HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 04-16Meridian City Council Meeting April 16, 2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at
7:15 P.M., Tuesday, April 16, 2002, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Cherie
McCandless and William Nary.
Others Present: Sam Johnson, Mike Worley, Gary Smith, Dave McKinnon, Brad
Watson, Ken Bowers, Dean Willis, and Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: Okay. It's 6:30, I'll call the Meridian City Council Regular Meeting for Tuesday,
April 16, 2002, in the City Council Chambers to order and, Mr. Clerk, we'll have roll-call
attendance, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Okay. Item Number 2 is the Adoption of the Agenda. Council, have you seen
the Agenda? Any additions or corrections?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We can probably, I think, take care of that under the Public Works Department
before taking this one off. Do you want to do that now or do you want to do that --
under B-1, Public Works Department, the White Drain Sewer Trunk award of
construction contract, we need to pull that until a later date. I don't believe we -- he said
we don't need to. I would pull that until it's ready to come back at such time, I hope
sooner than later.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: And other than that, I would make a motion that we adopt the Agenda as noted,
with that one exception.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments? Hearing none, all those in favor of adopting the
Agenda as noted say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 2
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of March 26, 2002 City Council Regular Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of April 2, 2002 City Council Special Meeting:
C. Approve minutes of April 2, 2002 City Council Regular Meeting:
D. Tabled from April 2, 2002: Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law for Denial: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak
Development, LLC – 2435 South Meridian Road:
E. Tabled from April 2, 2002: Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law for Denial: CUP 01-029 Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage
and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak
Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC – 2435 South Meridian
Road:
F. Tabled from April 2, 2002: Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law for Denial: VAR 01-019 Request for a Variance to exceed
1,000 feet maximum length requirement and to allow the public
road being proposed to exceed 450 feet maximum length
requirement in an R-8 zone for Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak
Development, LLC – 2435 South Meridian Road:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
01-044 Request for a Conditional Use permit for one 92 room hotel,
one single story office building and one two story office building in a
C-G zone for Hampton Inn Hotel by Meridian Hampton Center
LLC – southwest corner of Allen Street and Gentry Way:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PFP
01-010 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval for 3 building
lots on 4.10 acres in a C-G zone for Hampton Inn Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – southwest corner of Allen Street and
Gentry Way:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-
027 Request for annexation and zoning of 77.9 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for proposed Baldwin Park Subdivision by Capital
Development Co. – ¼ mile south of McMillan Road, east side of
Linder Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 3
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-
024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 272 building lots and
16 other lots on 77.9 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Baldwin
Park Subdivision by Capital Development Co. -- ¼ mile south of
McMillan Road, east side of Linder Road:
K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
01-020 Request for variance on block lengths for one side of two
blocks within the proposed Baldwin Park Subdivision by Capital
Development Co. – ¼ mile south of McMillan Road, east side of
Linder Road:
L. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 02-
001 Request for annexation and zoning of 1.14 acres from R-1 to
R-4 zones for Marvin and Violet Werth by Marvin & Violet Werth –
2150 South Locust Grove Road:
M. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
02-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development for a 54-unit apartment complex for The Foothills
Apartments by Sitzlar Real Estate Development – Northeast
Corner of North Nola and East Franklin Roads:
N. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 02-
002 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.81 acres from RUT to
R-40 zones for proposed Cooper Canyon Subdivision by
Wildwood Development, LLC – east of North Locust Grove Road
and south of East Wilson Lane:
O. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 02-
001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 building lots and 2
other lots on 5.81 acres for proposed Cooper Canyon
Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC -- east of North
Locust Grove Road and south of East Wilson Lane:
P. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
02-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 22 4-Plex units in a
proposed R-40 zone for Cooper Canyon Subdivision by
Wildwood Development, LLC -- east of North Locust Grove Road
and south of East Wilson Lane:
Q. Contract for Services with Greene Fire Protection:
R. Street Light Agreement – Bear Creek Subdivision No. 3:
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 4
S. Approve Contract with Hoffman’s Landscaping for landscape
work at Waste Water Treatment Plant:
T. Approve purchase of Diesel Storage Tank from K & T Steel:
U. Beer / Wine / Liquor License Renewals:
Corrie: The next item is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as noted.
Corrie: Okay. Is there a second?
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda
as noted.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Did we want to pull D, E, and F off or are we ready to act on that? I think
we had asked staff to meet with ITD and ACHD on that, so --
Bird: They have met, haven’t they?
Corrie: Dave?
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, we have met with IDT and ACHD staff.
De Weerd: We probably want to pull that off, then, and put it on the Agenda.
McKinnon: That would be fine.
Bird: I'll pull it off with a motion and restate the motion that we will pull Items D, E, and
F to Number 5-D, 5-E, and 5-E on the Regular Agenda. With those exceptions, to
accept the Consent Agenda as noted.
Nary: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 5
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda,
with the exception of D, E, and F, which will be pulled and put in Item Number 5. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, yea.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4: Department Reports:
A. Police Department – Chief Worley:
1. Promotion Ceremony for Sergeant Candidate:
Corrie: Department Reports. Police Department. Chief Worley.
Worley: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. About two months ago
during a reorganization of the Police Department, the Council approved one additional
sergeant position to give us 24 hour a day, seven day a week, supervision in the field.
The position of sergeant is probably the most important position that a police officer can
attain. That is the first position where an individual police officer becomes responsible
for the actions of somebody else and responsible for not only their actions, but also
their training, their well being. Everything else beyond that is -- up to and including
chief is really just more of the same, a little more responsibility, but the same kind of
thing. In order to fill this position we conducted what's call as assessment center. This
is a daylong process where the candidates, the people speaking the promotion position,
are actually placed in scenarios, which replicate true-life situations that a sergeant
would face in the field and they have to show that they can actually perform in that
capacity. In our case we had assessors from not only Meridian, but from the Nampa
and Garden City Police Departments and roll players from Meridian, Boise, and Ada
County that helped us on this, so it was a very extensive process. We had eight
candidates who tried out for the position of sergeant and I'm very pleased to announce
that the individual we selected for this promotion is Scott Colaianni. Scott, if you will
come up. Scott's been a member of the Meridian Police Department for just about --
he's been a member of the Meridian Police Department for a little over five years. In
addition to his promotion he's just about to have another momentous event in his life,
he's going to receive his degree in Criminal Justice Administration from Boise State in
about another month. He's working hard on several fronts. I'd like to ask Mayor Corrie
to come down and administer the oath.
(Oath administered by Mayor Corrie.)
Worley: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Scott has some supporters here, if you'd like to
introduce them.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 6
Colaianni: This is my beautiful wife Susan. Been married to her for 15 years. My
brother Eric and his beautiful wife Brandy.
Worley: One of the special things about any promotion is the first time the badge is
officially pinned on. Susan, if you would like to do the honors.
Bird: Now the women know how we feel.
Worley: Mr. Mayor and Council, citizens of Meridian, Sergeant Scott Colaianni.
B. Public Work’s Department – Gary Smith:
1. White Drain Sewer Trunk – Award of Construction Contract:
2. Approve purchase of Diesel Storage Tank from K& T Steel:
Corrie: Okay. 4-B, Public Works Department, Gary Smith, approval of purchase of
diesel storage tank from K&T Steel.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. That item was double listed. It was
Item Number T in the Consent Agenda, so --
Corrie: So we don't have to worry about it.
Smith: Right. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. All right.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, do you want to take formal action on Item Number 1?
Corrie: No.
Smith: As far as a motion? It's not necessary?
Corrie: Not at this point I don't think we should. Right, Mr. Attorney?
Johnson: I don't believe it would be necessary. In fact, it would probably be more wise
not to take any action on it.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
C. Planning and Zoning Department:
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 7
1. South Eagle Properties, LLC (Ada County Development
Services File No. 01-37-CU / 01-23-MSP / 01-95-AC) –
Request for waiver of 30-day notification requirement by Bob
and Mary Beth LaVelle of Bogus Creek Outfitters, Inc.:
Corrie: Thank you. Planning and Zoning. South Eagle Properties.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Planning and Zoning
received a request for a waiver of the 30-day notification requirement for Bogus Creek
Outfitters. The project is a half-mile between Lake Hazel and Columbia. That is
outside of our area of impact. It is in our reference area. In talking with Shari, Shari
had no objections to request for a Variance -- a Variance from the 30-day notification.
We had 29 days, instead of 30 days. We felt that was sufficient. Planning and Zoning
staff has no comment regarding the waiver request.
Corrie: I'm a little confused. What do you want us to do?
McKinnon: If you just approve the waiver request that they had.
Corrie: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just so I'm clear, Dave, you will have adequate time to respond to this and the
shortness of the notice isn't going to have any impact on the --
McKinnon: That's correct. We received 29 days notice.
Nary: Okay.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Okay. I'll entertain a motion on the request for --
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You know, we had -- is this the same thing that we had on the Consent Agenda?
Corrie: I don't think so. I was looking at that.
Bird: I was looking at that and it's the same thing that comes up in the –
Corrie: I don't think that that's on the agenda, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 8
Bird: Okay. You're right. Sorry.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I move the approval of the waiver of the 30-day notification requirement by Bob
and Mary Beth LaVelle of Bogus Creek Outfitters, Incorporated, Ada County
Development Number 01-37-CU, 01-23-MSP, and 01-95-AC.
Bird: I would second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for a
waiver of the 30-day notification requirement. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
D. Tabled from April 2, 2002: Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law for Denial: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak
Development, LLC – 2435 South Meridian Road:
E. Tabled from April 2, 2002: Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law for Denial: CUP 01-029 Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage
and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak
Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC – 2435 South Meridian
Road:
F. Tabled from April 2, 2002: Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law for Denial: VAR 01-019 Request for a Variance to exceed
1,000 feet maximum length requirement and to allow the public
road being proposed to exceed 450 feet maximum length
requirement in an R-8 zone for Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak
Development, LLC – 2435 South Meridian Road:
Corrie: Item Number 5 is items moved from the Consent Agenda. Three items have
been removed and moved to this, D, E, and F, related to Kodiak Subdivision. One is a
request Preliminary Plat, the other is a request for a Conditional Use Permit, and the
other one is a Variance. I'll call on staff to give comment.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 9
McKinnon: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. I wish my overhead were
working already. I had both options, actually, that are before you tonight. I did meet
with Ada County Highway District and I have met with ITD staff concerning Bear Creek -
- not Bear Creek, but, rather, Kodiak Subdivision and its relationship to Bear Creek and
Highway 69. As you will remember, Kodiak Subdivision has essentially two options for
access to the subdivision, either from Highway 69 or through Bear Creek Subdivision.
Ada County Highway District staff has stated that they will not accept a public road that
connects to the State Highway. If you approve it as a private road, that's fine, they have
no comment concerning that. They would be happy to allow that to happen, but they do
not want public road access. ACHD would support a public road that stubs off of the
stub street within Bear Creek that provides no access to Highway 69. Idaho
Transportation Department has submitted a letter and I have talked with the staff that
submitted the letter stating that that is an unrestricted access into that subdivision from
State Highway 69. It is not limited by use or the type of construction that's on that site
it's an unrestricted access off of State Highway 69 onto the property. Ada County
Highway District staff and the applicant would all like directions from you at some point
to say which direction you would like the applicant to take, whether he takes access as
a private road from State Highway 69 or from Bear Creek off of the existing stub street.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: David, in those conversations it says does this subdivision -- will it also be
sharing access with the church -- with the church property?
McKinnon: Councilwoman de Weerd, it would share access with the church, either
when it's approved with the stub street from Bear Creek or if it were approved with the
access from State Highway 69, it would still have a shared access with the church.
There is a small commercial portion of the property that has access to State Highway
69 that ACHD would approve for them to take access as a shared access with the
church, so there will be an access point on State Highway 69 for the church and for the
commercial property that's been proposed in Kodiak. They just don't want the access
of all the residential units to be going out onto State Highway 69.
De Weerd: Since it's too late to really talk frontage road in that area, it's not too late to
consider still having connectivity where Kodiak would have access into -- or stub a
street into the church's property that they could run through that could eventually
connect it at a more appropriate place on that state highway. If not even to run that
road not as a frontage, but maybe down the property line, you know, on the west side of
them, similar to what a frontage road would do, but you would have property in between
or development in between. Has that been discussed?
McKinnon: At the time that Bear Creek was approved and the annexation for the
church, there was a great deal of discussion as to where the appropriate location of the
stub street should be. At the time of the annexation of the Kodiak piece of property the
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 10
only stub street to access to that was an existing stub street that was approved with
Bear Creek. As far as a frontage road that would run concurrent through that, which
would provide access at a location that would be south of the existing location,
proposed location, I don't believe that Ada County Highway District would be in support
of that at this time either. The actual halfway point is a half-mile section, which is where
you would usually find a collector road, is right where Kodiak exits right now. That's
where you would find the standard collector where Kodiak is at this time. ACHD's
concern is just the volume of traffic with residential units going out onto State Highway
69. We have addressed that in the Elk Run Subdivision, which is just to the north of this
property. They are actually putting a signal in at that location. As far as a frontage road
to the south of the proposed development, that's not an option that we have spent much
time with.
De Weerd: And the signalization at Elk Run kind of goes contrary to where policy is at
every half mile.
McKinnon: Absolutely. Yes but I see them bending at that point, I don't see that they
would be excited to do something similar further down before you get to Victory.
De Weerd: Well, once you get the traffic light off of the exit, we are going to have three
stop lights within less than, what, a half mile of each other. That just doesn't make any
sense.
McKinnon: I would like to have the opportunity to probably look at the Development
Agreement that was signed when the church property was annexed to determine if
that's something that we could even revisit with the Development Agreement. We have
already gone into a contract or Development Agreement with the church when we
annexed their property for them to be able to develop it in a certain manner. To go back
and change that would mean we have to change a contract with them in order to force a
frontage road along that location. If legal wants to jump in and help me out on that, if
I'm inaccurate in that, I'd appreciate it. I didn't see him nodding, so --
Johnson: Mayor and Council, I must confess I'm not familiar with the background as is
presented in these three items of business and so I'm not quite certain how to respond,
other than the agreement with that church could be modified. Of course, you would
need the consent, approval of the other contracting party to get that done.
McKinnon: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 11
Bird: We are back into square one where we were to start with and I can't believe that
ITD has put a light at Elk Run within -- that isn't even a quarter of a mile from the
existing light. I like Councilwoman de Weerd's idea of seeing if we could get with the
church and see if we could come up and get their exit a little farther south of what is
shown now and get some lights there and that would be about a half mile -- maybe not -
- maybe a little over a half mile --
McKinnon: It was a half-mile.
Bird: -- and get some lights there and, in the same token, we could use this
development to come out there, too. I do not like running all that -- this Kodiak
Development out through Bear Creek. I mean I just -- I just think that is -- because all
you're going to do is the way they have got the street stubbed in is they are either going
to go through Elk Run or they are going out on Stoddard and then come up and hit
Overland or go to Victory. I just think it would be smart if we could figure out a way to
get some lights there to have to Elk Run. I mean if we can't put one at Elk Run, then
one up there would be way too close, you would have four stoplights within a mile. I
don't know. I don't think we are -- I don't think we have come an awful long way from
what we originally voted for. I don't see any changes at all.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I do understand in the applicant's letter of March 5th
some of the
issues or questions that he raises. I just don't think we have enough information.
Maybe -- I just don't know if we have enough information, because of some of the
issues that have been discussed and raised since we originally made the motion to
really be able to act on this with good conscience. I don't know. Did the letter raise any
red flags for anyone else or any questions -- or maybe even answers to what he brings
up?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I don't have a clear recollection. We don't have that on our information
correct, the March 5th
letter? That was --
Bird: Yes, we do.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: I don't know, I'm kind of getting used to seeing it on our agenda. If we
postpone it or table it for another meeting that maybe some of these questions can be
answered and other suggestions explored. I'm not ready to dump this subdivision into
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 12
Bear Creek and I don't know how much conversation has been made as far as looking
to stubbing to the south and talking with the church. Does this have potential,
especially when the church develops, of dumping a large number of cars back into that
roadway without signalization? I would like to have a clear picture as to what's being
planned there than what we have right now.
Corrie: I guess what the church is going to do and what he wants to do is quite a time
difference, so I don't know if that would help or not, but --
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Yes.
De Weerd: I guess it's more in providing the stub to the south so that something could
happen, if that is a viable alternative.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess the one thing, Councilwoman de Weerd, that concerns me and I don't -- I
guess it doesn't matter that much to me if we want to set it over, but we are going to use
the March 5th
letter as part of the reason for setting this matter over. The Public
Hearing was closed at the end of the hearing on February 19th
and now we would be
using some other new information that the other parties have -- or that were addressed
in that don't have an opportunity to respond to, as a basis to set the matter over again.
Again, I guess it really doesn't matter to me, I guess, you know, at some point we have
to have some closure here and what we have got right now is a denial. Part of the
reason that it appears that we have been sort of stuck on this is we aren't very
comfortable with the design of this particular project. Because of the location, because
of the size of what's there, it seems -- my recollection from February was that part of the
design problem is the applicant's problem and they haven't had a real desire to
redesign it to a significant degree. So, by denying it, it leaves them two options. They
can appeal it and request a court to remand it back to us and the Planning and Zoning
Commission to look at it again as it's currently designed and that we somehow
misapplied the ordinances that are applicable to this or the court would agree that we
have applied them properly and they'll have to redesign it. I mean if you want to have
another hearing, that's fine, but I think if we do we have to have another Public Hearing,
because we would want the other parties to have the opportunity to respond to this
letter of March 5th
. You know, to me I guess at some point we have got to either -- to
decide what we are going to do and I don't know -- at least my perception from seeing
this is I don't know whether or not -- no matter what we do, someone is going to appeal
it anyway. It appears we have made one decision and I don't care if we want to revisit
it, but it if we do we probably need to as a Public Hearing.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 13
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would be in agreement that if we were to reconsider -- or consider any
other options to this plat it would have to be opened up. I guess that was the dialogue
that staff was going to have and -- with ITD and ACHD and that's why we continued it
this long --
Nary: Sure.
De Weerd: -- to get those answers to see if there is a way to address some of the
transportation issues, because it was asked for us to reconsider, which started this
tabling from meeting to meeting, so --
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Maybe I could ask -- Mr. McKinnon, I think you were at that particular meeting
with these different parties. Now my impression would be we were discussing this and
requesting that meeting to occur and ACHD was in agreement with, was for the parties
to attempt to work out some compromise. Was that anything of the tenor of the
discussion or was it everybody saying what they wanted and nobody agreed to
anything? Was there really a discussion of compromise, an opportunity for changes, or
things like that by anybody?
McKinnon: There has been talk about compromise. It has been before the ACHD
Commission. I know that the applicant has talked with ACHD concerning taking it back
in front of the Commission again. I don't believe there is support there for any change
from what their stand is, saying they don't want heavy vehicular access to State
Highway 69 on one of their roads. That was from Tracy Richardson of ACHD. She felt
that support would not be there for that if it came back again in front of the Commission.
The understanding I had from the meeting was to figure out and get some concrete
answers as to what they could and couldn't do. We had annexed the property with a
Development Agreement that allowed them to develop it with some residential
standards. He's come to us with some residential -- with some residential designs,
according to our old Planned Development Ordinance, which is what we required him to
do with our -- with the Development Agreement that we signed at the time that we
annexed the property. His frustration is that he will to do whatever you ask him to do,
whether you want that to go on the existing stub street or if you want to make it a
private road. I'm sure that the option of allowing the stub street to the south is
something that could be worked with, but we are also going with a secondary
Development Agreement with the church. The understanding was at the time is that the
church would develop that area to the south and to the west as softball fields and as
activity fields. Placing a stub street at that location doesn't seem to make proper sense.
A stub street to a softball field doesn't do a whole lot of good. At the same time, a stub
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 14
street out of Bear Creek into Kodiak that's not utilized is also something that -- from a
planner's perspective is something that's rather odd. We do have the church property
zoned R-8. In the future, it could be possible that if the church does not decide to build
there, the Development Agreement could come back again and they could say we'd like
to develop this in some other way. At that time, we could be looking at something with
the R-8 zoning adjacent to that, which would require a stub street, we want those
neighborhoods to be connected. At the same time, the connection between
neighborhoods, which is something, that we want, can only be achieved by connection
through Bear Creek at this time.
Nary: Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You know we got ITD's letter, which is nothing new. ACHD hasn't changed their
view at all. You know, just like Councilman Nary said, let's act -- either act on it or run it
back through and come through another Public Hearing, because we are discussing
stuff that should have been discussed in the Public Hearing aspect of it. We have
already passed on a denial of it -- I mean I'm not going to change my views unless
somebody changes the way they get in and out of there. I don't know about the rest of
the Council, but -- so let's act upon it. Why keep putting it off. We keep wanting to get
answers and stuff and they don't change.
De Weerd: Okay.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I do agree with Mr. Bird that we should do something with it tonight. We
have had this in front of us I don't know how many times and I don't see any changes in
it all.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we pass as stated the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law for denial of PP 01-016, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots
and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Kodiak
Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC, with suspension of Rules.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 15
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, yea.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion an Item Number E.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for denial of
CUP 01-029, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a
private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for the proposed Kodiak
Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC, with suspension of Rules.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Roll-call
vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, yea.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Item F, the Variance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions Law for denial on
the Variance 01-019, request for a Variance to exceed 1,000 feet maximum length
requirement and to allow the public road being proposed to exceed 450 feet maximum
length requirement in an R-8 zone for Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC,
with suspension of Rules.
McCandless: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 16
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Further discussion? Hearing
none, roll-call vote, Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, yea.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Let the record show that the Chair agrees with you 100 percent.
Bird: Thank you.
Item 6: Ordinance No. : Special Police Ordinance
Corrie: Okay. Item Number 6 is an ordinance. Ordinance Number 02-948. It's a
Special Police Ordinance and I will ask the City Clerk to read that ordinance by title only
at this time.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 02-948, an
ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Title 6, Chapter 1 -- Section 6 of Chapter 1,
Title 6, Meridian City Code of the City of Meridian providing for special police for the
Meridian Police Department relating to appointment and assignments and providing an
effective date.
Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 02-948 by Title only.
Is there anyone from the audience who would like to have the ordinance read in its
entirety? Okay. Hearing none, Council, I'll entertain a motion on Ordinance 02-948,
Special Police Ordinance.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just so the record is clear, but basically I think this is sort of a precursor to some
other things that are going to be coming forth before us in the future regarding
cooperative agreements with other agencies and the like and to be able to have
different agencies assist in responding to problems that may occur, would that be fair,
Chief?
Worley: Mr. Nary, Mr. Mayor, and Council, that's correct. Also, this is actually just a
reinstatement of former Ordinance 01-807, which was -- all the language has been
cleaned up by legal somewhat. That ordinance was inadvertently left out in the re-
codification of 2000, so we are really not doing anything new here, we are just putting
something back in that was left out.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 17
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Nary: I don't think we had a motion.
Corrie: We don't have a motion? Oh, I'm sorry.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of Ordinance Number 02-948, the Special Police
Ordinance, with suspension of the rules to allow passage --
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion and second for approval of the Special Police Ordinance.
Further discussion? Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, yea.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7: TE 02-002: Request for a one year Time Extension of the Preliminary
Plat approval for Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers – southwest
corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Franklin Road:
Corrie: Item Number 7. This is a request for a one-year Time Extension of the
Preliminary Plat approval for Locust Grove Place by B&A Engineers, southwest corner
of South Locust Grove Road and Franklin -- East Franklin Road. Staff?
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if I was able to use my overhead I
could point out to you that the subject site is not exactly on the corner of Locust Grove
and Fairview Avenue. It's approximately a quarter mile south of Fairview Road. It's
directly behind the Intermountain Arms Subdivision -- Intermountain Arms retail building
and the automotive wrecking yard that's located on the corner of Locust Grove and
Fairview Avenue. The project was approved as 180 apartment units on the site. Staff
has no objection to the time extension. The requested reason for the time extension
was to -- for the applicant to have an opportunity to secure financing in this market. I
would ask if there are any questions.
Corrie: Any questions, Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 18
Corrie: Ms. de Weerd.
De Weerd: David, do they want an extension for a year or is six months sufficient?
McKinnon: I believe it's a one-year extension request.
De Weerd: All right. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for a one year Time Extension of the
Preliminary Plat of Locust Grove Place by B&A Engineers to one year from the date of
approval.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the one-year Time Extension
for the Preliminary Plat for Locust Grove Place. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8. Public Hearing: MI 02-003 Request for modification of the development
agreement for the Amended Magic View Subdivision by Magic View
Partners to allow a drive-through restaurant on the southeastern parcel:
northeast corner of Magic View and Allen Street:
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from April 2, 2002: CUP 01-045 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a 1743 square foot Sandwich Shop with a
drive-thru window in an L-O zone for Subway by Blaine & Cynthia
Jacobson – Northeast corner of Magic View and South Allen Street:
Corrie: Item 8 is a Public Hearing request for modification of the Development
Agreement for the amended Magic View Subdivision by Magic View Partners to allow a
drive-thru restaurant on the southeastern parcel northeast corner of Magic View and
Allen Street. At this time, I will open the Public Hearing on the request for modification
of the Development Agreement and have staff comments first.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. When we approved Magic
View Subdivision originally with the annexation, the property was approved with the
Development Agreement that stated that only office uses and an ancillary restaurant
would be allowed to be developed on this property. The definition that staff has come
up with, with an ancillary restaurant is a restaurant that's attached to a building with the
intended purpose to serve those people that are in the building or surrounding
buildings. In order to allow the Subway restaurant with a drive-thru we need to modify
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 19
the Development Agreement to allow a drive-thru restaurant to take place at this
location or to develop at this location. If there are any questions from Council, I will
entertain them at this time.
Bird: I have none at this time.
Corrie: This is a Public Hearing. See if we have anyone signed up for this. Nobody
signed up. Okay. Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony in
favor of this request? Okay. Is there anyone who would like to issue testimony not in
favor of this request? Okay. Hearing none -- I forgot to ask if a representative of the
developer was here. I'm sorry. I got my cart before the horse twice tonight. Too much
vacation, I guess. Raise your right hand. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Larsen: Yes, I do.
Corrie: Give you name and address for the record, please.
Larsen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Cornell Larsen. I'm here this
evening representing the Magic View Partners on this request. It actually ties into Item
Number 9, that's on your agenda and the request if for a drive-in window on the Subway
facility that we are proposing on the southeastern lot. I do have some display boards I
could put up and go through a short presentation, but, in general, that's our request to
allow for that window for Item 9 on your agenda for Subway.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that wants to
issue testimony in rebuttal to what the developer has to say?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: It would be appropriate to maybe open Number 9 and hear them both and
so that we could see the presentation. If it's something that we can -- if it's something
that we want to consider Number 9, it doesn't make sense to act on Number 8, unless
we like Number 9.
Corrie: Okay. We have a Continued Public Hearing as Number 9, so I will continue the
Public Hearing on Item Number 9 and is there any additional comments from staff on
the request for a Conditional Use Permit?
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 20
McKinnon: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if you have any questions
concerning this Subway, I hope that you have the site plan in front of you on your
laptops. You can see where the location is. It's directly behind the Chevron and kitty-
corner from the Texaco on Magic View Drive just off of Eagle Road. At the Public
Hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission, no one came in objection to
the restaurant or the request. Planning and Zoning has heard it and they have
recommended approval. If you have any questions I'll entertain them at this time.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Any questions of Council?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I just had a one question, David, and maybe it's just my
ignorance of reading this site plan, but does the drive-thru lane cross into the entrance
to the building? It appears the front of the building is facing --
McKinnon: Councilman Nary, if I can address your comment. I just came up and saw
what you had on your laptop in front of you. Originally the site design of that drive-thru
was even more convoluted than what you have in front of you. There is the -- the
applicant has resubmitted a new site plan that actually delineates where the drive-thru
lane would be. You will hear from the applicant tonight that the majority of the parking is
actually to the east of the drive-thru lane. For a building the size that it is, just over
1,700 square feet, it's not a whole lot of sitting area and so they have provided a large
amount of parking immediately to the east of the project. The drive-thru lane is located
on the north side of the project. There is parking located on the north side. They have
changed their site plan to show that there would actually be a 25-foot wide driveway
aisles and a nine-foot wide -- a nine-foot wide window pickup aisle. They actually are
separated. There would a delineation of some sort, whether that's paint -- I believe that
that's the direction that they went at the time is just to have paint. People parking in the
northern parking lot would have to cross through the drive-thru lane in order to access
the door of -- the entrance door, but based on the size of the building we don't see that
that would actually be the case. The majority of the parking for the restaurant use is
located on the east side of the project. If I had an overall site plan you might be able to
see that they do have quite a bit of parking. The rest of the parking is for the site, would
be probably utilized by the future office building that would be located there. They far
exceed, more than two or three times, the number of required parking spaces for this
size of restaurant.
Nary: Yes and maybe Mr. Larsen can address that as well. I mean my only concern is
that I just don't want another Arby's that the only way to get through the front door is to
cross the drive lane.
McKinnon: It's actually -- the original plan has been modified to the one we have now
where they actually moved one of their entrance doors from the -- I guess it would be
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 21
the west side of the building to the south side of the building to keep people from
actually utilizing that parking.
Nary: Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Has Mr. Larsen got a revised --
Corrie: You have already been sworn in. Your name for the record, please.
Larsen: Cornell Larsen. My address is 210 Murray, Garden City. I will just put these
boards up on that wall over here. We actually have an old site plan, but we have
revised that to show you what we revised from the Planning and Zoning that we went
through earlier.
Bird: This is a lot like the design of the Subway out here in Fred Meyer's shopping
center, isn't it?
Larsen: Yes, it is.
Bird: It's just -- except it's reversed, that the drive-thru comes around and comes out.
Larsen: Correct.
Bird: It comes out there.
Larsen: This site is located -- this is Magic View Drive. This is St. Luke's drive that
comes around and loops up to the light here at St. Luke's at Eagle and Eagle Road
would be out here. There is a McDonald's-Chevron in this area and Texaco in this area.
This lot is vacant currently. This is a project done by Winston Moore called Lincoln
Plaza. It's an office project and then Mountain West Bank sits right at this location, right
-- approximately right in here. The intent of the project was to bring the traffic in through
here, allowing this parking for people that would be utilizing the Subway facility, creating
a driving lane in this area, and taking it back out here at this west curb cut. This facility
right here is the future office building for the Subway franchise for Blaine and Cynthia
Jacobson, so they would be building this out in the future and I believe you had that a
condition on the staff report that we landscape the perimeter. What we'd really like to
do is we don't mind landscaping of the perimeter, but what we'd like to leave this pad
site unlandscaped so that we don't tear up all the grass and trees later on to build that
facility. The drive-in lane -- this is -- the plan that's on the wall is the one that we
presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. There is a suggestion, I believe,
from Commissioner Centers that we put a sidewalk interconnect between here, so that
people using these other two lots would have the flexibility to come down and walk
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 22
down to the Subway, as opposed to drive. We did that on the revised plan that we
submitted and also that we gave a little more room here so that a vehicle could back out
or could pass those cars that might be in the stacking lane for ordering and we were
able to shift that and accomplish that. The primary entrance for the Subway customers
would be through the east side about right there. There is a secondary entrance about
right here that might serve people walking this way down to the -- down along the side
of the walk or from up above to the north. That's the entries that Councilman Nary was
speaking of. The intent of the project is to, obviously, provide a place for people to eat
that are out in that area, people to stop for fuel off the freeway. The owner does feel it's
a good location and feels like it would work well for him to have his office building there
in the future. That's about all I had. I would be happy to answer any questions.
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Larsen: Thank you.
Corrie: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to issue testimony? Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we close the Public Hearing for Item Numbers 8 and 9, the MI 02-
003 and CUP 01-045.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on MI
02-003 and also the Continued Public Hearing closed on CUP 01-045. Further
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All Ayes. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve MI 02-003, request for the modification of the
Development Agreement for the Amended Magic View Subdivision by Magic View
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 23
Partners to allow a drive-thru restaurant on the southeastern parcel, northwest corner of
Magic View and Allen Street and for the attorney draw up the proper papers.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for a
modification of the Development Agreement submitted by Magic View Subdivision. Any
further discussion? Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, yea.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Request for CUP 01-045.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit 01-045 for the Subway
by Blaine and Cynthia Jacobson for a drive-thru window and with the perimeter of the
lot landscaped, with it not where the future office building is, and for the attorney to
draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, yea.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
Item 10: Public Hearing: VAR 02-002 Request for variance to allow existing
“Bucket Sign” at the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant by King Electric
Signs – 677 S.E. 1st
Street:
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Item Number 10 is a Public Hearing. This is a request for a Variance to allow
the existing bucket sign at the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant by King Electric
Signs, 677 Southeast First Street. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and have
staff comments first.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 24
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. I know you're all
familiar with this, so I won’t take very much time. The reason that the existing bucket
sign that is located at Kentucky Fried Chicken needs to be brought into compliance or
removed from the site is that the new Sign Ordinance states that anytime there is a
nonconforming sign that sits on a site that's changed by 25 percent it needs to come
down or be brought into compliance. They have already constructed a new building on
the site. It does not have occupancy yet, which is more than a 25 percent change of
the existing property. The reason that the sign is nonconforming with the applicable
sign ordinance is that it's higher than the 35-foot restriction. In addition to that, the pole
that is now sitting on top of is not covered in accordance with the Sign Ordinance.
Those are the reasons that we have looked at this and we looked at this once before on
November 20, 2001, and the City Council denied their Variance request. You have staff
report. It has findings from the staff. Staff does not support the Variance request per
the staff ordinance -- per the staff, report and I would ask if there are any questions.
Corrie: Questions of staff?
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is the applicant here this evening? Is the
testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Atteberry: It is.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Atteberry: It's Phil Atteberry. Address is 677 First Street, Meridian. I represent
Kentucky Fried Chicken and I appreciate you hearing this a second time. I know this is
the second time we have applied for this Variance and I'll take a minute and tell you
where we got to this point right here. After we came in the first time, we sort of
accepted that as your decision. Then I had the opportunity to work at the restaurant
one evening, on a Friday evening, and customers started coming up to me, about every
other customer that night, and saying you really don't have to take down that bucket, do
you? I said, yes, that's what they said. You need to -- I have lived here since I was a
little kid and that bucket's always been up there. You should be able to keep that
bucket. It was customer after customer after customer after customer. Well, after that
we decided -- we talked about it, the manager and myself, and we decided, well, maybe
we'll get a petition to see what customers really -- maybe it was just a fluke thing on
Friday night. We started a petition and I have those tonight. There has been 2,700
people that signed this petition for us to keep the bucket, saying it's been there -- you're
one of the first businesses in Meridian, the bucket's been there for so many years, you
ought to be able to keep it. You ought to try and go before the City Council again and
present your case. There might be a change so that's where we are tonight. We are
here presenting this before you, hoping that you would reconsider the Variance on the
bucket. We have been there for 25 years. The bucket's been up there. We have
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 25
people we compete with right across the street, McDonald's, and they have a big sign in
the sky. The people coming down the freeway, maybe they don't want to pull off for
McDonald's, but they might pull off for us, if they could see our bucket. I mean because
we are a freeway location. We might not be within the 500 feet that the Variance states,
but we are really one of the first businesses you come to when you pull off the freeway.
In fact, we are probably closer and easier in access than McDonald's and the other
businesses that have their signs up there to gather freeway business and it just makes
sense that we are trying to improve our facility, we have had a drive-thru that's been a
mess forever. When it gets backed up it backs up in the street and we are trying to
change that and make life better at that location. By building a new building and then
having to lower our bucket, which is a big part of our business is people pulling off the
freeway, it just doesn't seem right. I just would hope that you would reconsider tonight.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Sir, I have got one question. Does the sign move at all? Does it stay in the same
location?
Bird: Same location. That was a misunderstanding on my part. What were the plans
when you came before us?
Atteberry: Just to leave it in the same location.
Bird: The same location. That was a misunderstanding on my part. I was thinking it
was being moved. Does the other building -- the old building go away or is it put up for
lease for something else?
Atteberry: I am not the property owner, but the property owner has taken bids to have
the building taken down within two to three weeks after we vacate the building. It is a
big lot there. I am assuming that he will try to have maybe another business go in
there. What type of business I have no idea who he's talking to at this time.
Corrie: Anything else?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Atteberry, have you contacted the Idaho Transportation Department or the
State Transportation Department regarding those blue freeway signs and have your
restaurant listed on them?
Atteberry: We have not. They do have that available, though. I don't know if they have
room for those, but we have not done that at this time.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 26
Nary: And if you have it on the freeway signs, it would be more visible access to the
freeway, wouldn't it be?
Atteberry: It could be.
Nary: Do you think the blue freeway sign only could be more visible from the freeway
than your bucket sign?
Atteberry: Oh, well, people are going to notice that. They are also going to notice the
bucket, though. I think the bucket would be a bigger part than the freeway signs.
Nary: Is there any reason that you cannot put that bucket at the height limit, the 35 foot
limit, on top of the building?
Atteberry: Put it on top of the building?
Nary: And still be within the 35 feet.
Atteberry: I don't know. That would be something that would have to be investigated.
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, our Sign Ordinance prohibits the roof
signs.
Nary: Okay. So it would have to be on some structure adjacent.
McKinnon: On a structure adjacent to the building.
Nary: Okay. I noticed in your letter of March 12th
and your application for this Variance,
you indicated that this only -- this only applies to your business, because one of the
things you're asking is if we grant the Variance is to extend the freeway distance from
the 300 foot mark to whatever your business is. How far is your business from the
freeway?
Atteberry: I don't know that exactly.
Nary: So what would then prevent the business immediately adjacent -- there is a Taco
Bell.
Atteberry: Correct.
Nary: What would you prevent them from wanting a 60 foot sign in their business and
extending it another 10 feet to their business?
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 27
Atteberry: Well, I don't know what would prevent them from that, but the Taco Bell
requesting a sign at 60 feet, which they have never had a sign at 60 feet, is a totally
different issue, in my opinion.
Nary: Not if it's a Variance it isn't.
Atteberry: Well, Taco Bell has not been in the City of Meridian for 25 years. I mean we
are -- there are two different issues here. We have been in business for 25 years in that
location. We are building a better facility that would better serve the community with a
drive-thru, better functional traffic, and all that, and because we are doing that we have
to lower the existing sign.
Nary: Now at the time when you requested -- when this business requested the new
building, at the time were you told that by having the new building that the sign would
no longer be in conformance and the sign would have to be change?
Atteberry: At that time they said we would have to conform with the new Sign
Ordinance.
Nary: Right so at the time that this application was even brought forward the property
owner knew that part of the result of making that change would result in this change
with the sign correct?
Atteberry: That was a possibility, yes.
Nary: What about the ordinance -- and that's cited in the staff report, the City Code, 11-
18-1 regarding Variances, and it has specific findings that we have to find for granting a
Variance. What of those specific findings, can you present to us as the reason to grant
the Variance?
Atteberry: Well, the one that I think best applies to that -- that strict compliance with the
requirements of this title would result in extraordinary hardship to the owner.
Nary: Okay. Now hardship beyond -- it says -- it goes on to say hardship because of
the topography, nature, and condition of the adjacent development, other physical
conditions or other conditions. In your application it appears to me that the hardship
was a monetary issue, not an issue regarding topography or the nature or condition of
adjacent development or physical conditions that make strict compliance unreasonable.
Atteberry: That's true.
Nary: So it's only a monetary issue that concerns the property.
Atteberry: That's correct.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 28
Nary: But we have to find all four of these. The other three -- there isn't anything you
have that applies to those?
Atteberry: No.
Nary: Do you have any data to show that -- for example, I believe there is a -- one of
these restaurants on Overland, there is a KFC/A&W, I noticed one similar to what this
is, is that correct?
Atteberry: That's correct.
Nary: Do you have any data how the sales have changed since you -- since that
restaurant has gone into business? It doesn't have a sign that's visible to the freeway in
any direction.
Atteberry: That's correct.
Nary: Any change at all to that since it's been remodeled in its business? Did business
improve?
Atteberry: Well, the one on Overland has always just been existing business.
Nary: Correct. Has business improved since you have added the new type of selection
opportunity there?
Atteberry: Oh, since we added A&W?
Nary: Yes.
Atteberry: Oh, yes.
Nary: So the potential of it having -- of improving the business anyway just simply by
adding A&W is certainly a possibility, even without that sign.
Atteberry: And that's true. We will definitely do more business, because, one, we have
a new building and, number two we are adding a second concept. That's true.
Nary: Probably three, even improving the drive-thru system to be accessible to the --
Atteberry: All those things will improve our business.
Nary: How tall is the sign now?
Atteberry: I believe it's 65 feet.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 29
Nary: Sixty-five feet? Do you have any data to show that lowering it 30 feet is going to
have a significant impact at all, other than a perception that it is?
Atteberry: No, I do not.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Phil. We have one, two, three, four
people signed up that are for the project. The first is Sally Norton. Is the testimony
you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Norton: I do.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please, for the record.
Norton: My name is Sally Norton. I reside at 638 Lawndale Drive in Meridian, Idaho,
and I have been a resident of Meridian for 20 years. I'm a former member of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and I served from December of 1999
through January 2002. I served with Bill Nary and we were both on the Planning and
Zoning Commission on September the 20th
when the Planning and Zoning Commission
unanimously approved that KFC project and that included keeping the 60-foot bucket.
In fact, we discussed among ourselves and with the audience late that night that it was
an icon for the City of Meridian. It's been there for many years, and Bill Nary
commented that he remembered when it used to turn. It has been here a long time. I
would request the City Council approve the Variance based on the following reasons.
As Planning and Zoning Commissioners we did get this local planning act and in there -
- one of the workshops that we were asked to go to -- is regarding Variances. Usually
variances are determined by Planning and Zoning Commissions. That's not the cases
in the City of Meridian but on the specific issues, Mr. Nary had asked regarding the
specific points considering the undue hardship on the characteristic of the site. I would
differ with the Planning and Zoning Department and I do feel that it is -- that this
particular site has a very un -- is a very unique characteristic of the way it is. It's a
triangle. It has a lot of traffic on either side of it. I pass that KFC twice a day on my way
to work and on my way home from work. Sometimes I go on one side of it and
sometimes I go on the other side of it, depending on the traffic light. KFC has always
been a problem, particularly lately the past two or three years on their drive-thru. If you
get there at 5:00 in the afternoon you can't even get in there or Taco Bell, because it's a
mess and KFC has redesigned that. The drive-thru, as you notice, probably can stack
seven or eight cars around the drive-thru the way they have it now. It gets people off
the street. It would prevent accidents. I think KFC is being a friendly neighbor to the
City of Meridian. Yes, they might make more business, so that's why you're in
business. They have also improved that drive-thru quite a bit, so, you don't have these
cars sticking out and I think it would behoove the City of Meridian to be a good neighbor
to KFC and let them keep their bucket. The other -- the other stipulation is does it
conflict with public interest. Is it a problem of public interest or the neighbors? I see
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 30
that there is no conflict with public interest. At this point, I haven't heard anybody who
said that -- how many people were for it and one person against it? Mayor Corrie?
Corrie: 2,500 was the figure that --
Norton: 2,700 people for it and you have one person testifying tonight against the
Variance?
Corrie: I don't have anybody against it.
Norton: Oh, no one's against it. Okay. The neighbors, apparently, let's say Taco Bell,
the new Wendy's, haven't come here tonight to testify against it. It attracts highway
business. You can see it from the highway. It is not in the I-84 exposure of the 300
feet, but there is a McDonald's right next door, they have a large sign that went in
through a CUP. Also the new Chevron sign over an Eagle, somehow they made it in.
They were -- Planning and Zoning was against that sign and City Council did approve
the second Chevron sign, so now they have two big signs, and the lights shine in the
neighbor's backyards, where this KFC sign there are no neighbors for those lights to
shine in. I feel that it would be a friendly gesture -- in fact, before I came here tonight
my husband said ever since I have learned that you are going to go talk to City Council
about your vote -- and I did make the motion to approve that at the Planning and Zoning
-- that City Council is considering taking that KFC bucket down. He said I have been
looking at that twice a day as I go to work and he said it would a shame to lose that. He
says it's a landmark and it would be a shame and expensive to the business for them to
have to take that down. Are there any questions?
Corrie: I don't have any questions. I guess with all due respect, you haven't given us
any reason to not take it down, other than emotion. We read you about the compliance
with an ordinance. We haven't -- as you well know, we have to go by what the
ordinance says and we can't do a Variance, but so far, we haven't heard anything that
would justify a Variance, so --
Norton: Right. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Go ahead. Please.
Norton: I do feel that the Variance would be based on the difficult site that KFC had to
work with, the corner site. That particular property is unique because it's in a small
corner surrounded by busy streets. In my opinion, I feel the topography, if you will, is a
very unique building site. They have placed the building so the drive-thru has a enough
stacking that the cars do not get in the way of traffic on either side of that road. So that
is my opinion.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 31
Norton: Thank you.
Corrie: We have here a Denny -- I'm sorry, I can't read the last name. Okay. And Jerry
-- I'm sorry, I -- okay. And -- both of you? Is there anyone else from the public that
would like to issue testimony tonight? Okay. Has the developer got anything that they
would like to -- there is no rebuttal, I don't think, that you haven't -- all you had before.
Okay. Council, questions for the Public Hearing?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: A question for Dave. Dave, is there anything in the ordinance that prohibits that
sign from being in a different location on the site?
McKinnon: Location, no. There is plenty of room on the site where they could move
the sign. However, the height of the sign and the pole would have to be modified in
order to meet the standards.
Nary: Right. If it was a 35-foot sign on a modified pole, I think there was a covering
issue on the pole, but if it was a 35-foot sign on a different location closer to the corner
that would not be prohibited by our Sign Ordinance correct?
McKinnon: There are some setback requirements, but I believe the site is large enough
that it would support the movement of that sign to that location.
Nary: And there is no -- there is nothing in our ordinance that prohibits the shape, the
unique shape of the bucket?
McKinnon: That's right. There is nothing --
Nary: There is nothing that prohibits that.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Nary: Now could you maybe explain, just so I'm clear, the reason -- the difference that
we see a lot of information in what we have here, as well as elsewhere, about the other
signs. You know, there is a reference in here about McDonald's. In the application
there is a reference I think about the Chevron sign at Eagle Road. Could you explain
so our record is clear as to why is that different?
McKinnon: I will sure try. The McDonald's sign and the Chevron sign both were
approved prior to the adoption of the new Sign Ordinance. I have done some research
into the McDonald's sign, which was, as former Commissioner Norton stated, that it was
approved through the Conditional Use Permit process and it was approved by Planning
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 32
and Zoning Commission and Council at that time to allow that sign on Meridian Road to
be that height. I believe -- I haven't actually put a date to it. I haven't had the
opportunity to do it, if it actually falls within the I-84 overlay zone, and if does it would be
allowed to have that height if it was approved. As far as the Chevron sign and the
McDonald's sign at Chevron, I would have to plead that I don't know enough about that.
I haven't done enough research on that. I was not here and I have looked at it, but
without refreshing my memory with an opportunity to look at it again I wouldn't be able
to give you any testimony that I would be able to feel comfortable with. I would --
Nary: So the bottom line is McDonald's is just in a different location and the rules -- the
ordinance that applies to that is a different one?
McKinnon: Both of those signs -- let me reiterate that again. This Sign Ordinance that
we have in front of us now was not adopted at the time that both of those signs were
approved. We were dealing with a different issue at a different time.
Nary: But if McDonald's were to amend -- or change their building and their lot more
than 25 percent, does this height restriction apply to them or -- because they are in a
different -- if they are in the I-84 zone it's just different than --
McKinnon: It would be just different if it were in the I-84 zone.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Council Member Nary, having been on Planning and Zoning and Council
when some of those came through and on the Sign Ordinance Committee, I could
speak to some of that. The Chevron sign was approved because we didn't have a Sign
Ordinance to really fall back on. The threat of it coming back, which it did, when it was
first denied, expedited some of the Sign Ordinance Committee's determination to get a
Sign Ordinance in place, so that these issues wouldn't continue to come up and we
would have something to fall back on. Unfortunately, the Sign Ordinance wasn't put in
place before that application came back. That's a little history on that. The sign
Ordinance Committee was -- represented a number of businesses and residents from
the community and their concerns were some of these higher signs and what it did to
the skyline. You know, the visual overload. I also recall during the Public Hearings for
the Chevron sign is that the freeway signs -- and it's -- I don't know if you remember,
Keith or Shari, they stated -- they talked about the significance of having them on the
blue highway signs versus in the skyline. It seemed to me like the highway sign had as
much, if not more affect than certainly anything that's on -- in the sky. A lot of these
were items that, again, the Sign Ordinance Committee also brought into the deliberation
and I think it was also a part of the City Council reasons originally in denying this. It's
not don't get rid of the bucket, it's just lower the bucket and cover the pole. You know,
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 33
we don't want to rid Meridian of an icon or a landmark, it's just it needs to be a little bit
lower in the sky and, you know, I know my kids totally appreciate your business and we
have utilized it for many years and that bucket means something to them, too. It's just
when we took the -- when we denied this the first time, we had to also think of the
integrity of our ordinance and what the desires of the committee, the public process that
that ordinance went through, and we could not see a reason that fall within not adhering
to our ordinance or what we could even base an approval on as far as a variance with.
So that's what background I can provide and, you know, I will stop there.
Corrie: Anyone else? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Nary: I move to close the Public Hearing, Mr. Mayor, on VAR 02-002.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing for Variance
request for 02-002. Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: When this first come before us I was under the impression that the sign was
moving. Mr. Atteberry testified that it is not moving at this time. It is not moving and
that was my -- not that we don't need to stick to our ordinance, but they do have a
legitimate deal. That was the reason I voted against the Variance the first time, was
because if you move it, then you got to finish it and do something to get it back, just like
any other building, when you start to remodel a building you bring it up to code. I've got
some real -- I'd like to know what they are going to do with that other building. I have
got some real concerns if they plan on occupying that other building with their parking
and the way their -- their drive-thru, I think that -- I think the drive-thru solved getting out
on Meridian Street or Main Street. I don't think it has really solved the problem getting
through the lot especially getting another business in there that's going to require
parking. That's all I have got to say. I have no problem -- as long as they don't move it I
have no problem of making them redo it and I was under the understanding the first
time that they were going to move it.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 34
Nary: As I have the enviable position of being quoted in their application to do this,
being part of the Planning and Zoning Commission at the time, as well as being quoted
since then on the issue, I guess I have a different perspective of this. I guess I looked
at those petitions, I do appreciate the efforts that they have gone to, and the people that
signed them, but every one of those people say save the bucket. It has nothing to do
with the bucket. They can have that bucket there for the rest of time, it's just they can't
have it 60 feet high. That is the only thing we are really deciding is the height of the
bucket. I don't know how many people that signed the petition really understood that,
because I don't know that most people understand that. They drive by it and see the
banner on that street that says save the bucket and my perception is people think that
that's what this is about and it has nothing to do with that. They can have that bucket
like that for as long as they want to, but it's a compliance issue. The issue of
compliance is the height. As I stated earlier in asking Mr. Atteberry, we have a specific
requirement that's in our code that we have to follow to grant such a Variance, each one
of these we have to find and I just can't find that. I can't find in good conscience that
there is anything impractical or unreasonable in being forced to comply with the first
requirement. I can't see that strict compliance is a hardship, because of the topography
of the site, because that site can make it move the pole to another location on the site.
It's just the height issue as to whether or not the pole can be that high, under C of this --
of this City Code it says granting will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property. The issue of the public welfare I think is what's Council Member de
Weerd talked about. We have an ordinance here and we have to be adherent to that.
We have requirements we have to meet. I do believe the reason that there probably
isn't a lot of concern from the other property owners is they'd like to have bigger signs,
too. The whole reason we have the ordinance is to eliminate some of that skyline
clutter and that's the purpose of doing that. The last one says will not affect the ulterior
interest and purpose of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. I don't think it -- I don't see
that as a particular issue, but that's the only one that's of no significant issue. I think the
rest of them I just can't find that we have any evidence in which to bring that. They can
keep the bucket it just can't be higher than 35 feet high.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: Like Mr. Nary said, they can keep the bucket. My husband and I recently
took a trip and when it came time to stop we weren't looking for highway signs, we were
looking at the blue signs on the freeway telling us which restaurants were where and
that made our decision where we were going to stop. I don't see that that -- I do
recommend that you put your name out there on those blue signs if you can get it on,
but I don't see where you're going to get so much added business because you can't
see the sign from the freeway.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 35
De Weerd: I guess I'll leave my -- add my two cents as well. I think one of the things
that our Council struggles with is being consistent and that we abide by our own
ordinances and we make decisions within the guidelines of our ordinances, be it the
Sign Ordinance or the Variance Ordinance. When we do get attacked, it's because we
are not consistent, we are arbitrary, and so we try and be very conscientious to those
things. As much as sometimes I'd rather do something else, that is what we, as the
elected officials, stand to. The ordinances go through a public democratic process
through the Public Hearings and it gives our public a chance to comment on particular
policies that we are going to implement into our community and if they like it or not. I
guess we need to adhere to own rules and don't move the bucket, just bring it down a
little. I guess with that said I will go ahead and make a motion, because otherwise, we
might sit up here for five minutes. I will move that we deny the Variance request 02-002
for the bucket sign at Kentucky Fried Chicken and to recommend lowering it to the
ordinance recommended height and covering the pole. Also the attorney to draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to include all staff
comments.
Nary: Could I ask for one thing?
Corrie: If you make it a second you can.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mrs. de Weerd, there was something in the staff report that wasn't talked about
and that was the only thing, I guess, I had concern with and did not want it to be
included in the Decision of Order was that the -- that there be something that the
applicant could not request this again. Because we don't have an ordinance, that
prohibits that and it may be somewhat cumbersome to have to do that. Since we don't
have any objection, I certainly wouldn't want to see that as part of the Findings of Fact.
I think without the ordinance backing that up we don't have a way to prevent that but
other than -- but they have certain time limits to change the sign.
De Weerd: I would agree with you to leaving that as a staff recommendation or into our
Sign Ordinance.
Nary: Thank you. With that I'll second.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Okay. Mr. -- or roll call vote, please.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, yea.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved to deny the Variance request.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 36
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 02-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
add one to two additional children after school in existing Family Home
Daycare in an R-8 zone for Christina Floyd by Christina Floyd – 567 East
Brown Bear Street:
Corrie: Item Number 11 is a Public Hearing, request for a Conditional Use Permit to
add one or two additional children after school in an existing family home day-care in an
R-8 zone for Christina Floyd by Christina Floyd, 567 East Brown Bear Street. I will
open the Public Hearing and ask staff comments first.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. The applicant Christina
Floyd owns the home at 567 East Brown Bear. It's located approximately 2,000 feet
west of Meridian Road and about a half a mile north of Cherry Lane, its approximate
location. The applicant has requested for one to two additional children. The Planning
and Zoning Commission made a recommendation to allow up to seven. The application
that she requested would have allowed for up to 12, but they placed a limit based on
the request of the applicant to seven children. She had been running a childcare out of
her home for up to five children. Staff has not received any complaints, has -- in
reflection of childcare not being well taken care of at that location. Staff is in support of
the applicant's request and asks if there are any questions.
Corrie: Questions from staff? Is the applicant here this evening? Is the testimony
you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Floyd: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Floyd: Pardon?
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Floyd: My name is Christina Floyd. I live at 567 East Brown Bear Street in Meridian.
Corrie: Thank you. Anything you want to tell the Council, other than you'd like to have
the -- to add two additional children to your permit?
Floyd: No. It's just that my own two children are going to be in school all day next fall
and basically to -- so I could watch one to two children while they are at school. They
overlap when they are at home and I guess to be within the guidelines --
Corrie: Okay. Any questions from Council?
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 37
Bird: I have none.
Corrie. Okay. Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. Mr. Mayor. Does Conditional Use have a restriction -- this is not an
Accessory Use, it's a Conditional Use?
Floyd: Conditional.
Nary: Okay and it has a limitation on the children and it applies to your own children?
Floyd: Yes. It includes my own children.
McKinnon: That's by ordinance.
Nary: An Accessory Use does not, that's why I'm asking.
McKinnon: Accessory Use does as well. Any child under the age of 14 is included as
part of that. That's part of the Accessory Use.
Nary: If it's not there with the parent in the residence?
McKinnon: No. It's children -- their own children. Give me one second.
Nary: Okay. Mrs. Floyd, your two children will be there and that's the concern of yours,
you're two children it does apply to, would that be correct?
Floyd: Yes.
McKinnon: Councilman Nary, if I may, the definition for childcare facility includes three
different definitions under Section 11-22 of the Meridian City Code, which is a family
childcare home, childcare home, childcare center, and underneath all those definitions
the statement is made as follows. It should be noted that in determining the type of
childcare facility that is being operated, the total number of children cared for during the
day and not at the facility at any one time, is determinative. Before that it says, any
home structure place where non-medical care, protection, supervision is regularly
provided to children under 14 years of age that is less than 24 hours while the parents
or guardian is not on the premises -- according to Shari that includes your own children.
Nary: How could that possibly be? I mean this says clearly in the preamble that it
applies to children while their parents are not on the premises, so this lady's children it
does not apply to. It only applies to other people's children that she's watching, by the
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 38
plain reading of those words. There is no other way to apply that. I don't know why she
needs this, because it doesn't apply to her. I mean I know Mrs. Stiles isn't here, but we
can all read and it says clearly while the parents or guardians are not on the premises
and she's the parent, it doesn't apply to her own children, it applies to other people's
children.
McKinnon: Upon reading of that I totally agree with Councilman Nary.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Just to be fair to David under this cross-examination, I might just provide a
little historical background and this is the way that staff has interpreted it. I don't believe
it's been challenged. I think that there was a committee that was trying to update our
Daycare Ordinance and this is probably something that needs to be addressed by staff
in an update to clarify this. In every childcare applications I know of they have always
counted the children that are currently residing in the home. Not many of us have felt
that it was fair, but that has been the way it's been interpreted. Now it can be read
either way, but I do believe that our ordinance needs to be clarified, so that we don't
penalize the parents in case the kids do go off to school and they do want to watch the
maximum number of kids that they are allowed through our ordinance.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I understand -- I totally understand what you're saying, Mrs. de Weerd, but the --
and however this was applied in the past, I don't want to penalize Mrs. Floyd, but
understand it's doesn't -- I don't see that you can do this two ways. This would say that
any person that applied for it couldn't operate a daycare if they have two children -- five
of their own children. That makes no sense at all. That's not what was intended --
that's not what should be intended by anyone, but applying this to her children just is
ridiculous under our ordinance. There isn't any wording here -- that may have been the
way it was applied, whether that was a staff decision, whether that was a legal decision
I don't know, but I can read the words and the rest of you can, too. There aren’t two
interpretations of that. It's says while parents or guardians are not on the premises.
Her children aren't under this so if the reason we are doing this is to make sure that she
can have her own children come home and have other daycare children to take the
place of that while they are not there, she doesn't need it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don't recall this coming before us before and I agree with Mr. Nary that there is
no way to -- for the staff to interpret it. The way that Mr. Nary has interpreted it and I
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 39
don't recall in the four years, I have sat here that this has ever been an item, but, like
Mr. Nary says, if somebody has five children, they can't have a daycare.
Nary: Even if there are five to seven children under 17 years old.
Bird: This needs to be stricken from staff comments and we need to make sure that it
don't happen again, that we just need to watch this more often.
Corrie: Council, we don't have to abide by the staff's comments in Council, we can
make any decision we want. If you feel that that is what is read, then I would suggest
we notify staff that that's not going to be the case anymore and then deal with this one
tonight, that she does not need a request for a Conditional Use Permit.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I appreciate Mrs. Floyd coming in and trying to do the right thing. It's very
-- but two wrongs don't make a right, certainly because it's done before. I agree with
Mr. Nary, reading it myself, and it doesn't say that you have to include your own
children.
Floyd: That's what I have always been told, that I could watch five children -- that's
what I'm licensed for to the City of Meridian is to watch five children and they have
always said that includes your own. That's why I pled for this. If I can watch seven
children, not including my own, then I'll stick with that.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Under the Health and Welfare -- or whom do you apply for your state --
Floyd: Yes. The license is through the state.
De Weerd: And they don't have any distinguishing factors, do they?
Floyd: Well, my license says I can watch six children, including my own, but the City of
Meridian has always stated that I could watch five children, including my own.
De Weerd: I think maybe that's where some of the interpretation comes in is because
they also include their own children within the limitations. That's how the city kind of did
it. I would agree, you know, this is the direction that we want to tell staff and the CUP is
immaterial if five is the only number you're asking for. I would even suggest that we
reimburse her application fee.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 40
Nary: And I would agree.
McCandless: I agree.
Corrie: Okay. We will hear what anyone else might have to say when we make those
decisions.
Floyd: Thank you.
Corrie: Anything else?
Floyd: Thank you.
Corrie: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay.
Staff, do you have anything else to say?
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I can remember when I first started
working for the City of Meridian and that's the instruction I had was to include those --
the children that were under that age of 14 that lived on the premises. In reading it out
loud -- I felt really silly when I read it out loud, because I agree with Councilman Nary --
I keep calling you Commissioner Nary, because that was my first experience --
Councilman Nary. However, I agree and upon your direction I will inform the rest of staff
that we are not to include children that reside on the site.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: At least until we change the ordinance. I mean if that's the thinking or if that's the
direction that this Council wants to take to change the ordinance, I think that's fine. I
just think that the way the ordinance reads really doesn't leave it open to two
interpretations. The plain reading clearly doesn't apply and I think it really behooves us
if that's the concern that staff has, and then we need to make an ordinance amendment
and have a Public Hearing and deal with that. I just don't think it applies in this scenario
to Mrs. Floyd.
McKinnon: Just if I might, just one more thing, Councilman Nary. In discussions that I
had with Shari concerning this when I first started it was the -- the paragraph I read to
you first that stated that the total number of children cared for during the day was the
issue, I believe, that Shari was using to say that that includes the children that reside on
the home. Then the paragraph that I read secondary to that was actually the first
paragraph regarding children under the age of 14.
Nary: I mean I understand what you mean. I understand how that probably the
interpretation ended up this way. I just think the language isn't fair to Mrs. Floyd when it
really doesn't -- it clearly, by the plain reading, doesn't apply to her.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 41
McKinnon: Okay.
Nary: You know and if an ordinance amendment is done, then we will just deal with
that.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we close the Public Hearing.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Now you can make the motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we deny the request for Conditional Use Permit, CUP 02-003, and
ask the city to reimburse the applicant for their filing fees and with the clear definition
that five children, not including her own, are allowed with her Accessory Use Permit.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 42
Corrie: Okay. Do you know what we have just done? We have denied your request,
but we have given your money back and you can still have five children, plus your own.
So -- in other words, you don't need to have a Conditional Use Permit, so we denied
giving you one, because you didn't need it. Now you can have -- you still have your five
children, plus your own.
Floyd: Will the state still issue me a license?
Corrie: Yes.
Nary: What you can tell them, Mrs. Floyd, is you're not required to have a permit from
the city for the number of children that you're currently asking for.
Floyd: Okay.
Corrie: Thank you.
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could get a couple points of
clarification, then, for Christina as well. As far as the refund of the money, would you
like that to be initiated by Planning and Zoning staff, requesting that to be done? I'll
make sure that that gets done. Secondary to that, Christina, if you do have any
problem with the state saying that you need a Conditional Use Permit for that, I would
be happy to write a letter stating that what the findings were for this meeting and how
you're' not required to do that.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: They could probably get a copy of the signed order as well.
McKinnon: Absolutely.
Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 02-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
an automotive repair business and vehicle parking and storage for
Meridian Automotive and Machine by Meridian Automotive and
Machine, Inc. – 505 East 1st
Street:
Corrie: Okay. Item Number 12 is a Public Hearing. This is a request for a Conditional
Use Permit for an automotive repair business and vehicle parking and storage for
Meridian Automotive and Machine by Meridian Automotive and Machine, Inc., 505 East
First Street. At this time I will open the Public Hearing on the request for the CUP and
invite staff comments first.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. This may be a little bit
longer than my other staff report. I hope you can bear with me, as I don't have any
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 43
overheads to show the site. The application that we have in front of us tonight is
actually a modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit. The existing Conditional
Use Permit did not allow any use of the railroad right of way, which is currently fenced
and it was fenced without a permit by the applicant. The property is -- the railroad area
is not currently improved with any sort of asphalt or any other hard surface. It currently
is just a gravel parking lot. The site itself, as far as the improvements, the landscaping
has not been completed according to the original Conditional Use Permit. The
sidewalks that were promised have not been installed yet under the existing Conditional
Use Permit. The unpaved parking area and screening and continued -- and possibly
the continued use of welding equipment in this building and the sign was modified
without a permit. In addition to those, the original Conditional Use Permit prohibited any
use of the property for the sale of vehicles. On driving over this afternoon, I actually
stopped by the site and there is a vehicle for sale on the site right now. I know you
have read the staff report and there is quite a few things that are listed in there. I won't
take the time to go over all of them. However, there are a few things in the
recommendation from P&Z that I would like to point out. You should all have in your
packet a Position Statement from Brad Hawkins-Clark modifying the Position
Statement. If you don't have that, I would be happy to get that to you. It wasn't in my
packet. If you didn't get it, you need to make sure that that gets into the record. Onto
the recommendation from Planning and Zoning. There are a few things I just want to
address really quickly if I could. There are a few things that the Planning and Zoning
Commission changed from he original staff report that I'd like to bring to your attention.
Item Number 4 on the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission
states that -- what's that? I'm up. Hey. I feel like a deer stuck in the headlights. Let me
get back. This will help out a lot. The entire area along the north -- we can see the
parking right now -- is currently a fenced-in area that was prohibited for use by the
applicant and the applicant has fenced that without any Building Permits. It's now
fenced and is currently being utilized. The applicant would like to utilize that area for
parking for vehicles that have been repaired. Oh, man totally -- where was I at? I was
on the recommendation. I'll get back to the recommendation really quick. Let me go
back to the site plan. The staff originally proposed that all of the requirements be
completed within 12 months. They are within six months. The reason the staff
recommended six months for completion of the entire project is that we have an existing
Conditional Use Permit that hasn't yet met those standards. They haven't met the
standards of the original Conditional Use Permit and we wanted to limit them saying you
have a Conditional Use Permit that you haven't adhered to yet, we'd like you to adhere
to it in a faster time frame now. Planning and Zoning Commission changed that to 12.
In addition to that, Item Number 12 under the recommendation, it states the applicant
shall be required, prior to the adoption of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,
to come up with a bond with bids or a letter of credit for all of the improvements. That's
to make sure that they get done this time. As a matter of fact, I would draw your
attention to recommendation Item Number 8 on Page 3. The Planning and Zoning
Commission added the following statement that reclaimed asphalt, rolled and
compacted, would be acceptable in this area for the property that falls within the
railroad right of way. If this is not approved by the Union Pacific Railroad, then the
application will be required to come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 44
There are two things I'd like some clarification on from the Council concerning the
reclaimed asphalt, rolled and compacted. It's been my experience with asphalt that's
been recycled and rolled back out that has not yet been reheated, re-oiled, and run
through the pug mill, it -- it's a surface that cannot be painted. It's a surface that's very
similar to gravel and it's rolled out on top of that without a proper road mix underneath it.
It will rapidly deteriorate. This is not the same product that you would see with a hot
batch asphalt mix that you see for a standard parking lot. This is a different product
from that. If we -- and if staff could have some additional comments from you as the
Council concerning the type of improvements, whether it's just as this applicant has
been approved by the P&Z Commission just rolling and compacting the recycled
asphalt is fine, but if you have some additional comments on that, staff would
appreciate that. We do not currently have any standards for the depth of that or the
amount that would need to be placed there. Secondary to that is the comment that if
this is not approved by the Union Pacific Railroad, then the application is required to
come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff would ask for some
clarification on that, whether or not we need approval from the Union Pacific Railroad
prior to the adoption of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. If we wait one
year and the applicant has never received approval from the Union Pacific Railroad, we
are out one year and the surfacing may never been done, because we may never have
a letter from the Union Pacific Railroad approving them to do that. We would
recommend that you give to us some additional clarifications as to when they should
come up with approval from the Union Pacific Railroad. We don't want this to drag on
beyond the one-year time frame that was recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. With that, I'd ask if there are any questions. I'm sure there may be a few.
There are quite a few issues we are dealing with this, but at this time, I'll turn it back
over to you.
Corrie: Council, any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none right at this point.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. I'll invite the applicant to speak
first. Raise your right hand. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Gibson: Yes.
Corrie: Give you name and address, please.
Gibson: My name is James Gibson and my address is P.O. Box 219 in Eagle. I am the
Project Architect representing the project in this application. We have reviewed the
recommendations of Planning and Zoning and we have no objection or anything to fuss
about in their recommendations. However, staff has raised a couple of issues that
probably want to get talked about tonight, so we are prepared to talk about them. The
question was raised about whether there is welding on the site. We thought that had
long since been settled with the city and there has been no welding on the site for some
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 45
time. I have personally made unannounced visits there to observe that very question.
Years ago, yes, welding was common in this sort of a business and there was a welder
on the property, but there is not one now and there has not been one for some time.
The question was also raised about modifying the existing sign. The existing sign has
been there for a long time and some minor modification was, in fact, made to the sign.
The applicant contacted the city, asked if that required any permit to do the minor
application -- minor modification, and was told that no special permit was required for
that. The only modification to the many years old sign was a very minor modification,
which did not increase the size or violated any known provision of an ordinance. The
other question raised is really about the parking area in the railroad right of way. The
applicant has obtained a lease from the Union Pacific Railroad for the purpose of
allowing the vehicle storage area, shall we say, within this area. We recognize that it
was an error to use the property without the Conditional Use Permit, so that's what's
being asked for this evening. However, the major request is not really just the parking,
but for a reconstruction of the front of the building. I believe that you probably have in
your packet information that indicates the proposal to drastically revise the appearance
of the total facility. Frankly, we believe that that was a good idea to combine everything
that the applicant wanted to do in one application, so it could be clear what was wanted
and further so that the city would have some, shall we say, means of assuring that
everything get done. There has been, as you may be aware, some history of things not
getting done in a -- the desired time frame and so on and we wish to correct that by
making one application with a time frame on it. We agree and accept the condition that
not just part of this application can be done, such as the parking, and then not improve
the building. We have no disagreement with that. The question regarding Item Number
8 about the parking surface, please understand that this parking area, if you will, that's
the area along the railroad, that is not an area where cars run in and out many times a
day. The nature of this business is that vehicles are brought there, left, then repaired
and then placed out there and the owner comes back and picks the car up. It's not like
an Albertson's parking lot where, of course, a reclaimed asphalt surface would not be
very appropriate. Dust is not an issue. The deterioration of the surface is hardly an
issue, because of the very minor amount of traffic there. The painting -- the striping
could be done on this surface and, again, the striping issue is hardly of any benefit,
either to the applicant or to society, although it's probably a technical requirement. We
wouldn't have any objection to striping the reclaimed asphalt and we believe that it
would endure for the purpose intended there. Really, we believe that the reclaimed
asphalt, in addition to being considerably less expensive, would be a good deal more
environmentally friendly than paving another -- so many square feet of the earth and
that's the main reason for that. The Planning and Zoning Commission actually helped
come up with that idea and as what they perceived a desirable option. The applicant --
this was not part of the original application. The original application was to either pave
it with conventional asphalt paving if that were a requirement, but the request was to
use a gravel surface there. The reclaimed asphalt seemed like a wonderful idea that
Planning and Zoning came up with. We don't have any other issues to discuss, unless
the Council has questions, and we would be pleased to address those. Mr. Nesmith,
the owner of the business, is present if there should be questions or issues that relate
to the operation of the business, rather than the architectural design. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 46
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Gibson, the applicant has -- on the original CUP -- I don't -- I mean I think we
have to look hard to find out what he did do under the CUP that was what we didn't do.
If we approve this CUP, how are we going to be assured it's going to be adhered to any
better than the other one was? None of us sat on the board -- or sat on the Council
when the other one was through. I happened to be out in the audience and listened to
it a few times, but I just don't think that the applicant has even attempted to live under
the CUP. He's had vehicles for sale down there -- I mean, you know, one out there at a
time I don't have any problem with and maybe it's his own, but when you have four or
five lined up there and some of them are business vehicles, you know that they are not
his. I've got a real problem with his past history of not living up to the rules that
everybody else within the city has to live up to.
Gibson: Is there a question directed to me?
Bird: I mean how -- how are we going to know that it's going to be done?
Gibson: Yes. I, of course, as the Project Architect have not been involved in all of the
history of what the applicant has or has not done. I just designed what you see in front
of you. However, Item 12 talks about providing assurance for all of the required
improvements, the paving, the landscaping, the irrigation, the facade improvements, the
walks, the fences and so on and so forth. Everything that is proposed prior to the
formal approval or obtaining a Building Permit in the amount of 120 percent for an
insurance bond or 110 percent for a letter of credit or cash bond. That is the method of
addressing the question requiring the applicant to provide assurance that it will be done.
I am not a trained or experienced legal expert, but I presume that's the best any of us
could come up with to assure that this or any other applicant would comply with the
conditions.
Corrie: I guess maybe Mr. Nesmith can answer this, but we have gone to court and the
court has ordered him to do them and he still hasn't done them. Why would money
make any difference?
Gibson: I'm sorry, as the architect I don't know.
Corrie: Well, I understand that. I guess maybe the applicant can answer some of those
questions if he wants to do so. Any other questions? Okay.
Gibson: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other representative of the applicant here that wants to testify?
Okay. Anyone else from the audience wish to testify? Okay. Council, questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 47
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think we -- and I feel like an historian tonight.
Corrie: I have been here longer than you and so do I.
De Weerd: This issue has come up before where an applicant has come forward with a
CUP request to improve their site. I never want to penalize someone for improving their
site. I guess the concern is we have so many Code Enforcement issues that it seems --
it seems like until we can address the issues that exist currently, it doesn't make a
whole lot of sense to move to another application that you would have new Code
Enforcement issues, whether you have a bond or an assurance or what have you. I
would like to see this application come back -- we are trying to have some urban
renewal downtown -- or in old town and this fits well within it. I think it does need to --
the city does need to see some good faith effort in the landscaping, the sidewalks, and
some of the other conditions being met under the old CUP before we consider a new
CUP. I do understand the logic behind trying to address some of these under the same
application, but it's hard put for us, as we have done in the past, we have not -- we have
not approved these when there is still pending issues under an old CUP until hose
issues have been addressed.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I have the least amount of history here, so I don't really have any
particular feeling about this. I do agree with what Councilwoman de Weerd said is that,
you know, this is a situation I guess. If Council wished to be looking into the old CUP
that's existing, rather than expanding the use, because it appears from -- at least the
information that we have to this point, the property owner only seems to recognize the
approval and not all the requirements to get that approval. That's why these things
aren't getting complied with. I don't now -- I understand Mr. Gibson's dilemma and I
understand basically his testimony that that's what Condition 12 is to do. He's not going
to get another thing until he complies with the existing requirements that are already
there and bonds for the completion of these requirements. The other way is to deny it
and then maybe Mr. Nesmith will understand that this Council is very concerned that
these issues haven't been accomplished up to this point and maybe he can't do
anything else until he does that and then come back to the Council. I don't think that's
an unreasonable condition. I agree with what you're saying.
Corrie: Any other comments? We haven't closed the Public Hearing, so -- is the
testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 48
Nesmith: I do.
Corrie: State your name and address, please.
Nesmith: John Nesmith. 2820 East Ustick Road, Meridian. I disagree with, you know,
what has been termed as a noncompliance with the Conditional Use. The only thing
that hasn't been done is the sidewalk. All the landscaping requirements that were on
the initial one have been done and if you want to go look at the initial project I would be
happy to go over it with you. The current landscaping requirements are a lot more
additional than the previous ones. You may not have that stuff in front of you and so I
don't really see what -- you know, we can sit here and haggle back and forth and
basically hold up progress. Some of the difficulties in working with some of the people
that were running the Building Department is the only reason why I don't have an
Occupancy Permit and getting engineering done because of where our building is at
has taken months to get the engineers to provide the plans for the sidewalks. I have
spent lots of money doing it and have got actually the engineering stuff done. What we
discussed with the planner is that maybe we could wrap all our -- all the future plans
that I wanted to do with the stuff that hadn't been done and completed, which was the
sidewalks, enhance the building, expand a little bit and move forward, instead of dealing
with our indifferences that we've had in the past. I'm committed to do that and I feel that
it would be a waste of the City Council's time, my time, and the interest of the city to go
backwards. Granted, everybody in the whole situation can be difficult, but I -- you know,
I can drive around Meridian and pop up -- I have lived here all my life and pop up many
many situations that, you know, would probably take your time and effort do resolve
versus dealing with some things that didn't get done. If I put up a Surety Bond, I can
guarantee it's going to cost money to do that and there is no reason for me not to move
forward with the project.
Corrie: Mr. Nesmith, I have been following the courts -- going to court pretty steadily
and the court has ordered you to do quite a few things and you still haven't done them.
Nesmith: Like what, sir?
Corrie: Well, I don't have them right in front of me, but some of the things that you
wanted the railroad property, that was denied and you still did it. Why did you do that?
Nesmith: Why did I do what?
Corrie: Parking on the railroad. It was denied by the Council the first time and you
went ahead and did it. Any reason for that?
Nesmith: There was some legal issues, you know, that we -- that we have actually -- it's
pretty much past history and what we wanted to do was -- I slated the fence. That was
recommended. That is done right now currently.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 49
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could interrupt just real quick. Is the
fence slating completely done around the entire area?
Nesmith: Yes, it is.
McKinnon: Okay.
Nesmith: Including the slating on my -- the other -- the southern exposure of the
property that was not required. That was in my good faith of going to the Planning and
Zoning Commission that they liked the effort of what was happening with the project.
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could direct your attention to this
picture that was taken very recently showing the slating of the fencing. In my
observation when I was on site today the fencing is still similar to the bottom picture. Is
that inaccurate?
Nesmith: That is very inaccurate.
McKinnon: Okay. So that fencing has been completed at this time, but along --
adjacent to the railroad track?
Nesmith: Under oath.
McKinnon: Okay. Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, I do have the Court
Agreement that the city didn't have the signed one. I can tell you what have happened.
The Court allowed the six months to show the court substantial compliance by slating
the fence surrounding the holding yard, obtaining a Certificate of Occupation -- that's
not right -- by doing the landscaping and evacuation of the railroad property he's now
using to store vehicles, which are the other things that were required by the court. He
had six months to meet that.
Corrie: Are the vehicles still back there?
Nesmith: What's that?
Corrie: Are those vehicles still back there?
Nesmith: The vehicles that are just -- that are -- actually, the vehicles that you see right
there are actually on -- well, some of them are on my property. There probably are
some vehicles in the railroad right of way. As discussed with some planners, it would
seem appropriate to try to resolve all the issues at the same time and move forward,
instead of being regressive.
Corrie: I don't have the court -- everything from the court here, but did you -- have you
done everything the court asked you to do and told you to do?
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 50
Nesmith: Other than getting an Occupancy Permit, which myself and -- actually, it was
not through myself, it was through Mr. Gibson that is present, including mailing a letter
to Mr. Daunt Whitman of the Building Department and failed to get any response from
those people, other than I did get a walk-through from Mr. Bowers from the Fire
Department. He did confirm that there was no welding equipment and that was one of
the requirements.
Corrie: I agree with that. I can see the report.
Nesmith: In my opinion, other than sending certified letters, return receipt requested,
which was the only thing I didn't do, I have not got any response from the Building
Department. You know, for obvious reasons of some lack of compliance that the one
gentleman that runs that department seems to get quite angry when the whole issue is
brought up and that's my honest opinion. I don't know, if -- you know, so what my point
is is that I think we could move on, move forward, and, you know, I can't change he
past.
Corrie: But you can perform that --
Nesmith: Absolutely.
Corrie: Okay. Anything else?
Nesmith: No.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Council have any questions at this
point? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion, then, to close the Public Hearing on
request for Conditional Use Permit of Meridian Automotive and Machine.
Bird: So moved.
Corrie: Is there a second?
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed no. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion from Council?
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could offer just a couple comments.
I don't want to sound -- it seems like my testimony has come off on a negative bent and
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 51
that's not the case. We are very much in support of the requested changes that the
applicant has made tonight. We would love to see them made, we just want the
assurance that they will be done this time. As staff, we have met together to determine
the best way to handle this and we felt with staff that the best way to handle this would
be to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit. Some of the modifications that would
need to be made for the existing Conditional Use Permit would be counter-productive to
what their overall goals are at this time. We felt it would be better, rather than to put Mr.
Nesmith off on this plans and to require him come into compliance with the existing
Conditional Use Permit then have to do some additional work to remove the items that
he installed at that -- for the original Conditional Use Permit to comply with the new
Conditional Use Permit. We felt that that was not the best option. The best option was
to bring it all into compliance at this time. We do wholeheartedly support -- and believe
it would actually look much better with the proposed changes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We are talking and I guess we'll sit here all night. I move that we approve CUP
02-004, request for Conditional Use Permit for an automotive repair business and
vehicle parking and storage for Meridian Automotive and Machine by Meridian
Automotive and Machine, 505 East -- Main Street now or East First -- 505 East First,
with all conditions applicable. For the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and that no work shall start until a letter of
credit or bond is on file with the Meridian City Clerk's office.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I was just going to ask -- the reclaimed asphalt, what kind of paving material
-- are you also suggesting the reclaimed asphalt material or --
Bird: No.
Corrie: Okay so you would want to delete that from --
Bird: Staff recommendation.
De Weerd: -- the recommendations? Okay.
Nary: That's all I'm looking for.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 52
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess I did have one more. I think staff noted that the time was
extended from six months to a year.
McKinnon: That's correct.
De Weerd: You also agree to extend that?
Bird: That's fine with me. As long as that would be in --
De Weerd: As along as they put it in --
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Before they do anything.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any further comments? Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, yea.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is approved as made.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Could I say one thing?
Corrie: You certainly may.
Bird: I hope Mr. Nesmith proves us wrong this time. I hope he lives up to the
Conditional Use Permit in a timely fashion. I'd appreciate it.
Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 02-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8
building lots and 11 other lots on 113.15 acres in an L-O zone for
Touchmark Living Center by Touchmark Living Center – south of East
Franklin Road and east of South Eagle Road:
Corrie: Okay. Item Number 13 is a Public Hearing, request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 8 building lots and 11 other lots 113.15 acres in an L-O zone for Touchmark
Living Center by Touchmark Living Center, south of East Franklin Road and east of
South Eagle Road.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 53
Gibson: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Yes.
Gibson: I don't hear well and I didn't hear the outcome of the reclaimed asphalt
question. Was that as recommended here?
Bird: No. It was deleted.
Gibson: It was deleted?
Corrie: Yes.
Gibson: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. I will open the Public Hearing and staff comments first.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mayor Corrie, Members of the Council. I'll forward through
these. We are really excited this is actually going to happen. Touchmark is the large
project, the senior housing center that's directly behind the St. Luke's on Eagle Road.
It's going to be a very large complex upon completion. I'm talking about 700 and -- over
700 homes, with some congregate living as well. At this time they have just requested
approval of their Preliminary Plat. The landscaping meets the requirements. The
Preliminary Plat is completely within compliance of the approved Conditional Use
Permit for this site and the Development Agreement for this site. Staff supports this
application and asks if there are any comments. Would you like some additional
information from staff? Okay. This project was originally approved under a Conditional
Use Permit and the annexation a few years back. Actually, I was just looking at the site
plan to make sure that we have all of the original site plans. You will notice on the
overhead right there in front of me that there is a little site that shows -- if I had a pointer
I could point to it, but it's approximately located a quarter mile east of -- east of the
intersection of Eagle and Franklin and they will be installing a collector street -- thank
you very much -- that runs directly down from there. They will be providing a stub street
to the Montvue Subdivision, which is to the west of the project. The site -- the majority
of the site -- if I can slide it down -- the majority of the site that they are developing right
now is down through here -- a sign is included -- a true site plan -- oh, there it is. The
darkened areas are the phased area. They are installing the roadway at this time
running down through here. This site that looks like a peanut is actually going to be a
park area with a five-hole pitch and putt golf course approved by the Conditional Use
Permit. This small part of the building right here is going to be part of a larger whole
that's going to be a congregate living center with assisted care. The rest of the project
would continue down to this area, which will be attached and detached single-family
homes. As I said earlier, originally approved by the Council and Commission a year or
two back and they are finally going ahead with their plans. Eventually the entire area
that you can see -- which I'll highlight -- that runs adjacent to our area of impact of
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 54
impact to the west -- or to the east will eventually be housing for all of the senior homes
that they would like to build. The reason why you see so few building lots is that the
applicant would actually be the owner of the entire project and there will be multiple
homes being built on single lots. The ownership of those homes will be retained by the
corporation essentially as a lease for those people that are located in this area. Part of
the project that -- the project is one size -- this is a humongous site we are dealing with
and the number of homes are rather large, but the orientation of the site would include
some office medical buildings adjacent to the collector road that comes in. There are
some other office buildings that are located on site. The Preliminary Plat would allow
them to start the construction of the common dwelling and the additional highlighted
areas on the map. If there are any other questions that I can answer at this time, I
would be happy to do that.
Corrie: Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Is a representative of the applicant
here this evening? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Cook: It is.
Corrie: Name and address, please, for the record.
Cook: Richard Cook, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road, Boise. I'm here
tonight kind of a pitch hitting for one of my colleagues Steve Arnold. He acquired a
back injury and at the last minute I was asked to respond, so here I am. Mr. Mayor and
Members of the Council, really the only reason that we are going through this platting
process on this particular project is that the Development Agreement requires us to plat
the streets. The ordinance does not provide any other means for dedicating public
streets other than by going through the platting process. That's really it in a nutshell
and I'm sure the Council is aware that this project has been extensively reviewed by
staff, the Commission, and the Members of the Council. Also by going through the
platting process we are dedicating a well lot to the city as part of the process. Other
than that, I really don't have any additional comments. I would at this particular
moment, while I have your attention, I would like to let you know that I have a request
regarding Item 3 -- what is it, 3-K, which was Baldwin Park. At an appropriate moment,
I would like to explain what I was requesting on that particular issue.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Now would be good.
Corrie: Yes. Go ahead. You have got the floor.
Cook: Okay. By catching this at the last minute -- I was a few minutes late getting here
-- and Item 3-K, Baldwin Park was on the Council's Consent Agenda. I came in and I
handed staff a copy of our Position Statement on the Baldwin Park. We were in
agreement with the recommendations for the annexation and the Preliminary Plat.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 55
There was one item concerning the Variance findings, which is Item 3-K and that is the
decision and order should state that the block length Variance should be granted to the
Preliminary Plat of March 27, 2002. It should not be number specific due to the difficulty
interpreting the ordinance. The difficulty with interpreting the City's Ordinance on block
lengths was discussed at the last Council hearing and we have no intention whatsoever
of modifying the plat beyond what you have seen. We just would like to remove that
specific reference to the two blocks in the verbiage on that condition.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And then didn't we -- isn't that what we did on the last deal is take care of that?
That was agreed upon with the staff?
Corrie: I think so. That was --
Bird: I thought that's what we had done.
Corrie: Yes.
Cook: Oh. Okay.
Bird: I thought it was taken care of.
Cook: Taken care of last time?
Bird: Yes. I thought we took care of if.
Corrie: We'll make sure.
Bird: Yes. We'll make sure.
Cook: Okay. I think -- all right. Well -- okay. It was the Decision and Order, Page 8 of
nine on the particular Variance, Item Number 1. It just stated in the material that we
received from the city that the block length requirement -- block length requirement for
block lengths for one side of two blocks within the subdivision in the RUT zone. That's
the only reason why we brought it up again but that's good. It's good news. That's
exactly what we wanted, so --
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: This isn't for this particular hearing, but it's okay I think on this one. I think all it
says is you're granted a Variance from those specific requirements. I think it's probably
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 56
fine. I mean I do agree with what Mr. Arnold has put here. That, I think, is what we
said.
Cook: Okay.
Nary: But I don't think this is problematic, but --
Cook: Very good. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Corrie: Okay. Anyone else -- going back here -- change hats.
Bird: Going back to the original one.
Corrie: The one we are really on. Anybody have any other comments here? Any
public testimony? Yes, sir. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ramsey: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address, please, for the record.
Ramsey: My name is Don Ramsey. I reside at 3360 North Montvue Drive. I am an
employee of Touchmark and in your packet there you should have on the fencing that
runs along the Ridenbaugh. I'm not sure if this is the forum to ask it, but it will
eventually get back here. The question is is on this fence if you show -- if you look on
your -- in your packet it should be there. Along the Ridenbaugh, we are proposing a
three-rail vinyl fence with pilasters at major corners. My question that was raised to me
and we'd like a response on this, is this going to be a satisfactory fence along the
Ridenbaugh? Now given the fact that our residents are 55 and older, but they do have
the possibility of children coming to visit, we proposed this fence because we would like
to incorporate the Ridenbaugh as much as possible as a water feature. Using that
walkway or that right of way along the Ridenbaugh as a walking path not only for the
people from the subdivision across the Ridenbaugh -- and they do that quite a bit, but
also for our own residents. I want to make sure as we move forward here now that we
don't come up at the last minute and decide somebody wants a six foot fence there
versus a real fence like that or if you want something with a little more security.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would imagine that you're not going to get resistance from this body. The
body that you would have that issue with would be your Irrigation District. You know,
personally I would prefer it as a water amenity and your three rail fence. I know when I
used to visit my grandparents we were told to go play in the creek, so -- I'll tell you what,
a lot of people have played in that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 57
Corrie: The creek or the canal?
De Weerd: The canal.
Ramsey: So I mean if this body is happy with that, I have talked to Bill over at Nampa-
Meridian and his feeling -- I mean he was -- he wouldn't give me, you know, an answer
one way or another, so –
De Weerd: Well, that's unusual.
Ramsey: A lot of answers about other things, but not about that, so --
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. McKinnon is there any concern -- on this particular thing, I don't see a
comment about the fencing along the canal.
McKinnon: Staff doesn't have a concern with the fencing. I would echo Councilwoman
de Weerd's comments that Nampa Meridian Irrigation Department may have objections
to what was stated as using that area for a pathway -- I know Nampa Meridian Irrigation
holds on to those roads as much as they can, the control of that. As far as a three-rail
fence, staff doesn't have any objection to that. There are numerous areas in the City of
Meridian where they use pathways along waterways and those areas are not fenced off
by any fences. Case in point would be the pathway leading from Tulley Park back to
Meridian Road. That area is completely open for children to fall into, I assume. I guess
the liability issues, I wouldn't touch that issue, and whether or not Nampa Meridian
Irrigation would approve that fence, I have no clue. Adjacent to those areas they are
required to be noncombustible fencing. The three-rail vinyl fence would be a
noncombustible and it would meet our standards.
Nary: Thank you.
Ramsey: And they haven't required -- in our License Agreement, you know, they cover
everything pretty thoroughly, as you're aware. That's all I have. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you very much.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd also note for the record I don't think Council Member de Weerd is encouraging
children to play in the canal.
De Weerd: No.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 58
Nary: Okay.
Bird: Especially the Ridenbaugh.
De Weerd: Not the Ridenbaugh.
Corrie: Okay. Any other testimony? Okay. Any other questions for the public record?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 02-003.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the
Preliminary Plat for Touchmark Living Center, PP 02-003. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion on the request?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think this application continues only to get better, so I will just go ahead
and move that we approve the request for Preliminary Plat for Touchmark Living Center,
PP 02-003, and ask the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law and Decision of Order and to include staff comments and testimony.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, yea.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 59
Corrie: Council, I failed to have on the agenda the delinquency turn-off schedule. It's
placed in the box, but I don't think we got it yet. Want to have somebody go get them
and look at them or do you want to just -- I think we probably better, since the turn off is
tomorrow.
De Weerd: I guess we should all make sure we are not on there.
Corrie: And you are not on it. I have already checked. That's one of my goals as
Mayor is to make sure we are not on it.
De Weerd: I'm not going to state the obvious.
Corrie: I know you're not and I appreciate that.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: While we are waiting for that, I do want to bring something up to the Council and
we did hear it last week, but I did see an item in the Idaho Statesman regarding the
park and the -- in regards to the Skateboard Park. It indicated in the article that the
Council had turned down some money that was being offered for that particular park
and maybe I wasn't listening very closely, but I don't recall that Mr. Kuntz brought
forward any money that the Council rejected. I think the -- and so I was just a little
concerned, because we have had people donate to the park. I was concerned -- I was
just concerned that other folks that have donated money to the city for this particular
project would read that article and think why were they giving money and then turn
down some of it. I just want clarification. Does anyone recall that that's what was
presented to us, that we were rejecting money? We rejected the service that was being
provided by the Optimist Club, but I don't recall any specific indication that other folks
who were offering money, that the city was not going to accept it, so --
Bird: I don't recall we turned any down.
Nary: Okay. I just want that to be clear. I didn't think that sent the right message.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I think that this might have been -- at the thing might have been a little
confusing on the deal. I think I know what it was. It was just something that was --
Corrie: Do we need to make a detraction to the paper or --
Nary: No. I just -- I guess I wanted to bring it up in case it were to be brought up again
by some to make clear we haven't turned down any offer for financial assistance.
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 60
Bird: I think the statement was made that somebody would pick up the rest for the kids
and what -- and at that point the people that have pledged money said, no, they wanted
to make sure the kids got out and out work for it and that's what it was.
Nary: Okay.
Bird: And I was the one that said I knew somebody that would pick up the -- to help
those kids if we had to, but if it's the agreement from some of the other people that the
kids have to earn it, so be it.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: I think that's where we got --
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Okay. The delinquency turn off schedule for April 17,
2002. This is to inform you in writing if you so choose you have the right to a
predetermined hearing at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, April 16, before the Mayor and City
Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and defend a claim made by this
city that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel and this
service will be discontinued on April 17, 2002, unless payment received in full. Is there
anyone present who wishes to contest their water, sewer, and trash delinquencies? I'll
just hereby inform you that you may appeal to have the decision of the city reviewed by
the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though you do
appeal your water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is $22,126.38. I'll
entertain a motion to approve the turn off schedule, if so you desire.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve the delinquency schedule for April 17, 2002.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we go into Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(d).
Corrie: Okay. Do I hear a second?
Meridian City Council Meeting
April 16, 2002
Page 61
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. We'll go into Executive Session.
(Return at 9:58 P.M.)
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:08 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK