Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 12-09 PreMeridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003. A special meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 5:30 P.M., Tuesday, December 9, 2003, by Mayor Robert Corrie. Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, and Cheri McCandless. Members Absent: Bill Nary. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Gary Smith, Kenny Bowers, Bard Watson, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Tammy de Weerd _ Bill Nary __X__ Cherie McCandless X__ Keith Bird __X__ Robert Corrie Corrie: All right. I'm going to open the City Council Special Meeting, Tuesday, December 9th, at 5:30 in the City Council Chambers. If you can't hear me, raise your hand, so -- I may not make it through the whole meeting, but Tammy will take care of it after if I don't. My voice sometimes gives out in about an hour. Council, we have roll call attendance. Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Corrie: Thank you. Item No. 2 is the adoption of the agenda. Council? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the agenda as published. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to adopt the agenda as published. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 2 of 29 Item 3: Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: CPA 03-003 Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road: Corrie: The third item on the agenda is the continued Public Hearing from November the 5th, CPA 03-003, by Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates. So, at this time I will continue the Public Hearing and hear from staff. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, at our last hearing we talked a lot about -- a lot about different issues and standards and the conclusion was that staff was unable to, given the information we had, provide suitable standards as requested by the City Council at the first Public Hearing, where it was left with to continue the item to give the applicant time to do the necessary research or provide the necessary information that we might better evaluate the impact of this Comprehensive Plan text amendment. So, to date we have not heard from the applicant, so -- they are here in force, so I assume they have information to provide you, but I -- staff has not seen that yet. Corrie: All right. Thank you, Anna. Any questions of the Council? Mr. Wardle, I believe we need to swear you in. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, so help you God? Wardle: Yes, it is. Corrie: Thank you. Wardle: For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 4940 East Mill Station Drive in Boise. And also, for the record, Mr. Mayor, good to see you back this evening. Corrie: Thank you. Wardle: To start, I just wanted to back up quickly and introduce a couple people here with us this evening. Obviously, Mr. Centers is here, as well as Joann Butler and Mark Bottles. Mark Bottles is here with us. Part of the reason we got to where we were was on a discussion of potential for office commercial industrial uses and Mr. Bottles is going to give a quick overview of his view of the market in terms of those uses. Before we get there, Mrs. Powell is correct that when we came from the last meeting we were asked to provide information relating to other jurisdictions on how they deal with uses close to their facilities and, specifically, sewer plants. We have done a lot of research. The only one that we found specifically that has done anything in terms standards or extraordinary requirements is what we provided previously, which was Las Vegas. We did contact a lot of other plants of similar size in terms of the City of Meridian and most of them are not -- they don't have extraordinary impacts. They deal with some of those issues in other ways in terms of the way their plants function. I'm not an expert on it and I can't get into that. I just want to say for the record there aren't other standards out Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 3 of 29 there that other facilities have implemented. So, in one regard we are kind of plowing new ground here, which, hopefully, we can come to some sort of agreement. Before I go on much further, I would like Mr. Bottles to address the issue of commercial uses, because this was something that was very significant in terms of our previous testimony. We were told last time that we had brought a lot of assumptions, but not a lot of backing to those assumptions, and I just wanted to bring an expert in the field, someone who is involved in this day to day. So, give a couple months to Mr. Bottles and, then, I'll get right back up. Corrie: Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Bottles: Yes, it is. Corrie: Thank you. Bottles: Greetings, Mayor and Council Members. I'm sorry that I have to be first, because I have got a son -- two boys in a play at school and I want to see them and my wife would also hang me up if I wasn't there. Corrie: For the record, would you give your name and address? Bottles: Okay. It's Mark Bottles. My address is 5418 North Eagle Road. That's Boise, Idaho. Corrie: Thank you. Bottles: Jake Centers had come to my office -- I have least -- he has an office project on Locust Grove here in Meridian that my office we did leasing on and he's got another office project, a small, you know, medical office building that we are doing as well, that I believe you recently have approved as well on Locust Grove and he had came in and brought in recently this parcel to me and came into my office and we addressed, myself and the other sales associates, on the viability of leasing and what a project would do there. I basically indicated to Jake, after talking with our sales associates, we did not feel that this location was a strong location at all for leasing. I was concerned with him putting up any spec buildings, because, as I am with any developer, they have got a financial risk at doing that, putting up those buildings. And just with the experience that we have had in areas both in Boise and Meridian where we deal a lot with medical professionals, we are involved up there by St. Luke's as well, the Montvue Subdivision in the first project, which was a long, difficult task here getting it approved, but we deal with a lot of both the -- which would be the orthodontists, the dental, the chiropractor, which is more what fits in these neighborhood areas. With a lot of these we have met we have got six or seven that we are working with right now, areas that they have identified, I just don't feel comfortable with leasing that. I, in turn, basically, told Jake after meeting with all our sales associates that I did not feel this was a good place to basically go forward with any type of office or even small type of retail. I just felt like it Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 4 of 29 was just a gamble and it's not really what the market -- the market dictates, you know, where they are going to lease space and I just told them I did not feel good at that. I felt good about the Locust Grove site, some of these sites on Cherry Lane, and that, but I was not comfortable with that. I don't know if you have any questions for me at all. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I do. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Why do think that this location is not good for office? Bottles: Well, based on -- and I don't have -- and I'm sorry I don't have all the maps here, but when I have looked at some of these other -- some of the other sites that are available in the valley, there is only going to be so many orthodontists, so many dentists, and so many chiropractors, as we all know, and with what's already going on and what's already been built there along Ustick already, I have already not only talked to orthodontists and dentists, they are not interested in that location, they want to get over -- a few of them want to get over there on Cherry Lane and some of those areas. I just think there is too much of this -- there is a lot of neighborhood offices, you know, this being approved, there is only going to be so much of a market and we are seeing some of this office market and larger stuff being filled up, I just -- looking at even the rooftops at your build out, I just -- I, honestly, don't see it there and, again, our specialty, as our office has been more these little -- more the neighborhood type office projects, we have done a slew of them. I would be happy to give those to you and the projects that we are working on both in Meridian and Boise and up and down this Eagle corridor. Bird: Mayor, can I have a follow up on that? Corrie: Go ahead. Bird: As you know, less than a half mile down to the east there we do have a dentist office. Bottles: Right. Bird: But -- so what you're saying is that it isn't very good for office space and you're basically saying medical office space, but it's good for residential. Bottles: Yes. And what I'm going to say is if you have office, you're only going to have -- typically you will not see two or three or four orthodontists or dentists going right next door and competing against each other. When we are doing studies for these guys, they want us to map out exactly where their competing orthodontists are. They want to draw a ring and stay away from that. I think the project that's there, the other one just on down Ustick, is a great project. I think, though, if you stack too many of those together is where there is going to be a problem again and, you know, I don't market -- we do very little on residential marketing, I don't even market Jake's. The only thing I Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 5 of 29 have done is done his leasing on his commercial. I don't have -- I don't have a vested interest -- it would be better for me, to tell you the truth, to stand here and tell you I want office here, because I can make a fee off that. I can't make a fee off Jake's going and doing a residential project, because I wouldn't be his marketing agent on that. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Okay. I think your assumptions probably work today. When we get a Ten Mile interchange, it changes the dynamics of that area. It changes even the access and what the potentials are. So, are you just basing it on what the market would withstand in the next couple of years or are you looking long term once there is an interchange there? A lot of the property along Ten Mile through that whole corridor between Ten Mile and Black Cat from Franklin to Chinden, it's going to change those dynamics and so what would be the potential, then? Bottles: Well, just -- you know, I should have been better prepared, I guess, in the sense -- and I would be happy to do it, but looking at the office sites that are already approved and what's planned with, you know, the new high school and things like that, and those out parcels and even with Locust Grove -- and I know Locust Grove is further in -- but with the number of them that are already there, I know the dentists and those things are going to move in, we still have a lot of roof tops to be built. I just think there is going to be, in my opinion, a surplus of it, because in those areas is not typically what you're going to find as, you know, the office users, for instance, you know, the HP's and that, as we all know, but the neighborhood office is typically your dentist, your orthodontist, your chiropractor, you know, sometimes your insurance guys and that. But there is not -- I mean even if we look on a map in west Boise, I mean it is very -- I mean the density there -- I don't know. And I guess in answer to that, Tammy, it's just when we looked at it, the sales guys, when Jake came in, I mean I don't feel comfortable and, to tell you the truth, I'm not even sure I feel comfortable a few years from now because I know on some of these other projects around there, they already have in these large projects, those already identified within those projects or out in front of some of these schools that they are doing, and, you know, like the project that you did out here with the Meridian High School, where you had those office pads out front, that's where the doctors are going to rush to and, obviously, it works, because the lots sales are there, because they want to be right in front of -- right in front of that middle school or right in front of that high school and, you know, your middle school on Cherry Lane. I can tell you right now, people want to be there, because they want those kids walking out of school and walking in the orthodontist or dentist's office and, then, the parents pick them up there. Cherry Lane Baptist, which is in -- a developer in for application -- I'm not sure where he's at in the process, but that's where all my orthodontists and dentists, they want to go, even my chiropractors, they -- the chiropractors not so much because the kids aren't going there to get adjustments so much, but those type of users -- and there is only a certain number of them and they want to be by those and I feel like this is kind of an in between spot and, you know, my biggest thing is, obviously, my reputation Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 6 of 29 is important to me, when Jake comes in and says, you know, I'm going to spec some buildings, I'm kind of going, you know, I don't feel comfortable, even asked just spec'ing a few in the front, that even makes me nervous at that point and I agree with you, the Ten Mile interchange things will expand, but, again, I think what's important, what drives a lot of that, is being by these schools and it seems like that's where they are driving themselves more and more. De Weerd: Mayor, just to follow up. I guess, you know, if you limit it to just those particular users, you might -- you might have something, even though the elementary school is there as well. But if you also look and consider the potential of Ustick Road as an east-west corridor that connects clear into Canyon County, you know, there is -- there is just huge potential with that square mile there, with both McMillan and Ustick Roads. Then you add to the equation the Ten Mile interchange -- and I'm not talking in today's market, I'm talking, you know, down the road and what the development potential is. Even if you don't look at office, industrial use, you know, there is plenty of people, the same kind of companies that are going to locate on the Franklin Roads and on the Fairviews, those companies are going to look at the amount of traffic that are going to hit those roads -- we know Meridian is a through location and that's what a lot of businesses look for is they are looking for that through traffic and what kind of traffic they can stop and there will be a great amount of that through traffic, in particular, on Ustick and McMillan. So, I -- and I'm not a professional, I don't mean to, but as we look at the potentials and the market today, I would totally agree with you. But I don't know about the market of ten years from now with the different traffic patterns and the potentials. In particular, have you considered the developments that will be going on in Canyon County and how everything is moving eastward in their locations, the potential of the west campus with BSU -- you know, all of those are indicators that are going to feed into the marketability of that area as well. Bottles: And, you know, I understand the growth. You know, the one thing I would say on the industrial side, I mean I have done work for BFI with their site -- I don't know they handle the garbage here, but we did their demographic study when we moved them out there off of Executive Drive and our firm and we also did Durham Transportation, which handles the busing for the Boise School District. Most all these guys want to be close -- as close as they can to an interchange, they want to stay far away as they -- I mean the Franklin corridor is an ideal corridor for that industrial use and it's just -- and I'm not going to disagree with you, you know, with Canyon County and Meridian, just the way things are merging there, but I think that industrial core -- I mean as an industrial user I would be shocked if they came in and said they were looking, because right in the middle of residential most those guys would want to be away from that, in my opinion, and I find most of that, you know, being the case. I can tell you this, even where it's going with even some of the -- we represent American Family Insurance and we are doing -- we just put them here in Meridian the first site and they are going to have them popping up all over Meridian, but American Family Insurance, which is a Fortune 350 firm, not that it makes a difference, but difference is that they are one of the fastest growing, you know, insurance companies in the U.S. Their demographics now is we -- they typically only want to be in anchor Albertson's centers and what I'm finding with Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 7 of 29 these insurance guys is that they typically went into neighborhoods and now they are wanting to be in strip centers. I had a hard time convincing them in there in Cherry Lane and Linder to be there without an anchor, I think the John Stubblefield development there. But they want those -- I mean they want those high exposure corners and when it comes back to it, if you try to put them -- and I have tried them even in Boise, as we have been putting them around through both Ada and Canyon County, I think we are finding a lot of these guys are going back to what they used to go to, they want these corner locations and those are our typical office guys that we have even done with State Farm, we put them in the block and tried to do some of that. My concern is it gets difficult. Now, Franklin and Ten Mile, I mean if -- you know, Ten Mile and -- you know, that that road goes in and that becomes -- you know, I don't know if it's going to be an Eagle corridor. It seems awful tight through there, but if it becomes a big corridor, you know, I don't know that it would go that deep on Ustick. I look at McMillan and Eagle Road, it doesn't go that far off the corner, it stays pretty close and people want that exposure on that main arterial road. Even the office users in front of Pioneer Elementary School, many of you are familiar with that, that's a highly density area and they have got all the parking and it's a first class office project that they put in there. They are not leasing out those spaces very fast. You go out and put a project on Eagle Road, which is a traffic nightmare getting in and out. My office building is on there. They want that and it's -- you know, they do that. You will get a dentist or orthodontist, one or two pop in front of that elementary -- and that's a grade school and all I'm saying is if you get too far off the corridor, that's my only concern with this piece here is that we get too far off that main corridor, even the assumption that Ten Mile must become that major corridor, which I agree it's going to be, I just don't know how depth off that corridor that's -- the realistic possibility of that development is going to be. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess I just have one more point. Since you had raised BFI and buses and all of that, that has been proposed and they stood in front of us telling us they did market studies and it could sustain those kind of things. So, I guess a lot of it is based on who you talk to and what the neighbors want and that's a lot of what we had kind of hoped would come back to us is what that mix should be. You know, I would agree that today it couldn't support that. You look at across the street from Pioneer Elementary that was off Eagle Road on McMillan, you know, that is starting to develop out really nice and it's not surrounding a sewer treatment plant, it's -- and it's across the street from residential by a school and so I guess I see today what your point is, but I'm not certain that five, ten years down the road that those would be the same assumptions. Bottles: I mean, you know, I haven't talked to BFI lately or any of those guys, but having them and their trucks in that area moving, I just say I can't imagine -- those trucks -- I mean if you go off Executive Drive, there is no residential anywhere close to them and that type of use is -- I mean it's strong. They are cleaning out those trucks and they have been a good client in the past. I'm not currently doing any site selection work for them right now, but with those trucks rolling in and out, you look at the accident record on those, I don't think you're -- you're going to want those closer out to the freeway. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 8 of 29 De Weerd: Yeah. They were turned down. Bottles: Pardon? De Weerd: They were turned down. Bottles: If I were you, from a safety issue -- you know, I live off of Chinden, but I wouldn't want them pouring in and out of there with all their trucks as a distribution. Corrie: Well, that's not a problem now, so -- Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Bottles, if I could -- you just looked at the particular parcel that Mr. Centers purchased. You didn't look at market viability of office on any of the rest of the parcels that are identified on this map in the brown? Bottles: I looked at Center's particularly in relation to the other sites that are currently marketed and some of them the proposed where the schools are going into, where there is additional office in the area, so we did look at that. Nichols: Okay. But you didn't look at any market studies or availability of any of the other parcels on this map that's on the board in brown? Bottles: No. I haven't gone through each one and looked at those. I looked specifically at his site is what I looked at. Yes. Correct. Nichols: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: I was just wondering if the wastewater treatment plant were not there, would you change your mind? Bottles: If it wasn't there? Corrie: Yeah. Bottles: Oh, it wouldn't have -- I don't even take that into account looking at it from an office or retail standpoint. Corrie: And knowing what's going in all around it. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 9 of 29 Bottles: Correct. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Bottles: Thank you. Corrie: Thank you, Mark. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, so help you God? Butler: Yes, it is. Corrie: Thank you. Name and address. Butler: Thank you. Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street in Boise, here representing the applicant and I appreciate the Council getting together at this early hour. I know we have to be at the podium to get this recorded, but I'm looking at this, maybe because of the hour, as a work session. So, I have come into this late. I know you have a lot of hearings both during the Comprehensive Plan process and this one, so bear with me as I struggle through this and make some comments. Also, because, unfortunately, I wasn't able to review the City's files for this hearing, I have seen some of the minutes, read the minutes, but, in fact, before I forget, I'm going to give Will my check for those things, so I don't forget it. I know that the -- some of your best staff has gone on to be with their spouse at another job and I know the clerk office has been strapped lately for some -- so, we have just picked that up today. In any event, I'm looking at this as my comments as a work session and I hope you take them as that. I'm going to be talking about legal concepts. If Jerry Centers was here -- and I miss him very much, because as soon as I started talking about legal concepts, I think he would -- steam would start coming out of his ears, so I hope that's not the case for the Council. Corrie: Joann, I'm just -- when you say legal, I get a little worried. Would you keep your comments to about ten minutes. Butler: I'll do my darnedest. Corrie: Thank you. Butler: First, I want to just set the stage. This property that was zoned C-N was alluded to zoned at the time when the person living on the residential parcel immediately east had a failing septic and the city helped out by annexing the property and providing sewer to that person and at that time you discussed -- and I'm looking at the minutes from that October 17, 2002, you discussed the fact that, you know, really residential in this area, in this square doughnut, what you called the mixed use area around the wastewater treatment plant, residential was very appropriate and what you said at that time was that I think we have to look at nonresidential now. Why? Because that's what you had in Comprehensive Plan and you went onto say things like we have to work Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 10 of 29 towards amending our Comprehensive Plan, amending our map, and allowing some flexibility and this applicant took you at your word. They said, okay, we understand that you're looking for mixed use, you have said you want mixed use in this are, but you're also saying that you want flexibility and we will, we will come with a text amendment that will allow mixed use, but allows residential as well. To pick up on what your attorney has said and what Mrs. de Weerd has said, we are not saying that commercial, in conjunction with residential, isn't appropriate, we are saying absolutely that, you need the flexibility, you need -- the city should aspire to that flexibility of having commercial and residential. As Mr. Bottles said, the more residential, the more likely you're going to have those rooftops that the office people and dentists and professional people look towards. So, we are saying that the Comprehensive Plan discussion of this mixed use area is wanting and what it's wanting is the addition of residential use and this Council recognized that itself last year. So, that's what we are talking about here, amending it. Now, of course, the P&Z has recommended to you that it does get recommended, that this text amendment be adopted before you go on, and we know of no error by the Planning and Zoning Commission in making that recommendation to you and, of course, we would want to hear from the Council, if you choose to deny this application, why. What was -- in what way is our application not meeting what you were directing a year ago and not meeting what the Planning and Zoning Commission was doing just a few months ago. I know I have read the minutes. I know that you have said you have been struggling with this. You said in 2002 we are not quite sure what to do and there weren't any studies, so we are going to draw this square doughnut, basically, around our plant. I'm just going to propose that because you didn't have those studies back when you were doing the Comprehensive Plan, it's really sort of a holding zone or a holding area that you have created, not bolstered by anything, and, consequently, I think that's why in 2002 this Council started to say, you know what, we didn't know what to do. We recognize it was a 500 pound orange guerilla and that we want to be more flexible in the future. We are going to look at each project as it comes in. This applicant will be proposing residential, but it's a mixed-use area and I know that this Council will not allow totally residential in the area, you're going to look at the other projects as mixed use. This is a smaller front parcel and it's attempt to be -- it's an application for just residential. I want to discuss the fact that because of the concerns of this Council, even though it doesn't appear that there has been any public purpose in creating this doughnut, this applicant brought to the Council a positive way to help the Council and that's that easement that was brought -- maybe the Council or the Commission recommended. An easement that would be recorded against the property and I -- basically I -- letting people know that the plant is there, so that they are not taken aback if they should discover it some day and I want to tell a little analogy. I'm right now working for the Boise City airport and the airport -- the airport is looking at making sure avogation easements are recorded throughout the airport influence zone and what this does is puts on record for every parcel that has to come through the city and get a permit, they require this avogation easement to be recorded and you are in such a better position than the airport. The airport influence zone cuts across Ada County and Boise City. Ada County doesn't necessarily agree with Boise City. Here you have complete control over this area and if you so desire, that -- if your desire is to put people on notice that this is what exists, this public facility exists, I would say this is Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 11 of 29 a very good way to go about it. It is the way that in Boise we -- the airport and the attorneys have acknowledged this is way to go. I'm also bringing up the idea -- or reminding the Council of its flexibility -- it's desire for flexibility with regard to residential, because -- and this is legally -- courts around the country have said that you cannot exclude residential merely because of its proximity to a sewer treatment plant specifically and the courts -- and this doughnut would appear to be contrary to that legal concept, because that legal concept is just this succinctly, you can't disallow a use, unless there is some substantial gain to the public and I have to say -- I have come from the outside, but I don't see that in the minutes. I have seen in the minutes that you -- staff members are concerned that people that -- if they don't know about the sewer treatment plant and they call the city, they are going to have to answer the calls, that's going to take some time, but on a continuum of the public good, I think that is not a substantial gain to the public just merely trying to preclude a few calls and I think that this easement would very much help the city avoid the issue. I'm not saying that you won't get some calls, but I am saying that if somebody were to attempt to sue the city, you would be on solid ground. I guess those are my main points. I think that -- I think that this applicant has done exactly what the city is looking for, try to help it amend its Comprehensive Plan text, try to also bring to the table some other technique -- and that's the easement -- to help make the city comfortable as it goes forward making this a complete mixed use area that serves the citizens of Meridian. If there are any questions I can answer, I would be happy to -- Corrie: Council? Okay. Butler: Thank you. Corrie: Yes. Anna. Powell: If I might ask a question. Just out of curiosity, Joann, the legal concepts you gave, did they have comprehensive plans that supported residential in those areas and that was a finding related to the development approval or was that in reference to a Comprehensive Plan designation? Butler: Explain -- sorry. Could you repeat that, Anna? Powell: You would seem to be saying by that that you couldn't exclude residential from any Comprehensive Plan designation and, clearly, we do that in other areas, so I was wondering if that example you used was related to a development application where they -- where the Comprehensive Plan would have supported residential, but that was denied based on proximity. Butler: Correct. And I'm looking back at the excerpts from this case and, yes, there were comprehensive plans indicating that residential could be allowed and indicating that, clearly, just by proximity to the sewer treatment plant, the -- in this case that I'm looking at is saying that, no, just by mere proximity that it shouldn't be allowed. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 12 of 29 Powell: But -- so the analogy falls a bit short on this one, because our Comprehensive Plan at this time doesn't say that residential is -- Butler: And that's exactly right and that's what we are saying, that just like the Council has been asking for is the flexibility to allow a complete mixed use in this area, but there are other cases -- I appreciate what you're saying. There are other cases that distinctly talk about when there are public facilities, that you cannot preclude uses merely on the basis of that use, public use, and so that's a bolstering of why we are saying that just like the Council was looking for a year ago, more flexibility to allow residential, we are saying that bolsters the Council's desire for residential in the area. Does that make sense to you or to the Council? If I could also add to that, I think the issue -- and I appreciated that in the minutes that I read -- I had some comments that the City indicated it was trying to protect the treatment plant and I would pose this question to the -- to the Council: In what way would residential use in any way harm the treatment plant? Bird: Mayor? Corrie: I think -- Bird: Go ahead. Corrie: Go ahead. Bird: My answer to that would be that I don't worry about residential hurting the treatment plant, I'm wondering what the treatment plant does to residential to deal. Are you going to go out there, Joann, and buy a house? Butler: I don't know. I -- Bird: Would you live out there next to a wastewater treatment plant? Butler: There are -- I will tell you, I can -- I will just do an analogy, because I'm not a marketer and I don't know the area that well, but I do know where Riverside Village is and I do know where the Lander Street plant is in Boise and they are quite -- within the same range of proximity and so when you speak about your -- I think what I'm hearing is that that your concern about how the public's use of its property might affect other people and I don't -- I would imagine that's not where you may be going, but if that's -- I don't -- and I know that the city runs its treatment plant very well, so I don't think that's -- that's the issue. Bird: And I'm not saying that's an issue with me, I'm just saying that I don't worry about what residential is going to do to the treatment plant, I worry about maybe what the treatment plant is going to do to some of the deal. I mean I was raised in Nampa, Idaho, so I know what the stink of the sugar beet factory is my whole life, you know, so -- Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 13 of 29 Butler: And I appreciate that and I also -- but I do -- Bird: -- you know, raised on a farm, so I don't have any problems with that stuff. Butler: And I appreciate what you're saying, although a well-run sewer treatment plant, as we know from around the country, this does not cause issues. I understand your desire to possibly create, in essence, more distance, but it also sounds a bit as though that distance is being created with somebody else's property and that is an issue that I know the city wants to avoid. Bird: And, Joann, I think what we asked was to get some examples. Now, you said Riverside and Lander Street treatment plant. I do know they have had some complaints. Not a lot of them, but they have had some complaints. We just ask -- our basic deal -- I don't think the Council, actually, said that they were absolutely against residential in there. As I recall, we just wanted some examples and I guess Las Vegas was the only one you could find that was around the sewer plant. Butler: And I think that Mr. Centers has done some other work through a consultant on that and may be able to speak to that a little bit more or would you like me to reference those? Okay. There are some more examples that -- in which that -- that you can find that, for sure. Bird: And that's basically what we wanted and I don't think the Council absolutely put their thumbs down on the residential out there, as I recall. Butler: And, Councilmember Bird, I appreciate that, because I realize that what you are trying to do throughout the city with the Comprehensive Plan is create those mixed uses, where people can live, work, play in good proximity. From my position, after working with the airport on their avogation easement and when I found out that this people were -- had introduced that concept to you, I thought, well, that's a darn good way to assist the city. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess that when you suggest the applicant had a great idea on this buffer, he's using someone else's piece of property as a buffer, so, you know, it's not a good example to me. When you say that we don't allow a complete mixed use, there are mixed uses out there that don't allow residential in a mixed-use capacity. Butler: I didn't understand the facts that you were referring to in terms of the buffer and Mr. Wardle has explained to me that they had made a suggestion. I wasn't at the hearing, I'm only going to suppose that it may have been proposed as here is something you can consider. I wouldn't, if I were the city, I wouldn't -- if I were -- because of that property owner. I think that that -- you would be, in essence, extending Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 14 of 29 your reach beyond your borders and I don't think that's necessarily a good thing for the city to do and so I think that you just need to look at this property just within the bounds of this property, acknowledge it as a smaller piece of property that's just one piece of the overall, as you strive to develop mixed use throughout that area. De Weerd: But we are not looking at a piece of property, we are looking at amending the text to the Comprehensive Plan and what that would allow and what we suggested to the applicant of this text amendment is without taking this as a whole picture, we are not solving anything, and that's the whole point is this needs to be further defined. It was stated that in the Comprehensive Plan amendments the applicant was to work with our staff, develop some kind of a time frame and some kind of a process to take a look at that whole picture and not just the piece of property that he is proposing it on. Butler: I guess I would have to answer that in two ways, that they are -- they are as the Council had led them to do, asking for a text amendment to help the city be more flexible overall, so that you can look at each application in relationship to the specific circumstances that surrounds it, which you do at any conditional use requirement, and so that's what they are doing, providing that greater flexibility. Now, it may be that -- I'm hearing you say that you would -- you're asking the applicant to, in essence, do the planning for this entire area and I don't -- I don't think that's appropriate for this applicant, nor would you want just this applicant to do that. I think that is something that if it wasn't done when you did the Comprehensive Plan, if there isn't that basis underpinning your Comprehensive Plan, then, it is appropriate to do it now and it is appropriate -- I know Anna very often comes and asks the Council, okay, what priorities -- you have many things for me to do, what priorities. I think this -- that overall mixed use planning is a priority -- one of the priorities for the planning staff and by making this text amendment, you give the staff that much more flexibility to talk about a complete mixed use area. Corrie: I guess the point was, though, if it doesn't fit within the Comprehensive Plan now, it is your applicant's argument to explain to us why this would be of benefit and we haven't seen that and what it does open up, is it opens up all of those possibilities without further research into all those four years of that Comprehensive Plan with this in consideration and I think it was part of the north Meridian planning area and it was a recommendation that this probably shouldn't go too much further without some considerable detail on what should be considered there and our staff can only do so much at one time and so if there is someone that's compelled to allow a use that is not defined, that's the wait until it's a priority of the staff and we can get to that or they take that into their own hands. Butler: There are a couple of different ways to answer that, Councilwoman de Weerd. I mean you have mentioned that it opened up possibilities and I'm not sure you alluded to the maybe negative possibilities. I don't know of any, I'm not -- I can't make that assumption, but if, in fact, you are saying that staff may not have the time, then, now is the perfect time to say -- to bring this before the Council, look at it, show that there are, in fact, other examples where this has happened. I'm sure that the Council is not Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 15 of 29 saying that it's going to impinge on adjacent property and so I think it's appropriate to say if we are talking about mixed use and if the city's saying it runs its treatment plant and its public facilities well, then, there would be no reason not to have a complete full mixed use area in this area, where conditional uses come before the Council and you can assess each specific circumstance. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. I'm going to give you about three minutes and I'm cutting it off. This is too much information and not enough information for us. So, you have three minutes, Mr. Wardle. If you want him to talk, that's fine. I'm going to cut it off. Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, so help you God? Centers: It is. Corrie: Name and address, please. Centers: Jake Centers, 2011 Locust Grove. I just got to say the whole reason for calling a special early Council was so that we could allocate time to discuss this in great detail. Corrie: And you're also on the main Council, too. We ask -- we understand. We asked you specific questions and we are not getting it, so -- Centers: Okay. I guess my question is why is residential not allowed in this mixed use area and I think we have all identified that the reason is is because there is a wastewater treatment plant in that facility. Mrs. de Weerd alluded to the fact of other mixed-use areas that disallowed residential and I'd like to know is that an accurate statement. Question posed to staff. Powell: There is certainly other communities that don't allow -- Centers: Well, we are talking about the -- Corrie: Let her finish her question. Powell: But in the City of Meridian the other ones do allow some sort of residential, yes. Centers: Okay. So -- Powell: But the industrial zones don't. Centers: We are not talking about an industrial zone, we are talking about mixed use. It's a mixed-use zone. I mean that's what we are talking about and -- Corrie: No residential. Centers: What's that? Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 16 of 29 Corrie: No residential. Centers: Why? Corrie: Because it's in the Comprehensive Plan. Centers: Because there is a wastewater treatment facility -- Corrie: No. That's what they had set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Centers: Then, why did you name it wastewater treatment plant mixed use? You know, and I would -- actually, you should abstain from this hearing -- Corrie: I'm still the Mayor and if you don't like it, you can leave. Okay. You got two minutes. Centers: Well, we did go and do a little bit of research and I'd like to hand out a brochure from Washington State Department of Ecology, Criteria for Sewer Works design. And just real quick, there is a lot of information in here, but just, primarily, I wanted to just go to the actual fourth page, which is page six of 13, and there is just a short sentence that's underlined in here and it says: In the absence of specific local regulations, the buffer in residential areas should be at least, you know, 150 to 200 feet and, you know, going down this path one could argue that, you know, our treatment plant isn't the same one as other jurisdictions and just because they have specific buffer zones, that doesn't mean that ours should be the same and, you know, I talked to other plants in Eugene, Oregon, and Santa Cruz, California, and Salem, Oregon, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and all of those plants have -- they don't have any regulation on, you know, any buffer zone from residential, but what they do all have is some sort of odor control equipment in place to help mitigate their odors and help to be good neighbors. You know, I talked with Malcombe Craney, a national engineering firm that specializes in wastewater treatment plant design and every plant that they are involved with has some sort of odor mitigation equipment on those plants to, you know, take care of the odor control, you know. In your local ordinance -- in your ordinance under provisions for commercial and industrial use, it says no land or building in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner creating dangerous, injurious, noxious, or otherwise objectionable conditions, which could adversely affect the surrounding areas or adjoining premises, except that any use be permitted in this ordinance undertaking measures, safeguards, to reduce dangerous and objectionable conditions. Noise, objectionable noise, which is due to volume, frequency, or beat, shall be muffled. Glare. No direct glare shall be permitted. I mean it's in the ordinance and these are all things that staff gave public testimony on that their treatment plant produces, you know, some noise, produces some light, some glare, and some noxious odors and it's in a violation of your own ordinance for the industrial zone, so -- you know, and, Councilman Bird, you alluded to the fact of, you know, would you want to live there if this application is approved and, you know, I guess the answer to that is, you know, I think that people Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 17 of 29 should have the opportunity to make that decision and, really, I'm the one that's taking the risk. I'm the one that's outlaying upwards of a million dollars to develop this plat to its full development potential and if I truly felt that the plant was -- you know, had some offensive characteristics to it, you know, would I be up here in front of you asking for this application to be approved and putting forth that effort and that money and I have got to tell you, I wouldn't. I mean you would be crazy to. So, you know, the assumption that it -- you know, there is going to be phone calls from neighbors, I don't want to get involved in the middle of something where, you know, somebody comes back and says we didn't know the treatment plant was there. You sold us this piece of property. That's why I'm interested in doing this odor easement as well. I'm interested in putting it on the plat and the CC&R's, because I don't want any problems down the road. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess what is frustrating to me is we have listened to this for 55 minutes and when we postponed it or table it to now, we thought we would have information that would we consider in advance of today. We didn't get anything. Our staff hasn't gotten anything and we are still almost at the same point as we were last time we talked and that's the frustrating thing, is we asked for some information and this looks interesting, I would like to read it, but it would have been nice to have it prior to tonight. I feel that we are spinning our wheels, just like we were prior -- in the previous hearing and so I guess what we thought we would be getting is compelling reasons why residential should be figured, that we would get from staff what kind of time frame that we could have some kind of charrette or that these kind of things could be considered in a bigger picture type of thing and we don't have any of that. So, I just think right now there is nothing new that we can even consider to change our mind, because what we got in our packet was exactly what we had when we last discussed this. Centers: Well, Councilwoman de Weerd, you know, the last time we worked with staff we came to this Council with a recommendation of approval from staff, a recommendation of approval from P&Z, and we showed up at the hearing and got blasted. I mean I will show you a document of approval. You had it. You had a recommendation for approval from staff and they showed up at that Council hearing and just laid into us, brought all this stuff. So, if you want me to work with staff, I'm not going to go out there and lay all my cards on the table, so they can prepare an opposition to my testimony when I get up here, which is exactly what happened. I mean -- De Weerd: Mr. Centers, I'm sorry, but, you know, one thing that Council has been consistent on is in considering these text amendments, we have just approved this Comprehensive Plan. We would like to see it work. And I think all of us agree there needs to be more work on that particular designated area on our Comprehensive Plan. A time frame needs to be put together on how that will be approached and set about and -- so that they can share it with you. As a property owner you know what the time Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 18 of 29 frame that staff is working on and figuring out what are the best uses for that and what the markets can sustain and that was the discussion last time we had this application in front of us and I still believe that's what we need to do and I'm sorry that you don't feel you can work with our staff, but you're going to need to. Centers: No. I mean I thought we did. I mean, like I said, we got a recommendation for approval and, you know, that -- if you hadn't have read that staff report, you surely wouldn't have gathered that we had that recommendation at the Council hearing. I mean -- I think that's pretty obvious. That's why we are here today. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think that recommendation was from Planning and Zoning. I don't know as it was -- Centers: No. It was staff. Both. Powell: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Anna. Powell: Staff recommendation was for denial. The P&Z recommended approval. Corrie: That's what I thought. Bird: That's what I thought. Also, Mr. Centers, when you bought this property going in, you knew what it was zoned, right? Centers: Yes. Bird: But you thought that -- that you were -- could get it changed, so that you could use residential. You, evidently, had bought this property with the idea of using residential -- making it residential; right? Centers: Yes. Bird: Okay. That's all I have. Don't even need an answer. Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Centers. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 19 of 29 Nichols: I would recommend that you and Council continue this hearing into the regular agenda as an item ahead of the individual application items and, then, if you want to do anything further, either with the text amendment or if you want to continue it to a date certain, that you do it, then, but at least you could do it in connection with taking up those other items that are on the regular agenda in the next meeting. Corrie: I agree. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: And I would move that we take from the Special Meeting, Item No. 3, the CPA 03- 003, continued Public Hearing, and move it to the regular agenda and let it be known as Item No. 5A. McCandless: Mr. Mayor, it's already on the regular agenda as -- Bird: No. No. This isn't. Six, seven, and -- six, seven, and eight is on there. McCandless: Yeah. Bird: But this was another -- this is a continued Public Hearing that we are requested for a certain item. McCandless: Oh. Okay. De Weerd: Second. Bird: And, see, tonight we have went over everything but that item. De Weerd: I'll second that. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Berg: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Clerk. Berg: If I may, I suggest maybe put a different letter on it, just in case you needed to pull something off the Consent Agenda. Bird: You're right. Just make it Item five, then. Is that agreeable with the second? Berg: In case you wanted to discuss Sageland. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 20 of 29 Bird: Yeah. Berg: Thank you. Corrie: I need agreement from the second. All right. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Discussion and Presentation of Proposed Lane Rental Fee by ACHD: Corrie: We will now have Item 4, discussion and presentation of the proposed Lane Rental Fee by ACHD. Edney: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council John Edney, Ada County Highway District, construction division head, 5744 Plantation Lane, Garden City. Corrie: Thank you, John. Edney: What we want to do is bring a concept to you that we are introducing and explain that this is only a study that we are doing right now and doing some research. We felt that we needed to out reach to all of the public entities and utility companies and chambers of commerce on this concept and we are soliciting comment trying to keep you advised of what the highway district is doing. In the policies of the highway district, anybody that desires to do work within the public right of way or do maintenance work in the right of way, has to do that through -- by securing the permit from the highway district. Some of these permits are paid, some of them aren't. The intent of the permit system is to recover all of the costs that are generated for testing and inspection. However, there is no way to control the amount of time a contractor needs in the pubic right of way and to try to encourage them not to waste any time in the public right of way, because there is some serious issues with regard to transportation. So, what we are looking at is on collector and arterial streets is a concept of an additional fee that covers the rental of that lane or lanes just to accommodate that contractor's work. So, I'd like to introduce Angie Comish, she's our consultant who is doing our research for us, she's an engineer, and she has a presentation she'd like to provide to you. And, then, we'd ask for any comments -- we have comment sheets that you can take and -- your staff can take and provide back to us and that will help us in our research. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you, John. Comish: Hi, I'm Angela Comish and my address is 1411 North 14th Street in Boise, Idaho. And if it's all right with you guys, I'm, actually, going to sit over there where Anna is, so that I can click my presentation, if that's okay. Corrie: Fine. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 21 of 29 Comish: I'm going to go through this fairly quickly, because I know your night is already kind of getting long, so feel free to stop me if I'm going too fast or if you have questions or anything. I'd like you just get to -- if I can get this to work -- think about sometime when you have been out on one of our Ada County roads on your way to a meeting or something and you look up and find yourself in a situation like this. Anybody see their car in there? I'm sure all of you have probably sat in a roadway construction zone. Maybe you were late for meeting and you had to call ahead and tell somebody that you weren't going to be there or that you were going to be late or maybe you missed on flight or something and maybe you got stuck on Fairview. That would be awful. Maybe you actually got up to where that construction project was and there was no work going on. That's probably one of the most -- one of the calls that the Ada County Highway District gets the most. You know, there is a detour set up, I have been delayed, I missed something and somebody gets to the place and there is no work going on. So, the mission of the Ada County Highway District is to provide the best public highway system for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in Ada County. The problem is we have got projects and crews that are competing for the same roadway right of way as the traveling public. We end up with making an impact to the motorists, such as a lower level of safety, frustration, delays, missed appointments, loss of revenue to businesses and a negative image at ACHD and contractors and just about any public agency. So, what I have been hired to do is research what other metropolitan areas are doing to encourage contractors in utilities to work efficiently in the right of way, see if they can minimize impacts to the traveling public and maybe even recover some of the loss suffered by motorists due to these negative impacts. And the second part of my research is to solicit input, like John said, from cities and I have gone to contractors and to various agencies around the area. So far what I have found out is that ACHD is not the only agency trying to figure out how to deal with this issue. It seems to be a very common theme in areas where there are experiencing high growth like we are. The thing that I have found with a lot of these agencies that are having success in managing their right of way use is they have implemented a right of way or lane use fee system. I put together a table of just different cities that are contacted to kind of give you an idea of how this would work. Take just the top row, if you can read that, and I will just kind of just briefly explain like what the city of Denver does. Say a contractor wants to use 300 feet of a single lane, he needs to close it on an arterial or collector, and he wants to use it all hours, except for rush hours, and he needs it for a week. That would cost him 25 cents per lineal foot for per day. So, the charge he would have for using that lane for a week would be 525 dollars. It's a pretty common way -- it seems like most of these entities are doing it. Some of them do it on a per square foot basis, some of them have a sliding scale, so like if the contractor chooses to just work at night, he gets a reduced rate. Say he just wants to work on a sidewalk, it's less and if he needs to take an additional lane, the rate doubles. It just depends on how to set it up. But that's kind of a pretty common way that it's usually done. So, what are the pros and cons of implementing something like this? Well, obviously, to contractors the cons are loss of flexibility if they are trying to limited their impact and increase in construction costs, of course. What are the pros? You have a significant reduction in delays, as well as financial and safety impacts to motorists. You have Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 22 of 29 shorter construction schedules, which mean more projects can get done and I know that's been an issue in the City of Meridian just recently. I have talked to people at Ada County Highway District where projects are backed up, people are waiting to get things done and they can't do it, because contractor A isn't done yet, so contractor B can't get going. And it's a whole lot better public image for contractors and ACHD and the city. Are there other options to try and reduce impacts? Yeah. You could require flow able fill-in trenches, which is expense, but it can be done. You could work on setting stricter limits on the hours that arterials and collector lanes could be closed and enforce fines. You could do a lot more closer coordination between utilities and developers and ACHD to try and, see, gosh, you know, maybe if this utility has a project here and he's going to have one down the road in a couple weeks, maybe he could do it all at once. Maybe we could do some coordination on some of these projects and also some of these entities allow for a grace period before this right of way use fee starts being charged, like say, you know, it ought to take a contractor a week to do X amount of work, well, he gets that grace period and he goes beyond what's considered a reasonable amount of time, then, the right of way fee starts being imposed. So, again, just to reiterate, ACHD's mission is to provide the best public highway system for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in Ada County. That's their goal. That's the whole purpose behind them and this is just an idea, a thought, something that we are studying -- they have asked me to study to see whether or not this is a good idea to consider implementing. So, I would be curious for you're -- to hear your comments, any thoughts. I have a copy of my presentation, plus this, so I can hand that out to you, if you'd like to take it with you and review it and either sign something now and give it back to me now or call the highway district with your thoughts. Edney: Thank you, Angie. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Very nice presentation. Edney: Thank you very much. Happy holidays. Corrie: Thank you, John. All right. The next discussion is concerning cell towers. Dave McKinnon. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess I just had one question. Corrie: Okay. De Weerd: Contractors are not the only ones that close the roads. Does this also apply to ACHD? Edney: That's the intent. I don't control that operation, but it's the intent to -- for ACHD maintenance crews to adhere to the same policies that are directed towards contractors and utilities. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 23 of 29 De Weerd: So, it's not that they will charge themselves, they will hold -- I guess I don't know how it applies in their -- in a contractual situation with ACHD and their contractors. I just don't understand how that would work. Edney: Councilwoman de Weerd, contractors are -- that we contract to do to projects like Franklin Road that's ongoing right now, previously Overland Road is a good example. We will work with the entities out there to try to keep access open as much as possible and we provide what we call lands for work for those contractors and if it takes six months of impacted traffic, that's generally what it takes to do the work, and so it's already figured in that highway district contract that we manage. De Weerd: So, what does it add to the price of road construction? I mean it's already high enough that every dollar that's added can take away from a future road project. Edney: I'm trying to formulate my response to that. If the contractor can close the road and get his work done in a timely manner, then, he saves money and that's the way it is in our construction contracts also. if we can provide him more opportunity to complete his work and not extend his time out, then, the prices are going to be cheaper. The Franklin Road, for instance, the price is probably quite a bit higher, because we have to build half of a road at a time, so the impacts to the -- trying to be reduced to the subdivision accesses, to the business accesses, by maintaining two lanes of pavement all the time on that project and not closing roads, but if we could close the road totally, then, that contractor would be able to probably maximize his efforts on building that road. Did I answer your question? De Weerd: Yeah, to a certain degree. I think the advantage of time is great. I guess I would like to see -- and I know you don't have to answer to me, but what it would be nice to have the study suggest is, in essence, would it not only save time on the project, but not add to the price of the project. Edney: So, you would be in favor of probably a grace period for them to perform under a normal -- they could do it in any time over that base period of time would be a fee; is that how your concept is? De Weerd: To a certain extent. I guess my overall concern is that what would be the cost added to road construction? Is that a controllable cost within reason to the contractor and every dollar added takes away from the dollar that will go to another road project and that's -- at this point this is what we have to look at is as those roads are -- is it going to increase the cost of road construction? Comish: I think, Councilwoman de Weerd, I think you might be a little bit confused about the focus of this. The primary focus of this is when Joe developer wants to come in and do a subdivision and he needs to close down a portion of a road in order to add utilities or he needs to widen the road or he needs to extend the road or something like that, so it's more focused on development work. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 24 of 29 De Weerd: Okay. And that was my first question. Is it going to apply to ACHD? Comish: And that's a good question. That's not something that we really know for sure how that would -- how that would work right now. That's part of the study to determine should that be included in it or should it just be development work. De Weerd: Well, I guess I heard the answer to my first question that, yes, it would apply to ACHD and, then, the subsequent question -- or comments were to that response. Now, I think on the developer side, it would help that work get done quicker. Comish: Probably with ACHD's projects, they typically have liquidated damages associated with their projects or they can put that into the contract, so that it doesn't generally add to their cost, but it does give the contractor some incentive to get his work done efficiently. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think what Tammy was referring to is ACHD does a lot of their own labor. Are they going to be charged the same as this contractor? I understand your developers, but a lot of it isn't development where this -- where lanes are being tied up and stuff. They are general contractors. I'll guarantee you if you're going to charge them, it's going to come on the bottom of the -- it's going to come on the bid with a markup in it, so it's going to cost you a lot more money and it's going to take away projects, because it's going to run the money. Comish: But here is an interesting thought. If it was something that for some reason -- and, like I said, we are still studying all this. If it was applied to their projects, these lane rental fees are collected by the Ada County Highway District to go back into the general fund that would, then, to go towards projects. Bird: Yeah, but at the same token, if I'm a private contractor and I'm out there having to pay this fee and ACHD has got their own crew down the street doing the same thing, and it's not going against their cost -- which I know it isn't going against their cost, our taxpayers dollars pay for it, it's not fair to the private company. So, I think it's something that we really need to look at. Comish: Okay. That's a good point. Bird: And I can see it -- your development idea is very, very good, getting utilities and stuff across the road real fast and stuff, but I don't think the majority of your projects where the delays are is that development project, I think it's repairs of roads and stuff like that and a lot of it is your own ACHD employees. Comish: I can show you some stuff going both ways. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 25 of 29 Bird: Oh, I can, too. Comish: There is lots of development going on these days, lots of development, and especially -- I mean I know that they have had so many projects even in this town where contractors have just -- you know, they work on something and something happens and they got to go to another site and there is a detour sitting there and it's empty and it keeps the other guy from getting started in his job, because he has to detour people, too, and -- but, you're right, it's not just development that impacts the use of the right of way and efficient use of it. Anybody else? De Weerd: Sorry I threw that out at the end. Comish: Thank you. Item 5: Discussion concerning cell towers in R zones by Dave McKinnon from Pinnacle Engineering: Corrie: Thanks, John. Okay. Dave. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Dave and I are going to do the dog and pony. I think I'm the pony because -- but we met earlier today to discuss this and the issue at hand is that our cell tower ordinance really is focused on cell towers. What Dave has in front of you is more like the antenna that would get mounted on those towers. So, we kind of had some questions or just wanted to clarify the issue with you before these started going up. The ordinance allows for co-location of items and I think what the applicants would propose to do is locate these on light poles that are within residential neighborhoods. Otherwise, there would be no mechanism to put this antenna anywhere in a residential neighborhood, because cell towers, the fixture that would hold the antenna, are not allowed in residential neighbors currently. So, they would like to do it on telephone or -- either on telephone poles or on the subdivision entrance poles, the lights at the entrance to the subdivisions, which are about 30 feet tall. Then, we -- I guess the only remaining question was if they couldn't -- if there wasn't one available at a space for their coverage needs, to do a new tower as it's currently written, there would be no new towers allowed in residential areas, so that we need to direct Dave to come back with a zoning ordinance amendment or make some sort of determination that a stealth tower, disguised as a lighting fixture, would suffice in residential neighborhoods. McKinnon: Thanks, Anna. Corrie: Thank you, Anna. McKinnon: Mayor, Members of the Council, Dave McKinnon, 735 South Cross Timber, representing West Com tonight. Anna just mentioned that this is like something we'd put up on one of those antennas, this is, actually, the product that would be put up. This is the actual size. And as you can see, it's not what you would typically see in a Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 26 of 29 cell tower antenna. This is, essentially, a wireless communication facility for high-speed internet access. At your home you would have one of these small pieces at your house that would communicate with one of these on top of a telephone pole or on top of a light fixture and these would have to be about 35 feet in the air. So, you typically see one of these with another stacked on top of it, there would basically be two of these on top of a light fixture and at the bottom the only thing you would really see is a small electrical transformer type of box, just for the power and for the switches to be able to go back and forth on that, the ethernet switches and so forth. So, this is really what it is. We wanted to know that -- in talking with Anna we realized that when I wrote the ordinance back a year ago or so we went through the ordinance, this was never anything that I ever envisioned that we would ever see. I never thought there would be something that I could hold in one hand and show to you from the podium. This isn't what we expected when we were dealing with the cell tower ordinance and, of course, as everything has gotten bigger and better, it's also gotten littler and better as well and we are kind of into that portion of development these days where sometimes littler is better and that's what we have in something this small and we'd like to know if this is something that you would really consider to be a part of a cell tower ordinance or if this is something that we could put onto the light fixtures at the heads of the subdivisions, on top of the 30 foot tall light towers and basically get these up 35 feet. They are not visually intrusive, they can be painted to be the same color as the light pole. Essentially, you would see two or three of these small antennas stacked on top of each other with a small mushroom cover over them and that's what you would see on top of those light fixtures and so it wasn't anything that we ever envisioned when we were dealing with the cell tower ordinance and just wanted to know -- get your opinion on that as to whether or not this is something you would allow under the current ordinance or if this is something you'd like to see come back as a zoning ordinance amendment. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I'd certainly be in favor of that. McKinnon: Okay. De Weerd: Coming back as an amendment. Bird: I would second that. Corrie: I would, too. McKinnon: This is something that you guys would find favorable to also allow these in residential districts? De Weerd: No. We just want you to spend your time on it. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 27 of 29 Bird: To spend your time on it. McKinnon: I just had to get it clear. Bird: You're not on our payroll now, so you can spend all the time you want on it. McKinnon: Okay. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, so just to clarify it, Dave kind of gave you two questions and you -- I think you answered one of them, but I'm not sure you answered the other one. Right now it would seem that you could put it on light poles without doing the zoning ordinance amendment. The only thing that the zoning ordinance amendment, I think, would be needed for is new poles. But are you saying you would like him to do the ordinance amendment to allow them on light poles? Bird: Yes. De Weerd: Existing or new. Bird: That's right. Powell: Okay. Bird: So that it's clear. Powell: Okay. De Weerd: It should be clear. Bird: No gray area. McKinnon: Okay. Corrie: You can do that, Dave? McKinnon: I think I can do that. Okay. Did you guys have any questions about what this is or whether or not -- well, you will be seeing me again really soon, I think. Bird: Okay. Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Corrie: Mr. Berg. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 28 of 29 Berg: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I just have a question or a comment. Considering who owns the streetlights and where they may be, are these going to be just on the signal lights or actual streetlights that the city owns? McKinnon: Actual streetlights the city owns. I have had some discussion with Brad and with Gary about how we could do that and it would be through a license agreement. Berg: Okay. Thank you. Item 6: Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b): De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn into Executive Session per Idaho State Code 65-2345(1)(b). Bird: I second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call, please. Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, absent; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Corrie: Thank you. EXECUTIVE SESSION. De Weerd: Okay. I would accept a motion to come out of Executive Session. Bird: So moved. De Weerd: Do I get a second? McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to come out of Executive Session. No decisions were made. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: I would accept a motion for adjournment. Bird: So moved. McCandless: Second. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 9, 2003 Page 29 of 29 De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn the City Council Special Meeting. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:13 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) _______________________________ ______/______/______ MAYOR ROBERT CORRIE DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK