and I don’t know if you have actually seen them or not. What I did is I made copies of the last page – the summary page of the appraisals
so that she’d get an idea of the dollar amounts that are involved. I’ll hand those to the Mayor. The result of the appraisal was to find that the parcels to be exchanged to Steiner
from the City – that worked in total. The two together were valued at $10,476. The parcel to be exchanged to Steiner from the City was valued at $2,835, so that leaves about a $7,600
difference. To make up the difference, Steiner Development offered to provide to the City 152 feet of 48-inch concrete pipe that would be delivered at a location designated by the City
and unloaded. It could be used by the City then to bury the – a portion of the eight mile lateral in the vicinity of the golf course. Essentially, wherever the City found that it would
do the most good. In order to come to determine whether or not that would be an equal value, Steiner Development got a bid from a supplier. I'll hand that to you as well. The way
that was calculated, based upon the bid to deliver and unload the pipe, it was $51.35 per foot of pipe at 152 feet. It comes out to a little over $7,800. That then is about $200 more
than the difference in value of the property so the City gets just a slight benefit in the values of the property and the pipe combined. As Mr. Nichols has indicated, the values then
are equalized as is required under the statute. I might just point out why we’re – part of the reason why we’re going to all the trouble here. The properties that are to be exchanged
to Steiner Development and that are presently owned by the City and used as a part of the golf course are really not particularly usable for the golf course. The parcel that’s marked
with the yellow dot is in between the proposed lots that are owned by Steiner Development and the eight-mile lateral. It’s just too narrow to be of any particular use to the golf course,
at least as I understand it. The parcel that is
marked with the orange dot is about a 20-foot wide strip of land and if you – we don’t have it on the drawing here, but the lots that are directly to the east of the proposed – of this
Lakes at Cherry Lane 8 Subdivision, the backs of those lots all extend about 20 feet further out than do the lots in No. 8. What you end up with is you end up with about a 20-foot jog.
By swapping that land into Steiner Development, you straighten out the –
*** End of Side 3 ***
Bradbury: -- out of the equation then is the parcel that would be conveyed to the City and it’s my understanding that that has been piped. Is that right? Do you know? It’s my understanding
that it has been or could be piped and then could be used as part of the – it’s adjacent to and could be used as part of the golf course clubhouse area and incorporated into those uses.
The idea here is that both parties have an opportunity to make a little bit better use of the lands that the other party happens to own. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions
that you may have and of course, I’d urge the adoption of the ordinance, which I understand is before you tonight.
Corrie: I guess my question would be to the attorney right now. Is Ward’s participation been taken care of because they had an interest in this if something happened to the golf course.
Is that taken care of?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The exchange is contingent upon receiving consent from Western Ada and I don’t believe that we’ve actually requested that formal consent
yet, but I don’t anticipate that it’s a problem because it simply squares up some lines and they actually have the interest in the golf course itself, and so it’s adding to that particular
property. But it would be something that we would do as part of this exchange.
Corrie: Any questions for Steve?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you, Steve. Is there anyone else from the audience that would like to issue testimony on this? Hearing none. Any questions on the Council to anybody? I entertain a
motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED
Corrie: Can we do the ordinance?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I don’t know if I’ve actually got the ordinance in front of you this evening. It’s not on the – I didn’t realize I was that prepared.
Bird: We’re ready to go. Can we pass it?
Nichols: But it wasn’t on the Agenda, was it?
Corrie: That’s the only thing. We – was it on the Agenda to do the ordinance?
Nichols: I don’t see it on the Agenda. I just see the public hearing. We could certainly schedule it for the fifth of December and have the first reading.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion for that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue this adoption of the ordinance for the land exchange until December 5, 2000 and at that time have the first reading.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the adoption of the ordinance for the meeting of December 5, 2000 for the first reading. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I just had a question of Bill. I was reading through here really quick. Is there something in there that guarantees that the pipe has to be delivered and it has to be unloaded?
What about damage? I used to work with that and it’s not uncommon with that large of pipe that if that gets dropped too hard, it can damage it. Is there something in our agreement
that guarantees it’s got to be in good condition after it’s unloaded?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, members of the Council. It’s my understanding that that – in order to be the appropriate value, it has to be good pipe. It can’t be broken pipe.
So yes. I would say that it’s in there.
Corrie: All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED.
Item 6. FP 00-019 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on approximately 5 acres by Bill Cafarelli for Cafarelli Subdivision currently in an I-L zone – north side of Franklin
Road and west of Linder Road:
Corrie: The next item is the request for Final Plat approval – 00-019 for the Cafarelli Subdivision currently in an I-L zone – north side of Franklin Road and west of Linder Road.
Staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a three-lot subdivision located in an industrial zone that’s west of Linder Road on Franklin Road. We have submitted our comments dated November
20th. The applicant’s representative has responded. Just for clarification, a couple of issues. They did submit a revised landscape plan today. However, that plan is not approved
and I have specifically talked to the owner of the property as to what we need to do and we believe we can work out that issue prior to signature on the Final Plat. You probably have
copies of that landscape plan and some of the issues were that the fencing is shown in the center of the eight-mile lateral and they also have extensive landscaping that’s within that
eight-mile lateral easement. All we were asking for was just the landscape corridor along Franklin Road and that each of the lots as they developed would be responsible for their own
landscaping in accordance with the Landscape Ordinance. We will work with the applicant on that. They have submitted a revised plan of their covenants. I’m not sure if the attorney
has had the opportunity to look at these covenants. Note on page 6 of what they’ve submitted, I still had a little question about they’ve got a minimum lot depth of 12.8 feet and I’m
not really sure where that came from. The minimum building flanking street setback in that zone would be 30 feet, so as long as they can revise that to comply with our current ordinance,
we have no objections to approval of the Final Plat and would recommend approval with staff conditions.
Corrie: Is the representative, Mr. Cafarelli here? Do you have any difference in opinion?
Cafarelli: No. We would agree with what Mrs. Stiles has said.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. With that in mind, I’ll entertain a motion on the Final Plat approval.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on approximately 5 acres by Bill Cafarelli for Cafarelli Subdivision currently in an I-L zone – north side of
Franklin Road and west of Linder Road with staff comments and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Final Plat with staff conditions and for the attorney to draw up the final papers on it. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call
vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Next item is the water, sewer and trash delinquency – delinquency for turnoff schedule for November 29, 2000. This is to inform you in writing if you choose to have the right
to this predetermination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 21, 2000 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made
by the City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel and this service will be discontinued on November 29, 2000 unless full payment is received in
full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his / her water, sewer and trash delinquency? Hearing none. You are hereby informed that you may appeal or how the decision of
the City reviewed by the fourth judicial district court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they will appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turnoff list is
$57,310.08. Council, I’ll entertain a motion to approve the delinquency turnoff schedule.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the delinquency turnoff schedule for November 29, 2000. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8. Department Reports:
A. City Engineer – Gary Smith:
1. South Slough Sewer Trunk Extension – Engineering Agreement:
Corrie: The next is Department Reports – City Engineer, Gary Smith.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. The first item I have is a proposed engineering agreement for engineering required to extend the South Slough Sewer Trunk from its
present location on the east side of Chamberlain Estates Subdivision to the east side of Eagle Road. We solicited proposals from six engineering firms, and when we solicited proposals,
we received six and based upon the qualifications and the similar work experience and their approach to this project, we selected JUB Engineers from Boise, Idaho. We subsequently met
with JUB to negotiate the contract amount to do this work and you have attached to your memo a copy of their engineering agreement. JUB has provided us with excellent service in the
past on other projects and in that regard, I have shown on the memo I requested Council action for entering into this contract agreement with JUB Engineers.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve entering into an engineering agreement with JUB Engineers, Incorporated of Boise, Idaho for preparation of engineering plans and specifications
to extend the south slough sewer trunk line from an existing (inaudible) to the east side of Eagle Road and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign this engineering agreement.
Bird: I second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the City Engineer to enter into an engineering agreement with JUB Engineers. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none,
all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2. Request to hook up to City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton – 940 South Mustang Drive:
Smith: Thank you Mayor and Council. The next item I have is a request for hookup to City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton at 940 South Mustang Drive. This item was discussed in
Pre-Council. Do you have any questions at this time after hearing what their situation is?
Corrie: Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: The request is for hookup to City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton at 940 South Mustang Drive.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the request to hookup to City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton at 940 South Mustang Drive and subject to the City’s normal procedure
on that.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request of the City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton at 940 South Mustang Drive with the normal procedures of the City. Any further
discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Request to hook up to City Sewer by Dianna Williamson – 2440 South Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: No. 3, Gary.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, could I have a point of clarification on that last one? Then we will need to have Pembertons enter into an agreement with the City of Meridian similar to what we’ve
experienced or what we’ve prepared in the past. In this case, since they’re not contiguous to the City limits, it would have a provision that once they were, they would agree to annexation.
Is that correct?
Nichols: Mr. Smith, Mayor, members of the Council. The agreement requires that they apply for annexation and that’s held in abeyance until such time that they’re contiguous, I believe.
Smith: Okay. Thank you. Just for Mr. And Mrs. Pemberton, I’ll send an agreement to you for your review and signature that will outline the conditions of approval and that would be
forthcoming within probably a week. Thank you.
The next item that we have on the Agenda is the request to hookup to City Sewer by Diana Williamson at 2440 South Locust Grove Road. You may be familiar with this building. As I understand,
it used to be an old school house on South Locust Grove. It is now a four-unit apartment building and they are not in the City presently. They do have an on-site well that is providing
them with, according to Mrs. Williamson, good quality water. Because of the expense involved, she has requested that they only connect to City Sewer at this time. She has agreed to
proceed with the annexation process. The only other thing that she’s requesting is to – because of the size of the assessment, because there are four units there, that they would –
that she would be allowed to enter into a payment schedule to pay the amount off.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Is that payment schedule legal? Have we done that before? I have no problem helping people out, but –
Corrie: I was going to say do you have the payment schedule that you have worked out with her?
Smith: No, sir. We don’t. I don’t know what she’s willing to pay. We have done some schedules in the past for a property that’s had a rather large assessment against them. It hasn’t
carried it any longer than 12 months, as I recall.
Bird: It has been done then before, Gary?
Smith: Okay.
Corrie: The 12-month time limit.
Smith: Maximum, yes.
Corrie: Has she been informed of this or –
Smith: Bruce Freckleton has had all the conversation with Mrs. Williams and I don’t know whether she’s been informed of a time period or not.
Corrie: If the Council so desires, we can put that limit on there and see if she agrees to it, I suppose. Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I guess I would have a question as to when did they get approved to have four units in that building and is it an existing legal use in the county? Our
Comprehensive Plan calls for single-family residential there and I don’t know when they would’ve remodeled it, but if it’s an illegal use in the
county, it’s certainly not zoned for four units there. Why would we hook them up? Could we at least table any decision on that until I could check with the County and see if they’re
even legally in there?
Corrie: I think we should.
Bird: I do too.
Corrie: I don’t want to get any deeper with her or for her and if we don’t really check it out, I think we would be amiss at this point.
De Weerd: If we can’t annex her in (inaudible).
Corrie: There would be a lot of problems there.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table the request for the hookup to the City Sewer by Diane Williamson at 2440 South Locust Grove Road until December 5, 2000 and instruct the staff to find out
the legalities of the four-plex.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table this to December 5, 2000 and have staff investigate the conditions that was brought up by the Planning and Zoning Director. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Addendum to Engineering Agreement for WWTP Trunk Sewer Extension:
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. The last item I have is the addendum to engineering agreement for the Waste Water Treatment Plant Trunk Sewer. This is a need for
additional services by JUB Engineers that involves the relocation of our septic receiving facility that’s going to have to be moved because of the expansion of the headworks. The additional
amount to be included in the existing contract is $6,285.96. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the septic handling facility or not. It’s just a dump basin that’s located on the
north side of the head works, which is where the main trunk lines come in from
the city and they’ll be moved to the south side of the head works or south side of the plant. If you have any questions, I’ll be happy to answer those.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the addendum for the engineering agreement for the Waste Water Trunk Sewer Extension from the original $24,470 and add $6,285.96 bringing the agreement
total to $30,755.96 and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the extension of the original contract for $24,470 by $6,285.96 bringing the agreement total to $30,755.96 and for the Mayor to sign and the
Clerk to attest. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: The last item is the Parks and Recreation Director and we had that at 5:00 p.m. He’s gone home. With that, that’s the last of the Agenda items. So, there’s nothing else to
come before the Council. I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adjourn.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Before we vote, I would hope that we could get everything cleared up on the Finance Director next week during our workshop.
Corrie: My recommendation is you get it done so I can get the advertisement and get it okayed.
De Weerd: I will give my list to Mr. Berg for Workshop items.
Corrie: Any other comments? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:16 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK