HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 03-19Meridian City Council Meeting March 19,
2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at
6:30 P.M., Tuesday March 19, 2002, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Cherie
McCandless and William Nary.
Others Present: William Nichols, Mike Worley, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Brad Watson,
Will Berg, Ken Bowers, Tom Kuntz, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Corrie: I will open the City Council regular meeting on Tuesday, March the 19th, 2002,
at 6:30 P.M., and we will begin the meeting by roll call, Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call:
__X__Tammy de Weerd __X__Bill Nary
__X__Cherie McCandless __X__Keith Bird
__X___Mayor Robert Corrie
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: I want to thank everybody for being here this evening. I notice we have a scout
in the audience and glad to have him here and we will see if we can't give him some
pointers. Thank you for being here. Council, the second item on the Agenda is the
adoption of the Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would like to, with your permission, at the end add a couple of things within -- a
couple of emergencies that have come up within the parks deal. Won't be a -- just a
little item or two that I would like to add on if I could. It won't take over a couple minutes.
Corrie: Okay. This was on the parks?
Bird: Yeah. It would be for the parks.
Corrie: Fee for the parks?
Bird: No. It would just be for the parks. There is two items.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 2 of 73
Corrie: Oh. Okay.
Bird: Parks issues, yeah. And I -- well, I guess we have the Consent Agenda, take -- I
know Item D on the Consent Agenda needs to be tabled to -- I would say April the 23rd.
D. And, Mr. Mayor, I also had a question on Item K, I'd like to pull that off and I think that
Mr. Nary did, too. I'd like to pull that off and make that 6-K.
Corrie: Okay. And the E, F, and G, we'd like to pull that off, too, I think, am I not correct?
Nary: That is correct, Mr. Mayor. If we could pull that off for a separate discussion on
that one as well.
Bird: E, F and G?
Nary: E, F and G.
Bird: Okay. So we make it 6-E, 6-F and 6-G?
Nary: Yeah.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Also under 5-A, items one, two, and three, the Public Works Department,
Department Reports, those have been requested to be table to March 26th. Is that
correct, Gary?
Smith: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. All three?
De Weerd: Yes. All three.
Corrie: Any other additions or corrections?
Bird: I have none. Mr. Mayor, with that I would make a motion that we adopt the agenda
with the noted changes.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda with the noted
changes. Any further discussion? Okay. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 3 of 73
Corrie: I guess the next item would be Departments Reports, B, Parks Department.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Yes.
Item 3: Presentation of City Logo:
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is the presentation of the City Logo and so I would like to
introduce to you our -- my cohorts. I think we have been working on the City Logo for
well over a year. We are trying not to count how long this has taken, but they have been
very diligent and have put a lot of time and effort into this and I would like to recognize
them for all of their efforts and I think Will and I had talked at one time to give you
something physically, but since he and I haven't talked I don't think we have done that.
But I would certainly -- oh. Okay. Will will give you a hug. I will, too. This project went
back before I came on tap -- before I got on City Council and we relied on feedback
from staff members, community members, we had all kinds of pictures and ideas of
where the citizenry would like to go with this and so with all of that collected and pulled
together, the end result is what they will display today. Darcie has her own graphic
design business and Mark -- I think many of you have seen his artwork hanging up in
our fire station and he's very fond of firefighters and a lot of their issues. So we
appreciate everything you have done in that, too. Your most recent print is just beautiful.
It has several of our firefighters in it as well. So with that maybe, Darcie, you can get up
and give an overview and pass out the logos and kind of unveil it.
Manwaring: Thank you. When Mark and I began designing the city seal we really
wanted to capture the essence of Meridian and Tammy communicated very well that
Meridian was looking to establish its own identity and we have tried to incorporate
several elements into the final logo. Aside from wanting to portray Meridian as a forward
moving, central point of the Treasure Valley, all felt the best way to capture its charm
and represent Meridian's history was by the use of Mark's artistic illustrations. We felt it
gave us the motivation a little better, if not -- our hope was that the illustrative seal
would become the recognizable seal of Meridian, with a more simplified format being
available for pieces that required less detail than the illustration. With that in mind we'd
like to present two versions, along with providing you with samples on how each would
best be used, just to simply the whole process of deciding what's for what, if that's what
you decide to do. We'd like to thank the City Council for allowing us to design the seal
and it will be an honor for our family to see it representing Meridian. Our kids are
excited. They think we are cool all of a sudden. I know that one of the concerns on the
illustration was this -- how it looks when it gets small and smallness would be on the
business card and letterhead, so on page three I put some layouts down for you to view
the difference and give you some options there.
De Weerd: If you go further into your packet you will see the detail illustrations on
official documents and we do know that the vote was taken and we kind of looked at the
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 4 of 73
simple line art, but we are still a little bit hung up on the detail, so we just wanted to give
it one last shot and so you can see how it's used on official documentation, such as the
letterhead. There is also right following that would be the line art sample. Following that
there are versions of -- to incorporate it onto car doors or also embroidered type of
lettering on shirts and those kind of things are the following two pages. These are the
colors that were chosen to be used in this city seal and city logo.
Manwaring: My colors, they are close to accurate, but the printer was a little bit off, so I
brought this hand-held swatch to show the colors and in case there is any decision on
changing the colors, I can leave this with you or the committee to go over colors, if you
want to finalize the colors.
De Weerd: After tonight the art work can be done and we can get it out on our city
letterhead and business cards and those kinds of things and I know that Will has been
holding off ordering anything, so after tonight we can get that ball rolling. Are there any
comments?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: So if I'm looking at the second to the last page here, the thought is on all vehicles
we wouldn't have either the line art drawing or the building, it would just be the circular
design, the oval design with the lettering?
Manwaring: That's our suggestion. Since it's going to be vinyl print, it's probably going
to
be too small of detail on a vehicle.
De Weerd: The thought was -- Mr. Mayor? -- was that we could incorporate the style of
font and the design of the lettering, so that that would be the carried theme throughout
it, because we did realize that the art work probably, you know, wasn't practical on
some other things, so -- and it really helps to see the illustrations in front of you, rather
than trying to visualize it.
Nary: Sure. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess since I was the one that made one of the comments, I guess my only
concern, though, has always been that we just have one and having two I guess could
become very confusing. I think trying to -- the whole idea is we are trying to create an
identity and having two to me sends sort of a mixed message of two identities, but I
guess my concern originally in the designs were that the more detailed drawing and
trying to transfer that to vehicles and trucks and things like that, it wouldn't be able to be
done very effectively anyway, but looking at that and I think what Councilwoman de
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 5 of 73
Weerd said, in looking at the design and really not -- having just one of them on the
vehicles is probably a better look anyway, it probably would be a little less cluttered and
a little more visual to the name, so I do think that makes sense to me, especially when
you see the art work here and in comparing the two drawings for the other options for
the cars or whether it's letterhead and things like that, I think the more detailed drawing
is a little -- looks a little better.
Manwaring: The feedback I received from our company is the detail drawing outweighs
the line art one and that's why I kind of wanted to reinstate that and --
Nary: We are not going to put it on cars anyway, you know, we are looking at size wise
of this, even though it's just a little bit smaller, I don't think it really loses any detail to it
by doing it that way. I don't think it makes it look poorly at all. I think it looks very nice.
So I guess I don't -- I don't have a problem with it and whether or not we want to revisit
it -- we voted on it, whether or not we want to reevaluate that and simply go with the
one
detailed drawing as the city logo and then all these other options are things, just by the
nature of your detail that has to be done for the vehicles and such, I would be
concerned at trying to do that and then like shirts and stuff, but your suggestion here of
just using the name and the lettering being the same makes a lot of sense for that kind
of thing. It isn't sending any mixed message to me, so --
Manwaring: Okay. I gave to Mr. Berg a list of what designs would be applicable for what
products. For the detailed illustrations probably just want to stay with the engraving,
embroidery, and embossing. Those are the only three I can really think of that wouldn't
work as well and that's why we have the backup other one. But anything under one and
three quarters of an inch would probably just not be illustrational.
Nary: I think if we did the -- there are other things like vehicles and shirts and things like
that with just the text type of thing, the oval design without the building, I think we don't
lose anything with that. I think you're right, in having the drawing before you it really
brings it out more.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Manwaring: Good.
Corrie: I guess I can't ask myself to speak, can I? I guess I could. On the city vehicles,
when I first saw this with the Meridian at the top and the one at the bottom with Idaho
on there, I thought maybe we ought to have Idaho on there, but I'm not as hung up as I
was at the beginning, because the cars and all that will be in Meridian, Idaho, so they
are not going to be out of the state and that type of thing. So I think that would work.
Yeah. I think so. Idaho on the stationary and cards really needs to be on there. Any
other comments?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 6 of 73
De Weerd: Will, do you have any comments? The colors look good. I even like the
colors we have in front of us. I have no problem with that.
Manwaring: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: So we will just have you work with Will to get started on that and just go with
it.
Manwaring: Okay.
De Weerd: Again, you guys have put much time and effort into it and it's shown in the
design there and it's very much appreciated and so I think we need to give them a
round of applause.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Would it be beneficial to have a motion to adopt the detail as the city logo? With
that, I would so move that we adopt the detail drawing as presented and the color
scheme as presented as the official logo of the City of Meridian. I think the detailed one,
that's probably adequate --
De Weerd: I would second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of February 27, 2002 City Council Special
Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of March 5, 2002 City Council Regular Meeting:
C. Approve minutes of March 6, 2002 City Council Special Meeting:
D. Tabled from February 5, 2002: Order Granting Appeal: AP 01-
00 Stop Work Order at 2340 West Franklin Road by Walt Morrow:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-
021 Request for annexation and zoning of 4.83 acres from RUT to
R-8 zones for proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle
and Associates – 1025 North Ten Mile Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 7 of 73
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-
022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 34 building lots and 7
other lots on 4.83 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 1025
North Ten Mile Road:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
01-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development for 34 townhouses in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates – 1025 North Ten Mile Road:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
01-042 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Building
Structure to be used as a Daycare Center in an L-O zone for
Dreamland Education Center by Monvand Enterprises, LLC –
south of East Leslie Drive and west of North Eagle Road:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-
026 Request for annexation and zoning of 2.30 acres from R-1 to
R-4 zones for proposed Hearthstone Subdivision by Robert Lee –
southeast corner of West Cherry Lane and North Black Cat Road:
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PFP
01-009 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 2 building
lots on 2.30 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed
Hearthstone Subdivision by Robert Lee – southeast corner of
West Cherry Lane and North Black Cat Road:
K. Thousand Springs Subdivision Restrictive Covenant:
L. Well No. 21 and 22 Pumping Facilities Change Orders –
SCADA System Upgrade:
M. Ashford Greens Water Latecomer Agreement – Brighton
Corporation:
N. Ashford Greens Pressure Sewer Latecomer Agreement –
Brighton Corporation:
O. Bedford Place Water Latecomer Agreement – Brighton
Corporation:
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 8 of 73
P. Agreement for Professional Services Addendum – Ten Mile
Interchange Sewer Study, JUB Engineers:
Q. G&H Enterprises II (KFC/A&W) Water Line Easement:
R. Addendum to Joint Powers Agreement between City and
Meridian Rural Fire Protection:
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Okay. Item No. 4 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approved the Consent Agenda, with the exception of Items
D being tabled to April 23rd, 2002. Items E, F, G, and K being moved to 6-E, 6-F, 6-G,
and 6-K on our Regular Agenda.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the
noted changes. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Department Reports:
A. Public Work’s Department – Gary Smith:
1. White Drain Trunk Sewer Permanent and Temporary
Construction Easement – John Kennedy:
2. White Drain Sewer Trunk – Award of Contract:
3. Latecomers Agreement Request From Jackson’s Food
Stores:
Corrie: Item No. 5 is Department reports and there has been a request to table Items
No. A-1, 2, and 3. So with that I would entertain a motion for that approval.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 9 of 73
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we table Items A-1, 2 and 3 to March 26th.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to table Items A-1, 2, and 3 until
April the 6th. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say
aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Park's Department – Tom Kuntz:
1. Construction Bid Award for Meridian Settler’s Park Phase I:
Corrie: Item 5-B is Parks Department, report of construction bid award for Meridian
Settler's Park Phase One. Tom Kuntz.
Kuntz: Thank you, Mayor and Council. You should find in your packets a memo dated
March 15th. On the 13th of this month we opened eight construction bids for Phase
One of the Settler's Park located on the corner of Ustick and Meridian Road. In your
packet is a breakdown of each of the eight companies and their bid prices. Also
attached to the bid prices is a schedule of alternatives in addition to the base bid.
Alternative No. 1 was additional lawn area. It would create an extra five acres of green
space to the original base bid price. Alternate No. 2 was to have the planting of all the
trees in Phase One included into the -- or added to the base bid price. And then
Alternate No. 3 and 4 dealt with the either 12 or 16 inch water line up Meridian Road
and I would like to discuss that further in just a moment. The low bidder was American
Paving of Meridian, Idaho, at $833,165. The construction estimate from the Land Group
was $1,361,604. After reviewing American Paving's bid, it was determined that they
neglected to include the irrigation pump house equipment and after discussing the
issue with American Paving representatives, they agreed to include the pump house
equipment in their original bid price and you should find in your packet a letter from
American Paving from Terry Letts, the vice-president, dated March 15th, confirming
that. The second issue which I want the Council to be aware of and I alluded to it a
moment ago is regarding Alternate No. 3 and 4 in the bid package. As part of our
requirements for approval for this project, it was determined that we were responsible to
put in a 12 inch water main up Meridian Road from the Ustick and Meridian Road
intersection to our northern boundary line. It was evident that the new development
Cedar Springs and Sundance going in concurrently with the park, that that water line
would need to be larger than 12 inches. So at the request of the Public Works
Department we included Alternate No. 4, which is to upsize that pipe to 16 inches. I
would like to call your attention to the difference in the price between Alternate No. 3
and No. 4. No. 3, which is a 12 inch line, which was the requirement put on the Parks
Department is $35,000. Alternate No. 4, which is a 16 pipe, is 46,600. The Public Works
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 10 of 73
Department of Meridian is suggesting that they pay the difference, being approximately
$11,600, if my math's right there. Also the Public Works Department has initiated
contact with the developer J.L. Voigt of Sundance, which is to the east of the park, to try
and partner up the cost of that water line. I guess the Parks Department would like to
see if they could work something out, so that the cost of 16 inch water line could be
shared three ways with Public Works, the Parks Department, and J.L. Voigt, the
developer of Sundance Subdivision. With all that, tonight we would respectfully request
the City Council award the bit for construction of Settler's Park -- Meridian Settler's
Park, Phase One, to America Paving in the amount of $833,165, including Alternative
Bid 1, 2, and 4, which is the 16 inch water line. With that I would stand for questioning.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I'm going to be kind, Tom. You know, probably if we would have bid this out
this time last year, as we had anticipated, we wouldn't be saving this 500,000 dollars
and, you know, we even took our plan last year and cut some things out because of the
anticipated prices. This is a result of -- I guess some additional planning and taking
advantage of -- it's all in the timing, I guess. Would it be -- would we be able with the
savings to add some of the project that was taken out? I don't know if you had that in
your original bidding as an alternative. I thought at the time we were going to figure that
in, but would that be a possibility?
Kuntz: Council Member de Weerd, Mayor and Council, we did cut back on the scope of
Phase One for this bid. The two areas that we cut back on were, number one, the
parking lot. Included in Phase One is this northern section of the parking lot. Nothing
below the green line. Also we scaled back from this dashed line to here, but we left this
section in as Bid Alternate No. 1. So with this amount we have moved that line back out
to the original area for Phase One. We are getting a cost estimate at this time to add
that back in. The other item that was pulled from Phase One, which has an estimated
value of about $200,000, is the large restroom-concession area and that was pulled
because we do not have a line to the sewer to the north. We would hope that we would
be able to bid this project and get it built this summer -- the restroom project being built
this summer as part of Phase One and we are anticipating coming back to you with a
change order and adding this -- the rest of this parking lot to be built also a part of
Phase One, depending on what the estimates come back at. So in a roundabout way,
Council Member de Weerd, I think that answers your question in that we still need to
add the bathroom in, we know that's out there. Once we have the sewer line designed
and my understanding working with Public Works and Gary Lee, who is the developer's
representative for Cedar Springs, that we are getting close to having that I would say in
the next 60 days? And also we'd like to build the rest of that first phase parking lot if you
have got the funds to make that happen.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 11 of 73
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: It looks like we had some very -- the plans must have been pretty good, because
the range of bidding wasn't too far off. High and low wasn't too far apart on that large of
a project. I think this is a first for us in the Parks Department in the City of Meridian. We
come under our estimated budget, our estimated cost, so I'm very proud of you guys for
the way -- and the engineers for doing it -- getting it in.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird?
Bird: I'd make a motion, then. I would move that we enter into a contract with American
Paving for Phase One of Settler's 56 acre -- Meridian Settler's 56 acre park, with a base
bid of 675,800, Alternate No. 176,765, Alternate No. 2 for 34,000, and Alternate No. 4
for 46,600, for a total of $833,165 and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. We have a motion. Council, anymore discussion?
De Weerd: Just a final comment, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: It's great now that we have a name for this park that we will actually have a
park there and I know a lot of work has gone into this and we certainly appreciate it and
we look forward to breaking ground.
Corrie: Thank you, Tom. Okay. Any other comments?
Bird: No more weeds.
De Weerd: There is no guarantees.
Bird: Yeah, there is.
Corrie: Okay. With no further discussion, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 12 of 73
Item 6: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-021
Request for annexation and zoning of 4.83 acres from RUT to R-8 zones
for proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle and Associates –
1025 North Ten Mile Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-022
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 34 building lots and 7 other lots
on 4.83 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Berkeley Square
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 1025 North Ten Mile Road:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-040
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 34
townhouses in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Berkeley Square
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 1025 North Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Items moved from the Consent Agenda, Items E, F, and G, following has been
removed to this point, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval on an
annexation and zoning of Berkeley Square Subdivision. Also the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law on the Preliminary Plat for Berkeley Square Subdivision and also
the approval of a CUP on Berkeley Square Subdivision. At this point I believe, Mr.
Nichols, do you want to --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the developer's representative Mr. Wardle
approached me this evening and there was an item of discussion at the hearing which I
don't think got included in the Findings and that had to do with the side yard setbacks
for these proposed two story dwellings to be built in this development and I have gone
back through the findings that we have prepared for you and I do not see that setback
issue specifically addressed, unless it's -- because we tried to pick things up from staff
comments and I'm not sure what Shari's opinion is on this issue, because I haven't had
a chance to talk to her about it, but if we missed that item -- and I know it was an item of
discussion in the Public Hearing, then the Findings need to be changed to reflect your
decision on that particular issue.
Corrie: Staff?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, what the applicant's representative suggested was on
page five, under paragraph 14 of the Findings for the Conditional Use Permit, that the
last sentence be stricken from that paragraph and that the preceding sentence be
changed to read: The project being proposed is a Conditional Use for a Planned
Development in order to allow reduced lot sizes, reduced street frontages, and reduced
setbacks. If you think that's acceptable without spelling out the specific setbacks, which
we will ask them to do on this plat, the final plat, before they get that recorded, we
would recommend that that be changed to reflect that as noted.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 13 of 73
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Shari, the only change in the setbacks was just the side yard setbacks, was it
not? So if we simply said: And reduced side yard setbacks, that would clarify that it only
has to do with that part of it.
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Any other changes? All right. Then I guess, Council, we can approve that
with the changes in writing; right?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, that would be in Item G, so you could
approve Items E, F, and G with the change to Item G on page five, paragraph 14, as
noted and we will revise that particular page and submit the revised page to the Clerk
for insertion into the Findings.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of Items 4-E, F, and G, with the following amendments
to Item G, at page five of Condition No. 14, the last sentence of that condition that
begins with the word revised, be deleted and that preceding sentence, which now is the
last sentence, be amended to read that the project is being proposed as a Conditional
Use for a Planned Development in order allow for -- in order to allow reduced lot sizes,
reduced street frontages, and reduced side yard setbacks and for the Mayor to sign and
the Clerk to attest to these Findings of Facts and Conclusions as presented with the
amendment.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve Items E, F, and G, with the
corrections on the Conditional Use Permit as stated. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All yeas. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
K. Thousand Springs Subdivision Restrictive Covenant:
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 14 of 73
Corrie: The next item would be Item K pulled, the Thousand Springs Subdivision
restrictive covenants. I believe Mr. Nary had a question on that.
Nary: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I reviewed this and I remember the discussion regarding this
particular lot and the concerns and all of that. I guess what I'm concerned with is that
this restrictive covenant that's being proposed is being proposed by the current property
owner, with the city being a party to it, and I'm not sure any reason -- I can't see any
reason why legally that the city needs to be a party to this restrictive covenant. He can
apply for restrictive covenants without the city's approval and, secondarily, I'm assuming
-- at least my recollection of this discussion regarding this issue was that there was --
what I remember being told is that there were already plat conditions on this property
that covered this restrictive covenant and it just hadn't been adhered to previously. So,
again, I'm not sure why the city needs to be a party to this restrictive covenant. I guess
my familiarity most of the time with covenants is that the city will put restrictions
regarding maintenance in a common area, maintenance of the drainage, maintenance
of things that would impact the public and whether or not the public would have to
maintain it. This is a restrictive covenant regarding a window in a building that the city
doesn't have any particular interest in having a covenant, so I'm not sure why the
property owner thinks the city needs to be a party to this, they can record it and they
don't need our approval. So I guess I'm guess I'm curious as to what the necessity for it
is I think. I think Mr. Bird had a question or --
Bird: I just -- you just said the same -- I had the same question that -- that Councilman
Nary had. I can't figure out why we are being involved in this when they -- it can be
done by the landowner and I think we are probably getting into areas that we don't need
to be involved in.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, let me just explain to you how this came
about and why it's the way it is. When this particular subdivision was approved, the city
had some -- the Council had some concerns about on the edge of the subdivision the
houses only be one story. One of the things that we have learned through the course of
this thing is that we now need, the next time that comes up, to address neighbor
concerns, we need to, A, say there will be no in-fill dirt in the -- on those same lots,
which will build up the level of the homes and, secondly, that we will impose a height
restriction and -- in addition to the story restriction. This particular house -- the
checkered past, if you will, of this house is that the builder contracted with -- let me back
up. The builder had some connection with the purchase of the lot. It is the last lot on
this edge of the subdivision to be built upon. The builder then contracted with a private
party to build a home for that party and that party also purchased the lot from the
builder's grandmother. The plans that were drawn up showed a bonus room over the
garage, but no second story or anything that would approach that on the backside of
the house, which is the part of the house that faces the neighbors that opposed the
development in the first place. Then -- but also the builder contracted with this party to
include an extension of this bonus room to the back of the house to be an unfinished
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 15 of 73
storage area. But it wasn't in the original plans. The building department approved the
plans with the bonus room over the garage, but not with the bonus room to the back.
Then the developer ordered -- or the builder ordered his truss package, constructed the
house, and the building department approved the framing even though the framing did
not fit the plans. At the point that a window was framed in the upstairs, the neighbors
complained that the city was not enforcing their restrictions that had been placed in the
Development Agreement, which was supposed to have been placed on the plat, but did
not get on the plat. The plat contains a reference to the Development Agreement, but
the plat does not contain a reference to this restriction on one story only on this series
of lots. So, anyway, the house gets built, the builder takes the window out of the -- there
is a window into this attic space. The builder takes the window out, the party with whom
they have a contract to purchase the lot was not happy and basically the builder bought
the lot and bought the house back from this individual. We still have an issue of the
neighbors down below complaining and feeling their property rights can be devalued by
the potential of having a window in a second story look out onto their property. So it was
proposed by the builder's attorney that there been -- well, it was either -- I can't now at
this point, it's been so many things back and forth -- it may have been my suggestion
that there be a restrictive covenant which would prohibit a window in that gable end on
the backside of that house and the reason the city is a party to this is so that we have
enforcement authority over the issue of the window that's not an issue that's in the
original Development Agreement, other than the second story prohibition, but we
already approved the framing of essentially a second story. So that's why the restrictive
covenant has the city as a party to it, so we did have some enforcement authority if
somebody comes in to try to, A, get a building permit to extend that living space into
that extension or, two, if we have somebody that goes in in there and tries to put in a
window out there and the neighbors complain, then we have a basis upon which we can
say no window. So that was my reasoning. It may be flawed, but that was my reasoning
to try to get a settlement out of this issue.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: But, Mr. Nichols, they can still record this restrictive covenant without the city
being a party to it, can't they? It's their property, so they can record it to avoid a suit
from the neighbor or whatever other concerns they may have about how to deal with
this legally. Can't Mr. Stacy simply file and record this restriction on his own?
Nichols: Councilman Nary, Mayor, Members of the Council, typically covenants --
restrictive covenants have to be in favor of somebody. Now I suppose it could be in
favor of another party. If Council doesn't want to approve the Mayor and Clerk to sign
this, I will go back and tell the builder he is to record it as to himself and I will go from
there.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 16 of 73
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess my concern, Mr. Nichols, though, is that -- from what you have identified,
we have ten other houses along this road that don't have this restrictive covenant that
all neighbors believe have a restriction like this, what you're telling us is that it doesn't,
none of them do, so what happens when the house next door to this one would like to
build a window -- or build a room? There is no restriction to them. The people that own
this house are going to say how come they have a restriction and none of the other
houses do, anyway? I mean if somebody goofed and these errors occurred, I
understand that, and I understand what you're trying to do is fix that now on this one
piece of property, but I guess I still have a concern as to why the city is a party here,
because the benefit -- the benefit is to the neighbors who live below grade. Isn't that
who is really gaining the benefit? This is not gaining anything, other than fixing our own
error. That's the error you're fixing and I understand the reason to do that, but we are
not benefiting other than that and that should have been corrected at the plat stage, not
now. But I guess I'm just not sure why we need to be a party.
Nichols: Councilman Nary, Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't know how to put it
any differently than the way I did. So if it's your decision that we should not be a party to
this, I will go back to the builder's attorney and tell him such and ask that they record
the covenant to any effective party and leave it at that. And as far as those other homes
that are already built out there, some of them are, in fact, two story homes that have
windows. This was -- but the complaining party said this is the one that looks down into
their back yard, the others are around the bend or whatever and they are not so worried
about those. I'm just -- that's what was related.
Nary: But aren't they neighbors to those houses, too? So I mean isn't this simply just
going to raise that to those people that live below those houses to say, wait a minute,
those windows aren't supposed to be on this side of the house?
Nichols: Councilman Nary, Mayor, Members of the Council, there is only one party that
lives below that canal that really was a complaining party when this issue was done and
I -- driving out there and looking at it, they are the only ones that could have -- that are
close enough to where it's an issue.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: My concern is that having been out there several times is the house right next to it
is almost an identical one with a bonus room. What if they decide to go and put a
window in the back of theirs and this lot here the city says you can't have it, I mean if
Mr. Stacy wants to go have it on his own, that's fine with me, but I think that two wrongs
-- I mean we fouled up on the final plat, but I don't think that we should be a party to this
restrictive covenant. I think we are starting something that might get deeper than we
can get out of.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 17 of 73
Corrie: I think we are in pretty deep anyway, but whatever the Council wishes to do on
this one, approve or not approve it, whatever you want to do with it.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Nichols, in your opinion would the other party -- the property owner here, do
you have any opinion one way or the other if they simply record this without the city
being a party?
Nichols: Councilman Nary, Mayor, Members of the Council, I do not know. It's possible
that they would record it, because they have been in settlement discussions with the
neighbors that are affected and the neighbors have effectively said we will go away if
there is a recorded restrictive covenant which prohibits a window and I should also say
that the other houses around it, at least my recollection of their construction, on either
side of this house they are definitely one story houses and there is no bonus room
that's extended to the back of the house that I could see. It looks like a straight --
probably 6/12 or better pitch roof on the backside of the house. Doesn't have a gable
end.
Nary: I guess, Mr. Mayor, what -- I guess what I would like to do is -- unless anyone else
-- I'd like to table this particular item and ask Mr. Nichols to discuss with the attorney for
the other -- counsel for the party to see if they can record this covenant and then it's for
their benefit without the city being a party to it and that we table this for a couple of
weeks and give you some time to do that. We could certainly revisit the issue and
whether or not there is any other alternative, but I guess I have the same concern Mr.
Bird has, it seems like they are trying use a Band-Aid to fix their problem that really is a
problem and just trying to fix it now and I just hate to get into the situation of saying --
we need to do it properly, but if we have a couple of weeks, then maybe they can simply
do it and make it go away, then that would be the end of that, so --
Bird: Was that a motion?
Nary: That would be a motion that we table item -- I guess it's 6-K, Thousand Springs
Subdivision Restrictive Covenant for I guess two weeks to the April 2nd meeting.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to table Item 4-K until April the 2nd,
2002, and to have the attorney check with the builder's attorney. Any further
discussion?
Hearing none, all in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? Motion carried. April 2nd,
Mr. Berg. Put that on there.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 18 of 73
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Ordinance No. : RZ 01-004 Request for a
rezone of 8.29 acres from L-O to C-G for Waltman Court Subdivision by
John Goade – south of Troutner Business Park, between Waltman Lane
and Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: All right. Item No. 7, Ordinance No. 02-944, which requests for a rezone of 8.29
acres from L-O to a C-G for Waltman Court Subdivision, south of Troutner Business
Part, between Waltman Lane and Ten Mile Road. Mr. Clerk, if you will read Ordinance
No. 02-944 by Title only at this point.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 02-944, an
Ordinance finding that John and Sandra Goade, the owner of certain real property
known as Waltman Court Subdivision has made a written request for the rezone of the
zoning classification for real property that lies within the boundaries of the City of
Meridian from L-O (Limited Office District) Zoning District to C-G (General Retail and
Service Commercial District) as defined under Meridian City Code Section 11-7-2 K,
repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith; and
directing the city engineer to add said rezoning designation to the official maps of the
City of Meridian, Idaho.
Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance No. 02-944 by Title only. Is
there anyone from the public that would like to hear the Ordinance read in its entirety?
Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion by Council on Ordinance No. 02-944.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve Ordinance No. 02-944, request for a rezone of 8.29
acres from L-O to C-G for Waltman Court Subdivision, with Suspension of Rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 02-944
with Suspension of Rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr.
Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion for Ordinance 944 approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 19 of 73
Item 8: Ordinance No. : RZ 01-006 Request for
Rezone from I-L to L-O zones for proposed Elixir Subdivision by Elixir
Industries – 521 North Eagle Road:
Corrie: Item No. 8 is an Ordinance 02-945, it's a request for a rezone from I-L to L-O
zones for proposed Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries, 521 North Eagle Road. Mr.
Berg, if you would read Ordinance No. 945 by Title only at this point.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 02-945, an
Ordinance finding that Elixir Industries, the owner of certain real property known as
Elixir Subdivision has made a written request for rezone of the zoning classification for
real property that lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian from I-L (Light
Industrial District) to L-O (Limited Office District) Zoning District as defined under
Meridian City Code Section 11-7-2 G, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or
parts thereof in conflict herewith; and directing the city engineer to add said rezoning
designation to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
Corrie: You have heard the reading of Ordinance No. 02-945 by Title only. Is there
anyone from the public that would like to have the Ordinance read in its entirety? Okay.
Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion by Council on Ordinance No. 945.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Could I ask a question of Shari? I thought this change was for the whole property.
It was just for the corner lot or --
Stiles: Just for the lot where Primary Health is going to go. That was all that was
requested.
Bird: That's all that was requested?
Stiles: Yeah.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 20 of 73
Nary: I would move the approval of Ordinance No. 02-945, request for a rezone from I-L
to an L-O zone for proposed Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries, 521 North Eagle
Road, also with the suspension of the reading of the Rules and also a correction to the
text to reflect 2002.
Corrie: Okay. Do I hear a second?
Bird: Oh. I will second it.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 945 with
Suspension of Rules. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All yeas. Motion on Ordinance No. 02-945 is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Ordinance No. : RZ 01-004 Request for a
rezone from an R-8 to L-O zone for Meridian Water Department by
Meridian Water Department – 2235 Northwest 8th Street:
Corrie: Item No. 9 is Ordinance No. 02-946. This is a request for a rezone from R-8 to
L-O zone for Meridian Water Department by Meridian Water Department, 2235
Northwest 8th Street. Mr. Clerk, if you will read Ordinance No. 946 by Title only at this
point.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 02-946, an
Ordinance finding that the owner, City of Meridian, for certain real property has made a
written request for rezone of the zoning classification for real property that lies within the
boundaries of the City of Meridian from R-8 (Medium Density Residential District)
Zoning District to L-O (Limited Office District) as defined under Meridian City Code
Section 11-7-2 G,repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict
herewith; and directing the city engineer to add said rezoning designation to the official
maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance No. 946 by Title only. Is there
anyone from the public that would like to have it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I'll
entertain a motion by Council on Ordinance No. 946.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 21 of 73
McCandless: I move that we accept the Ordinance No. 02-946, request for rezone from
R-8 to an L-O zone for Meridian Water Department by Meridian Water Department and
with the Suspension of Rules.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance 946 with
Suspension of Rules. Further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried for Ordinance No. 946.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 01-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 85.36
acres from RUT to C-C and C-G zones for proposed El Dorado
Subdivision by W.H. Moore Company – southwest corner of East
Overland Road and South Eagle Road:
Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 01-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 32
building lots and 17 other lots +/- on 85.36 acres in a proposed C-C and
C-G zone for proposed El Dorado Business Campus by W.H. Moore
Company – southwest corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle
Road:
Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 01-037 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
mixed use with office, retail, restaurant and hotel/motel for proposed El
Dorado Business Campus by W.H. Moore Company – southwest corner
of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road:
Corrie: We are at Item Nos. 10, 11, and 12, dealing with the El Dorado Business
Campus. At this point I will open the Public Hearing on Items 10, 11, and 12. Item 10
being the request annexation and zoning of 85.36 acres from RUT to a C-C and C-G
zones for proposed El Dorado Subdivision by W. H. Moore Company. Public Hearing on
request for Preliminary Plat approval of 32 building lots and 17 other lots +/- on 85.36
acres by El Dorado Business Campus. And also open the Public Hearing on the
request
for a Conditional Use Permit for mixed use with office, retail, restaurant and hotel/motel
for proposed El Dorado Business Campus by W.H. Moore, southwest corner of East
Overland Road and South Eagle Road. So with that being said, the Public Hearing
being open, I'll entertain -- or ask the staff to give comments first and then we will have
the developer's comments. After the developer's comments we will have any public
comments for or against it and then the developer will have the last of the Public
Hearing. Mrs. Stiles.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 22 of 73
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for approximately 85 acres of property located at
the southwest corner of Eagle Road and Overland Road. It is directly west of
Silverstone Subdivision being developed by the Sundance Company. They are -- to the
south is the Thousand Springs Subdivision and then there is vacant land that is
currently owned by other developers ready to come in. As part of the Thousand Springs
Subdivision there was a pedestrian pathway that was proposed over the Ridenbaugh
Canal. This was made a requirement by Ada County Highway District in lieu of a
vehicular crossing of the Ridenbaugh at that location. The requirement was to bond for
half of the cost of a pedestrian bridge. I'm not sure if that actually ever happened. And it
is presently constructed up to the right-of-way line, the pathway itself being -- that you
can see in one of these pictures. This is showing from the street in Thousand Springs
Subdivision going north. This would be the Ridenbaugh Canal here and then here
would be back at the Ridenbaugh Canal going into the subdivision. They have
requested zones of C-C and C-G, similar to what was proposed at Silverstone
Subdivision, even though those particular zones do not happen to coincide with the
uses they are proposing. I believe that the uses they are proposing are the exact same
uses that have been approved as part of the Silverstone Subdivision development.
Those uses would be included in the Development Agreement for the property. As part
of the approval or the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, in
the annexation and zoning portion, if you could refer to those recommendations, I had a
couple of changes. Some of these are requested by the applicant and some of them by
staff. On page one of the annexation and zoning recommendations, paragraph two
should be changed to reflect the owner of the property is Kimball Properties Limited
Partnership with managing partner Winston H. Moore. On page two per the Position
Statement submitted by Bruce Freckleton, paragraph one should read: The revised
legal descriptions appear to meet the requirements of the City of Meridian and State
Tax Commission and places the parcel contiguous to existing city limits. I believe that
covered all of the recommendations for the annexation and zoning portion. For the
Conditional Use Permit, the recommendations, starting with page three, paragraph
seven, this would be the most recent set of recommendations you have that were
revised on March 13th. Paragraph seven, third line, Goldstone should be changed to
Copper Point. There was -- this refers to the proposal to have their pathway
improvements completed. The pathway and the landscape improvements completed.
They are proposing a pathway as one of their amenities along the Ridenbaugh Canal
outside of the easement, I believe, and the initial requirement was to have all of those
done prior to any occupancies within the entire subdivision, which is typical of our
requirements. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that any
property south of this would not receive their occupancy certificate until those
improvements were completed or the future city park located down near the high school
in the area that we are working on a park, whichever occurred first, the opening of that
park or prior to occupancy on these lots on the south. On page three again, paragraph
8, that recommendation was recommended for deletion by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. It was not reinstated by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff
actually asked to delete this requirement. It would have required a pathway between a
couple of the lots in this subdivision that would be a six foot wide pathway with a five
foot landscape buffer on both sides. We didn't feel that the purpose was any purpose --
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 23 of 73
real purpose was served by doing that, as they will have access through the pathway
that's adjacent to the property line and also the existing -- or the future parking lots
would provide access to that.
Nary: Ms. Stiles, could you tell me again what the -- the one you just said was number
eight?
Stiles: Yes.
Nary: Did the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend what you're saying now
the staff doesn't want or are these just incorrect or what is it? It says here the Planning
and Zoning Commission further recommends that they comply with this regarding
laterals and you're saying -- and I thought I heard you say the staff didn't agree with that
and that's what you're asking to amend. Did I misunderstand you?
Stiles: Well, Mr. Nary, I'm not real clear on how that happened. I didn't get a chance to
talk to Brad before he left and Mr. Seal is here tonight, perhaps he can shed more light
on. The way it sounds is that they submitted -- they deleted it from the report and that
the Planning and Zoning Commission didn't ask for it to be put back in. I'm not real sure
how that happened.
Nary: Okay.
Stiles: Then on page four, paragraph six, this deals with the required pathway, the
pedestrian pathway and bridge to access the Thousand Springs Subdivision. We did
receive a letter from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, their water superintendent,
saying they are not interested in entertaining the idea. I don't read that as a denial of it. I
guess we would just need your advice and counsel on where we would need to go if Mr.
Jonathan Seal would be willing to actually go to the board of directors and see if we
could be successful in getting that requirement -- getting that pathway to remain or if
you want -- if it's your decision to just drop it and not pursue the access across the
Ridenbaugh Canal, we will do whatever it is you want us to do. If it were the case that
you did not want us to pursue that bridge across the Ridenbaugh Canal, we could just
delete that paragraph.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mrs. Stiles, this is what the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended? I
mean --
Stiles: Yes.
Nary: -- is that what they wanted?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 24 of 73
Stiles: They want the bridge to be -- the pathway and bridge to be constructed, but they
asked if they could get a copy of the written denial of the crossing, then the condition
would be removed.
Nary: So why would we delete it now if they have already discussed it and that's what
they recommended and there is an option here for the developer if they can't acquire
that, to have it deleted? Why would be simply just delete it if that's what the P&Z
recommended?
Stiles: Because we haven't yet received the denial.
Nary: Okay. Then he needs to build it, unless he brings it; right?
Stiles: Right.
Nary: Okay. But I guess I'm more concerned of why would we simply just delete a
condition that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended just because? I
mean they have given him an option on what to do. There is no reason to simply just
delete it; right?
Stiles: Right. It should be figured out before we -- before you make your decision,
though. I guess that can be handled at the final plat stage.
Nary: That's what it sounds like to me.
Stiles: Yeah. On page four, item seven, the applicant did provide two amenities that are
the open spaces and the jogging path and I guess I'm not clear -- I'd have to go back to
the landscape ordinance. I thought the landscape ordinance still would require the five
percent regardless of whether they had other amenities. I believe that's how it reads
currently. So we would need calculations to indicate that they have their -- their
minimum of five percent, which would be 4.25 acres for the development. So I guess
that was never provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission either, unless they --
apparently staff advised them the development satisfied the two amenities, but I still
believe that the five percent minimum would be a requirement. As you can probably
guess, the pedestrian walkway and the bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal was a big
issue with the neighbors in Thousand Springs. Some have called to say they actually
would like it and, of course, the people immediately adjacent to the existing pathway
would not like it and they may have some other representatives from the subdivision,
too, that are not interested in having that connection, they have some fears about
crimes being committed and access too easily into their subdivision. Another thing that
came up during the public hearings was the property owners to the west had previously
requested more accesses to their properties. There is approximately 80 acres between
this development and the high school site that will be developed as mixed use or
commercial and they just had requested further access. The first request they had
made was to have three accesses. Planning and Zoning Commission did not
recommend that -- or did not agree with that recommendation and they had
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 25 of 73
recommended to the City Council that the configuration as shown on the wall now be
approved. They would have -- this would be a typical building within the subdivision.
The landscaping. As part of the Conditional Use Permit if they keep the same basic
configuration and the uses are as proposed in the exhibit to the Development
Agreement, it would not have to go back through another conditional use process. This
is showing one of their features for the subdivision, a fountain. Showing the entryway
into the project. And that's all I have, unless you have some more questions.
Corrie: Council have any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Is the developer's representative here today? Raise your right hand. Also
if staff would raise your right hand. Is the testimony that you have given or are about to
give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
(Affirmative answers.)
Corrie: My name is Jonathan Seal. I'm with the W.H. Moore Company, 600 North
Steelhead, Boise, Idaho. I'm here representing Winston Moore. What I would first like to
do is talk a little bit about the project. I think as you can see here we have got a color
rendering which shows the project. A little bit about Winston's vision on this project. He
visualizes that this is probably one of the premier business parks in the state of Idaho. I
think it would be very comparable to Silverstone. We see this as one of the focal points
in the City of Meridian. It will be a business park that I think will attract firms throughout
not only Ada county, the state of Idaho, but certainly it's not difficult to say throughout
the country. I have worked in real estate in places like Los Angeles and Dallas and I can
tell you that this park here, that this is second to none. This is equal in quality to
anything you see in major cities. You will be able to attract the type of firms out of state
that would come in here and want to locate in this type of business park. Some of the
amenities I'd just like to talk to you about. Along both Eagle Road, as well as Overland
Road we are going to have a 35 foot wide landscape buffer. We will have meandering
sidewalks throughout the project. It's hard to see, but you can kind of see from the
jogging paths that travel throughout the project, both up here and down here will be
common areas where there will be picnic tables and other things so people can spend
their free time. We are putting a pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal here, which will
follow right along the Ridenbaugh. The streets that are coming in, you can see that we
have put islands within streets, I think for -- I'm not an architect, but I guess, for lack of a
better way, to kind of soften the appearance of it. As we mentioned, over here at this
point right here we will have a water feature. It may not be identical to this, but it will
certainly be somewhat in this quality of it, again, because we visualize this as one of the
focal points of the community. At the entrances to the project we will have similar things
-- again, some of these might change slightly, but, again, this will give you not only I
think the flavor, but the quality of the type of stuff that will be in here. It will make a very
very positive statement. I think you can see throughout the entire project that it is going
to be a very attractive project. I think the other thing to keep in mind in this project -- I
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 26 of 73
mentioned Winston Moore is the developer and I think we are probably all somewhat
familiar -- I certainly am, I should say, with the type of quality development he does and
he plans to continue that type of quality here. If you drive down Emerald, if you drive
down River Street, places like that, you have seen what he has done in the past and he
plans to continue this. This will be a Class A project. Another thing -- you know, in
addition to the fact that we have talked about the quality, I think one of the other things I
wanted to address -- and I see we don't have an overhead, so I will have to pass this
around. You know, in additional to the other benefits we talked about, I think you also
have to look at what I would call the financial benefits of the project. Again, these are
some estimates we have done based on kind of current information what we think is
reasonable. If you look, for example, at the taxes, the project when it's built out will be
roughly 779,000 square feet. Again, that may vary depending on what buildings go in
there, but that's what we generally anticipate. If you take that as an assumption and you
take a value per square foot of 125 dollars, which is a very reasonable one, your value
for the project upon completion will be a little over 97 million dollars. At your current tax
rate of approximately 1.43 percent, that means you generate -- this project will -- almost
1.4 million dollars in taxes. Now understand that it doesn't all go to the City of Meridian.
I know the Mayor and I talked about it would be nice. But if you start to look at it and
you got -- a little under fifty percent of that goes to the Meridian schools, approximately
22 percent of that goes to the City of Meridian. So there is some real financial benefit
to a project like this over the long term that will enhance the city. As far as job creations,
again, I think this is conservative. If you look at four per thousand -- I think actually in
the report here it mentioned five per thousand, but at four per thousand you're
generating or 3,100 employees. In addition to those employees being there, those
employees will be eating in the restaurants in the area, shopping at the grocery stores
and the other retail, so they will help. They will be the people that support your
residential communities. Another thing that's not a direct impact to you, but certainly will
be is the impact fees that are generated. I used $2.25 per square foot, a very
conservative rate, it's more likely going to be three dollars. At that rate just on this
project over its life will generate over 1,750,000 dollars which will go to improving the
roads. So we think that that's a real plus. So we think that there is some real benefit to
this, in addition to the quality of it, just the simple financial benefit of the project. Finally,
before I get into the staff report, I'd like to make another comment. We, over the course
of the last several months, have had a meeting with the neighbors and, Cornell, can
you put the rendering back up, please? Thousand Springs Subdivision sits here and
we, obviously, I think for them -- I know I would if I was there, we'd like to have this
whole project be a pasture, it's just our thing. But that's not feasible and what I'd like to
do is show you in concept some of the things that we have attempted to do in order to
mitigate the impact of this project on the Thousand Springs neighborhood. For
example, originally this road went up -- and, Cornell, could you put it right in there.
Yeah. The original one, please. Okay. As you can see on this one, this road loops up
more in a northerly position. We are here and what we have done is we have taken the
road down. The purpose of that is that there was concerns from the neighbors of these
very large buildings down here, they were concerned that they might be behind a 50
and 100 thousand square foot building. As a result of that, we brought this down, we
made these buildings smaller, we have butted them up to what I would say the pathway
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 27 of 73
-- the landscaping area, so, again, they don't have a parking lot right close to their
homes. You will see this road right here we could not alter, ACHD requires it here, so
we
had to, of course, keep it right there. We have also agreed that there is a height
restriction on these buildings of 35 feet. That's the same height as a residential
community. We have reduced that down. We have also agreed that unless this is an
L-O zoning we will come back for a CU, which, in essence, gives the neighborhood a
second bite at the apple, again, to try to address some of their concerns. So I think
what we have been trying to do is -- as much as possible I think mitigate some of their
concerns with the buildings down here because of where they had it and we think that is
a fair compromise and it certainly puts restrictions on us that we have not argued. So I
think the final thing is I'd like to talk a little bit about the staff report and some comments
and I will give you copies of these. I don't know -- this was prepared, I faxed this to Will
this afternoon, so I don't think you probably got it. This is what Shari was referring to. I'd
like to just go through it, because I think there is some clarifications and I guess to
make sure we are all kind of working off the same page. Okay. If we go to the report,
item number one we talked about the changes that Winston Moore, the managing
partner, has made that's been addressed. Number two, I think we had -- and I want to
get some clarification on this. What we had said that when any building down in this
area right here were constructing, at that point we will put the pathway in. Now one
thing that concerned me is Shari mentioned something about a park over here. There
has never been a conversation to our knowledge about our pathway being put into kind
of a park. It was simply when these buildings down here were constructed, that we
would put the pathway in at that point when the first building would come in. So I'd like
clarify that. Number two, we talked about it and I think there is a little bit of confusion on
that. We talked about page three, item one, number eight, the staff deleted this
requirement. If you go back -- this is the staff report from February 19th, you will see
that was the revised path and that was approved by P&Z with that deletion. All we are
simply saying in this condition is it probably was simply just an oversight on when the
report was being put together and that's the amended one. So, again, all we are saying
is that I think that's just more of a clarification and clean up. The next item -- and I don't
know if there is any questions, if there are I will certainly be glad to answer those. I
understand I'm kind of firing through these fairly quickly. With respect to the bridge, we
can leave that in if we want at this point. We received a letter from Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District that said they did not want the bridge. John Anderson told me verbally
probably three or four weeks ago that he did not want the bridge, he was opposed to it.
One of the conditions in the Planning and Zoning Commission was that if you, the
applicant, can provide us with a letter saying that they do not want it, we will delete this
condition. That's all we are saying here is that in our interpretation that we have
satisfied that and it should be deleted. Again, if there is a question, we can leave it in at
this point and address it. We don't think -- we are certainly willing to work -- we were
just told by the neighbors, as well as Nampa-Meridian -- or at least some of the
neighbors that they are opposed to the bridge. So I don't think -- we are not speaking
just solely for ourselves. Finally, the last one -- and I guess this is where I have some
real concerns, we talked about the land use calculation. If we go back to the PUD --
and, again, I apologize, but I only have one copy. Right here it says two amenities --
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 28 of 73
one amenity -- you got the common areas, you have got the various things, we have
been told by staff here we are satisfied, we are giving the jogging path, we are giving
the pedestrian walkway, we are giving the common areas, so we are satisfied that the
open space calculation is no longer needed. Shari, did you --
Stiles: I think we can work it out.
Seal: So I think these are the only things. Other than that, we have worked things out
with staff, staff has been cooperative in working with us in this process and we believe
that these things in this memo that I provided to you today are simply just clean-up
items, just things that simply slipped through the cracks between the P&Z hearing and
City Council and we would ask that either these things be noted in the staff report,
added in however you want to do that. With that I have -- I'm certainly glad to answer
any questions that you might have and I apologize if I kind of rushed through that, but --
Corrie: Okay. Any questions at this point, council?
Bird: I have none.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Seal, I'm curious in the portion you have submitted here that shows -- the sort
of scratched out one, number 8?
Seal: Yes.
Nary: Now in reading the language in that, that appears to me to relate to -- on page
four of the CUP, application number seven, that you're talking about. It doesn't appear
to me that the language there related to the one you're making the reference to, the
recommendation for the pathway by Mr. Kuntz, because the language in here says the
applicant shall meet the open space calculation prior to the P&Z Commission hearing to
demonstrate the minimum ten percent open space. Which one are you -- is this the one
you're referring to?
Seal: No. This is my own handwriting here. Yeah. This is --
Nary: This one here?
Seal: Yes. What it is, it was deleted. This was deleted in your staff report that was
submitted. This was provided to P&Z, which is the final amendment.
Nary: I got you.
Seal: So I think it was just simply an oversight.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 29 of 73
Nary: Okay. Great. Thank you very much. That's all I had.
Seal: Did you need to see --
Nary: No.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay.
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much.
Corrie: Okay. Anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony? We have Joe
Waters. Okay. I'll let you go first.
Waters: Thank you. Joe Waters. Oh. Excuse me, sir.
Corrie: Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Waters: Yes.
Corrie: Thank you. Your name and address, please.
Waters: Joseph Waters. 3000 East Green Canyon, Meridian. I'm one of the -- one of
the people that back up to the subdivision and it is going to be impressive, it really is,
and, you know, we would like to have a field back there, but they have been working
with us very well. Just as a recap, the first meeting we had Mr. Seal, he told us don't
worry about it, we will have parks and open areas and walkways and flowers and trees
and sugar plum fairies. Okay, he didn't tell about the fairy part. But the only problem I
had is when he said we'll get to -- really don't worry about it, because we are not going
to start for awhile and, who knows, you're probably going to win the lottery and move
away anyway and that just put a burr under my saddle, I thought,you know, that didn't
seem to work out, because who is going to be moving in next. To me the concern of
most of the neighbors -- in fact, I'm surprised most of them are not here, was that
looking into a concrete wall. But they did make the pathways and they did turn the stuff,
so that does make it a little view and whatnot, but that doesn't stop somebody from
buying several of those lots and going ahead and putting a building in there. That's our
concern. You know, we get to talk again when it comes up again. Commissioner Borup
-- I don't know if I'm pronouncing his name correct -- he stated that you only buy the lot.
Well, that's true, but most of us spend several months, even years looking for that
special lot and that's the place I'm living at. I moved from Boise over to Meridian,
looking for places that have -- like that are close to shopping areas and whatnot, and a
good place to raise my children. We should have looked into it right off the bat.
Commissioner Borup said that we should have looked what was going to happen back
there. Well, the builder that was building a home there, we went and asked him and he
said, no, it's going to be small beginner homes and we thought, well, okay. Well, then
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 30 of 73
we asked our realtor, the person that was selling us the home, and she said, well, the
farmer isn't going to sell that, but if he does it's going to smaller homes. So -- and then
the associate said don't worry, small homes. We should have checked in on it. We
really should have. But, you know, where to do you say, okay, build me a 200,000 dollar
home, okay, I will build that for you and I'll make sure it's good, this will last your lifetime,
but, by the way, I lied to you about the other part, you know. I'm too old and fat to start
fistfighting people and say this is how it is, say, no, you're a liar, I'm going whip them up
myself. I really miss the old hand shake. About the bridge, some of the people did want
the bridge, because they want to utilize the businesses down there, the restaurants, I
think it would be wonderful, it would be a great pathway. The people that live right next
to it, an older couple, they are real concerned with the children trying to get, you know,
to the bridge. If there is a way to get there, kids are going to find it. It's a safety problem.
So that's both sides of that coin. Some people are really concerned about -- some of
the neighbors are concerned about the zoning will allow like a hotel, will that -- we need
to -- that's another concern that was brought up to us. Also the lighting. Is it going to be
direct -- hopefully directed down. We talked to Mr. Larsen about that and he said he
was going to try to do something like -- in that area. It was another concern of ours. Of
this entire affair, the only handshake I trust is Mr. Moore's. After the main meeting he
shook my hand and said don't worry, it's going to be beautiful for everybody. When this
project is partially done or totally completed, I really really hope Mr. Moore will join me
on my patio for a barbecue, a beer, and a hand shake and we can look over his field of
dreams as he calls it, but until that point we are all going to be watching, by God. Thank
you, sir.
Corrie: Thank you, Joe. Okay. Yes, sir. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Herron: Yes.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address for the record.
Harron: My name is Frank Harron, I live in Thousand Springs, 2896 East Green
Canyon. And the concern that I have, basically, is the -- we own halfway to the middle of
the canal and they own halfway to the middle of the canal and our property -- mine
essentially borders on the canal and the thing that I guess I have really no opposition to
the construction of most things in there and whatnot, the problem I have is they keep
telling me they want to butt up against this as tight as they can with the buildings and I
really am concerned that we are looking right out of our property into a 35 foot wall.
They did orient the buildings around, which does give an avenue of some views. The
things that I'm most concerned with is I keep hearing there is a 50 foot easement from
the center of the canal and then there is supposed to be, from all that's been told, that
there would be an easement on the other side of that to where the pathway would be
joined, but it's never been well defined and as I read in the small print they want to use
that easement as a multi-purpose easement, which essentially says you combine all the
easements into that easement, which means that there is no easement, which means
that that building will be butted up just as tight as they probably can, which basically
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 31 of 73
now is taking -- I'm ten foot from the canal and they can be ten foot from the canal, so
we are talking 20 feet from my property into one of their buildings and I would like to
kind of have some assurance, I guess, that that will not be -- that any multiple use of
the easements would be denied, so that that building would be setback from us. I
thought if I -- if we was a road we would have an easement. If we was -- if they treated
us like they treat Eagle Road or any other road or whatnot, there would be an easement
back, but since we are not, we have no concern, I guess, and that's my biggest concern
is that the abutment of the buildings as close as they can to me and I would like to just
eliminate the multi-use, so that there is at least an easement of the canal and an
easement for the jogging path and whatever setback is required from that property line.
I have no other -- other than that, as far as the bridge across the canal, I prefer that it
isn't there. I think that you can walk -- it's about three blocks over to Eagle Road one
direction and about four blocks over to where the bridge across the canal and there is a
good street on this side that they could walk, if you're going to the park or the school or
they could walk up through there. At least the Thousand Springs people could. And I
just as soon -- I think people can walk that far to get from our Thousand Springs into
their business park if they want to. Thank you for your time.
Corrie: Thank you, Frank. Anyone else like to issue testimony? Yes, sir. Is the testimony
you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
McMasters: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Name and address for the record, please.
McMasters: My name is Chris McMasters. I live at 3044 East Green Canyon Drive,
just down the road from Joe, and I also would kind of speak on behalf of Loren and
Vera, they live right next to where the bridge is going to go and that's one of my main
concerns, also the other neighbors that border the Ridenbaugh Canal, but if they don't
want the bridge, if the people by the canal don't want the bridge and Mr. Seal don't want
the bridge and we are all for that. Let's get it out of there, just, you know, like to have
the -- no one have that final approval that that's not going to happen and most of us
along there bought those lots, you know, that we are guy view lots, you know, that's --
we are paying a little money extra here to get a view lot and we are concerned that our
view is going to turn into a 35 foot concrete wall. That's a definite concern. We will still
be able to see the mountain, but I hope that 35 foot wall is real pretty. And just want to
convey those concerns. We are worried about the distance away from the canal like
this gentleman was speaking of and to make sure that the proper easements and stuff
like that are observed, just like we observed about our lots and our roads and that's all I
have to say. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you, Chris. Anyone else? Okay. Jonathan.
Bird: Staff has got him tied up outside.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 32 of 73
Corrie: Jonathan, are you out there? You're --
Seal: Sorry. Jon Seal, W.H. Moore Company. I guess a couple things that I'd just like to
respond to. Again -- and I know we talked with the neighbors. We can appreciate their
concerns about these buildings and that's reasonable and I think we have tried to do
everything we can in terms of addressing that. This right now with the existing comp
plan, as well as the future comp plan, is allowed to be commercial development. This is
not new. In fact, Commissioner Borup brought this up at the last hearing. So we are
allowed. This should not be a surprise to the neighbors, whether it is or not. But at the
same time I think we are trying to do everything we can in order to mitigate it. We have
simply said -- you know, the one gentleman came and said, well, what if it's a hotel.
Well, I don't have the zoning in front of me, but if L-O does not allow hotels. We have to
come back. They have another opportunity. We have agreed to the height restriction of
35 feet. That's not a real high building. I think it's unlikely we are going to have a hotel
there, for example. We tried to buffer by taking the parking away, by making the lots
smaller. So, again, I think that we have tried to, as much as we can, and still make this
a viable project, to address their concerns. And I'm not sure what else we could really
do, other that say just pasture. Another concern that came up is us crowding the
Ridenbaugh Canal and, you know, one of the things that -- if you look -- and I can,
again, pass this around. This is the license agreement with Thousand Springs. If you
look here up they are allowed to approach within five feet of the south edge of the top
of the bank. That's the license agreement for Thousand Springs with Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District. In our case we are not talking about that. We have a maintenance
road, we have a pedestrian pathway, and, again, if we came back, if we didn't have the
Ridenbaugh Canal there we wouldn't be talking about a 60 or 65 foot setback, I don't
think. I think that would be unrealistic. So there is quite a distance between them. Is it
as much as they'd like, probably not, but I don't think we can feasibly give them, you
know, what they would like. But, again, they are benefiting from the same easement
that we are asking to benefit from. I'm sorry, but the last gentleman I was talking to
Shari, so I'm not sure what he may have said, but I think that's kind of the crux of it
throughout the process and, again, I think we are trying to do everything we can to be
reasonable and mitigate the impact from this project. And I will be glad to answer any
questions.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Jonathan, do you have -- maybe Cornell can answer it. There is a big elevation
difference between Thousand Springs and where yours is going to sit, so if you're
putting up 35 feet, they are probably ten to 15 feet from zero elevation to your zero
elevation, so, actually, your building is coming down to about a 20 foot for them to look
out over; am I not right?
Seal: I believe -- Cornell, do you want to --
Corrie: Do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 33 of 73
Larsen; Yes, sir.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Larsen: My name is Cornell Larsen. Address is 210 Murray Street in Garden City. To
answer Mr. Bird's question, the property closer to Overland Road here does have a
fairly good grade differential. As it moves down it gets less and less as it goes towards
the west. So there is change here and the grade differential drops off here to about the
road, but some of this is going to have to be regraded to work a little bit, so the
buildings will come down a little, but -- and the property on this side is actually elevated
a little bit above the maintenance road, but not a lot and -- just standing out there
looking at it. But if you do stop right up here on Overland it does look like there are -- or,
excuse me, on Eagle Road it does look like there is a fairly good grade difference. And
then while I was up here I was going to address a couple little things. The lighting issue
is a concern from the neighbors and usually along the backs of residential areas we
don't put any wall mounted fixtures, we usually use recessed soffit fixtures. We try to
shield lighting as best we can. We try to bring our lights on on the buildings with a photo
cell when it gets dark and then a lot of the areas we drop the lights off as it gets later in
the evening, so that they aren't glaring all night and we could drop those off with a time
clock. So we can control the lighting fairly well in there. We do need a little security
lighting for purposes of the human predator that may be out in the marketplace looking
for someone to prey on, but in general we try to keep those lighting levels low in the
evenings. Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I just had a couple questions for Mr. Larsen. This particular -- how big is that
buffer there?
Larsen: Right now from the center line of the canal there is a 50 foot easement on each
side of the canal. In addition to that, inside of the easement is the canal and the
maintenance road and then, in addition to that, there is some distance to the edge of
the easement. As you move from this part of the property to this part of the property, the
easement -- you can use more of the easement for the pathway system and that's what
we were proposing to do is use part of that easement for the pathway system and it's
basically the same feature that's happening on the other side of the property that the
Thousand Springs people are doing, is they are using part of the easement to expand
their backyard.
Nary: So the intent, Mr. Larsen, wasn't to use part of that easement to have more
building?
Larsen: No.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 34 of 73
Nary: To have more path.
Larsen: To have more pathway.
Nary: That's what I thought.
Larsen: And we had went over that with the Parks Department and they didn't really
have a problem, as long as we could maintain a flat pathway system and could
meander the pathway system. They had also requested that we setback a certain
distance from the pathway system, so that the buildings weren't right next to the
pathway, so there would be a little bit of grace space if you're walking down the pathway
that somebody can't just shoot out from a building and grab you or you don't see what's
going on. In general, the distance along there will be about 65 feet from the center line
of the canal the way they are shown on that drawing right there and we weren't talking
about defining any distance, because as we do the contouring and work with Parks to
get the pathway in there, we were trying to generally say we are going to be back
outside of that 50 foot easement.
Nary: The other question I have, Mr. Larsen, are the buildings here, are they essentially
conceptual? These aren't exact -- are these all the sites exactly where the buildings are
or there may be less buildings or they may be combined into one building or three
buildings, is that this what it is?
Larsen: Let me speak to that just a little bit and I hope I can answer your question.
Generally when we do a master plan for people who are prospective users of the site,
we are trying to show the maximum area that we can get on a site in a building envelop.
Generally what happens is you need to have sidewalks around that, you have to have
some buffer to meet your five percent minimum, so these -- typically those will shrink
and, again, those are a maximum. We are trying to show the worst case, so somebody
couldn't come back to us and say, well, you didn't tell us that. We are trying to show you
what we believe the worst case is.
Nary: Well -- and that's what I had thought as well, because I think some of the
neighbors were concerned about the height of the buildings and those kinds of things
and they may not necessarily end up being -- it may not look exactly like that, it may
have a smaller profile building, I mean it depends on your -- what the person that wants
to take over that space wants to do with it. It wouldn't be bigger than that.
Larsen: No.
Nary: It could be smaller than that or it might have a different orientation to it or
something.
Larsen: It may have a different design than looking like a box. You tend to break those
up. Different users like different things. You may get a different design theme between
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 35 of 73
buildings. A lot of commercial users do like a flat roof, so you're probably not going to
have too much encroachment of roofs into that area. Some user, though, if -- let's say
you have got a small doctor's office or dental office back in there, they tend to stay
more to the residential type of construction and so, consequently, some of those roof
lines may vary and things like that.
Nary: I did notice, Mr. Larsen, that part of the request in the CU was to potentially have
a hotel or a motel as one of the uses on this property; is that right?
Larsen: That's is correct. The likelihood of one being back there due to exposure and to
things that they'd like to have is virtually slim to none.
Nary: Right. And I guess my question would be -- now my assumption would be that if
you were going to have that, it would be closer to the corner, somewhere near Overland
where it would be visible. No one would want to have a hotel or a motel so far away
from the roadway so you couldn't see it.
Larsen: And that is correct, Mr. Nary. One of the things that was of a concern in the
Planning and Zoning meeting -- I'm not sure it was explained well, but they felt like if
there was anything but the uses in the L-O uses that were approved in the L-0 zone,
typically, if any of that differed along this south boundary, that we would come back for a
Conditional Use. So if somebody came in and did want a hotel there, then you're going
to get a chance to look at it again. But the likelihood of a hotel or motel being there,
they want to be close to the freeway, they like the exposure, the sites at that location
just typically don't work for them.
Nary: And I guess my assumption is even a fairly large type of restaurant would be the
same thing, that they wouldn't want to be that far back, they'd still rather be closer to the
corner -- I'm not just talking about a coffee shop type thing, but I mean the larger ones
would want to be by the corner.
Larsen: Yeah. That would be correct. I mean you may see a small sandwich shop in
there, but you're not going to see an Applebee's or anything to that magnitude that
would have extended hours be there.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I just wanted to clarify, but if you did get someone like Applebee's that
wanted to be stuck back in the far corner, it's highly unlikely, and let's say they did, they
would have to come in, because the designation would be L-O; is that correct?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 36 of 73
Larsen: Not designated as an L-0 on the zoning, but what it was -- what the condition
was written was it was restricted to the uses in the L-O.
De Weerd: Okay. So they would have to go through a CUP process to amend those
designations?
Larsen: Yes. Let's say, for example, a restaurant did come in and if a restaurant wasn't
shown in the L-0 zone, then it would be in front of you as a conditional use application.
De Weerd: Now would that also be the same if you consolidated two of these footprints
into a bigger building? Would they --
Larsen: We hadn't looked at that. I believe there was a condition in the staff report that
said you could build more than -- or a -- let's see, how -- can't remember how it's
worded, but essentially you could build a building on two lots or three lots, as opposed
to just the individual and you couldn't build more than one building on any individual lot.
So typically it would be one building one lot or you could -- you would have to acquire
more lots to expand the building. So, in essence, yes, you could build a bigger building
if you acquired two lots or used two lots.
De Weerd: Because of the sensitivity in this particular area, did you -- are you
amenable to -- if you consolidated into two lots that you would come back for a CUP?
Larsen: If it were an office use I wouldn't see where that would be needed. If it were
something outside of the office or the L-0 use, I just wouldn't, you know, see that as an
issue and I --
De Weerd: Shari's not here, but I think in our L-0 we have building limitations, don't we?
Shari, in our L-O zones do we have building size limitations? I don't recall.
Stiles: No. It's the height.
De Weerd: The height.
Stiles: I don't think the height in the L-O is any different than the C-G. We have the
maximum height of 35 in most every area, I think, except for the M zone that I think
allows up to --
Larsen: Yeah. I thought we agreed to like a 35 foot, which was five foot below the 40
foot that was approved in the C-G and I don't know whether that's correct, but --
Stiles: Yeah. Yeah.
Larsen: But at least along those lots that backed up to the residential area.
Bird: That was the only lots that was restricted to the 35 feet.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 37 of 73
Larsen: Correct.
De Weerd: And you did say, since, you know, I can't scale it out what that is, it's
approximately 65 feet?
Larsen: Yes. I believe we had one of the neighborhoods -- I think it was Mr. Waters
came down to our office and we scaled the one down, I think, you know, generally
averaging 65 feet along there and he's shaking his head, yes, that that was about what
they were, as we just tossed a scale on it and that's about all the closer we can get
them and still satisfy what parks had asked for, what the pathway system needs to be
function in there and also to satisfy Nampa-Meridian, if they were to clean canal with a
large trackhoe or something, when the trackhoe turns over its tracks the back of it
extends out a certain distance, so we have to give them some clearance around their
maintenance road so that they aren't extending over the pathway system or anything
like that. So there is some issues of maintenance and things like that that also dictate
that it has to be widened out a little bit.
De Weerd: Now so there is a maintenance road between this pathway and the irrigation
canal?
Larsen: Yes. The canal runs right here and then we tried to show right there there is a
maintenance road that parallels the canal on the north side of the canal.
De Weerd: And they are going to let you put that green?
Larsen: Up to the edge of the maintenance path it would be green. Tom said he would
let us make that green if Nampa-Meridian would let us, but, you know, your chances of
that are slim --
De Weerd: I know. We have all had our experiences with Nampa-Meridian, so I just
thought I'd ask. It looks nice, though.
Larsen: Another thing that might give you a little perspective is on Eagle Road and
Overland there is a 35 foot buffer. Even if you take just this area along the backs of the
buildings, you can kind of see that it's just slightly larger in scale than the buffers along
Eagle and Overland Road.
De Weerd: I believe in our landscape ordinance this far exceeds the buffer between
commercial -- or L-0 and residential, so --
Larsen: Yes, it does. We are trying to be as sympathetic to the neighbors as we can
be and try to also accommodate parks and our own needs and desires, too, to use as
much of the property as we can.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 38 of 73
De Weerd: Well,I hope so. I want to go Mr. Water's house for a barbecue and look over
Mr. Winston's field of dreams, so --
Larsen: That would be fun.
Bird: This weekend.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Larsen: Thank you.
Corrie: Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments from Council for the Public Hearing?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. If there is no further comments, I will entertain a motion to close the Public
Hearing on the annexation and zoning, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditional Use
Permit.
Bird: So moved.
McCandelss: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 10,
11, and 12. further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Council, discussion? Let's do the annexation and zoning first. Or you can have
discussion on any if you like.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess we are all familiar with Mr. Moore's developments and I think this will
be a very admirable addition to our community and to our city. I appreciate the concerns
of the citizens and it looks like the applicant has done a lot of their homework in trying
to find compromises with the neighbors and minimizing the impact. I get always
disturbed when I hear neighbors come in front of us and tell us what realtors have told
them. This certainly isn't the first meeting we have heard that and, you know, it's very
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 39 of 73
unfortunate. I know when we bought our first house we had a beautiful view and,
unfortunately, we have for 10 years. Now there is houses behind us and we are moving
to the golf course, because I want that open view. I apologize for the realtors that have
been misleading. And I don't know if they do it purposely, I think they don't do their
homework either, and when we see it happen we do try and correct it, but, you know, I
appreciate what you have had to say, but it is in our plans and our plans went through a
democratic process with citizen input and this was a good use for this land and so it
looks like the developer has really tried to minimize and it looks like even from what we
heard today most of your large issues, other than just keep it a field, which I think Mr.
Moore is a sportsman, you know, maybe we could just put some pheasants in there and
accomplish that. But, you know, I -- this is a great product and we will keep on eye on it
as well.
Moore: Would it be out of order for me to a comment? I know you have closed the
public hearing.
Corrie: Technically speaking we should have done it before, but if we are not going to
add any testimony -- is that -- no more testimony. Okay.
Moore: I'm not sure you'd call it testimony.
Corrie: Okay.
Moore: Most of the comments that I heard -- I was a little late in getting here -- refer to
the south end of the project contiguous to the Thousand Springs neighbors and I want
to assure you folks and I want to assure the neighbors that there will no buildings on
that south end between the canal and the road larger than you see on that -- on that
drawing. We are not going to come back and try and do other things. I have assured
these folks that I will look at that end of the development -- the whole thing, for that
matter, just as though I lived up there and I was to look at it and the chances of a
restaurant or a hotel, as has been testified, located at that end of the project are so
remote as to not even be a consideration, but even if somebody wanted to, we wouldn't
come back to you, we'd just turn it down. Commercial type development is going to be
up in that northeast corner or at least up at the north end. Nothing even remotely similar
to -- well, it's going to be offices is all they are. So anybody that comes along and wants
a hotel or some other use there, we are not going to -- we will turn them down. We
intent to be totally considerate of the neighborhood.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Moore. With that information --
De Weerd: Now it wasn't in public testimony, but we will all remember it.
Corrie: All right. Discussion further, Council? Okay. I'll entertain a motion, then, on the
request for annexation and zoning.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 40 of 73
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 85.36
acres from RUT to C-C and C-G zones for proposed El Dorado Subdivision by W.H.
Moore Company, southwest corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road, with
the owner of record being changed in the Findings to Kimball Properties, Limited
Partnership, managing partner Winston H. Moore, and for the attorney to draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Okay.
Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion approved on annexation and zoning.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Next is a request for Preliminary Plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 32
building lots and 17 other lots on 85.36 acres in a proposed C-C and C-G zones for
proposed El Dorado Business Campus by W.H. Moore Company, southwest corner of
East Overland Road and South Eagle Road, with applicant's rebuttals and staff
rebuttals included and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mrs. McCandless to
approve the request of the Preliminary Plat as stated. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 41 of 73
Corrie: Now we have the final one, the Conditional Use Permit.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use
of office, retail, restaurant, hotel, motel, for proposed El Dorado Business Park by W.H.
Moore Company, southwest corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road, with
comments from staff and applicant included and for the attorney to draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Again the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit by Mr. Bird,
seconded by Mrs. McCandless. With the motion made, any further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: What is your recommendation in your motion on this pathway -- or this
bridge across --
Bird: The bridge, as was stated, we don't need one. If they -- if Nampa-Meridian --
De Weerd: Nampa-Meridian.
Bird: Yeah.
De Weerd: But if Nampa-Meridian grants approval, then do we have the bridge?
Bird: No. We don't have the bridge. Period.
Nary: The testimony was that they would not --
Bird: We would not have a bridge. Yeah. From both was testimony that there was no
bridge.
De Weerd: So we should just totally delete any reference.
Bird: But the motion says take it out, because that's what was --
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 42 of 73
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion approved for Conditional Use Permit. Very good. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13: Public Hearing: 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:
Item 14: Public Hearing: 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:
Item 15: Public Hearing: 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:
Corrie: Item No. 13, 14, and 15 are Public Hearings. Item No. 13 is a request for
annexation and zoning of 77.9 acres on a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Baldwin
Park Subdivision by Capital Development Company, one quarter mile south of McMillan
Road, east side of Linder Road. No. 14 is a Preliminary Plat for approval of 272 building
lots and 16 other lots on 77.9 acres by Baldwin Park Subdivision. And Item No. 15 is a
Public Hearing, request for a variance on lot lengths for one side of two blocks within
the proposed Baldwin Park Subdivision by Capital Development. So at this time I will
open the Public Hearing on those Items 13, 14, and 15. The same rules apply. Staff will
be first, the applicant will be second, and then public testimony will be third and then
fourth will be additional by the developer. So I have opened the Public Hearings, staff is
still under oath. Staff, you're first.
Stiles: Thank you, Mayor and Council. This property was made contiguous by the
Bridge Tower Crossing or the Bridge Tower annexation and zoning across the street
from Linder Road. It will in the future be contiguous to the Cedar Springs Subdivision in
this location. The park sits here. Settler's Park. There will be a middle school -- the
middle school will be here. The middle school is on the south part here. The drain runs
along the southern boundary here and up along the eastern boundary. They have -- did
you open all three of these, Mayor? Sorry.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 43 of 73
Stiles: The variance they have requested would be for the block length within the
subdivision. What they have requested is the block length here. There are several
blocks within the development that exceed the block length requirement. I would ask
that you consider it as a whole and maybe not restrict it just to this one that they cited. I
think there is a little confusion over what constituted a block length when they submitted
the application. They have requested a zone of R-8. They have varying sizes within the
development. (Mr. Nary left.) They are showing some open space, little pocket parks
here and here. I believe they had another area they had shown. This -- one of the
comments that were made by the Planning and Zoning Commission was that we had
requested a new plan be submitted showing the easements for the property and that
was to be submitted prior to -- ten days prior to this hearing. We had not received that
drawing. I did hear from the applicant's representative today that they had heard from
the Settler's Irrigation District today regarding the easement of the drain, the White
Drain on the south, and that they will be requiring a 60 foot easement, but the details of
that and what's encroachable and not encroachable have not been worked out. I would
ask that we receive a completed Preliminary Plat application showing all the information
that's required for a plat prior to action being taken on this subdivision. Some of the
features within the subdivision, they do show pathways, they are showing swales
between some of the lots that will double as pathways. They will be required to
construct asphalt and concrete pathways a minimum of five foot in width with
landscaping on either side. Currently there is only one access into the subdivision. One
of the requirements was that there be an additional access into the subdivision.
Hopefully you have Joe Silva's letter regarding the access. The applicant had -- do you
have that? He has that comment on the thousand foot block length also. There would
be 272 buildable lots within the subdivision. Referring to the Preliminary Plat
recommendations, on page two, paragraph three, it refers to Ada County Highway
District's draft report. The final report has been submitted and that recommendation
would need to be changed to reflect their most recent report, which is found on page
eleven of the Ada County Highway District's report. On page eleven and the top of page
12 it talks about the stub streets that are -- they are requesting. It should be noted that
the stub streets as outlined in their recommendations are what is shown on the latest
plat. The applicant at one time was proposing to leave the White Drain open. Settler's
Irrigation District has indicated that they do want it to be left open and so the applicant
is now going to pipe that drain. Part of the issue here was the access due to the fact
that none of the surrounding property is developed yet. The property owner to the south
in this location here is Mr. John Kennedy. You will recall that he had asked to change
his easement for the sanitary sewer so it would come down to a yet to be approved
road in a yet to be seen subdivision. If the indication I got from the applicant's
representative is correct, they will have 30 feet of the easement for the White Drain on
their property, that's where it will actually be installed, and the irrigation district would
ask for the other 30 feet on the adjacent property. I haven't seen any documentation to
that effect. That's just what the applicant has -- the representative has told me. On page
five of the Preliminary Plat recommendations, just to clarify, under 17-B, asks for
emergency access on Lot 9, Block 7, with ten foot wide asphalt, plus five feet on each
side of grass creet. I'd like to add to that: Shall be constructed prior issuance of building
permits in Phase Five. And then under D, emergency accesses shall be constructed
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 44 of 73
prior to issuance of any building permits in Phase Two. There will be an emergency
access temporarily constructed on this Lot 15, Block 5. That will be there until they can
provide another means of access to the subdivision. Probably the first means of access
that might be available would be the property here that is also owned by Kevin Howell
and it could possibly come through that subdivision and connect up with the existing
stub street in Cedar Springs Subdivision. And I haven't heard any proposals from any of
the other surrounding property owners. With that and with our request that we see a
Preliminary Plat showing all of the required components for a Preliminary Plat prior to
your action on this, we would recommend that all staff and agency conditions be met
with the approval of this subdivision. (Mr. Nary returned.)
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, on the -- do we have fencing restrictions on the pathways within the deal?
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: Height restrictions?
Stiles: Yes. That's included within the recommendation.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none at this point.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Shari. Applicant's representative or applicant. Is the testimony
you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Bird: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Name and address for the record, please.
Arnold: For the record I'm Steve Arnold. I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West
Overland Road. I'm here tonight representing Capital Development on Baldwin Park
Subdivision. I'll give you kind of an overview to expand a little on Shari's overview of the
project and then I'd like to go into the staff report with a little bit of clarification in there. I
think Shari has hit most of them tonight. I did get a chance to talk to her before tonight's
hearing, but there are a couple other items. And I guess I can address some of the
issues about the easements. I did receive a letter later on this afternoon that discusses
the widths of the easements. I have only got one copy, so -- generally we are proposing
a 272 lot single family subdivision on 77.9 acres. To the north of us is undeveloped
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 45 of 73
farmland. South of us there is a proposed middle school. Further to the east of us and
south there is an elementary school, Cedar Springs and Sundance Subdivision, along
with the new city park. Our density with this subdivision, the R-8, is approximately 3.5
units per acre. The average buildable lot size in this modified layout that the Planning
and Zoning Commission acted on was just at 8,300 square feet. So the average lot
size is consistent with the R-4 zoning. One of the reasons that we are coming in with
the R-8 zoning is so that we can do some of the reduced street frontages and do a
variety of housing types within the development. I do have that number broken out as to
exactly how many we have and the approximate square footages. If you have questions
about that I can offer that in further detail. We do believe that this subdivision complies
with your comp plan, it complies with your zoning ordinance. We are only asking for
annexation and Preliminary Plat, along with the variance of several block lengths.
Originally our variance application was submitted only for one block length. I know that
there is a bit of confusion -- and I'm still having difficulty understanding how we read a
block length and perhaps we can have Shari help with that. We are -- ACHD did require
additional stub streets since we submitted. We did comply with that. We immediately
turned that around for your Planning and Zoning Department to review. We are
providing two additional streets to the north -- or, pardon me, one additional to the
north, one additional to the south and two stub streets to the east. Originally we were
contemplating a stub street to the south to the school. I did have conversation with
Wendel Bingham. He said that that would not be his preference. However, a pedestrian
crossing or a pedestrian access to the site would be acceptable. As you can tell, we are
providing quite a bit of linear pathways throughout the subdivision, one that will connect
out there at Linder Road and it will extend east, and then we have got the north-south
pathway and then several pathways in between and then the pathways further east. All
this green space within -- that you're looking at, the long linear ones we will be
proposing pathways in. With the addition -- if I can. The Planing and Zoning added that
this pathway be a dual purpose that will do ten feet of asphalt or concrete, five feet of
grass creet on either side, so that we can provide fire access to the back portion of this
development. We are blowing out -- not blowing out. We are doing a non-development
lot, which essentially blows it out, until we get secondary access into the rest of the
subdivision. So this lot up here in the corner will be utilized for secondary emergency
fire access when that phase goes in. This access goes in at Phase Five. So Phase Five
is approximately in this area down here. The addition that we have submitted we are
creating additional open space that back here that we will be provided for the other
portion of the subdivision. As Shari stated, we do have pocket parks or open space, I
should say, that will be utilized here and here. In going through the report we -- starting
out on page -- I believe it's the Preliminary Plat application, page three, I believe needs
to -- well, one of -- the ACHD staff report -- and Shari's touched on this -- didn't require
the two stub streets to the south. I believe that was in error. And then right after that
sentence -- the first sentence it says an additional stub street to the north, it will serve
the northwest area at Block 5 and 6 is also required. That was an original
recommendation. However, Planning and Zoning did not require that. So I believe that
this could be -- or is an error that was submitted with this report. Going to --
Bird: Where are you at? I'm sorry.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 46 of 73
Arnold: Page two. It's item number three of the Planning and Zoning recommendations.
It's the second sentence. It's my understanding that that was deleted at Planning and
Zoning. Going down -- if I can, I'll address the easements at this point. Originally when
we submitted the application we had requested that we leave the ditch open. We had
some conversations with the staff and at that point we had -- it wasn't a big point of
contention, so we had planned to pipe the White Drain. Since the time that we had
presented to the Planning and Zoning that we were piping the White Drain we have
heard verbal comments back from the Settler's Irrigation District saying that they do not
want it piped. However, on Bridge Tower Subdivision, which is directly to the east here,
the -- pardon me. The west. The board previously -- the Settler's Irrigation District
previously acted on and approved Bridge Tower piping the drain. Since then they have
reversed their decision with Bridge Tower and us. So what I would like to propose
tonight is the City Council make a requirement that we comply with Settler's Irrigation
District for their requirement on that drain. Ideally we pipe it, it makes these lots quite a
bit deeper along the southern boundary here. This proposal showing it being piped. If
we pipe it, approximately 30 feet of the easement would be on our property line. So,
essentially, we could locate the lot lines 30 feet north of our south line. That's where the
fences could be permitted. If we leave it open, we are required to do a 60 foot wide
easement, 30 feet from the center line of the ditch. So if we leave it open we can
relocate the drain to our south boundary, which, again, we have got 30 feet of an
easement onto our property line and we can locate our fence 30 feet -- approximately
30 feet north of our south boundary. Those lots along our south boundary are
approximately 168 feet from this area. I believe they go down to about 150 feet -- 168
here, dropping down to 150 around here. We have to provide extra deep lots there. I
have not calculated any of this space, this green area down here, and, actually, it
shouldn't be green. This was to indicate where a maintenance road for the pathway for
the drain is. What we would be doing is we would be tying in the micropath that would
connect to that and it would also come down to the school site in this area. So I guess
the White Trunk easement -- we'd like to have the City Council make it a condition that
we comply with the Settler's Irrigation District. Ideally we pipe it, but we don't want this
board saying you pipe it and having the Settler's Irrigation District saying, no, it must
remain open. So that would be our preference tonight. The other issue with the
easement along the eastern boundary. That is approximately 30 feet wide, 15 feet --
15 of which feet will be on our property line once we pipe it, so we are planning to pipe
that drain. That's item number 11 on the Preliminary Plat, page four. Going down to item
number 13, it's -- we are proposing a pressure irrigation system. However, it's not going
to be with Nampa-Meridian, that will be with Settler's Irrigation, a slight clarification. And
then item number 14, I think I have kind of gone through that and will stand for
questions when I'm through with my presentation. Item number 15 we are -- as I
previously stated in testimony, we are proposing a connected pathway up here out to
Linder Road, so that -- and then Shari addressed item number 17. Those are basically
our only issues with the staff report. One -- the main one being that we -- I'm assuming
it's an error, that there was an additional stub street required up here and if that is the
direction of Council, I guess I will address that in further testimony. I would like to
provide testimony tonight that this subdivision -- it is a Capital Development project. A
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 47 of 73
similar project, the -- which we are taking the concepts from and utilizing them here
would be Bristol Heights Subdivision. That subdivision was the second best selling
subdivision in Idaho for over three or four years, I believe. I think what we have got here
today before you is a very nice subdivision. We are providing quite a bit of micropaths
within, that -- it's not necessarily a requirement of the Preliminary Plat, so I believe my
client is going -- he's trying to make a nice project, so he can make a nice subdivision
for the City of Meridian. That isn't a requirement of your Preliminary Plat application, so
this is something that I think is a nice addition to the city and I stand for additional
questions.
Corrie: Okay. Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Arnold, in looking at number 12 condition in the Preliminary Plat request, it
says there is at least a concern raised by the staff regarding the open space. Could you
just address that a little bit, that it was not usable common area and --
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, the open spaces that we are proposing are not
going to be solely retention ponds. The slopes will be the minimum. They will be only
designed to hold the 24 hour nuisance water. There will be sand and grease traps that
will treat the water prior to going into that. So, no, we are not proposing that there be a
pond in that sense.
Nary: Okay.
Corrie: Any other comments? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that
would like to issue testimony in the Baldwin Park Subdivision annexation, Preliminary
Plat, and variance? Okay. Very good. Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: When I read the letter from the school district -- I guess they are changing
their format, but I don't quite understand what they are trying to say here. By state law
are they over capacity, so that they cannot serve any additional children? You know, I
don't know if anyone else read this and understood what they were trying to say.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 48 of 73
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Tammy. I read this thing and I -- I don't know. They -- Wendel is an
awful good politician, because you can't understand what he's saying.
De Weerd: Well, I just kind of wondered. It says school capacity is addressed in Idaho
Code 67-6508. Does that mean that when they get to a certain capacity you can't add
anymore kids, so what we will do with these children or -- it kind of left me hanging.
Corrie: The way I read it they would be bused. If there was not room, they would be
bused to another school. Reading this, as Mr. Bird says, that's a good politician's way of
saying things that after they get through you don't know what the heck they said. But I
think -- I don't profess to be a politician, but I think he's giving a back-handed okay to do
this, but without his whole approval. I think what you're asking in your question is that if
they are overcrowded, they will have to be bused to another school.
De Weerd: But then it says that all of the schools are over capacity, so where would
they put them?
Corrie: In Boise. No. I don't know. They would have to build more schools then.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess the way I had read this -- and I guess to be nice to -- it's better than what
we used to get.
Bird: That's right.
Nary: Better than what we have seen before, but I guess I would agree that's -- I think
what they are saying is is right now, without another school being built, they are just
wanting to set -- they are just saying understand if you build that subdivision as
proposed we may not have a school near for these kids. They are going to get bused to
another school and we will just figure out where that is and I don't know where it's going
to be, because, I agree, it does say we don't really have any school that can fulfill that
at the moment. But I think they are just trying to put some notice as to that. I did have
another question for -- I guess Mr. Arnold on the variance issue. Mr. Arnold, on the
variance issue I noticed in number 11 of the application, that appears to be sort of the
grounds as the reasons for the request. The development of big long street would
destroy the integrity of the block as being repetitive, unnecessary, and add to the
developed cost, serve no useful purpose. Other developments were granted block
length variances under similar circumstances. I guess I had two questions. One, could
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 49 of 73
you give us an example of one subdivision that has been granted variances for those
reasons and my -- the second, I guess, is a comment or a question to you. It would
appear that would always be the reason to want a variance, is they don't want to create
another street. But that doesn't seem to be a sound reason to grant a variance to me.
But you could give me some examples as to what you're talking about?
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, first of all, I guess the comment on the integrity of
the subdivision, when this subdivision was originally submitted there was only one stub
street to the north. At that point I was not working on the project. When saw it, I
immediately said we need another stub. I guess I used to be the stub king in my other
life and it was not unusual that I would go through a sub and I would look at
connectivity, look at the block lengths myself, look at the fees that could incur and that
was my first statement was this, you know, I just said, you know, if I don't do it, the city
is going to require it and I know that the city staff will. So I went through I said, you
know, we need one here, we will probably need one here. Originally I said, well, we
need one down to the school. I didn't know a school site was going there. I talked to
Wendel and at that time he said just provide me a pedestrian pathway. Examples of
other subdivisions, I just had Sundance before you. Bear Creek was one of them. I
believe The Nines was another one. There are examples -- I don't think that that should
be the basis of you granting -- that shouldn't be the sole basis that you grant another
variance. I think that each case you look at individually. I think this subdivision that we
have -- I feel comfortable from a transportation planning standpoint that I have done my
job here, that we have provided the interconnectivity. We have given the two stubs to
the north. We have given the stub to the south and two to the east. If you do another
one here to the north, basically the only position you would put it in is probably over
here. These are smaller parcels and the chances of them developing in the near future
is long term and to stub to them it makes it very difficult for redevelopment. Two stubs to
one 40 acre parcel I think is excessive, that's why I do not propose it. I don't think any
additional connections in here are required for our circulation, for vehicular circulation,
and if you look at pedestrian circulation, I think we have gone overboard on that. I think
this, frankly, would be a good subdivision for me to move to to get in shape. There is a
lot of walking paths. You can -- it does not encourage vehicular -- vehicles and when
you look at doing excessive stubs, I have got experience dealing with -- I guess we
don't have anyone from the north end here, but dealing with the north end -- I don't
know if you have dealt with that. Recently ACHD is putting in I guess 300 additional
stop signs up there. Those are ugly. The reasons you put in stop signs is because the
transportation network wasn't laid out correctly in the first place. So what you get is a
bunch of pseudo local streets or pseudo arterials on the local streets. So when you look
at requiring these interconnections and stubs, I think this -- I would urge the Council to
think in the long range that what do you need to provide adequate vehicular
connections, try to encourage the other, the pedestrians, so that you stay away from the
north end, because some day in the future -- I have been a part of the North Meridian
Development Group, this is going to all develop out and if you have excessive gridding
out there, you know as well as I do you're impact fees don't necessarily get to the roads
as quick as they should, so people when the roads get congested they will start using
the internal streets. So I think -- I think that additional stubs here would be excessive
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 50 of 73
and I think that that's something that this Council ought to think about and I guess I will
be presenting and proposing more of that with the North Meridian Development Group.
Grid systems are great in the short term. In the long term they are a headache and I
think the north end can attest to that. Sorry to make that so lengthy.
Nary: That's okay. It's just telling us specifically what you -- well, it's just why you wanted
the variance for --
Arnold: And I know our variance application was submitted and I assuming it was this
block length. I'm having difficulty understanding the block length. If you look at this
block length that's over a thousand feet. I don't know which block that is. It runs from
here down to here. But we are providing, you know, pedestrian circulation here. We
have a major -- or residential collector coming here. So this -- you know, when I looked
at it I say this site is served adequately by a public street and in the future by these
extensions. I look out here, it's -- as part of this group we are going to be
recommending to you to limit the access onto the arterials, so I don't see additional
stubs this way, unless it's fire and we did address the Planning and Zoning concerns.
Up here we have provided a stub and down here it was not preferred by the school
district and it doesn't make sense. I have seen -- Resolution Subdivision is a good
example of a stub that's to the south boundary and it didn't get extended. The school
district doesn't like to have any public streets in their -- run through their property. So I
guess I can go through -- this is probably another block length, if I'm understanding -- if
it's read by just the rear block length. So there are several in there.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yeah. I was just going to ask the same thing. What is the interpretation of a block
length? Is it a straight so many feet?
Stiles: The block lengths -- when I was working for an engineering company with the
same heads that head the Briggs Engineering Company, was to take the roadway
length, the roadway frontage of the lots and how you would get from one place to
another, if it exceeded a thousand feet the block length was excessive. And for ease in
our department we have been using the rear property lines as a measure of that. But
typically it would be along the frontage of the roadway is considered the block lengths.
Bird: Shari, then if a road intersects or takes off, you know, like the stubs up there, does
that break up the lot length there on one -- on the area on the north, but on the south
it's still -- it's still going passed the thousand, is that how you determine it?
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 51 of 73
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: But isn't -- the goal is connectivity and wouldn't a pedestrian path be
qualified to break that lot up or --
Stiles: I guess that's up to Council to determine if they would consider those. I hate to
see everybody submitting pedestrian pathways everywhere to have no vehicular
connections. I mean it would be great if they would have the thousand foot block length
for vehicular connections and provide more connections with pedestrian walkways, but
to delete the requirement for vehicular access at a thousand feet, I don't think that
would be a good idea.
Bird: Shari, on this plat that's shown here, where would you recommend other
intersections of vehicular transportation?
Stiles: This access here could be either offset or continued through as a vehicular
access. They are just slightly over the thousand, at least on the property boundary here.
If they wanted to make this a vehicular access, instead of the pedestrian walkway. I
mean I do like the pedestrian walkways that they have included in this. I think there has
been some thought into it -- gone into it and it will be nice. I'm not sure that there is
going to be a market for all of these houses to not have more than a four foot high
fence in the background. That's going to cause us some problems, because they are all
going to want a six foot fence. I know that the Yorgasons have been pretty successful in
their -- well, say Crossroads Subdivision in not allowing that to happen, but should they
ever fall behind on enforcing their covenants, that it becomes a city responsibility and
we really don't have the staff to concern ourselves with that on an ongoing basis. They
are limited on the south because of the school. They do provide an access to the
Kennedy property here. I think the school district only goes to this point right here. They
could provide another vehicular access in case some of this property wanted to
redevelop. There are some larger lots. I don't know what the potential is for
redeveloping a lot of those lots, but there is -- I'm sure there is some. That would give
them the opportunity to redevelop if -- because right now they would be pretty much
reliant on one access from Ustick Road and -- or something developing between -- on
John Kennedy's property. So that's another location they could provide one. This -- I'm
not sure if that exceeds a thousand feet or not and about the only way they could
probably get around the thousand feet would be to have accesses closer to the ends or
-- it is difficult to try to meet the thousand, but it wouldn't matter if it were a thousand or
three hundred, we are still going to continue to get request for variances and I guess we
just need to decide what our ultimate goals are and if we need to change that. I mean
when you start seeing so many variances for the same things over and over and over
again, there is either something wrong with the ordinance or variances are being
granted without reason.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 52 of 73
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: A follow up, Shari. If we run more streets in there, I would be -- the pedestrian
pathways, I would be fearful of them, if we are going to be cutting across in every 300
yards or so for safety reasons, so I would think one would have to go either to the
streets or the pedestrian walkways. Personally, I have traveled enough in the north end
of Boise and I think Steve isn't wrong, I'd say they put 600 stop signs up there and it's
not fun, but I understand why they have to do it and I realize what you're saying about it
and we have had a lot of variances on block lengths and either something is wrong with
us or something, you know, but I personally like this site -- this site plan. I think it gives a
lot of pedestrian walkways in a high density subdivision and it keeps the trip -- the miles
of car travel around in there at a minimum and I think they have got plenty of -- my
personal opinion is they have got plenty of stub streets out.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I was going to agree with Mrs. Stiles, but I think we have a problem with
the ordinance. I think that's -- the problem is that I don't see a reason that we couldn't
grant a variance. I guess I feel bad that the applicant has to even ask for a variance.
Because it's not very clear to me. We define block as a group of lots within well defined
boundaries, usually a street. I don't know what that means. I mean that means that
virtually every street on here may exceed a thousand feet if you go here and here to
here and every one of these is probably that, but yet the design doesn't bother me. I
think the design is probably what is -- is as well thought out as any. But I think we
probably need to be looking at our ordinance and making a little bit more definition,
because, otherwise, we are doing like Mrs. Stiles said, we are just granting a variance
every time. I guess we don't have any other way to do it, so I think if you turn that up, I
think Mr. Arnold is correct, I think that this is a good design and it does make sense and
all the other amenities that they have tried to do -- not amenities, but putting the stubs
and all of that would make some sense for traffic and all those things. But I just think we
need to probably look at our ordinance and make that a little bit cleaner, so that if we
are going to grant a variance we have reason to do, not because we can't figure out
what we meant.
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I would agree with them. I think more
-- maybe the goal of the block length is to reduce those straightaways and, you know,
when you're counting corners and how it wraps -- you know, it gets a little ludicrous. You
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 53 of 73
kind of lose your meaning and I have concerns about a grid system, too, because I
would never live on it. My kids, I would fear for them. Actually, I do live on a pretty
straight road and we want to state -- we want stop signs, but they won't give us one, so,
you know, I guess we are on the other end of the spectrum. I like this design. I think the
block lengths don't give me cause for concern and, again, I think it's -- they are long
because we are counting the curves and those kinds of things. So, like I said, I don't
want to beat a dead horse, but we do need to revisit our block lengths and maybe look
at what our intent is and I think it is to minimize those straighaways and be
conscientious of how fast traffic can get in some of those long straight blocks. Mr.
Mayor, I guess I had one more question for either the applicant or his representative
and that is we are undergoing the North Meridian Area Plan and you have been an
active participant, as well, Steve. Why are we considering this? I guess my concern is
there are a number of issues in the North Meridian Area that that's why the
development community and all the different governmental entities came together to
find solutions to these anticipated issues and how we are going to address them, find
solutions, and we work together to work it out so that all of this can happen. It concerns
me -- I know Sundance and Cedar Springs came in before we -- and maybe were
some of the influence of why we came to the table, but I guess I just get concerned that
we are continuing to examine subdivisions and this is a very worthy application, so it
has nothing to do with that, but I still think the issues of why we came to the table exist
and we need to find solutions and if we continue to approve applications before those
solutions are nailed down, we are losing our participation and we are not gaining any
advantage of having that big picture view and how we are going to work it all. So, you
know, I don't know how we proceed in trying to accomplish those goals and it's hard to
put stipulations or conditions on applications when we don't have them yet or we don't
know what those agreed-on solutions are going to be. So I guess I hesitate to continue
to consider applications when we have these issues that we want to resolve.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'm glad you brought that up, because I sat here and I listened and I agree with
what you're saying is that I don't have a concern with the particular project, but my
concern is that by the time we actually get a North Meridian Plan we have any area left
to plan.
Bird: That's right.
Nary: Because all we have done is done it all before that and if the Council recalls, last
year when we had -- when we met Planning -- when the Planning and Zoning
Commission met with Council, a discussion was -- a very short discussion was talked
about in considering or evaluating whether or not there was the appropriate evidence to
consider a moratorium until our comprehensive plan is completed, would be an
appropriate thing to do at this juncture and I think it's something we need to discuss
again whether or not we want to -- I don't want to pull the picture for the project here,
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 54 of 73
but I think we may need to look at whether or not under the Idaho Code there is some
appropriate means to deal with that, because it doesn't make sense to me to be
involved in that process and take up people's time and by the time we get it done there
isn't a whole lot of land left to really be concerned any longer with all the projects that
were out there. So it's another thing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think Mr. Yorgason was going to make an answer for the developer.
Corrie: Okay. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Yorgason: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Yorgason: Dave Yorgason from Capital Development. Address is 6200 North Meeker
Place in Boise. Very fair question. It's a good question to ask. Probably ask staff, but I
believe this application is a little unique to most of the others that are the remaining
parcels, if you want to look at it that way, yet to be developed. This application was
actually submitted over a year ago to staff, around the 10th of March last year. We are
waiting -- waiting for annexation, I guess, but it was much before even that time that we
had some vision working with staff, specifically Mrs. Stiles, trying to find a concept that
made sense, rather than just square 80 by 100 foot lots, we'd rather see a little more --
different and little more unique to what you have seen in the past. I hope that's what
you see here. That's what we think we see and hopefully we see the same picture. But
we agree with you and we also recognize a moratorium has not been called and that
sort of dictates certain things also. I'll make a short statement tonight that our presence
will not be dropped off the plate if Council chooses to approve us tonight. We are still --
we will be very actively involved with the North Meridian Area Planning Group. I live just
a stone's throw away from this area here and I went to Meridian High School, I'm from
this area, and my heart is in the Treasure Valley and I certainly have an interest in
allowing the community to look nice and definitely our input and our participation with
the total group, not the developers, but the total group on the North Meridian Area
Planning Group. I want to stay involved for that reason, if nothing else, to help give our
input to what we think adds to the City of Meridian. I don't know if I hear a lot of
questions, but I sure hear a lot of statements regarding why we are looking at this
application, that may be one of the reasons why, but it was submitted over a year ago.
Certainly we will -- I kind of hate standing in front of the spotlight, that's why I make this
guy stand up here, but I also will be available for any other questions you may want to
ask of us tonight.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 55 of 73
Arnold: One other thought here and I know the group is going to be meeting again this
Friday. We have -- which I'm supposed to review before then -- is a -- basically a
proposal that we are going to outline and present to this board with what we are
proposing along the road -- what we are proposing for land use. Basically a culminating
event of what we have been doing will be reviewed by this Friday. Nothing I have read
to date in that -- nothing in this project contradicts what I have read in that proposal that
we are going to be presenting to you. Along the lines of the people dropping out as you
approve things, Sundance Development was approved, the Voigt Development is still
having me on their behalf go to these meetings. They not only had some property to the
north that they are considering, but they are also looking throughout other parcels and
I'm sure Capital Development will also keep in mind other parcels within the 12 square
miles. So on that behalf I don't think we are all -- I've put too time in to walk away and
not see it through. I know that other developers and others will see that once they just
get things approved -- like the Sundance and I'm sure Kevin Howell will be interested in
seeing what is going on within that group. We are not going to walk away and I don't
think that what we are proposing tonight contradicts or impedes anything that that group
is going to present to you. So that's all.
Corrie: Thank you. I have the same concerns that Council does, although not to that
degree. I think that we are moving along with the North Meridian Corridor and I think it
may be very shortly before we have some things that we can really sink our teeth into,
so -- at least I'm looking forward to that. I don't think the developers will drop out either.
Arnold: If I could add, I'd like to be a part of working with this block length issue. I mean
I would be happy to work with staff on my own time to work that issue out, because I
still have some roots in that and I have some interest there, so I would be happy to
participate in that.
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: We need to change the ordinance.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions from Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess only -- you know, I appreciate the work and I didn't doubt your
commitment, because I have seen you and I know you were drivers behind this to begin
with. I, however, continue to be concerned about solutions that don't seem to be
forthcoming at this point in addressing a lot of capital type of things, the road
improvements -- and I know that is being worked on, but we have fire stations needs up
there, you know, we have school needs, as you saw in the vague letter that we got from
the school district, you know, and we will have other demands. Fortunately, a lot of it is
starting to work itself through as well, but there are other issues and I hope we start
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 56 of 73
seeing something a little bit more concrete come out and I look forward to continuing
that dialogue. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: On what?
De Weerd: What?
Bird: On all three?
De Weerd: On all three.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to close the Public Hearing on Items 13, 14, and
15. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. Any discussion further on the three items?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Then I will take them -- Item No. 13, annexation and zoning.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 77.9 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for Baldwin Park Subdivision, to ask the attorney to draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to incorporate
testimony by both the applicant's representative and staff in regards to any changes to
the P&Z recommendation.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. The motion by Mrs. de Weerd, second by Mr. Bird to approve the request
for annexation and zoning by the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call
vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 57 of 73
Corrie: All ayes. Motion for annexation and zoning is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Next item is Item 14, the Preliminary Plat.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I will make a motion so we can have discussion. I move we approve
the request for Preliminary Plat of 272 building lots and 16 other lots on 77.9 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for Baldwin Park Subdivision, to incorporate staff comments and the
testimony today by the applicant, to also include a notation that the condition of piping
or tiling the Meridian Settler's -- it's not the park -- Settler's drain --
Bird: The White Drain.
De Weerd: The White Drain? Okay. Would be to comply with the decision of the
Settler's Irrigation District, to ask the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to also note the limit of the building
permits as staff has recommended. And to incorporate all staff comments.
Bird: I'll second it.
Corrie: Motion has been made on the request for Preliminary Plat approval by the
motion. Any further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari, are we covering all the questions that you had? Well, I'm approving
the Preliminary Plat as shown in front of us, so --
Stiles: I guess that Brad and I are still concerned about the White Drain and its
configuration and the fact the easements are not shown on the plat, which is a state
code requirement, as well as our requirement. I mean I know we have made some
comments here tonight about what they are proposing, but until we see that we don't
even know that those are viable lots. Some them will be okay, because they are deep
enough and they could accommodate that 60 feet, but unless they are going to put that
easement on somebody else's property, part of the easement that they are acquiring, if
they are still acquiring the 60 feet, the lots close to the eastern boundary may not be
buildable, depending on whether the drain stays where it is or if it goes somewhere.
The banks go down -- some of those lots would be about 4,200 square feet, if that has
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 58 of 73
to stay where it's at. If the information provided on the plat is accurate, that's what
would happen.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess I didn't understand that through what we heard in the
presentation or with the applicant, that that was an issue. So I wasn't -- I wasn't in tune
with that. Maybe someone else was. Certainly can this be worked out between
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat?
Stiles: We would like to get it shown on the Preliminary Plat, so we have it on file. It was
a requirement of Planning and Zoning Commission to provide that 10 days prior to this
hearing, so that would be deleting that requirement.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I would withdraw my motion.
Bird: I'll withdraw my second.
De Weerd: And move, instead, to table this for resubmittal of the Preliminary Plat at our
next meeting on April 2nd.
Bird: And at that time have a --
De Weerd: At that time we could reopen the Public Hearing, so that we could consider
the --
Corrie: You better reopen the Public Hearing now, because you have to -- you need to
open the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat and then continue it, so I'll entertain a
motion to continue the Public Hearing on Item No. 14, Preliminary Plat.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we reopen the Public Hearing for request for
Preliminary Plat by Baldwin Park Subdivision.
Bird: For the others, too?
De Weerd: We are dealing with one at a time.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Yes, Shari.
Stiles: If we could also note for the next -- when it's continued that the new Ada County
Highway District report needs to be substituted for that paragraph on page three, too,
that was talking about the stub streets to the north.
De Weerd: If we could amend the Findings to reflect what was talked about on the
recommendation, that would be very helpful.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 59 of 73
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the recommendation standards are
submitted. If they are wrong, they are wrong, and if -- you know, if ACHD issues a
report
after the recommendations are issued, then we just incorporate the new ACHD findings,
but we are not going to -- I can't ask -- I'd ask you not to tell me to change the
recommendation. If we got them wrong, we got them wrong, but we can certainly try to
get it right when we get to the Finding stage and that's what we would want to do.
De Weerd: What I can request is that staff summarize what changes they would like to
see in those recommendations on an addendum like they normally do.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think what Council Woman de Weerd is
asking for is a position statement that says, you know, what the recommendation
should be and why. So it certainly helps if -- A, if the attorney that's making the
recommendation isn't getting it right, that I go back to that lawyer and say you didn't get
it right and here is why and, more importantly, though, it gives us a better opportunity to
make it right when we do the Findings when the motion is: With staff and agency
comments and doesn't go through and detail each of those exact items, so we can try
and get a better product that's the actual legal document upon which the applicant has
to abide by.
De Weerd: Is that okay?
Stiles: Well, in this case we wouldn't be making recommendations to change the P&Z
recommendations, because, you're right, those are what they are. But at least that the
Findings reflect the new conditions as submitted by Ada County Highway District.
De Weerd: Okay. So this is all discussion on reopening the Public Hearing; right?
Corrie: You need to second the reopening.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing on
the Preliminary Plat, PP 01-024. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion say
aye. All ayes. Motion carried. The Public Hearing is reopened.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Now --
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 60 of 73
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue Public Hearing PP 01-024 for Baldwin Park Subdivision by
Capital Development Company until April 2nd, 2002, and that a new requested site plan
be presented as was requested and also that the staff come up with a summary of
items that they believe need to be in there and to get it to us by the 29th of March.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing until
April 2nd, 2002, by motion made. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the
motion say aye. Opposed no? Motion has been carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Request for variance on block lengths.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe that we probably had better reopen that Public Hearing and continue it,
because we have requested that the applicant come in with a new site plan, which I
don't think is going to make any difference on his blocks or anything like that, but,
anyway, it will at least show the easements and stuff down the road. I would move that
we reopen the Public Hearing on VAR 01-020 for Baldwin Park Subdivision by Capital
Development Company.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to reopen the Public Hearing on the variance
01-020, Baldwin Park Subdivision. Further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All
ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue Public Hearing VAR 01-020, for proposed Baldwin Park
Subdivision variance for Capital Development Company until April the 2nd, 2002.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 61 of 73
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on
the request for variance 01-020 until April the 2nd, 2002. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: If the applicant could try and get that revised Preliminary Plat to staff at your
earliest convenience, so they have a chance to look at it and get comments back to us,
that would be great. Thanks.
Bird: By March 29th for us, too, please.
Item 16: Public Hearing: VAC 02-001 Request for a vacation of an existing
sewer easement in the proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by Briggs
Engineering – west side of Meridian Road, ½ mile north of Ustick Road:
Corrie: Okay. All right. Item No. 16 is a Public Hearing, request for vacation of an
existing sewer easement in proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by Briggs
Engineering, the west side of Meridian Road, one half mile north of Ustick Road. At this
time I will open the Public Hearing on the request for vacation and staff comments first.
(Mayor Corrie stepped out.)
Watson: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, this is a request for vacating one of the
easements you approved for the White Drain sewer trunk project. The original
easement that we obtained from the Voigt Development Company is the one to the
north, right along the north boundary. Subsequently they came up with a layout for a
proposed project north of Sundance project you approved last month and it's the one
that courses through their proposed streets. Both of them end up connecting to what we
call the Quenzer property to the east. That property we don't have easements for yet. I
have been working with David Turnbow of Brighton Corporation, who either owns it or
has an interest in it, over the last couple of weeks to try to come up with his alignment.
Public Works prefers the second one, but until we make an absolute decision we are a
little reluctant to give up on this one. An application hasn't even been submitted yet. I
think the Planning and Zoning recommendation was that they would recommend the
easement vacation subject to the Public Works Department approval of the alternate
routing and if you're comfortable with that, we have no complaints. We just haven't
made a final decision yet. It's pending on several different things, both the write-in
application and I would presume this application. With that I would welcome any
questions.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 62 of 73
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird. (Mayor Corrie returned.)
Bird: Brad, how long is it going to be before we -- this will be tied up or -- do you have
any idea on that, where we are going to decide? Because we do need to hopefully get
started on the White Drain and I realize this is two miles away, but we need to have our
drawing and engineering in place, I think.
Watson: Councilman Bird, Mayor and Council Members, we have designs for both
alignments done. They were included in the bid documents as an alternative. One was
an alternative to the base bid. So there is no engineering that really needs to be done.
All I'm waiting for is for Brighton Corporation -- we have actively working with them over
the last few weeks. In fact, he reminded me -- he sent me an e-mail to remind me that
he wanted that and I called Keller & Associates either last Friday or Monday to get that
document to him. Legal descriptions aren't totally tidied up yet, but -- easements are a
funny thing, because they seem to be going very well, but -- I would think in a couple of
weeks we should have the final document in front of Mr. Turnbow for signature, if he is,
in fact, the owner. I see the Quenzers in the audience, so maybe they do have some
interest in the property.
Nary. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Brad, are you comfortable with the way the recommendation is framed from the
Planning and Zoning Commission that as long as this isn't going to mess anything up,
because it says contingent upon Public Works approval. Is that okay?
Watson: Counsel Member Nary, Mayor and Council, that's fine. We just don't
understand the rush, I guess. All along we would rather go with their preferred
alternative. If you give us the authority to make that final approval once we get that
nailed down, that's great.
Nary: Does this particular vacation have any impact on Mr. Kennedy that's coming up in
a week or two?
Watson: Council Member Nary, no, they are -- this is much farther -- well, it's east.
Nary: Okay.
Watson: It doesn't connect.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 63 of 73
Bird: I have no more.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing none, Council, request for vacation?
Bird: This is a Public Hearing.
Corrie: I'm sorry. The developer, please.
Arnold: I will be quick. Again, tell the whole truth. I guess one of the questions was what
was the rush and we submitted this application, the Preliminary Plat, sometime ago
based on the assumption that we were going to get approved for Sundance. It's been
approved. We currently have in our hands the development agreement and I need to
put a call into your attorney to talk about something simple as the signatures on that,
but my client has reviewed the development agreement for Sundance and there is -- we
have no issues with that. So I'm assuming that gets signed here sooner than later,
assuming that you adopt the ordinance to annex Sundance, you're going to be seeing a
Preliminary Plat application, a complete application, very soon, unless, of course, you
can move to accept that preliminary application tonight before --
Stiles: Before it's submitted?
Arnold: Before it's in officially. And, obviously, we'd like that.
De Weerd: I don't think so.
Arnold: But I guess that we are comfortable with the recommendation of Planning and
Zoning based on the approval from Public Works, so I guess I can -- we are
comfortable with that. We know it's going to go in the south. I think Public Works is
comfortable that it's going there, they designed it, I guess we don't see the need to
keep the north any longer, so I'll stand for any questions.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: So -- but what if it all doesn't work? What if, for whatever reason, it doesn't work?
It would still be -- the way I read this recommendation if that's what you have got, there
would still be the easement in the north, would that be the way you see it?
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, that's the way I understand the recommendation
to be. Obviously, our preference would be to drop it now, but we are going to continue
working with Public Works to see to it that we design the south easement, so --
Nary: But I just -- I think there is a reason that we talk about premature and I recognize
you have had this in the works a long time and I remember that you made this as part
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 64 of 73
of the recommendation previously. I remember all of that. But I'm just concerned that if
it doesn't work we have had a lot of easements that seem to take a lot longer than we
thought they would to get done and so all I -- I guess the assurance I was wanting to
hear was -- the way I'm reading this and the way that Brad was -- the way Brad is
reading it is that this is still subject to Public Works Department approval. If, for
whatever reason, they get that south easement to happen, then this vacation can't
occur until that approval gets done. Is that the way you see it, Mr. Arnold?
Arnold: That's correct. That's the way I understand it.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Goldsmith: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Goldsmith: Mark Goldsmith for Far West, LLC, 4487 North Jennifer Place in Boise,
Idaho. Mr. Mayor, the proposed vacation of the easement along the south -- excuse me,
north boundary of the proposed Sundance Subdivision was to extend further towards
the east and serve the Quenzer property, which you were discussing as going to be
coming in with a proposed new sewer easement alignment. The old one provided for --
the intent of the old one was to provide service to the Ham and Medco properties,
which would be to the north of the Quenzer-Ham-Medco boundary and I'm just asking
that we all be on the same page, so if there is a new alignment giving the Quenzer
property for that sewer, that it still be extended to the Ham and Medco properties and
we have been working with Bruce -- with Brad Watson and just wanted to make sure
that it was everybody's intent to provide sewer to the Ham-Medco properties through
the Quenzers.
Bird: That's part of the White Trunk.
Goldsmith: So the easement being drawn up by Kellers now, then, would reflect a stub
and, therefore, an easement through that stub to the sewer for the Ham-Medco
properties?
Watson: Mayor and Council Members, the one that was transmitted to Keller includes
several stubs to the Ham property, as long as the continuous easement along a portion
of it. There is access in three different spots to the Ham property on the proposed legal
description that's going to be sent to Brighton. Yes.
Goldsmith: That answers my questions. Thank you very much.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else like to issue testimony?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 65 of 73
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I have a question of Mr. Watson. Brad, don't we have -- or do we
have two easements or do we have one easement and one proposed easement?
Watson: Mr. Nichols, Mayor, Council Members, we have in hand two recorded
easements on this piece of property.
Nichols: So it's just a matter -- that's why they have asked for the one to be vacated, is
because they have given this other one, which is shown as the one that runs not in a
straight line along that north boundary of the property, but on a street line; correct?
Watson: Correct. The initial easement was granted by the initial property owner, not --
well, I guess both of them. Both of them were by the initial property owner.
Nichols: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Then hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing
on the request for vacation.
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the vacation 02-001.
Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? The
Public Hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Comments? Discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Then I will entertain a motion on the request for vacation.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 66 of 73
McCandless: I move that we approve the easement vacation subject to the Public
Works Department approval of the alternate route of the White Drain Trunk Line
through the subject parcel as part of the construction contract and for the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: I would second that with -- if the motion would include statements of public
testimony tonight by both public and staff regarding stubs off the land north of
Quenzers
and this land.
McCandless: Agreed.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. The motion by Mrs. McCandless, second by Mr. Bird to approve the
vacation request as stated in the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call
vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17: TE 02-001 Request for a one year Time Extension of the Preliminary Plat
approval for Mallane Commercial Complex by The Land Group, Inc. –
northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and Hickory Lane:
Corrie: Item No. 17 is a request for a one year time extension of a Preliminary Plat
approval of Mallane Commercial Complex by the Land Group.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, they have requested a one year time extension, so they
can submit their final plat. Their Preliminary Plat was approved on March 6th, so they
are requesting an extension to submit their final plat until March 6th, 2003.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on
the request for the time extension for the Preliminary Plat.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I move that we approve TE 02-001, request for a one year time extension of the
Preliminary Plat approval for Mallane Commercial Complex by the Land Group at the
northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and Hickory Lane.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 67 of 73
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the request for a one year time
extension for Preliminary Plat TE 02-001. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote, Mr.
Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18: Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Item No. 18 is the notice and turnoff schedule. This is to inform you in writing
that you have -- if you so choose that you have the right to a predetermined hearing on
Tuesday, March 19th, 2002, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person and
be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by this city that your water, sewer
and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel and your service will be
discontinued on March the 20th, 2002, unless payment is received in full. Is there
anyone present who wishes to contest their water, sewer or trash delinquency? Hearing
none, you are hereby informed that you may appeal and have the city's decision
reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to the Idaho State Code. If you
do appeal your service may be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $35,251.50. I
will entertain a motion to approve the turn-off schedule 3/20/2002.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move we approve the delinquency turn-off schedule for the delinquency of the
water, sewer, trash bill. Service will be discontinued on March 20th, 2002, unless
payment is received in full. That the total amount is $35,251.50.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the delinquency turn-off list.
Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19: Parks Issues
Corrie: Item No. 19 was added to the agenda by Mr. Bird. A parks issue. Mr. Bird, you
have the floor.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 68 of 73
Bird: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have got two things to bring before you, Council. First of
all, we have been working -- and Tammy is probably more familiar with these people
than I am on this playground -- Adventure Island out in the new 56 acre -- it's a group
that is trying to raise money to install this one-of-a-kind challenged --
De Weerd: Universal --
Bird: -- universal playground equipment. Anyway, they have discussed -- the St. Al's
foundation is working with them. In fact, they are going to be under their cover, which is
a very good sign. They are going to try to raise one million or so, because this thing
could cost as much as 1.2. The lady in charge come to Tom and I the other day and
asked if we put 50,000 dollars in the budget year for this and up front it is not seed
money, nor will it ever be seed money, but they have got an opportunity to go to a trade
show, which -- for this Kaboom playground equipment back in Chicago. It will help us
get some grants, possibly, and stuff and when we talked the other night -- the other
afternoon, the idea was to send one parks person back and one of them. Well, Tom
talked to the playground equipment people and they said there is no reason for parks to
send a couple of those back, because basically it's going to be getting grants and stuff
like that. It's going to be a deal. They do not have any money in their foundation yet
and they would ask if the city, out of the 50,000 line item, would -- it would cost
approximately $2,000 for two of them to go back, if we would forward that out of our
budget and they will pay it back once they get it -- with the understanding that they will
pay it back, put it back into the deal once they get their fundraising going. I personally
have no problem with that. I've got one legality that I need to ask the lawyer and I don't
think it's any problem, but with them being non-employees, that don't make any
difference, does it, with our money? It's going back to -- that's the one problem I had.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols, you want to take a stab at that?
Nichols: Stab at it. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess I don't know -- first of all,
Stacy should tell the Council whether or not it would be acceptable to use that particular
-- any funds from that line item for travel costs and she's not here, so she can't answer
the question. Assuming that there isn't a budgetary problem with using it for travel
costs,
it is perhaps acceptable if those individuals were qualified, if you will, as volunteers on
behalf of this city to obtain grant funding for this or other similarly situated Meridian
parks projects. I don't think you have to be an employee to have the city pay your travel
expenses. I mean if you wanted to send a parks commissioner back someplace, that
qualifies, if you want to send a Planning and Zoning commissioner to a seminar, that's
acceptable. If you want to -- there are other volunteers in this city, maybe somebody
that volunteers with the PAL program. I would be primarily concerned with whether or
not it's in the correct budget item within the parks department or the finance department
to say it's okay to do that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 69 of 73
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Could I respond? Bill, we make line item budget adjustments every year. This will
be my fifth year of sitting on this and I don't believe we have ever -- the police
department or the fire department or the parks department or somebody in
administration hasn't had to change it, so I realize that that one -- that problem we could
take care of changing it from one line item to an expense of that. I had the question --
what I'd like instead of going through a real debate tonight is get the Council's feelings,
if they are in favor of it, if the Mayor and Bill will work it out, make sure it's legal and see
what your thoughts are, I, for one, am for sending them back. If they can get us -- you
know, if this will help them raise money to go towards it, if they are willing to put a
millions dollars in our park and raise the money, I'm for helping them.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: When is this, Mr. Bird?
Bird: It's got to be done immediately. The --
Nary: When is the thing they are going to?
Bird: It's the second -- first week in April. April 9th or something like that.
Nary: There is another thought. I mean -- and I think Mr. Nichols is right. I mean another
thought certainly, if necessary, from the Mayor and Mr. Nichols can certainly do a
contract with these people with the city and that would probably, again, cover them if
there were injuries or if something else were to happen, that might be another way to do
it. But I don't have any objection to what you're asking. I think it makes a lot of sense.
It's fairly inexpensive expenditure, so I don't think it's a bad idea.
Bird: Cherie?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, no, I have no objection the way you presented it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, with your permission I'd make a motion, Council, if you would support
this, that we let the Mayor and Mr. Nichols research this, make sure everything is legal,
and have the Mayor authorize this, sending two people back to this conference.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 70 of 73
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Bird, you often have a
not-to-exceed amount.
Bird: Oh. Okay. Not to exceed -- I'll give them a little leeway -- $2,500.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of that motion say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Thank you, Mayor. And they do need -- if you could talk to Tom tomorrow they
would appreciate it. I have got one other question, Council. We have got a long time
coach at the Meridian High School that is retiring from coaching baseball this year. He
not only has coached at the high school as the head baseball coach since 1969, he has
been there since 1967 in the high school or junior high, he was the very front runner of
getting the American Legion program restarted in 1979 in Meridian and was one of the
leaders in getting the legion field built, the lights up, and the park being one of the
nicest baseball fields in the valley, so -- and this has been tossed around and brought
forward once before, but I would like, with the Mayor and Council approval, I'd like to
see that baseball field -- the American Legion baseball field named after him. I know
that we don't have a policy on that. I did go to the parks and recreation commission a
week ago Monday, they supported it wholeheartedly, and I'll throw it out, his name is Mo
Brooks. We'd like to keep it -- Elmore Brooks. We'd like to keep it as a surprise if you do
pass on it. But putting up a sign and everything will not cost the city anything, it will be
taken care of by Meridian Athletic Round Table who runs the American Legion program.
So I would just like to throw that out and we'd need to get started, because they want to
do it on his last home game that he will be coaching here in Meridian. I'll throw it out for
discussion.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Do you finally have a resume? This came up a year or two years and maybe
four years ago and all they asked for was a resume. Do you have that?
Bird: Finally got one.
De Weerd: All right.
Bird: We brought it forward -- the school had brought it forward before when Mayor
Corrie was on the council or I think maybe he was the Mayor and it got shut down, so
they were pretty -- I don't think they were too happy with us and --
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 71 of 73
De Weerd: It got shut down?
Bird: Yeah. It got shut down, but it shouldn't have, so --
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think it's a wonderful idea, Mr. Bird. Does the city control the park that they need
our approval to name the field or -- I just don't know the --
Bird: Okay. The history on the park -- the history on the park was -- the Meridian Athletic
Association bought it through the city with the BOR, Bureau of Rec. In 1981 Elmore and
two or three guys went to the Mayor and Council in Meridian and said, you know, there
is just weeds out there, I mean we made the 56 acres look good and asked them if --
Nary: Do we own it?
Bird: Yeah. We own it with the BOR.
Nary: Okay.
Bird: But I will give you a history on it if you like.
Nary: Well, that's fine.
Bird: No. The city has to approve it. It is a city park.
De Weerd: You know, we have an event at 6:45 in the morning, so we don't want your
history.
Nary: Oh, I think it's a wonderful idea, Mr. Bird. I wasn't questioning that. I didn't realize
that we owned it. So I have no objection.
De Weerd: I have no problem with it.
Bird: Mayor, do you have any problem with it?
Corrie: None whatsoever.
Bird: Okay. I will get this over with. Then I would make a motion that the American
Legion baseball field at Storey Park be named the Mo Brooks Baseball Field and if we
could keep it quiet we'd love it.
McCandless: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 72 of 73
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, since this is a land use I will have a
roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: Let the record show the Mayor said aye, too.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: But keep it quiet, so you don't --
Nary: Does Mr. Brooks normally read the minutes of our meeting?
Bird: No, he doesn't.
Nary: Okay. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we go to executive session under Idaho Code
67-1234, Subsection B. 1-B. Yeah.
Bird: I would second it.
Corrie: Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried. Executive session.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion that we come out of Executive Session
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion and second. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. I will entertain a motion --
De Weerd: I move we adjourn.
Meridian City Council Meeting
March 19, 2002
Page 73 of 73
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye? Okay.
Adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:25 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED
___________________________ ________________________
ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR WILL BERG, CITY CLERK