HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 04-18Meridian City Council Meeting April 18, 2006
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:10 P.M.,
Tuesday, April 18, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, Shaun
Wardle, and Joe Borton.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Bill Musser, Kenny Bowers, Bruce
Freckleton, Clint Dolsby, Brent Bjornson, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle X _ Joe Borton
X__ Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
_X_ Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. It is Tuesday, April 18th.
It is ten minutes after 7:00. Welcome tonight. We will start tonight's meeting with roll
call attendance.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: I guess I will do Items 2 and 3 before we have a narration from Councilman
Borton, so we can first pray before we see what has been sacrificed. Item 2 is our
pledge of allegiance. Tonight will be led in the pledge by seniors at Meridian High
School, Maureen Cratchley and Megan Posey.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian
Gospel Tabernacle:
De Weerd: Megan and Maureen, I would like to offer you City of Meridian pins for
leading us in tonight's pledge. Okay. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight
we will be led by Pastor Bud Henthorne with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle. If you will all
join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of
silence. Bud.
Henthorne: Father, first of all, we are grateful today that you no longer require the blood
of animals as a sacrifice to atone for our sins. We thank you for the grace and the
mercy that we have received. God, we are thankful for those leaders in our past on
whose shoulders we stand. We are thankful for those people whose wisdom and
foresight has helped make this city to be one of the best places in the world for young
people. We thank you, Lord God, for the youth of this community, for their energy, for
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 2 of 99
their vision, for their hope. We thank you Lord God for what they bring to us each day.
God, we are grateful that this is a growing community and people from all over the
world are coming here. God, we are grateful for the gifts and talents that they bring to
our city. We are grateful, Lord God, for the ethnic and cultural diversity that is in our
future. We are grateful, Lord Jesus, for -- for the prosperity that we share here in this
place and we ask that your continued blessing would rest on the City of Meridian, on its
leaders, and on its people, in Jesus' name, amen.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Borton.
Borton: I'm not too sure how to welcome Councilman Wardle, our president, back, but
we do welcome him back to the City of Meridian. We have before you -- to display
some of the tourist goodies that he has returning from his trip to Africa on his hunting
trip. It might be a precursor to anyone who wants to bring forth an application for a zoo
within the City of Meridian. Councilman Wardle will need to recuse himself from any
such discussion. You can see from his Africa trip -- I don't know if you can -- you can
see the rope that's tied around the ankle of these animals and tied to a tree. We have
received word, though, that Councilman Wardle is no longer Councilman Wardle, he is
Councilman Umgawa, which we are told from the African natives on his trip means
great Council hunter. So, he will be known as that name from now on. Councilman
Umgawa, welcome back. We appreciate you bringing back yourself and your assorted
carcasses. Well done.
Wardle: Thank you.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: How do you spell that? Thank you, Mr. Borton. Item No. 4 is adoption of
agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We start with our resolution number 06-511, 512, 513, and 514. On the regular
agenda, Item No. 8, has been asked by legal to be pulled. Our ordinances on -- we will
start with 06-1226 and 1227 and 1228. With that I would move that we approve the
revised agenda.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the amended agenda and a second. All
those in favor say aye. Councilmember Umgawa or whatever your name is, did you
vote?
Wardle: Yes, I did. All ayes.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 3 of 99
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of April 4, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting:
B. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Agreement for
Monica Subdivision with B2 Investments:
C. Water Main Easement Agreement for Heritage Middle School
with Meridian School District:
D. Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the Black
Cat Phase 3 Trunk with Soo W. Lee:
E. Sanitary Sewer Easement for Heritage Middle School with
Meridian School District:
F. Water Main Easement Agreement for Silverstone Town Square
with Sundance, Co.:
G. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Agreement for
Paramount Village Center with Brighton Commercial, Inc:
H. Development Agreement: AZ 05-063 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 5.03 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Quenzer North
Subdivision by Brighton Development, Inc. – north of East Ustick
Road and west of North Locust Grove Road:
I. Development Agreement: AZ 05-066 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of .50 acres from R-12 to C-G zone for Meridian
Veterinary Clinic by Architecture Northwest – 415 West Franklin
Road:
J. Development Agreement: AZ 06-002 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 0.43 acres from RUT to L-O (Limited Office District)
for Strada Bellissima Subdivision Outparcel by Strada
Bellissima, LLC – 3015 South Meridian Road:
K. Resolution No. : Adopting Purchasing
Policy for the City of Meridian:
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 4 of 99
L. Resolution No. : Ratifying Council’s
Approval of Meridian Parks Recreation Fees for 2006:
M. Resolution No. : Public Works Fees
Changes as authorized in Title 9, Chapter 1 Water Use and
Service, and Title 9, Chapter 4 Sewer Use and Service of
Meridian City Code including water and wastewater
assessment, water meters and appurtenances, and water
system itemized damage fees:
N. First Addendum to Contract to Commission an Artwork
between Sculptures by BJH, LLC and the City of Meridian:
O. Original Pump Station Operation and Maintenance Agreement
for Chateau Park with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District:
P. United Water Certificated Area Agreement:
R. Approve Beer, Wine, and Liquor License Renewals:
Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill – Beer & Liquor
Bill N Lynn’s Place – Beer & Liquor
Harvest Buffet – Beer & Wine
JB’s Restaurant – Beer & Wine
Lakeview Golf Club – Beer & Liquor
Maverick Country Store – Beer & Wine
Maverick Country Store – Beer & Wine
Meridian Bowling Lanes – Beer & Liquor
Muggsy’s Sports Bar – Beer & Liquor
Pier 49 Pizza – Beer
Pier 49 Pizza – Beer
Ram Restaurant – Beer & Liquor
Round Table Pizza – Beer & Wine
Sidelines Sports Bar – Beer & Wine
Tobacco Connection – Beer & Wine
Top Shelf, LLC – Beer & Liquor
Vina Restaurant - Beer
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. – Beer & Wine
Winco Foods #48 – Beer & Wine
De Weerd: Okay. Item 5 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 5 of 99
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda, which includes Item K, is resolution
number 06-511, L is 06-512, and M is 06-513. And for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk
to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion,
Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Department Reports:
A. Parks and Recreation Department – Doug Strong / Elroy Huff
1. Discussion of Cost Estimate and Concept Plan for
Meridian Settler’s Village Square:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Under Department Reports we will start with our parks
department. Mr. Strong.
Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. As many of you will recall,
I believe that Councilman Borton is the only person that hasn't seen this concept
drawing earlier in the year that was presented by members of The Land Group that's
actually put together the concept design and just wanted to do a quick review of what
we are looking for in that one remaining corner of Meridian Settler's Park for a proposal
of how to develop that corner and is what we are looking for tonight is for your approval
before we proceed with any development -- any further development to make sure that
this development concept is what satisfies the original intent of the development of this
park. In this corner right here is a corner of Meridian Road and Ustick and in the
discussion with an advisory committee that we put together to review this concept and
several interested groups from the community, the concept of a community corner or
community plaza was created and a pedestrian entry at this corner. The primary entry
into the parking lot area is off Meridian Road, but we thought that this would make a
nice pedestrian entry and as you can see with the designs, it would propose an
archway or some kind of welcoming type entry for this corner. And, then, this area
would be a plaza area. In the concept what was discussed was the creation of a
community gathering place or community building, a relatively simple building that
would have, essentially, concrete floors and the ability to open the doors on the side of
the building that would be kind of open air in the summertime or that you could close in
the wintertime, like in January when we do the chili feed, so that you can both heat it
and have year around events in a building that would be -- that would meet fire code,
that would have adjacent paved parking, rather than the dirt parking lot that's currently
being used at the dairy barn facilities and so forth. So, some kind of community
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 6 of 99
building here, a central plaza area and, then, a gazebo area with some kind of a stage
area or place for other community events or small concerts or whatever in this corner.
A pathway connecting, then, to -- in this design an eight court tennis complex and the
idea from the advisory group was that an eight -- six to eight court tennis complex would
encourage state and regional tennis competition and there is no place, apparently, in
the valley that that number of courts would be available in one location where you could
have that kind of competition. And adjacent to it are 16 horseshoe courts, a shelter
building, and there is the existing restroom building at Adventure Island Playground.
So, essentially, the idea is to finish that corner with activities or a design that would be
consistent with the way the rest of the park is developed. At the time that the concept
was presented you asked for us to come back with a cost estimate of what kind of
dollars we are looking at to do this. So, in your packets I think you have seen an
estimate of the different elements or facilities that would -- if we were just to put this --
this corner out to contract what it would cost to get that done. Obviously, the project
would need to be phased and like other park projects we would be looking for
partnerships to build the different components of the park. We currently have eight
horseshoe courts that will be -- that the individual that owns them is willing to donate to
the horseshoe court area for competition and that's just one example of the kind of
things that could happen in the future. So, with that kind of minimal introduction, I
would be happy to answer questions that you have after you've had a chance to look at
some of these costs.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Mr. Strong, as you -- right now are you looking for direction from the Council as
far as getting some engineering done, putting that out to bid, and seeing what can or
can't be done on this site versus making a decision on specific amenities?
Strong: Madam Mayor and Councilman Borton. That's correct. What we really need at
this time to go forward with any further plans or development is your approval of a
concept for how to develop this area. Already one thing that's changed recently is we
had a history center proposed in this area. In discussion with the historical society that
that would not be a location for the history center. So, as the plan develops there will
certainly be some changes as to how this actually looks, but it would -- we would stay
consistent to this concept for how to develop it. And so what we need for our budgeting
purposes that we are in right now is approval of the concept, so we can go ahead and
put together enhancements that would move us towards the next phase and the next
phase would be looking for engineering documents to actually get utilities in and start
developing this corner.
De Weerd: Council, just to clarify, the historical society will be -- has looked at the brick
building that we have on site at the creamery and once we have a structural engineer
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 7 of 99
look at that, we do think it is structurally sound and that would be the location for the
history center. Any other questions? None?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I believe that Mr. Strong is looking for direction on how to move forward.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Doug, if the request is merely approval of the concept plan and there is not yet
any allocations yet, I take it, for --
Strong: No, it is not.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: If there is no other discussion, I move that we approve the concept plan as
presented by Mr. Strong, so we can get some more progress on the completion of
development of Meridian Settler's Village Square.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. I would assume that motion excludes
the history center on there in the Concept Plan.
Borton: To the extent the concept plan excludes it, sure.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: I know it's at least a moving target. It's kind of a work in progress, so --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: These items will -- I mean once we get the concept -- we got the concept now, but
I mean get farther along with some of these other things, I have got some problems with
a -- with a history of public money going to clock towers.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 8 of 99
De Weerd: Okay. Then, would you like to see another entry -- they kind of show a
couple of different things?
Bird: Yeah. I think that's something that we can definitely look at.
De Weerd: If you will take that in consideration.
Bird: And I -- and, you know, get these prices. I realize these are prices six months old
or better. Probably add about a 15 to 20 percent to it.
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, actually, in looking through the price
list, some of these prices probably have gone up, some probably we won't need. So, I
think there is certainly some adjustment in -- you know, these are all estimates. As an
example, the tennis court, the seating area is kind of a concrete bulkhead with grassy
areas, quite expensive to do it that way. That may not be the most practical way for us
to proceed. So, I think as we start actually developing it, we are going to have to
address many of those final questions and bring them back to you with each phase of
the project.
De Weerd: Doug, when they bring back that concept plan, can they show us two
different alternative in pricing, so you see with grass seeding or with just a grassy slope.
Strong: We can.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Strong: Thank you.
2. Impact Fee Request for Completion of Season’s Park
Pump House:
De Weerd: Thank you. Next item. Good evening.
Huff: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Can you hear me all
right? I can't --
Bird: You bet.
Huff: Okay. I will get right to it. It deals with the Autumn Faire pump station. I talked
with Council about Autumn Faire's pump station in September, I think, of last fall. At
that time we were bouncing some things around with the irrigation district on that site for
that Seasons Park site and with Hubble Homes and we were approached by a
developer to see if we would go into a regional pump station with them to the west of
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 9 of 99
the park site and bring a line back to the park. That was a really good idea and I like
that, because I knew that we would come out on the top side of that costwise and that
went on for several months and, then, in some investigation I realized that they weren't
going to be able to develop west for awhile. So, that kind of went down the drain. So,
from there I let that sit and just cool off a little bit and we came back later and started
looking at that again. It took quite awhile in negotiations with the irrigation district to
figure out a good way to get water at this site. Now, we had water at the site, but not
enough that we wouldn't be in a 24 hour water situation. So, in some negotiation with
them, we figured out a way to make that work, so we re-approached Hubble and the
irrigation district and asked them for some help on this site. The irrigation in an earlier
construction phase from a developer had some money that was dedicated to the
upgrade of irrigation to this subdivision. They cannot upgrade their pump stations
anymore than they already have. There is no more capacity. So, they offered to bring
some money, which was 18,000 dollars, to this pump station site and to put it in there.
In conjunction with that, they offered some other equipment to this site that they had
that was new that had not been used. The value of that is about 2,000 dollars for a
screening structure for a pump station. So, they are going to donate that to this pump
station overall cost. And they are having that meeting tonight at the irrigation district
and I had a good long talk with John Anderson about that. He's the one that talked to
them about that. He said he feels like it's a done deal, other than he's got to talk to the
district board about reallocating that money to this site. My negotiations with Hubble --
I've talked to them several times. They like what's going on here. They seem to be
interested in that. The last few days I haven't been able to raise them. And no matter
what happens, I have to build a pump station to get surface irrigation water to this park.
I have fresh water to this park, which we will have to run off for a month or so and get
the rest of the pump station built and, then, we will be able to have surface water from
here out. That's a pretty short tail of the whole thing, but in the end they'll still have to
build a pump station. It's easier with all the things that go on for me to do it and make
sure that it gets done right and, then, if I can get clearance from Hubble to come on,
then, our costs -- our overall costs for that pump station will go down, because that
money will be reimbursed to the city. If they don't, I'll make some changes in the pump
station. The cost will still come down and we will just go forward with what we have.
It's what I have to do anyway.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Elroy?
Bird: Elroy, give me a -- what does this pump station -- does this include all the pumps
and everything like that or are those already -- they are not -- they are not in this park.
This is -- is this the building over the pump?
Huff: This is complete.
Bird: This is the pumps and everything.
Huff: Everything.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 10 of 99
Bird: Okay.
Huff: And what the public gets out of that whole deal, if they come on line with us, what
they get is they get two holes in that pump station to put pumps in to upgrade later.
That's what they get. They'll just give us the money that's their half -- about their half of
paying the infrastructure installation of that. That's what their part is.
Bird: Follow up?
Huff: Still what I have to do, no matter whether they are on line or not, I still have to do
that.
Bird: Follow up. Now, we don't have signed agreements with neither Nampa-Meridian
or Hubble Homes at this point?
Huff: Right. I believe that we will be okay --
Bird: Just verbal agreements.
Huff: Right. We do -- and I think that those will come along okay. Hubble has that
choice to make of when they can develop that site to the west. They are very interested
in staying in one site and I think it will work good from that site, it just depends on
whether they want to, but they are smart enough to know how to save themselves 20 or
30 thousand dollars and they were right up front on that.
Bird: And we save $5.18 by --
Huff: I thought about that later, but it was too late. Diane deals in accuracy, so -- but,
anyway, somewhere close to that is what we would be requesting from Council tonight.
Bird: Tell her we will take up a donation.
Huff: But it should work well. What happens with that is -- is we get our park watered in
a timely manner. We also provide some extra water to the Autumn Faire, Tricia's
Crossing sub, which is just about at their capacity of existing pumps. So, what we get is
we get something from them and they get something from us. It works out.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor, I do have one. I think it's just a clarification seeing how we don't
have agreements with Hubble or Nampa-Meridian right now, we need to make, I
believe, the motion for the 80,000 right now, because we do not have a signed
agreement. So, if the park liaison feels up to that, that would be my opinion.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 11 of 99
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Councilman Bird, I -- you're right on the money. We are sort of backed up
against the wall. It sounds like Elroy has done diligent work and Nampa-Meridian and
Hubble have both indicated to you, at least orally --
Huff: Sure did.
Borton: -- that they are in agreement to share -- I note that Hubble's portion you list at
26,365?
Huff: Yeah.
Borton: You have also used the word shared equally. Is the intent that they are going
to split the cost 50-50 with the city?
Huff: It's not quite 50-50, because there is a few things that we put into pump stations
they generally don't. That's what reflects a little bit difference in -- a few thousand
difference in cost between us and them. It's close to 50-50, except that one thing that
we -- a couple things that we put in there they don't need to put in theirs and it may be
ours is in there, but we exclusively use it for us, not for them.
Bird: Another question.
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Elroy, I don't want to put you on the spot or anything, but is 80,000 enough? We
are not going to have to come back and have change orders and stuff like that? Do you
feel comfortable with 80? Or do you need 85 or do you need -- what?
Huff: Sure. No. The prices change all the time. I can tell you how old these numbers
are. About two weeks.
Bird: Okay.
Huff: I haven't made any other changes. I did try to build in some contingency. It's not
listed separately here, so that's kind of where I'm at.
Bird: And you feel comfortable with that?
Huff: Yeah.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion?
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 12 of 99
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve -- effect the requested allocation of $80,005.18 for
completion of the Seasons Park pump house.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to approve the request in front of you.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Any discussion? Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Whether you want to include it in this motion or in a subsequent motion, I got the
sense from the Council you want them to complete the process of getting the
reimbursement agreements done, as well as the reimbursements going back to the
impact fee account. So, you can do that as either part of this motion or separately, but
you may want to include that direction as well.
Borton: The motion maker would include that in this motion.
Bird: The second would agree.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
3. Discussion of Resolution Establishing the Meridian
Parks & Recreation Commission and Adopting the By-
Laws of the Meridian Parks & Recreation Commission:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. And Item 3 under A. Is that Doug or Mr. Nary?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think this is probably both. The parks
commission, when they began the year, one of the charges that the president of the
commission wanted was to complete the bylaws for the commission's operation. He did
a draft, I reviewed the draft, made some changes and amendments, and they did
review them at their last meeting and did approve them and so there is a resolution at
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 13 of 99
the end of your agenda tonight to formally pass those bylaws if they meet the Council's
approval. There was a question that was raised last week regarding whether or not the
appropriate title of the head of the commission is chairman or vice-chairman. I did
check. We did make an amendment to the parks commission ordinance in 2004 and it
did change the title to president and vice-president. So, that is the right term that's in
the bylaws as to what the heads of those -- that commission is referred to. So, the
bylaws are correct as written. If they meet the Council's satisfaction you have a
resolution to approve them. If you want other changes, you want to remand that, that's
up to you.
De Weerd: Do you have anything to add, Doug?
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that one thing to point out that
this was a goal early in the year for the commission to accomplish this task. They
talked about bylaws for several years. So, something that they moved quickly on and
certainly appreciate the attorney's office helping sort out the initial draft down to what fit
with the existing ordinance and what ended up in the bylaws. So, I think this will just be
a good procedural policy to follow for the commission.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? Okay. Mr. Borton.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: I would like to say that the parks and rec. commission -- I'd like to give them
kudos for the fantastic job when I see them through and get the bylaws approved and
the time they take trying to make sure they comment on and participate in the
development of the parks and recreation opportunities in Meridian, each and every one
of them do a fantastic job and take it very seriously and I appreciate that and I know
fellow Councilmen do as well. I think these bylaws go a long way towards firming up
their roll as active players in the development of our parks and we encourage and
appreciate their efforts in doing so. With that I would move that we do approve the
bylaws of the Meridian parks and rec. commission.
Bird: We've got to wait. We have got a resolution at the end.
Borton: Then I don't. Just excited about parks and rec.
De Weerd: Certainly I hope you do pass on Councilman Borton's comments to the
commission and with the agreed upon sentiments from certainly the Mayor and I'm sure
the Council as well.
Strong: Thank you.
B. Police Department – Bill Musser
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 14 of 99
1. Update on Current Hiring Challenges and Change to
Current MPD Hiring Policy to Drop Requirement for
Intermediate Certification to Basic Certification:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item B. Chief Musser.
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as a means of highlighting where we
are currently at with hiring, I thought it would be best to do a department report tonight
to let you know that we have eight openings and I'm looking at July to have to fill some
of those openings. However, Meridian is in pretty much the same boat that a lot of
other people are in terms of police departments around the nation in that it's becoming
a real tough market for our officers out there. One of the main things that we are
looking at is -- I do have a policy at this point, which is in place under our department
policy 2-1-6, Section D, Item P, as in Paul, which does require an intermediate
certificate in lieu of the 60 college credits to be able to apply to the Meridian Police
Department. What I'm asking for is consideration and a possible motion that would
allow me to go ahead and change that to a requirement of a basic certificate only, as
opposed to the intermediate, which would expand our potential candidate base as we
move into this need to hire the additional officers before July. In conjunction with that,
we also are facing some problems in that publicsafetytesting.com, which we have been
utilizing for our testing, won't be doing another test before August in this immediate
area, so we are securing the means right know to be able to go out and do our own
testing at this point utilizing a national company to be able to help us do that on site
here in Meridian and utilize for the occasional -- a web-based test as well. Funding on
that looks like we will be able to accommodate within our current budget and I'll have
more for you on that as we get closer to that, but in order to move forward I did want
some consideration regarding the change in the current policy, if it's in the agreement
with Council.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Any questions or comments? Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, from the human resources department
we would also support this policy change and the recruitment phase. It is a challenge.
I mean as the chief has stated, there is very active recruiters for various police
departments in our local area and the pool is -- of quality candidates is sometimes
pretty challenging to get to and I think this change will help in our recruitment without
lowering the hiring standards that we have. I mean we are still going to have all the
background and all the other things that the police goes through, but it just allows us to
have a larger pool of candidates to select from and I think it's a good change that the
chief is proposing. I would suggest if the Council is in agreement, if you want to move
to approve this policy, we can do that and we can also bring back a resolution. I believe
-- and chief can correct me if I'm wrong -- I think the whole policy manual that you
operate from was approved by the Council initially and so, therefore, this policy change
would probably make sense to have another resolution and we could follow that up next
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 15 of 99
week. But if you're in agreement with it, we can go forward on it now. Am I correct,
chief? I was going to look it up real quick, but I thought we did it that way.
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Nary, you are correct, annually I
do bring in a revision of the policy manual to cover those areas. However, this one is
significant enough we need to start moving forward. I did definitely want to have some
determination onto Council, especially where it does concern a policy issue as we move
forward on it.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I was simply going to agree with the chief and the HR
department and make a motion if there were no more comments.
De Weerd: Any comments?
Bird: Let's go for it.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the policy change for the police
department on current hiring challenges and -- or, excuse me, change to current MPD
hiring policy and direct staff to draft a resolution and bring it back to the Council for
approval.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve and a second. Any discussion? And
since this is a policy, I know we will be voting on a resolution, but I will ask the clerk to
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Public Works Department – Len Grady
1. Public Works Zip Code Addition for the City of Meridian:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item C. I know I don't see Len Grady over there, so
take it.
Freckleton: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The part of Len Grady
will be played by Bruce Freckleton tonight. First of all, I owe you and the Council an
apology, as this is old news that I'm bringing before you tonight. Our initial plan was to
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 16 of 99
report to you at last Tuesday's City Council meeting about the proposed change from
the U.S. Post Office for a new zip code in Meridian. Unfortunately, we had kind of a
breakdown in communication in the office and the right hand didn't know what the left
hand was doing and we didn't get it on the agenda, so I apologize. Basically this -- this
proposal will take effect on July 1st. Properties north of Fairview-Cherry Lane to
Chinden Boulevard, with the exception of the businesses or residences that have
frontage on Fairview or Cherry, will get a new zip code. The new zip code will be 83646
and the post office will, basically, honor both zip codes for a period of time, so that
would allow people time to officially get their zip codes changed with all their bill
collectors and everybody else. So, that's basically it. If there any questions?
De Weerd: Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
2. Memorandum of Understanding between the City of
Meridian and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 2 is an MOU between Meridian and the LDS church for what?
Radek: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I will be playing the other half of Len Grady
tonight. My name is Kyle Radek, I'm a staff engineer in the Public Works. This item is a
memorandum of understanding between the LDS church and the City of Meridian. And
if you look at the vicinity map you can see where the -- we are calling it the CPB,
because it's the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints and CPB is much shorter and nicer to say. You can see where their
property is off of Lake Hazel Road and they desire to be served by city water. We
desire to serve them. That will require the construction of a -- quite a bit of 12 inch
water main, which is kind of a common thing to put on an MOU and a reimbursement
agreement. What's a little less common about this particular one is in order to properly
serve properties that are located by the CPB property itself and, then, properties around
there at the top of the hill, we need to come from the -- the new Black Rock booster
station to get the pressure we need and the flow we need. So, in this MOU we put that
the 1,660 linear foot of the ten inch waterline coming from the booster station, may be
eligible for reimbursement if it proofs to be of benefit to the city, because that line will
not remain once the infrastructure comes in around this property, that line will at some
time before be obsolete. So, we wanted to present this to the board and the Mayor to
have some discussion on how they felt about that as we move forward with the
agreement. But we do recommend that the board approve this MOU.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Okay. And you are seeking approval of
this; correct?
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 17 of 99
Radek: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no comments or questions, Council, I would need a
motion.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the MOU as stated and authorize the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve the MOU. Any discussion? Mr. Berg,
will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Planning Department – Anna Canning
1. Budget or Line Item Amendment for Planning
Department:
De Weerd: Well, thank you for both as stand-ins for Len. We will let him know he was
well represented. Okay. Item D is our Planning Department.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just handed out to you a budget
amendment and I'd like to go through that with you, take a quick opportunity to go
through it and explain what that is. It is a request for -- to fund a graduate intern within
the planning department and I think that this would be a real benefit to both the short-
term and the long-term needs of the department and for the city. Some of you may or
may not know, BSU is trying to get a graduate certificate in planning going and with that
they will have graduate students who need to fill an intern requirement. There is also --
University of Idaho has an architectural graduate program that has internship
requirements that are often looking for internships. So, we would have a potential pool
of applicants locally to fill this intern position. In my recent hiring efforts I have
discovered that a lot of graduate students want to fill the associate city planner position
and almost none of them have any sort of local government experience that would be of
benefit in hiring them to this position. So, I really do see this as a benefit to the
universities, as well as to the city, where we are getting these potential applicants that
need some -- particularly site analysis training and it would help to serve some of the
administrative and lower level planning functions for the office and, as I said, benefit
long term in training potential future associate planners. The position can be funded
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 18 of 99
from my current budget. I would need to transfer some from my personnel expenses to
my operating and my capital expenses. The transfer to operating would be 775 and
that's to go for mostly a chair and some other -- a phone was the other one. So, that's
what most of that is for. And, then, 1,700 would need to go in for a computer. So, I
would -- I can answer any questions you may have on it now. If you'd like to wait until
next week to act on it, I understand that completely, since this is new information for
you. So, again, this would just be a line item transfer and it's for an intern position, so it
would be a short-term commitment. I could bring this back to you with the fiscal year
'07 budget if you'd like also, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Do you have a desk to go with the chair?
Canning: I bought the desk already to go with the chair. We happened to have an
extra desk left over from the -- kind of the clerk function that was in the office. So, now
I'm just short a chair and computer and phone.
De Weerd: Any questions from Council?
Bird: Let's don't wait. She needs another person still.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a line item transfer, not a budget amendment, but would you
like to take it up next week or --
Bird: Let's do it now and get going.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I think we can handle this right now. Did the clerk take the
chair?
Canning: No. He took the computer. He didn't take the chair.
Bird: The clerk has got a desk here, I hope.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve line item budget amendment for the
planning department in the amount of 8,745 dollars.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve the request in front of you. Mr. Berg,
will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 19 of 99
Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8: Pretermination Hearing for Rozann & Douglas Anderson, 52 Rose
Circle:
De Weerd: Item 8 has been withdrawn from the agenda.
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from March 14, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15
and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC – 2935 North Eagle Road:
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from March 14, 2006: RZ 05-019 Request
for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for
Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC – 2935
North Eagle Road:
Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from March 14, 2006: PP 05-059 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi-
family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville
Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC – 2935 North Eagle
Road:
Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from March 14, 2006: CUP 05-052 Request
for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet
of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC – 2935 North Eagle Road:
Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from March 14, 2006: MI 05-013
Miscellaneous request for a Private Street application for multifamily and
commercial development for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC – 2935 North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: So, I will go to Item 9, which is a continued Public Hearing from March 14th
on AZ 05-057. I will also open 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 -- no. Fourteen.
Nary: Not 14.
Canning: Not 14.
De Weerd: As well. With staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you heard the Bienville Square
application on March 14th and at that time you asked the applicant to come back for
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 20 of 99
more details on the architecture of the residential and commercial buildings on the site
and also to provide more information about the cross-access through the property to the
north. So, the Bienville property includes this portion that's already annexed and, then,
this unannexed, unzoned portion here. So, with that I will answer questions Council
may have, but I think that what you really wanted to do was hear from the applicant
and, then, you still have the question of the variance to consider after this application.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Thank you. If you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Unger: Madam Chair, Councilmembers, my name is Bob Unger, I'm with Redcliff
Development. Our address is 787 East State Street, Suite 125, Eagle. 83616. And,
Anna, do you have that --
Canning: Did you give me a disk?
Unger: Yeah. I brought it in this morning and gave it to staff and they loaded it on your
computer. I hope.
Canning: Okay. Sorry. Just a moment.
De Weerd: Okay. And for the record, Council, as Anna does that, you do have a
number of letters in front of you that the clerk's office did photocopy as they received it.
Mr. Berg, will you, please, read the names of those letters into the record.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm just checking to make sure I had all four of them.
A letter from Jim and Joan Lott. Raymond and Kathy Tomzcak. Betty Rosso. And a
whole bunch of people it looks like from their area. Has the applicant seen these?
Unger: No, we have not.
Berg: These are -- it looks like they all were received today. In fact, some of them were
received after 5:00 o'clock today.
Canning: Sorry, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My computer blew up.
De Weerd: Is it fatal or just temporary?
Canning: I think it's just temporary. There you go, Bob.
Unger: Thank you. Okay. As Anna had commented, in our last meeting of March 14th,
the Council specifically requested that we bring back to them four or five items that they
wanted some clarification on specifically and what -- that's what we have brought before
you this evening. Go to the next one, Anna. One of the first things we want to show
you is that there were concerns -- you wanted to see what our retail buildings would be
looking like, so we have gone to BRS Architects to ask them to prepare a couple of
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 21 of 99
elevations for you. This is a -- the general design of the retail buildings that we would
be considering for the project. And, Anna, if you could go to the next one, please. And
this would be the design for the office building within the project. We haven't quite
decided which of the colors that we would like to work with. Once, again, we have got
this prepared by BRS for us. If you can go to the next one. The four-plex structures, I
believe Mr. Rountree wanted to see a better view of what these buildings would look
like. I think there were concerns about them looking more like a barracks. These are
the buildings that we are proposing on the project. We have a couple -- actually, four
different color variations. This is blue with beige. This is a dark beige, light beige
combination. And very hard to see here. This is a -- this is a dark red and a light green
combination. We also would be -- you know, we have got wainscoting along the front of
the buildings. So, those are the four-plex buildings that we are proposing. If you go to
the next one. I believe the last time we were -- we only had one building to show you
as far as the rear load buildings. We now have these three buildings that we would be
proposing along the rear load portion of the project. And, then, this would be -- these
are the buildings that we would be proposing for the western property, the western
boundary along those lots, which are our larger lots within the project, trying to breakup
a -- put together a nice variety. These we have gotten from Hunter Homes. And the
other item that I believe the Mayor specifically requested that we bring back -- there
were concerns about how we were going to have cross-access, what were those
cross-access aisles through the Sadie Creek Promenade project here, which would
gain us access to Ustick Road. What we have drawn down in here -- we have drawn in
the specific aisles that we feel are the appropriate cross-access aisles from us to
access at Ustick. We have been in discussion with Lan Barrett, who is the owner of the
project -- or of the property of the Sadie Creek Promenade. We are preparing cross-
access documents. They are being prepared between our development and theirs to
provide them -- because they will also need cross-access through our project, in
addition to our needing access through their project. And, of course, this would be a
public road and we are also -- what also is being prepared is a construction easement
in the event that we are able move forward and develop before they are prepared to
develop, so that we can go ahead and construct this road and when they go in and
develop their portion, their property, and get a recorded plat, then, this would be
dedicated as required by ACHD and by the city. So, we feel that we have got a very
good cross-access here. We have got some room for traffic to flow over to Ustick and
gain all three of these accesses and we think we have worked this out very well with the
adjoining property. And I believe that covers the items that the Mayor and the Council
wanted us to bring back. So, I'll stand for any questions you might have on that.
De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Unger, my question was on that tot lot.
Unger: I'm sorry. Oh, the tot lot here?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Unger: And your question was -- I'm sorry.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 22 of 99
De Weerd: Well, it's just right behind a commercial or office and I thought it was an odd
place to put a tot lot so close to that kind of retail. I guess it was my impression that you
were going to look at the possibility of relocating or providing some kind of safety
features to that.
Unger: Madam Mayor, in -- I believe we did discuss that this will be fenced. And there
is a 25 foot landscape strip that's required on the Sadie Creek side and, then, we have
at least -- at least 30 feet to that point there. And we also discussed the possibilities of
kind of fencing off the playground area. But this certainly would be fenced all the way
up through here. If the Council wished to -- would like for us to move that, we do have
other areas we could relocated it to. It's just that we have a clubhouse here. We are
putting a clubhouse here. A pool here. And the parking and everything. It's all pretty
well designed so that we can -- you know, so we'd have a nice playground area here
and access in this area. But if it's the Council's wish that we relocate that, we will be
more than glad to do that.
De Weerd: Okay. Any comments?
Bird: Madam Mayor, what's your concern with it being there?
De Weerd: Well, at the time I don't think we knew if there was a roadway or what the
front or the back of that commercial or office and what kind of safety precautions were
there. You know what can go on behind buildings that don't have any windows to them,
so --
Bird: But being close to the clubhouse and the pool, I don't know where there would be
a better place, to be truthful with you, as it sits now.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Did the applicant answer your questions at
this point?
Rountree: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We do have a number of people who have
signed up and indicated opposition to this application. When I call your name -- yes,
Mr. Unger.
Unger: Sorry. I don't mean to interrupt, but I thought that we were tabled for these
specific items only. So, it kind of catches me off guard that we are going to take more
testimony.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my only direction was it was continued
only for those items. I mean, certainly, people can comment on what you brought back,
because they have never seen it before.
Unger: Okay. I'm sorry.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 23 of 99
Nary: But if -- so, if the staff -- or the testimony confines itself to that.
Unger: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. So, with those side boards placed, I do have some people who have
signed up. If you'd like to provide testimony, when I call your name if you will come
forward. Betty Rosso. Against. Okay. Okay. Something Town. Okay. Was also
signed up and did not indicate for, against, or neutral. Okay. It is noted as against.
Candy Seeley against. Okay. Linda Morris against. Adaline Chambers against. Jerry
Morrisette. Against. And Billy Knorpp. Against. And I know I already asked you how
to pronounce your name. Did I mess it up again this year?
Knorpp: You're pretty close this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, you printed it better this time.
Knorpp: Well, I did something better. Yes. I was more careful. With two silent letters
to my name it's hard to get it right. First and last letters are both silent. My name is
Billy Knorpp. I live at 2972 Leslie Drive. The only reason I decided to say something
this time was it appears that some of the things that were agreed to before have not
actually come. So, I'm just talking about this access here and what was described
before. This part right here is supposed to have, as is the whole path, a double barrier
of trees all along that path. It appears they changed the drawing, so that right there
there is a road going right along the path there will be no double barrier of trees, which
was promised in the original last time. That is when we met here last time, that was
what was promised, that there would be a double barrier of trees all along there, just as
sort of an aside, none of us like the fact there is going to be high density housing there
right in back of our properties. So, a good barrier -- if we can't stop that, the minimum
we need is a good barrier and that's why I say as it appears here that that was changed
and along here where I'm pointing, and possibly here where this playground is or
whatever it is that's there, it's hard to tell from the drawing. I'm just guessing, because
he didn't actually describe any detail this time about that, of course. It wasn't his
intention to do that. Nor was it the reason for this. I only bring it up, because it appears
to have changed from the agreement we had last time when you had the whole project
being explained to you. So, what I would hope is that that -- that there would be -- that
a good barrier, which has been described before, at least we will get -- if we -- if we
can't make what it was originally planned, which was light office in back of us, that at
least we have a very good barrier between us and all those high density homes.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions? Anna, can you tell if that
has --
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the slide I had from the
previous application. The orientation has shifted, but from what I can tell, it looks the
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 24 of 99
same as what they provided then. So, I don't believe they have changed this layout at
all since the last one.
De Weerd: Okay. And we will ask the applicant as well. But thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: What -- as you go up, what's the trees showing there? That does show a double
tree. See, kid, down on the -- right there on the corner in the --
Canning: These?
Bird: Yeah. Then over here she shows double trees. Way over. By themselves.
Canning: This right here?
Bird: Yeah.
Canning: Yeah. That was -- unfortunately, that got clipped off. I think that was a profile
of this --
Bird: That's what I mean.
Canning; Yeah. I think it's still in the record.
Bird: That's a profile that shows along there, so there was double trees? I thought
somebody had mentioned something about double trees.
Canning: So, it is in the record from the commitment from last hearing.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any other testimony on this application? Okay. Mr. Unger,
any final remarks?
Unger; Madam Chair, Council, Bob Unger, again, with Redcliff. We have made no
changes whatsoever to this plan. We still have the double row of trees with the path in
the middle of them and, then, the wrought iron fence and the 18 foot area for the
Nampa-Meridian. So, there have been no changes whatsoever made to this plan since
our last meeting.
De Weerd: Okay. And all you did was bring back the elevations as requested.
Unger: Yes, Madam Mayor, that's correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions from Council?
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 25 of 99
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Yeah. One question, Mr. Unger. From the continuation of last meeting were
you contacted by any of the homeowners to talk about the issues that are here today,
specifically, the design of the residential buildings?
Unger: I personally was not and I'm not aware of anyone within our office that was
contacted.
Borton: Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just for the record's sake, since Mr. Unger has just received these letters tonight
addressed to the Council, have you had adequate time to review and you feel you have
had opportunity to address -- I think the concerns have been raised previously, but I just
wanted to be sure that you didn't think you needed any other time for responding to
those.
Unger: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Mr. Nary, I believe people from our office have gone
through these and we did get a chance to look at them. I think you're right, they are just
reiterations of what you heard at the last hearing. In fact, I would even question
whether we could even accept these since that hearing has gone, but it's the same
thing we have heard before, so we are okay with that.
De Weerd: The public record was not closed, so they -- they are on public record.
Unger: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, comments from Council? Okay. Thank you.
Unger: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Anything else, Anna?
Canning: No, ma'am.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 26 of 99
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we close the public hearings for Items 9 through
13.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the public hearing on Items 9 through 13. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any discussion? I do have a summary and if there is no comments, I would
entertain a motion either direction.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve AZ 05-057, request for annexation and zoning of
17.25 acres from RUT and R-1 to R-8 and R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square
Subdivision by Redcliff Development, LLC, and to draw up a development agreement
and also new Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law as -- because we have had a lot
of new testimony and to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony into it. Have I
forgotten anything on annexation, have I? Okay.
Canning: Clarification on the motion, ma'am?
De Weerd: Yes. Well, let me have a second --
Canning: I'm sorry.
De Weerd: -- if I'm going to get one.
Rountree: I'll second.
De Weerd: Okay. Second for discussion. Yes, Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, maker of the motion, just a clarification. You said a new DA
and there is, actually, a DA on a portion of this, so I assume we can interpret that to
mean a modification to the existing development agreement?
Bird: Yes.
Canning: And should that development agreement include the elevations as presented
tonight?
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 27 of 99
Bird: Yes, they would.
Canning: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: That's the new -- and, then, with the -- when we get to the P and P it will -- the
new elevations shown tonight will be part of that, won't it?
Rountree: Should be.
Bird: It should be. We'll include it in the motion one way or the other, Anna.
Canning: Thank you, sir.
De Weerd: Okay. Anna or Mr. Nary, the development agreement, as the modifications
being requested, would include the fencing, the landscaping, and all of these details
that previously were committed to. Okay.
Nary: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you, please,
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. That was Item 9. Item 10.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve RZ 05-019, rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15, and
C-G zones.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve and a second. Any discussion? Mr.
Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 11.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 28 of 99
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 05-059, request for preliminary plat approval and the
preliminary plat will be the one shown on 4/18/06 Public Hearing. I don't know what the
date is on the new one, but that should take care of the part. And that will do that.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve Item 11. Is there any discussion?
Okay. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 12.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve CUP 05-052 for Bienville Square Subdivision and this is
where we -- in the Findings and Conclusions of Law, all elevations will be as shown in
the Public Hearing on April 18th, 2006.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second?
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve Item No. 12. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll?
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Okay. And, Mr. Bird, Item 13.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we approve Mi 05-013, Bienville Square Subdivision,
private street application, and to add all staff, applicant, and public testimony.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 29 of 99
De Weerd: Okay. A motion to approve Item 13. Hearing no discussion, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from March 14, 2006: VAR 05-023 Request
for a Variance to allow access to a state highway for Bienville Square
Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC – 2935 North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open Item 14. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I need to recuse myself.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree is recusing himself. I will go ahead and open this item
VAR 05-023 with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant is requesting one new
access point to Eagle Road that is not located at the half mile. I can go back up to the
vicinity map to show you where the half mile would be. This is the half mile location.
We do anticipate that these properties will develop in the relatively near future. We also
anticipate that there will be a light at this half mile location, that there will be a collector
road system on the east side of the road and I guess I'll talk about that briefly for future
hearings, but there will be a collector road on the east side and coming down from here
and it will go to the west as well. But it does not have connection to this property. So,
they are requesting their access approximately in this location. It would be right-in,
right-out with a possible left in as currently proposed. I think the Planning Commission
was recommending it be a full access. Although they didn't take action on this variance,
they did make that recommendation or that statement. Staff is recommending denial of
the variance to the half mile location for the access to Eagle Road for many of the
reasons that we have discussed in the past. It does not meet the ITD policy for access
at the half mile. They have conditionally approved it pending Council's approval of the
variance application. Two, there was no lawfully existing use on this property prior to
the enactment of the standard for the half mile access only, so there was no prior
approval for this property. This property does have access to several points along
Ustick Road as demonstrated previously by the applicant. There are three approaches
on Ustick Road that they will have cross-access agreements to and they also have a
public street coming down through the Sadie Creek Promenade project that will provide
access to this property. The fourth item is the increased risk and likely occurrence of
accidents along Eagle Road with the additional access points. I believe the pre-Council
hearing tonight demonstrated that very -- in fine detail and that has been a continuing
concern of planning and the police department staff. I believe you also have -- no. I'm
sorry. I'm on the wrong one. For the fifth reason that staff is recommending denial is
that it does not meet the variance findings. Staff does not feel that there is an undue
hardship, because of the characteristics of the site. Staff has worked very hard to
insure that they have cross-access to Ustick, thereby eliminating the need to have
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 30 of 99
access onto Eagle Road. Staff feels that this will be detrimental to the public, health,
safety and welfare by creating additional access points -- accident and collision points.
If you look in the staff report you will note that six of the top ten intersections in Meridian
for total number of accidents, six of those intersections are along Eagle Road. And the
other finding required for a variance is that it shall not grant a right or special privilege
that is not otherwise allowed in the district. This is a fairly new standard. You did deny
the one for the property to the north and staff feels that this would grant a special
privilege to this property. So, I will do the abbreviated hearing, since I know you had a
long pre-Council discussion on access management and answer any questions that you
may have regarding the variance application.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, I think I know the answer, but staff is not even recommending right-in, right-
out, right?
Canning: Correct.
Bird: No access at all.
Canning: Correct.
Bird: Any way, shape, or form. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions at this point? Okay. Would the applicant like to make
comment?
Unger: Anna, can I get that back up again?
Canning: You're asking a lot, Bob.
Unger: I'm sorry.
Canning: Hopefully, it won't crash this time. Look at that.
Unger: Madam Mayor, Council, my name is Bob Unger, I'm with Redcliff Development.
Once, again, our address is 787 East State Street, Suite 125, Eagle. 83616. As staff
has pointed out to you, we are requesting a -- I can work with this.
Bird: It's shown right there.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 31 of 99
Unger: We are requesting a -- actually, a variance from you all's code. We are
requesting an actual full access at this location. It is one quarter from the intersection of
Eagle Road and Ustick Road. And this particular plan that you see that we are showing
you here is a plan that was actually prepared a few years ago when the annexation of
the Rewe property, which is a portion of our project, was annexed with a development
agreement. As you can see in the development that's located over here, they have a
frontage or a backage road that comes over to the half mile point. We have the same
situation over here in Lowe's, which this backage road could be continued over and tied
into this half mile point. They also have a quarter mile right-in, right-out here. In
addition, this project also has a right-in, right-out along Eagle Road. At the hearing that
we attended last with you folks, which was the March 14th hearing, we had ACHD in
here discussing the road, a backage road that would line up here and ultimately come
down and tie into the half mile point here, which is also the location where the school is
at and that's the location that Anna had pointed out to you that could be signalized in
the future. The one difference with our development and our property that the others
don't have is that we have the Finch Lateral coming through here and we also have
Carol Subdivision right in this area here, which prevents any backage road from going
over and connecting into the half mile point. If that were the case, it would certainly
make the development of all this property considerably easier. We did receive a letter
from ITD, which is dated March 28th, which was copied to your staff, where the ITD
executive committee has approved our request, our permit for access -- full access to
Eagle Road at this location and that is it was contingent upon our being able to comply
with the specific measures that they have included in their -- their mitigating measures,
which is that we participate in the improvement of the Eagle Road and Ustick
intersection to provide double left turn lanes and right turn lanes on all approaches,
construct axillary lanes as proposed to accesses on Ustick and Eagle Roads.
Configure parking layout to provide protected drive aisle on all approaches, which we
have done. Construct backage roads as required by Ada County Highway District in
the City of Meridian, which is, once again, this is one of our backage roads and, then,
we have those there. Installation -- in this one they are requesting installation of the
median on Eagle Road, which they followed up a letter of April 4th clarifying that the
median would be something that would be installed by ITD when they did their
improvement program and we would not be required to do the median. And, then, the
last item was relinquishment of other property access rights to Eagle Road. And I hope
that you all had that in your packets, this letter from ITD, but they have granted us
access there and, of course, we are before you this evening asking for the variance
from your ordinance. We really do have a hardship here within this development in this
whole area here in that we don't have the ability to connect to the south and that these
other developments in this area do have that ability and as such they are able to move
forward and develop their land in a -- in a very well defined and marketed project,
whereas without this access it does put a burden on our ability to develop our land in an
equal -- equally as they have been able to and we do feel that this does present a
hardship for the development of our property. And, in addition, with the cross-accesses
that we are going to be providing for this project also, it does help provide access from
the Sadie Creek project out to Eagle Road, instead of having to bring it out into this
area in here. So, at this time, you know, we would ask that you consider our project
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 32 of 99
and the access that we are asking for and grant us the variance of your ordinance to
allow that access. And I will stand for any questions that you might have.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions at this time?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Mr. Unger, Councilman Bird brought up a question that I was curious your
thoughts on as to whether or not this site with the variance request works with only a
right-in, right-out access, as opposed to requiring a full access.
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Borton, we have requested a full access, but we also
understand that once this median goes in that that will be reduced from a right -- or from
a full access a right-in, left-in, right-out only. We feel the full access is very important,
particularly to allow people to come out here and go left, instead of having to cut
through all of this to get to Ustick. But ultimately it will, based upon ITD's comments
and the development that they are going to do along Eagle Road, it appears that that
will be restricted down.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions at this time? Okay. Thank you.
Unger: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application?
Knorpp: Madam Mayor, my name is Billy Knorpp, 2972 Leslie Drive. The testimony
that I would like to give is associated with traffic possibly through our area. This is our
road. If they are granted any access here, I would hope it would be a complete access.
The reason being is -- we'd prefer no -- I mean at least I personally would prefer no
access for them here, because people will -- if it's a right-in, right-out, they will come out
here and people who are in this area here will want to come here, go around, so they
can go north, because they will be unable to go north here, except by going back
through this whole maze that they have to go through to get there. There have,
apparently, been traffic studies that it actually takes more time to do this, you know, to
go through our property, but it won't seem that way to people, because it's very straight.
I mean it's just one big loop, as opposed to having to go through this maze that's been
created by the properties going back and forth. So, all I would urge is that you -- if you
don't -- if you do anything, you give them full access, although that seems to be a mute
point, because they will be -- they will be stopped as soon as that median that's planned
through Eagle will go through and so having an access to this right-in, right-out will
cause people to go through our subdivision and we, of course, do not want that. The
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 33 of 99
alternative for us is to close off this end of the road, but I don't think we want to do that
at this point and it requires quite a large majority of the people that live along there to
get that to happen anyway. I'm not sure we could accomplish it. But there would be
lots of additional traffic with so many people living back here and most of them will
probably tend to go out this way and out. The ones that are the most problem would be
the ones visiting these businesses that will be up in front. But it would cause increased
traffic through our subdivision.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Knorpp: Any questions?
De Weerd: Any questions, Council? Thank you. Any further testimony? Okay. Mr.
Ewing.
Ewing: Madam Mayor, I'm John Ewing, 2934 East Lake Hazel.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ewing: I'm going to talk as the landowner that this project is going to go on and not
being a traffic engineer or anything, but to me it seems like the way that corner is
developing, everything that the city is working so hard on to get this road through -- I
understood at one meeting it's going to hopefully make it clear to Fairview. We have
got a good road here that has full access, quarter mile. It seems -- you know, when
Anna was talking about accidents on Eagle and everything, I imagine she was talking
about the area south of Fairview and before Franklin and the little bit I travel that, it --
there are a lot of accidents, but what's happening in my mind is is that area is growing
just like this area is growing and everybody goes to an area to do their shopping and
they are actually trying to get across to the other side and it's not controlled. I
understand that the issue of not stopping traffic here or wanting to, but to me it makes
sense and I think that if there was a traffic study done you could make lights work. In
my opinion, it seems like if you control the traffic, you control accidents. It seems like
that the people that want to get to Fairview out of this corner would be natural to cross
here, shop, cross Ustick, shop, cross back and, actually, make a loop all the way
around this and keep the traffic off of this. Eventually when it does hit Eagle Road and
want to get on there, it makes sense to me that it would -- the traffic would move
smoother, less accidents, if it was controlled by a light there. I already stated I'm not a
traffic engineer, but that's my opinion. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other testimony?
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Anna.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 34 of 99
Canning: If I might add one comment. I started to tell you about the fire department
comments, but, then, I realized it was on the property to the east. But I do think that
their -- a letter they recently have been sending would be important information to give
you, so I'll go ahead and do that and I have conferred with Chief Bowers on this as well.
The recent comments by the fire department -- and since I spent so many hours talking
about skinny streets with them now I get lots of chances to talk to them, so what they
have decided is that the fire department is generally opposed to any left-hand
movement off of these state highways, unless it's at a signalized intersection and, then,
if there is a signalized intersection, they would ask that the developer contribute toward
the purchase of an opticom for that signal. So, I did want to provide that additional
information for your consideration.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If there is no other public wishing to testify, I will ask the
applicant to come up for any final remarks.
Unger: Madam Chair, Council, Bob Unger with Redcliff again. I think just a couple of
quick responses here. The concern about the cut-through traffic -- and we do have a
letter from our traffic consultant and I could give you all copies of this if you would like,
but the bulk of it discusses that they would not anticipate any cut-through traffic based
upon this development. In fact, the time that they have for someone to get at speed --
appropriate speed limit, the time to get from this point to this point is 90.9 seconds. To
get from this point through to this point through our development is 22.7 seconds. This
is a signalized intersection and as far as our traffic engineer is concerned that it makes
-- people are going to come from this area down to here to get onto Ustick before they
are going to come up here, turn right, and come down and come out over here to a non-
signalized intersection. And I would be more glad to give you copies of that letter. I had
it prepared for you at the last meeting, but we never got this far. If you'd like the letter
I'd be more than glad to give it to you or you can take my word for it.
De Weerd: The clerk should have it for the public record.
Unger: Also staff commented about the top ten Meridian accident locations and in
going through these we realized that number one is Eagle and Fairview and the next
one Fairview and Locust Grove, Meridian and Overland, Eagle-Franklin, Fairview-
Records, Eagle-Magic View, Eagle-Lanark, Eagle-St. Luke's, Main and Franklin, Eagle
and -- all of these are south of Fairview. And the majority of them are all at signalized
areas. So, we really don't have any data as far as accidents north of Fairview and it's
just a point we wanted to bring out. As far as the fire department's comments, if it takes
a signal to get this access, we will do it. We don't have a problem with that. We are
glad to. In fact, one of the comments I wanted to come back to you folks with was
without this access here, emergency services are going to have to come in from this
direction to get into the residential. With this access here it provides them a very good
access to get into the project in this area of the project versus coming up and through
this area here or coming through this. Just an additional access and I think it's -- as far
as emergency services, it's an access that really should be considered. So, with that
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 35 of 99
we will stand for any questions you might have and we certainly ask for your approval
this evening.
De Weerd: Well, just one clarification on the accidents south of Fairview. Might
possibly be because most of the land is developed south of Fairview and nothing is
developed really to the north. So, it does have a bearing on that. Just thought I would
throw in my two cents worth. Any questions for Mr. Unger?
Bird: Madam Mayor, I'd just like to -- and he can reply to this or not, but, you know,
most of those Eagle and Magic View, Eagle and Lanark, are full access, non-lighted
intersections to which it proves to me it's right-in and right-out. If you want to -- if you
don't want to signalize something. And another thing on signals, I don't know, is ITD
going to allow a signal that close to another signal?
De Weerd: I guess while Mr. Unger is standing there I will give him my -- the rest of my
ten cents worth, since I already gave you two. Certainly on -- in regards to emergency
access, the presentation we had on access management earlier tonight had many
examples of across the country that showed limited access to many commercial office,
industrial areas, at more the half mile and I would imagine that emergency services
didn't have a problem accessing them. The one thing that I think is different with your
development is that you don't have a really good flow to your loop to that light and that's
what concerns me, is even by controlling that access and denying it, it does keep
access out onto Ustick and if you granted that, your access has really poor circulation
throughout that corner and I guess that's my disappointment with the design, is that
where you do have a lighted intersection, it doesn't give a good true loop where you are
constrained by that waterway that you didn't maximize the opportunity for good traffic
flow through both properties in between to benefit either/or. So, I guess that's my
disappointment in the design, is you don't have a good access from Ustick where there
is a lighted intersection through the project and that would be my only comment. And,
certainly, we have adopted an ordinance restricting access to state highways because
of a concern of what we are doing to road integrity and to the flow of traffic and certainly
I know where our safety services provide the bulk of their safety services and it's on
these state highways that have many accesses to them. So, we will ask if there is any
other comments from Council or any other comments from the applicant?
Unger: Madam Mayor, just -- if I could just respond to your comment there. Ideally, had
we had control of the entire corner, I think that better access to Ustick to that signal
could have been worked out, as they had, you know, on the other two developments,
they had total control over all of the property and we were in a situation where we didn't
have control over the entire piece of property and access through that, although the
Sadie Creek people are more than glad to give us cross-access, it did put us in a
position where we really didn't have total control over the entire design of the project
and that's all I have to comment on and -- I mean -- and I agree with you, you know, it's
too bad that a better design couldn't have been put together between two projects, but
that was unattainable and we have been able to work out the majority of it and we will
have the cross-accesses, but we really do feel that this access to Eagle Road is
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 36 of 99
imperative to the development of this project to give us the equal ability that's been
granted to the -- to the other project in this location, equal ability to market and develop
our land.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Unger, I don't agree one bit with you on that. I think you got -- Sadie Creek's
got a good access to Ustick, as good as the next one. It's your internal layout, in my
mind, that's screwed up of getting it there. So, I don't think -- I don't think it's Sadie
Creek that caused it, I think that, you know, it's tough for people up in those front
commercial areas and stuff to get back to the back, because of the layout of your site
plan. That's my personal opinion.
Unger: If I could comment?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Unger: That other plan does make it a little bit difficult to see some of it. I mean we do
have connections in here, drive aisles here, we have drive aisles here that connect out.
This comes out, which, generally, will be able to bring commercial traffic over and
through into Ustick. As far as the residential, they are going to come down through this
way to come out to this signal. So, I mean I feel that we have provided these -- these
access drive aisles to move traffic in this direction and out to Ustick, if that's where they
need to go. And, like I said, the residential portion of this, which we were trying to keep
somewhat separate from the commercial, this is all public roads and it brings them out
to here. And, then, as -- I just wanted to point that out. I think we have done a fairly
good job of trying to keep the commercial commercial and the residential residential.
Bird: Madam Mayor, follow up. Mr. Unger, though, I think -- I think most people
whether they are at the residential, retail, or office, would prefer to go to a signalized
intersection and I think it's -- I think for your development it's -- there should be an
easier way to get into that south, because, as you said, if Sadie Creek don't go and you
guys go, the only thing you have got is that one back one, so let's forget about those
other two and if I remember right, those are only right-in and right-out on the other two,
the unsignalized Ustick Road entries. So, I -- you know, I'm -- and I'm not a planner or
a designer or anything else, but I just -- you know, I don't like you saying that it's
because of Sadie Creek having just that one spot. At least we have got a signalized
thing there for you to get out onto. And, you know, I think you could develop your
footprint a lot better, lot friendlier to get to that area. But that's just my opinion. And I
don't have any money invested in it.
De Weerd: Council, any other questions for the applicant? Thank you.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 37 of 99
De Weerd: Yes. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just for the sake of the public record, Madam Mayor, since Mr. Unger is the one
that brought it up, marketability is not a consideration for a variance. It is in the staff
report. I know you're all aware of that anyway, but just for the purpose of the records
and that's not a consideration as to whether a variance should be granted.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Okay. If there is no further questions of the
applicant or staff, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Or not.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 14.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 14. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Any discussion? Okay. Do I have a motion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I appreciate the efforts of -- and comments from -- the written comments from
the neighbors and the applicant. A particular remark that is consistent with my thoughts
on these variance applications is your starting point is you clearly don't get them and,
again, with my mind to approve these, Meridian's pretty consistent -- tries to be pretty
consistent in limiting its access as requested in the variance. One of the remarks that
Mr. Unger has made in this most recent discussion about the site plan, which I think is
fairly accurate, discusses the positive traffic flow through to the north to Ustick, as
opposed to the right-in, right-out access and also to the signalized light. And there is
remarks about how the residents to the west can clearly travel to the signalized. That
would be their preference. But there is good traffic flow which allows for that access to
Ustick, all of which, in my mind, is a strong argument against there being an undue
hardship in this particular property, which would require the granting of a variance. I
clearly don't like any left-in opportunities at this location. I'm not in favor of right-in,
right-out either and I think that the requirements for this Council, in order to grant a
variance, hadn't been met. Those are my thoughts and comment.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 38 of 99
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Borton. Any other comments from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we deny Item 14, Variance 05-023 with Bienville Square Subdivision.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion to deny the variance request on Item 14. Any discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from April 4, 2006: AZ 05-058 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Keego
Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell – 5910 North Black Cat Road:
Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from April 4, 2006: PP 05-060 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd
Campbell – 5910 North Black Cat Road:
Item 17: Continued Public Hearing from April 4, 2006: VAR 05-024 Request for
a Variance to reduce front garage setbacks to 15 feet from back of
sidewalk in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by
Todd Campbell – 5910 North Black Cat Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nary, can you go find Mr. Rountree? Okay. Item 15,
16, and 17 are public hearings on AZ 05-058, PP 05-060 and VAR 05-024, the
continued Public Hearing and I will start with staff comments.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. I'm sorry.
Borton: Before you do, I do need to recuse myself from consideration of this item.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 39 of 99
De Weerd: Okay. While Councilman Borton excuses himself, Mr. Rountree has
returned.
Rountree: I have returned.
De Weerd: Anna.
Canning: Hot potato night there. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the
Keego Springs application. It's located east of Black Cat Road and south of Chinden
Road. I just got Tamara in the eye with the laser pointer. There we go. So, this is the
location. You will notice that we are also showing the Bainbridge project, the Volterra
project is not showing up. It does take in the entire property -- large property shown
south of the proposed project. The applications include an annexation and zoning,
preliminary plat, and variance for front setbacks. The gross residential density is 3.53
units per acre. The net density is 4.69 units per acre. The request includes annexation
and zoning of 49.95 acres to R-8. The median --
De Weerd: Okay. Anna, just a clarification for the record at this time. I will exclude
comments on the variance, Item 17. Isn't that a variance -- oh, forget it. It has no
access --
Canning: It is not an access one. Yeah.
De Weerd: Sorry, Charlie. You get to stay with us the whole time. Sorry for the
interruption.
Canning: That's fine, Madam Mayor. Did you open that Public Hearing?
De Weerd: Yes, I did.
Canning: Okay. Thank you. The -- so, it was annexation and zoning of 49.95 acres to
R-8 and, then, preliminary plat approval of 201 single family residential lots and nine
common lots. In response to the initial concerns about this application, the applicant
has included a partial school site and this is the location of the partial school site. They
would share that school site with Volterra. I do have a picture of that I can bring up. It's
not in the presentation, but I will work on providing the rest of that site for you. And they
have provided that. I think you have testimony from Mr. Fuhrman -- Freeman, sorry,
Mark. From Mr. Freeman regarding the school district. I really am sorry about that. I'll
let him provide the additional comment regarding the ability of the school district to
acquire the property. I did speak briefly with Mrs. McKay regarding the other half of the
school lot and Mr. Freeman may have additional testimony on that, but I did speak with
Mrs. McKay today. She did say that Frank Vareille and she had met with Wendell and
Amber Van Auker, who is the school district's architect, and they indicated they
desperately needed an elementary school for this area. The school district asked for
half of it to be on the Volterra Subdivision, which had already been approved by City
Council. They -- they produced a site plan that straddles the two subdivisions and,
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 40 of 99
then, Frank met with them about a month ago and Frank did commit to Wendell Bigham
of the school district that Primeland Development would donate approximately 4.5 acres
to the school district for the elementary site. So, the school district will be participating
in building the collector road that goes to the school site, but -- and it will have frontage
on that collector, but they did donate the 4.5 acres. There is very specific wording in
there about the development agreement regarding the school district negotiations and
it's included with Mr. Freeman's testimony, so I think I'll save that discussion for later. I
can bring up the exact language that was proposed by P&Z and, then, the modifications
as proposed by Ms. Butler if necessary or for Council if they desire. The Commission
did hear this application and have recommended approval. They heard it on February
2nd and March 2nd. At that hearing Joann Butler, Jim Howard, and Todd Campbell
spoke in favor of the application. Don Brown representing Rambo Subdivision spoke
against it. Wendell Bigham did -- from the school district did comment. And the key
issues of the discussion were the school site, fencing along the north boundary, and,
then, the stub street to the property to the south, which is currently not -- in this one is
not shown and that is the question of whether they should have a stub street going to
the Volterra collector, preferably adjoining the school site, to give that school site some
more frontage from within this subdivision. The key Commission changes to staff's
recommendation were to modify the condition regarding their recreation facilities. Right
now they have them on this lot, this lot, and this lot and the -- which are all central to the
site, but they are all separated by public roads. So, the Commission asked that they be
relocated in this area and they have agreed to that. They, actually, did provide us an
additional site plan that showed those facilities relocated. It did not address all the
other concerns that P&Z had asked them to address. So, we are still going by this site
plan, because the new one doesn't get us all the way, so -- but they are able to
accommodate that over in one area on the east hand -- the center east portion of the
site. And they also modified the condition regarding the school -- the school site as
noted before. They added a condition regarding pedestrian micropath from Loggo
Drive to the school site at some point along the north boundary and a condition which
states all perimeter fencing adjacent to the school site shall be restricted to open vision
fencing. So, the outstanding issues before City Council clearly are the elementary
school site and the variance application to the front setbacks. When this applicant first
started coming in we still had the planned development. I think that they had a hard
time switching from the planned development to the new standards, but we kept on
trying to tell them you couldn't just ask for a waiver, so, they -- of dimensional
standards, so they are asking for a waiver of the front setbacks in the alley-loaded
portions. We believe that's where they are asking for them. We have asked for
clarification. Haven't gotten specific information regarding that, but we do believe it's
just for those properties taking access from the alley. They'd like to have a ten foot
setback. Currently, the only place we allow ten foot setback is in the Traditional
Neighborhood Residential District. That district is specifically designed for this. It's
intended to get that look and feel that goes along with a whole list of development
standards. Pulling out one of those standards and allowing it through the variance
process does not seem appropriate. Staff was not able to make the findings that this
site warranted a variance. There are no outstanding issues or physical constraints that
would prevent them from meeting the standard setback in this area. So, we are
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 41 of 99
recommending against the variance. To that end you do have Findings before you
tonight. They are -- you have Findings for approval of the annexation and zoning and
preliminary plat and you have Findings for denial of the variance request. And with that
I will answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions at this time?
Bird: Not at this time, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record and if that microphone goes up high enough --
Campbell: I will bend over. I'm Todd Campbell. I am the applicant. I reside at 2320
West Preston Street in Eagle, Idaho. 83616. I'd like to thank staff for their thorough
overview of the project. We would like at this time to withdraw the application for the
variance. We feel like that we would be able to achieve the look that we want within the
subdivision without going further on that point. I will give a brief overview of what we
are trying to accomplish with this subdivision. We have taken into account Planning
and Zoning's recommendations of approval for relocating the common areas, the pool
site, the tot lot, all more in a safe manner across the street, all adjoining one another.
We are trying to achieve a mixed use of housing with alley-loaded product, some 65
foot lots, and, then, some larger lots as we get back into the eastern portion of the
project and feel that by doing this we not only accomplish an affordability factor for the
city, but also a diversity factor creating more of a neighborhood feel for the community.
We have -- you know, I guess the big issue tonight is with the school district and the
things that we have been doing to try and facilitate a site for them -- we want to sell
them a site. Mr. Freeman faxed over to the staff late this afternoon a motion for
position something -- basically saying that he thinks that we -- our negotiations have
been unsuccessful and are completely at a deadlock. We have never received an offer
from the district to purchase the ground. We are not in a position to donate ground. I
wish we were. We don't control 850 lots like the subdivision to the south. We have --
with the elimination -- or with the addition of the school site, we have a hundred --
approximately 175 lots, not the 201 that Anna said, if we do end up furnishing a school
site. I want to just bring to your attention some of the facts that -- behind the scenes
that we have been doing with the school district. We have spent thousands of dollars,
several months redesigning our plat to accommodate a school site. I'm going to read a
letter or some comments that I put together that kind show the history of the things that
we have done since we have acquired the site. It says: Dear Mayor de Weerd and
Members of the City Council, I wanted to take a few minutes to keep everyone
interested -- everyone interested apprised of the history and current business dealings
between myself and Joint School District No. 2. Myself and Mr. Chad Hess acquired
the parcel where the proposed Keego Springs Subdivision is the last week of March
2005. When we made our offer on the parcel there were, in fact, four other offers
presented to the seller at the same time as our offer, as stated to me by the listing
realtor involved. Upon successful negotiations on the parcel we started our design of
the property. On September 7th, 2005, Kurt Reliford from J.J. Howard Engineering and
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 42 of 99
myself had an initial pre-application meeting with Anna Canning and the planning staff
at the City of Meridian. During our meeting Anna gave us some suggestions to the
design of the project. Toward the end of the meeting she stated that we needed to get
in touch with the school district in regards to their need for a potential school site in the
area. On September 8th I placed a call to the district offices and left a voice mail to a
generic voice mail extension that I was forwarded to by the receptionist. I received no
return call from Mr. Bigham. On October 24th I called the district offices once again, left
a message for Wendell to call me. Once, again, I received no return call. After this time
I started consulting with Kurt Reliford, our project engineer, and Mike Spink, my
counsel. Mike Spink, my counsel, and Mark Freeman had our initial -- first initial
meeting on November 30th. Here at this meeting I agreed to help the district and to sell
them a portion of our property. Our initial Planning and Zoning meeting was supposed
to take place December 15th, but was tabled as requested by the district. We were
scheduled for February 2nd. Kurt initiated some discussions with the engineers from
the approved Bainbridge Subdivision, approximately 450 lots, and the approved
Volterra Subdivision, approximately 830 lots. Bainbridge declined, but Volterra would
consider it. On January 4th Wendell, Kurt, and myself discussed -- and Wendell, Amber
Van Auker, the district's architect, all met at J.J. Howard's office to discuss possible
layout and size requirements to accomplish the district's need. After this meeting
Wendell stated he needed to get in touch with the developer from Volterra to talk to
them. We heard nothing until we again initiated calls to Wendell, Amber, and Mark
Freeman. At the Planning and Zoning meeting on February 2nd, 2006, Wendell
assured the Planning and Zoning Commission that within the next 30 days he could
make a deal happen with Volterra. The P&Z Commission gave Wendell another 30 day
time period in order to get a hold of Volterra and see if they would participate in the
school site. Our next hearing was scheduled on March 4th, 2006. During the time
period between the two hearings we heard nothing from Wendell. At the hearing on
March 4th Wendell got up and stated that no agreement had been made with Volterra
as yet. Planning and Zoning adopted into their conditions of approval that the district
had until June 1st, 2006, to secure -- to secure deals with us and Volterra. On March
4th Volterra finally agreed. We had agreed a month earlier. We have, as of April 7th,
seen no written offer from the district for the site. Wendell has suggested to us that we
should donate the site, but we are in no position -- financial position to do this and we
have told him so. I have never received a phone call from Wendell, an e-mail from
Wendell, or an offer from Wendell. I have left him several voice mails on his cell phone
and his office, which he will call Kurt, our engineer, but, then, not communicate directly
with us. As you know, our Public Hearing meeting with the City Council was scheduled
for April 4th. We were rescheduled until April 18th. Mark Freeman placed a call to Mike
Spink on April 6th and stated that if we do not hurry up and sell the site to the district he
was going to oppose the project at the next scheduled hearing. I find this offensive.
We have tried to expedite this process, but the district's lack of timeliness has cost us
months in the approval process. I feel it is important to the Council to know the history
of what we have been doing and what the school district has and has not been doing.
We are willing to sell the site to the school district. If you have any questions,
otherwise, I'm going to defer any legal issues to our counsel that's here tonight.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 43 of 99
De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Wardle, did you have a question?
Wardle: Just a point of clarification. Was that your presentation on the subdivision?
You have --
Campbell: That was on the subdivision -- or the annexation.
Wardle: On all that?
Campbell: The whole bit.
Wardle: So, no elevations or any of that kind of stuff?
Campbell: No. we do not.
Wardle: Okay.
Campbell: Well, we have the -- we have the landscape plan that has been proposed. It
has been adopted -- we have not adopted the conditions from Planning and Zoning.
These are some of the sites. The entrance features that we would have. The pool site
that we would have. The proposed amenities within the central location of the
subdivision, but have since been relocated to the east. Would be a divided collector
street coming into the subdivision and tree lined streets, detached sidewalks. A pool.
Hopefully, a school site. Waterfall entrance. We feel it would be a -- you know, a fairly
nice development for the city.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Butler: Thanks. Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street in Boise representing the
applicant. Before I get started I just wanted to point out just a technical thing in the staff
report. There seems to be a conflict in the conditions of approval and I'll just point this
out. This is on Exhibit B and I don't know that you need to jump around in your packets,
but on page one of Exhibit B, the sixth bullet point is a condition in connection with
annexation, talking about -- sorry -- prior to the submittal of a final plat the applicant
would provide documentation that negotiations with Volterra and the other portion of the
school site have been finalized and that the district approve the configuration. That isn't
what the Planning and Zoning Commission was -- mentioned and we think that would
be an impossible condition to know what others are doing. But on the next page and on
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 44 of 99
the second page of your packet is the condition that the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended with input from Wendell Bigham who had said that he felt
by June 1st -- that was why that June 1st -- it didn't just get pulled out of the air, that
was a comment to us that it was agreed at that time if the school district couldn't finalize
the discussions between the two parties, then, Mr. Campbell could come back and
request a modification to the plat that we hope you approve tonight. Just briefly the
issue is schools and Council might recall that I appeared before Council when Volterra
was before you and I didn't appear to oppose Volterra, but I did -- I appeared before
you, because I was concerned and surprised, because the district did not even provide
a standard letter about a school facility in connection with that project, even though it
was 830 homes, and the district didn't come to the hearing either. I know that the
Mayor and staff said at that time we somehow know that the district does not want a site
in this area. And tonight the district is desperate for a site in this area. I think we have
heard the figures Volterra at 830 homes, Bainbridge at 429, and Keego Springs at 179.
That's 13 percent versus 55 percent of the homes for Volterra in the area and 32 for
Bainbridge. Late this afternoon, as Mr. Campbell said, I received a copy of the district's
letter or motion asking the city to deny this specific project. Not Volterra, not other --
and not other specific projects that we are aware of. Mr. Campbell told you and
described to you how he has been trying in effort to work in good faith with the district,
but the district has claimed that they have been totally unsuccessful. Apparently, Mr.
Campbell's -- and I believe honest discussions did not meet the district's definition of
success and I don't want to squabble and I don't think Mr. Campbell wants to squabble
with the district. He is saying that he can sell to the district the site and is willing to work
on the design of the site. And we certainly do applaud Mr. Vareille. If he can donate
four acres at the end of his 830 home development, we are really happy. I think Todd
made it clear that if he was in that same position things might be different. Todd has
asked the district to be fair. By throwing his hands up tonight two hours before the
Council meeting, I think that the district is -- appears to be trying to use this public city
hearing process to I guess maybe gain leverage, try to force an unfair outcome to the
negotiations -- I don't know. But it seems strange when we are two -- about a month
and a half before June when the condition of approval would give us that time and I just
don't think that's right. We are asking the Council to approve Keego Springs tonight as
redesigned to assist the school and that has been at great cost and time to Mr.
Campbell and we hope that you will do that and allow those negotiations to continue on
in an even keel. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Butler?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: Madam Mayor, to briefly follow up on the item that Ms. Butler spoke of
regarding the change in wording, that on my notes for Council under the outstanding
issues for City Council, that recommended wording is in that first item there. Staff does
agree with the need for clarification.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 45 of 99
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone
who would like to provide testimony for this application?
Carrico: My name is Sarah Carrico. I live at 4685 Redwood Court. We are directly
north of the requested development. We have one very cordial request, which is a
fence between us and these 15 lots that will be bordering the back of four houses. We
have formed a rather tight-knit and quiet neighborhood as of yet. I have lived there for
12 years and a number of other people have lived there longer and we don't want
anything fancy, but we don't want any plastic either. So, we are looking for something
that can protect our assets, protect from dumping of grass clippings. We have horses
and other animals and we never know if we are going to get more. And we are really
not looking to cause any trouble, just something to keep what is a little bit of a different
atmosphere from what is planned, what it is right now.
De Weerd: If you could use the pointer there in front of you, Sarah, and show us which
lot you are.
Carrico: We are right there.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I also have Mr. Freeman signed up.
Freeman: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Mark Freeman, 3550
West Birdie Court in Meridian, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of --
De Weerd: If you can pull that up a little bit. Thank you.
Freeman: I'm here on behalf of my client Joint School No. 2, otherwise commonly
referred to as the Meridian School District. I have submitted, albeit at the 11th hour,
written comments in support of the district's position on this application. I assume that
Mayor and Council have received those. I have copies here if you happen to need one.
De Weerd: No. We did receive that. Thank you.
Freeman: I'm here, you know, primarily to respond to questions about the material
submitted and to respond to matters raised by the applicant and the applicant's
attorney. Maybe to summarize might be the best way to do this. You have heard a lot
of comments about the district's alleged inactivity in trying to get a school site here and
the reason that -- Wendell Bigham, by the way, couldn't be here tonight, that's one of
the reasons I'm here. I'm here to let the Council know that it's the school district's
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 46 of 99
position that a school site in this square mile area is crucial to the school district. We
can discuss why it didn't happen earlier or where it's going to happen, but the issue is
Meridian School District needs an elementary school site in this square mile. There is a
decent size chunk of it that's already been approved. The district was attempting to
purchase this property or a good share of it for a school site before it was purchased by
the applicant and, obviously, that didn't happen, the applicant purchased the property.
The initial application didn't have a school site in it. You have heard the discussion
about how it happened where, eventually, it resulted in a school site -- or a portion of a
school site being included and the comments of staff that addressed the issue of a
shared school site and how it's going to be held off until June 1st are appropriate, but
the difficulty is that quite a bit of time has elapsed since the district first sat down in my
office, as indicated by the applicant, and had discussions about purchasing this site.
And not much has happened. We can all point fingers at who is responsible. I can -- I
must, you know, state on the record that I'm surprised by the applicant's comments and
I have heard similar comments from the applicant's attorney that the district has never
made an offer on the property, because I made the offers on the property. My client
decided they wanted me to negotiate on this piece of property. And I'm -- there was an
offer to purchase the property made during that meeting -- a general discussion about
an offer during the meeting back in November and there was an offer made by -- I sent
an e-mail to the applicant's attorney Mike Spink in Ms. Butler's office on the 15th of
January and -- which contained -- it wasn't a purchase agreement, it was an e-mail
saying here are some terms that the district would like to purchase the property under
and never did receive a response to it. Contacted Mr. Spink in the beginning of April,
left a message saying can we get a response to this offer. All the time we are being told
that we are delaying everything and I didn't get a response for close to a month and,
then, the response that came back, in essence, was a purchase agreement that the
applicant's attorney put together and submitted on Monday to us this week, which
required a substantial earnest money deposit, which would be automatically released to
the applicant on Wednesday of this week. I guess I can step back and say I'm
confident that as far as the normal terms of a purchase agreement, I'm confident that
the district -- the district's attorney and the applicant's attorney can workout the details
on all the things that go with it. But there is a part of that purchase agreement that the
parties are a long ways apart from each other and that's the issue. So, we don't have a
school site there today. After meeting with the applicant and coming up with this
configuration -- it did take some while for Wendell to get together with Frank Vareille of
Volterra, mainly because he was out of town. Eventually, he had orally committed, as
Anna indicated, to donate a four and a half acre portion of the school site, which leaves
another almost five acres from the applicant. The applicant may have been asked to
donate a site initially. I -- and I can't speak for Wendell. From my standpoint it's never
really been pushed. We understand the difference between the applicant's
development and Volterra's development, but one of the reasons that -- or my
understanding is the primary reason that Bainbridge isn't involved in these discussions
is because the school and school district's architect looked at the layout of the property
and decided that extra land on the Bainbridge side really didn't serve the purposes of
the school design, what they needed at that site. So, that's why that party is not here.
It's not a matter of not coming up with the money, it's more of an issue of it didn't really
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 47 of 99
do much for where we were at. Volterra has agreed to make a donation of the site.
There are some -- there is consideration going to Volterra for extending the street to the
site, so it's not totally without consideration, but the land itself is going to be donated.
And this amount of time -- it's sort of an interesting situation, because you hear both
parties coming in front of you and saying so much time has gone by and nothing's
happened and they may both be right, but the bottom line is we have a commitment to
have a donated portion of the school site, we don't have an agreement with the
applicant. If the city moves forward and approves this annexation and zoning
application with the conditions as stated by staff, then, if -- we won't know until June
whether we are going to have a school site there. If we don't, then, what happens?
Well, the applicant goes back and re-plats it and has more lots, the density changes,
and I assume you guys are the ones that are concerned about density, but the bottom
line if that happens is there is a square mile area without a school site and there aren't -
- there aren't many other places, if any, in this square mile where the school district
believes that it can obtain a school site. So, they have got a situation where the
children -- the elementary age students who will live in this area will have to be bused to
a school site outside of the square mile across, you know, one of the roads, one of the
major roads, which, based on my review of the -- I set this forth in our statement, in
Council's ordinance, the code requires -- it doesn't require it, but one of the factors in
determining where a school site is to be located is, you know, its proximity to the
neighborhood and major streets and we believe that's a reason to have it in a
subdivision. The district also takes the position -- and it's a different position with
different types of schools, but a well designed elementary school -- the district believes
is an amenity to residential development. Maybe you might dispute that with a high
school or a middle school, but a well designed elementary school in a subdivision can
increase the value of neighboring lots. So, we find there is some benefit in that. We
are really into a situation where we can't -- we don't have a deal yet, we are concerned
we are not going to get one. If we don't get one, then, the district's ability to provide
education to elementary school students in this square mile will be adversely affected.
De Weerd: Good ending point, uh? Any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question.
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Freeman, given the configuration of the parcels we see laid out in both
adjoining subdivisions, is that, in the school district's opinion, sufficient for an
elementary school?
Freeman: Yes. It works out to nine and a half acres, roughly, and according to what I
understand, the district is satisfied with that. They might have wanted ten acres, but
that site would work. If I can -- maybe not directly on point, but I -- it's my
understanding there is some discussion about a cross-through road that isn't shown
here, somewhere in this area, and I heard staff mention -- Anna mention that the
preference would be that that road, if there is going to be a road that connects here,
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 48 of 99
that it front the school site. I don't know what kind of problems this creates, but I just
happen to know this, because I was with Wendell when this -- he was discussing this
issue with me and he -- he didn't send me here to discuss this, but I'm going to pass
this information on for what it's worth. His concern was that he didn't mind a cross-
connect somewhere over this way, but his -- the school district's preference would not
be that it would from the school property. Now, I don't know if this is something he's
changed his mind on or maybe Anna could comment on that, but his concern was that
we end up with a large drop-off area. There will be some parking component in here, I
assume, and that we have got parents pulling up and dropping their kids off on the
street and he didn't think that was such a great idea. So, not directly in relation to your
issue, but --
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Freeman?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. Freeman, in my short time on the Council I've been through a lot of
subdivisions and we have been through a lot of joint meetings with the school district
and this is the first subdivision or annexation approval which the school district has
either directly or through its agent replied to the city's request for comment. Why this
specific subdivision now I guess is my question.
Freeman: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I can't answer that question. I don't
know why. It may have been not only with this site, but other sites it should have come
sooner. I have heard the district's representative say that they are uncomfortable -- that
they are not in the development business and they don't -- if they can stay out of it they
want to. They don't think it's their job to make these kind of decisions. But in this
situation here it's at a crucial stage with the development that's already been approved
in that area. We can argue that it should have happened earlier, but with the
development that's planned and going to occur there, they need a school site in that
area and if we don't get it here, they are concerned they are not going to get one.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone
else who would like to provide testimony on this application? If you will, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Kowalis: Yes. Doug Kowalis. My business address is 1501 Federal Way. I am with --
one of the owners of NAI Kowalis & Mackey, the listing broker on the property when the
property was sold. I just wanted to state a few facts here, so that you have that
information. There seems to -- we are here in, of course, support of Todd Campbell and
his development. There seems to be a pattern here by the school district and the thing
that I wanted to point out is that every good attorney, every realtor, and most individuals
know that there is no offer until it's written. If you want to win the lottery you buy a
ticket. If you want to buy real estate you write an offer. To my knowledge we have
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 49 of 99
never seen a written offer by the school district. It just so happens that this property
that was sold is my step-mother and in the remaining years of her life, a few years,
when the school district contacted her -- she had Alzheimer's and was in no condition to
negotiate. She turned that process over to her son who is present tonight. The most
that Hilda told me was that the school district has told her that they were willing to buy
the property, gave her a price, to what she responded that's not enough. So, I think
what we are seeing here is them, the school district, using this process to negotiate
price. That's what they are talking about here is the one point that's keeping them
apart. I think that you could move this process forward easily by -- because Mr.
Campbell is willing to sell the property to the school district at below fair market value,
but I don't think that he should be put in a position where he's dictated at what price that
is. I work with many in my profession who are non-profit organizations and sometimes
we are fortunate enough, as the school district is, to get property donated and in some
instances we are not and they paid the price. And, again, this is a pattern that we have
noticed over this period of time. Is there any questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any other testimony? If you will, please, state your
name and address.
Brown: Don Brown. Excuse me. 4595 West Ramblin Court.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Brown: And I'm not talking on behalf of the property owners, I'm talking on behalf of an
individual that has two kids in the school district and right now in that mile there is 34
some hundred -- some odd houses that have been approved and I think that the school
district's point is there needs to be a school in there. Right now Ponderosa is over
capacity. Hunter's enrollment was capped the day it opened. There are no new
schools listed to be built in that area. You're going to have a big problem if something is
not come to agreement in that area. It's just -- it's a mess right now. I don't know how it
got this far and I'm kind of nervous, but I'm kind of upset as well, because the
ramifications on my kids and their education is at stake at this and if something doesn't
come to play with the school in there, it's going to be a mess and you have got a child at
Sawtooth, the same thing is going to happen down in that area. So, the school district's
got to get -- somehow or another there has got to be some accord between the
developers and the school district and profit's got to be taken out of the picture. It's got
to be taken out of the picture. It's got to be what's right for the community, what's right
for the kids, for their education process, because that's all we have got. Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other testimony? Okay.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 50 of 99
Canning: Madam Mayor, if I could respond to a couple comments. The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommendation does not include a cross-access point to Volterra.
It's just a -- there is no cross-access into Keego from that collector road at the mid mile.
So, that's not part of the recommendation now and perhaps I misspoke. I didn't
understand some of the other issues behind it. With regard to Councilmember Wardle's
comment about why is this the first time we have heard about this, I can tell you I think
that Mr. Freeman was selecting his words carefully during that answer, so -- when
Bainbridge Subdivision went in there is clear discussion about a future school site on
this property. Staff was under the assumption that there would be a school site there
also when Volterra went through and I think that's why we didn't get it at either location.
The other locations available include -- the only other locations include some large five
acre properties here. We have seen a couple of them, the most eastern of those five
acres, come in for a subdivision plat. There is larger property up here adjoining
Chinden Boulevard with limited access to Ramblin, so that would not necessarily be
appropriate. I'm sorry.
Wardle: Anna, I guess if I can interrupt --
Canning: Sure.
Wardle: My question, which was answered, is just in general, not this specific quadrant
of the city.
Canning: Okay.
Wardle: More focused on the city as a whole and this is the first time we have seen the
school district come to the city on any development in any portion of the city, so --
Canning: Okay. I will be quiet now.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further public testimony, I would ask the applicant if
they would like to have concluding remarks.
Butler: Okay. Thank you. Joann Butler again. The person that brought up the fence,
this was raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission and just so you know there is a
1.3.4 condition of approval that says that we will submit a detailed fencing plan with the
final plat application for the subdivision and it goes on from there talking about
construction fencing and so on. So, that was addressed.
De Weerd: I think what she has brought up is what kind of fence is it.
Butler: Right. And I don't think that's known right now in terms of -- is that -- but
because that was the discussion, it was -- they made it a condition of approval to say,
okay, go back, think about it, but come back to us in public with the subdivision
application.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 51 of 99
De Weerd: Well, I do know that when you have livestock or horses, there is a concern
with vinyl and so we -- if it is approved, we would certainly want the applicant to work
with the neighbors on appropriate fencing.
Butler: Okay. Thank you. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission did raise the
issue of other land in the event -- in the area, because of the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map does show a symbol for a school in the area or a neighborhood community
center, which is more centrally located. I have no idea if any of that land is available. It
may be vacant -- we just -- the Planning and Zoning Commission was just asking where
is other land in this area and it was pointed out. Thank you. If you have no other
questions.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: What are the square footages of lots that are on the northern border?
Butler: I believe we are going to have J.J. Howard address that in terms of -- or Todd.
Howard: My name is Jim Howard with J.J. Howard Engineering. I know that that's
going to be hard to see, but if I could leave the mike, I'll walk over --
De Weerd: There is a mike right there.
Howard: Okay. Along the north boundary of the subdivision, 9,700, 7,400, 7,000,
7,000, 6,500, 8,500 -- of course this one doesn't. 8,500. 7,000. So, these are pretty
much 7,000 across the top.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have a question for Gary Inselman. He's here, he may as well come and
talk to us.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Inselman: Gary Inselman representing ACHD, 3375 North Adams.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Anna, if you would put the plat back up there. Just a question of what ACHD
and we have tried to do in concert in terms of internal networking and -- is there a
reason why ACHD did not want to have access to the northern parcel at this point that
at this isn't developed and why there isn't an access out of this -- vehicular access out
of this subdivision to a potential future school site?
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 52 of 99
Inselman: Mr. Rountree, as far as the school site's concerned, we received a
transmittal saying the plat had been modified, but we didn't have a copy of the plat. So,
we had no idea how it had been modified. So, we have not addressed that issue yet
and we would like to -- if any school site is approved here, because we all know the
issues we have with access to schools. As far as a stub street to the north, I'm not
aware of why we didn't require a stub. I would have to review our file and research that.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I see that there is additional public testimony and since the applicant
is the last one to have word, I would invite the public testimony forward. If you will,
please, state your name and address.
Haletor: Merlinda Haletor. 6280 North Black Cat Road.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Haletor: I don't know if I have comment. I'm just looking at this and you brought up a
good question, why there isn't a stub street to the north, because that 30 acres has
been purchased and is in the process of being developed and right now their access is
very limited. They will not have an access onto Chinden, that 30 acre piece that's right
there. Yes. That piece. No. Up. Yeah. They won't have an access onto Chinden.
Right now there is no stub street through to Keego --
Canning: Yes, there is.
Haletor: -- to the north. Okay. There is a stub street through to Keego? That's our
concern. Is it right at the back?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I believe, looking at the layout there, there is a potential
access to the north, so it's probably not the best alignment in the world.
Haletor: Okay. And where is that?
Rountree: At the northern most connection.
Haletor: And it comes to the east?
Bird: To the east.
Haletor: Is that Bainbridge?
Rountree: And to that --
Bird: No. It's right into that.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 53 of 99
Rountree: Right in there.
Bird: Into that little arm off that 30 acres.
Haletor: Okay. So, it goes from the back of Keego into the back corner of that
undeveloped property right now. So, that undeveloped property would have an access
through Keego to Black Cat?
De Weerd: To Black Cat and to any future school site.
Haletor: Okay. That was a concern, because there is going to be a whole bunch of
houses right there and they will be attending, I assume, that school, if a school is
approved for that area. So, it would be really nice if they had that back entrance.
Otherwise, they are going to have to -- well, I don't know how those get out, because
right now our little property is the rectangular piece right there and we have not sold it,
so there is no access proposed or needed through there and their only other place is
Ramblin, which is the county road, but it is really close to Chinden there and if we are
talking about limited access, there is also already a ton of traffic coming down Black Cat
to Chinden and I know, because my little driveway comes out of -- not quite halfway
there and it's hard to get out in the mornings. Okay. So, that was my concern. So, as
long as there is a way to get back in there, so that that subdivision that's going to be
developed will have access out onto Black Cat without using any access on Ramblin or
on Chinden. I just wanted to make sure that that was a possibility and that you were
aware of that. That's it.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any additional public testimony before I ask for
concluding remarks? Okay.
Campbell: If that stub street going east in Keego Springs into that vacant property was
more desirous going north, we would not have any problem relocating that stub, if that's
something you guys desired. Right now I think it flows from Keego, loops up into
Bainbridge going east. So, it kind of figures lots through that little narrow arm coming
down.
De Weerd: Could I ask -- what is your housing product in the higher density lots?
Campbell: It's an alley-type product, similar to the Soda Springs Subdivision that we
have over off of Victory and Eagle Road. Very similar product type, alley-loaded, to the
subdivision that you guys heard a presentation on earlier this evening, the rear loaded,
you know, front atmosphere -- or front porch atmosphere type product.
De Weerd: Okay. Generally we see elevations and I didn't see any in the packet.
Were there any elevations at that P&Z?
Canning: I don't believe so, ma'am.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 54 of 99
De Weerd: Okay. Did you provide any elevations at that time?
De Weerd: Okay. And I know fencing was mentioned. I also understand your concern
about donation of property for the school and that sort of thing. I will make my soap box
statement right now, though. We are raising the expectations of development and
development to pay their proportionate share of growth. I think some of the problems in
having small piece development at a time, is sometimes the first in don't pay, the last in
is usually shouldering a larger share of the burden and that is kind of why I like a larger
scale development, because you see the picture, you see the connectivity, you see
where the parks are going, where the schools are going. You see connectivity for the
pathways, roads structures and all of that. And you also see how the growth is going to
pay for itself. I do understand your concern, but at our point we need to make sure that
services are going to be provided for the people in that square mile and in and around
it. Certainly education, school facilities, are an important consideration. We have
started to see developers donate land for school sites, donate right of way for the
roadways, because our roads are in need of repair and they are stepping up. When
there are lingering things that are unresolved, you know, I will quote one Council
member: I'm not in a rush to see things developed until we know the whole story and --
Rountree: Now, who would say that?
De Weerd: My hero. But I guess, you know, from the city's standpoint is we do want to
assure that our citizens know that we take our responsibility serious. The school
district, it's true that -- I think they were even referring to it and maybe they weren't
successful in bidding on that and they found that they were in a predicament that they
needed a school site in that square mile and they found themselves between a rock and
a hard spot. But I -- I feel that we have a responsibility to make sure that all the I's are
dotted and the T's are crossed and that certain things are assured before we move
forward. And I don't have a vote until they tie and there is three of us -- or three voting
members up here, so I won't be voting, because I can assure you there won't be a tie.
But that was just my input into this, is we are raising the bar of expectations. We do
have overcrowded schools. We do need to pay attention to our infrastructure needs as
we look at development coming into our community and that's all I'm saying is I'm not
saying donate the land, but I am saying we do want to see development step up and
start be a part of our solutions.
Campbell: And that's exactly what we are doing. We are willing to step up. You say
you want to see large scale developments and you want to see school sites within
those large scale developments -- there is an 850 lot subdivision to our south and a 450
lot subdivision to our east -- where are they? You want to see them, they are there.
Those are huge developments and there is not a school, there is not a park within any
of them.
De Weerd: Sir, I believe that you just heard that a school site -- half of it's being
donated. They donated all of their road right of way. They are providing a lighted
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 55 of 99
intersection. They are doing their share. And so, again, what my statement was -- I like
larger scale development, because you can see how everything will lay out.
Campbell: But we don't --
De Weerd: One piece at a time is -- makes it a lot more difficult.
Campbell: But we don't see it -- we don't see it until we are in here standing here
before you today with a small development and everybody trying to force us to
participate in a large scale development. We aren't a large scale development. There
has been two large scale developments approved with no school comment, with no
negotiations with the school. Volterra has a verbal agreement with the school district.
There is nothing written between the school district and Volterra.
De Weerd: Sir, my statement was not to anger you.
Campbell: It did anger me.
De Weerd: Well, I also mentioned, if you listened --
Campbell: I listened.
De Weerd: -- is that small scale or last in sometimes bears the burden, but we do need
to assure that adequate infrastructure is in place. That is our responsibility.
Campbell: I understand that.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I can address that and I understand, too, that small developments come. I don't
think anybody on the Council here is expecting you to donate the land. Some do, some
don't. The larger ones can. We have the same problem with parks. This same
developer has donated ground to the parks, where other developers, large developers,
expect to get paid back in impact fees. These people seem to go along. I, for one,
would not ask you to donate it, I'd ask you to sell at a reasonable price, because I'm a
taxpayer for both entities. I also pay a pretty good share of taxes to the school district
to be flat truthful with you, I'd glad to see they are being a little conservative. Surprise.
But, anyway, I -- and we are not here to anger you or anything else, but I would ask you
what you would think if we put on your preliminary plat, if it is approved, of making that
a school site and you cannot change your plat until you come back before us and we
will give you some time. Do you have any problems with that, while we are in public
testimony here?
Campbell: I think that's what we have already done with the June 1st deadline.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 56 of 99
Bird: Well, I don't think -- I don't think that's really true and I'm not too sure you can get
negotiations with land and stuff done within -- by June 1st. I would have no problem
extending it a little longer than that, which would be fair. I think both parties need to --
Campbell: I would have no problem with that.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Just to let you know we don't pick on the little guys, but last week we
had an application for 225 lots. He donated all of his road right of way. He donated
towards a lighted intersection. He did off-site improvements. And he donated a lot for
Habitat for Humanity. He was 225 houses. So, it's not that much more than yours.
And he was stepping up and that's all my point is. And he was a corner piece of
property, so he had right of way on McMillan, as well as Linder. So, it's just an example
to speak to my point.
Campbell: I'm donating right of way and I'll donate a lot to Habitat for Humanity if you
would like that. But I will not donate five acres to the school district.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, can we let the applicant have his final word?
De Weerd: I think that was a good final word.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have another question, because, you know, I know you're
passionate, but I'm looking at consistency and one thing that we have tried to do with
these transitions between rural environments and the new urbanization of these rural
environments and we routinely hold up applications for the buffering between large acre
subdivisions and R-8s. Typically, our standard has been to at least have lots bordering
large acreages at a minimum of an R-4 and the last one last week that we said no to we
suggested that they be as much as 1,700 square feet -- or 17,000 square feet. Excuse
me.
De Weerd: That's a big difference.
Rountree: Big difference. Yeah. But I guess my question is why -- why aren't we telling
applicants that that's what we are trying to do when we have rural residential and -- the
R-8 I don't have a problem with R-8 per se, but in that transition zone between those
large lots in rest of that subdivision, seems to me that we ought to at least be meeting
our R-4 standard on those bordering lots. So, that's a question for Anna and that's a
question for Jim or Todd or somebody. And that's a consistency thing. We have been
doing that routinely for years.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 57 of 99
Howard: I understand what you're saying. My name is Jim Howard, I'm with J.J.
Howard Engineers. We did evaluate that. We did look at that. It's unfortunate we don't
have the aerial photo, because in part of the process we looked at those homes, those
homes are well set back from their rear lot lines. For the most part, those homes are
way north of our boundary and what lies between those homes and our boundary is
pastures and places for horses. So, they have a natural buffer already built in. We
didn't see the necessity of providing additional buffer that they already have. Thank
you.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further questions, Council --
Bird: Madam Mayor, before we close it, I do -- I want to follow up on Councilman
Rountree's -- I want to ask Todd would you have any objection to taking some of those -
- a couple three lots on the north out and making those larger deals? And I realize that
you're probably tight with the pencil, but I just -- you know, there is that one lot -- if you
go back to the deal, Anna, there is one lot -- or one place over there -- no, the one
before that, kid.
De Weerd: Kid?
Bird: There we go. There is one -- well, she is a kid to me.
Rountree: Everybody is a kid to you.
Canning: Thank you. I'll take it.
Bird: There is three lots behind that one house. I don't care if the house is 150 feet
away, you can say all you want, they are going to develop. Is there any way that you
would be willing at that one point where you back up to those -- I guess there is four lots
along there. Looking at taking some lots out and making it a little larger? Like Mr.
Rountree said, we have went 17, 18 thousand, but I would be happy with 14 -- 13, 14
thousand. Or 12,000 or -- we are not even R-4s on some of those.
Campbell: Mr. Rountree said he would be happy with 8,000. We would not mind losing
one lot and spreading that footage throughout the -- the -- since I'm giving one to
Habitat for Humanity, you know, one more for the neighbors is just fine, I guess.
Bird: We are not --
De Weerd: I didn't ask for it. I was giving an example.
Campbell: I appreciate Mr. Hubble giving a lot to Habitat. He's not a small developer. I
wouldn't categorize him --
Bird: We will take any donation you want, beings I have to.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 58 of 99
Campbell: I will be over for a barbecue.
Bird: Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: No, you can't do that. Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Before you close the Public Hearing, there is just a couple things, I guess, for the
Council to consider. You're asking for at least a partial redesign. The highway district
indicated they haven't had an opportunity to review the school site on this redesign as
well. There was a date -- I would agree with Ms. Butler that maybe some rewording, if
the Council wanted to consider on this school site, tying Volterra's action to this property
doesn't really make a lot of sense. But, in essence, if the Council approved this plat as
proposed and removed the language that had these deadlines, then, the school site is
what's there until they come and reapply for something else. You know, I think the
issue that the Planning and Zoning Commission went to, which said they, essentially,
had some automatic right to replat their property is not consistent or usual as we have
approved in the past. Normally, when the city has approved plats, they have approved
what's presented to you and if they want to change it in the future, then, they come
back and ask for that change. So, I mean you may have some things to consider and I
wanted to put that on the record before you close the Public Hearing, in case the
applicant had a response to that, but I know we have had lots of discussion over who
said what to who, but I did at least hear of the school -- or the highway district say they
hadn't responded, because they hadn't seen the school site that's proposed and the
access for it. So, those are the things that I didn't want to get lost in the discussion
before you closed it and make considerations. But I would recommend some re-
thought on 1.2.13 in regards to whether there is a date that's necessary or whether or
not you want to remove Volterra from that consideration and whether this automatic
right that seems to have been proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission fits
what you consider to be appropriate.
De Weerd: Okay.
Campbell: I think ACHD's review of the application and final is conditioned upon the
plat. If we need to extend the date for the school district, again, we have no problem
with that. You know, hopefully, it's within this millennium, you know. It could drag on
forever and ever. We want the school there. They just -- you know -- yeah.
Nary: And, Madam Mayor, I think all I was proposing was is I don't know if the Council
feels a necessity to have a date. I mean if you approve a plat as is, then, it's a school
site until -- if they can't resolve it, they can come back and ask at any point to
reconsider it and you can have this discussion again.
Campbell: That would -- yeah. That's fine.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 59 of 99
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: Just waiting for the applicant to have his final word, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further?
Campbell: This is my final word.
De Weerd: Unless we bring up something else, uh? Sorry about that. Usually, we do
this after we close the Public Hearing, so you're just fortunate you have an opportunity
to respond. We've learned that lesson, too. So, anything further, Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: I have nothing.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Wardle, do you have a motion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we close the Public Hearing on item -- 16 is the
only item we are considering; correct?
De Weerd: Fifteen and sixteen.
Wardle: Thank you. Fifteen and sixteen.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Items
15 and 16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Not to be hypertechnical, but you opened the Public Hearing on 17, they did
move to withdraw it, at least on the record you should move to accept it.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we accept the withdrawal of Item 17.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 60 of 99
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Is this discussion time?
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: All right. Thank you. My discussion on the application, first off -- and I asked
Mr. Freeman during public testimony why the school district choose this particular
project to come forward and voice their opinion. It's something that this Council has
been asking for for years, as I can recall, for the school district to be involved. We hear
it from the public time and time again where they come before us and say -- as they talk
about density and the ability for schools to serve their children and we have, in my
opinion, a definitive answer from -- at least on a specific project from the school district
as to their opinion. I think that we should take them into consideration. But I think it's
been the focus of the application and the presentation -- I have some consideration with
the alley-loaded lots, as I do with every alley-loaded lot that comes through this -- at the
City Council and I didn't see -- I haven't seen elevations, I haven't seen the specifics on
those -- the homes that we asked for. And so I have some questions in my mind on not
just the school portion of this application, but we talked about density here. So, I'm not
inclined to look favorably on the application as current. If the rest of the Council wants
to either disagree with me or we can continue it to a further date to maybe clear some
of these issues up, I would be amenable to that.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just a question for Councilman Wardle. What specifically would you want to
see if we were to reopen and continue?
Wardle: Well, I think the issue of density has been raised and, certainly, I think I have
heard a comment from the applicant -- the one question I have that I didn't necessarily
ask is the removal of the variance for reduced front garage setbacks from 15 feet, how
does that affect the current plat? How does that affect the housing stock and these
different styles? We talked about the movement from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the ability to move that -- the amenities to a central location, which we are
not -- I understand there is an agreement that we are not seeing here. Those are some
of the unanswered questions in my mind. In addition to, obviously, the comments from
the school district.
De Weerd: Did you ask those questions?
Wardle: I believe I did.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 61 of 99
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: I believe I specifically -- uh?
De Weerd: And you didn't get much information --
Wardle: Oh, I asked the applicant during his presentation whether that was his
presentation on landscaping -- the specific things that we typically ask for and so I
assume that was their presentation.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comment from Council? What would be your preference?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: My comment is -- I appreciate the -- what Councilman Wardle indicated from
the school district. It's great to hear from them. But I'm not going to sit here and
arbitrate between an applicant and the school district. That's their issue. I think the
applicant has made a good faith effort into providing the school site on their plat. I like
the recommendation from counsel that it's platted that way, it stays that way, and there
is no time certain one way or another. If the deal can't be cut, the applicant at any point
in time can come back and replot the whole parcel if they wish. So, in that regard I'm
comfortable. I tend to agree, Shaun, with some of the comments you have made. We
have -- we have asked and gotten a response from the applicant that they would be
willing to increase the size of the buffer area lots. I appreciate that. That needs to be
changed on the plat. That is a plat change. I don't think it's a significant one, but it's
one that we need to see before we take final action. ACHD is probably going to want
an access to the south. For now that somewhat hinges on whether or not there is a
school there, but could -- could or couldn't show a roadway there on the plat, depending
on what the response is there. I did answer my question about the north and that
works. I'm not sure we got any specifics on the alleyway and that's certainly something
that we have been around and around and around with the UDC on. And, specifically,
we have been asking for some kind of an idea what the product looks like. So, with
those pieces I agree with you, Shaun. I guess for the applicant, as opposed to
entertaining a motion to deny, I would entertain a motion that we reopen the Public
Hearing, continue it, and ask for specificity as it relates to the alley-loaded product,
some elevations on the product, a replatting that shows the northern lots that border the
rural neighborhood, and -- what am I missing here? Oh. The potential access to the
future school site out of this subdivision.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 62 of 99
Wardle: If I can just respond quickly. The project as a whole is not something that I
have a large amount of heartburn with. I just didn't -- during our discussion and back
and forth with the applicant, get all of the information that I was looking for and so,
certainly, I would be willing to open that back up and allowing -- I don't know how long it
would take to gather that information, but certainly probably would be in fairly short
order.
De Weerd: We could ask the applicant to --
Bird: It's either -- it's either do that or I can't buy into it the way it is right now. I'm not
going to pass on alleys that don't meet specifications. We fought too hard for that.
De Weerd: It's not open right now.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: One other point that was raised I don't know if Councilmember Rountree was
concerned. That eastern stub street versus it being east or north, the applicant
indicated either one was fine. I don't know if you want a comment from someone, but
since that was brought up, I don't know if it's a concern to you.
De Weerd: And, Mr. Bird, I don't think anyone said that the alleys didn't meet code. No
one's even talked about them.
Bird: Well, let's go back to them. I want to make sure they don't.
De Weerd: Okay. It looks like we need more information and I would entertain a motion
to move the direction you want to move.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we re-open the public hearings for Items -- 15 and 16?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Rountree: And specifically for the applicant to have an opportunity to provide the city
with a redrawing of the plat that would indicate larger lots on the northern border, at a
minimum size of an R-4 or larger, that the applicant provide elevations that will give the
city a sense of the architectural type for the alley-loaded product. That the applicant
bring back specifics as it relates to the UDC on the alley, alley widths, and, hopefully,
we will get a comment from the fire department. And the -- looking at the access to the
south and working with ACHD on the flip of a coin on which way to put the access to the
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 63 of 99
north, whether it goes north or whether it goes the way it is now, it doesn't matter to me.
It's there, so if it works better for the lay of the land here, the way it is now, is fine to take
a look at that with ACHD. Anything else? If nobody has any other comments, that's my
motion.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. So, there is a motion to reopen with the specified requests as
outlined and --
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: If I may, with regard to the timing of when this comes back, this is a
residential project with no planned services in the near future.
De Weerd: If you will let us first vote on opening the Public Hearing, I'll do that first.
Okay. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Now, Anna.
Canning: My timing is off tonight. I'm sorry. This is -- this is a residential project where
services won't be available for at least two years. I am without staff to process -- to
review this change until June. We are full committed on your May hearing, so I would
ask that you -- if you do table this, that it be sometime in June.
Bird: Continue it? How long, Anna?
Canning: I believe the first hearing in June is better than the second. No, actually, it
would be the second hearing in June.
Bird: The 13th probably won't have one, because I see that we -- be the first time we --
De Weerd: When does AIC start?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was thinking of P&Z week. So, the
first -- your first hearing in June is probably okay. It's the P&Z's first hearing in June is --
Bird: The 6th.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Do you need any greater clarity? Do you need any further clarity?
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 64 of 99
Rountree: I'll add this to my motion that -- continue it to June 6th, 2006.
Bird: Second that.
De Weerd: Okay. That was the motion. Okay. We do have a motion to continue to
June 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Anything further, Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: No. Just the final word.
De Weerd: Final word. Thank you. That means you're not going to speak the rest of
the evening.
Wardle: Probably not.
De Weerd: Go find Mr. Borton. I'm going to call a five minute break.
(Recess.)
Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23
commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace
Subdivision by Landmark Development – southeast corner of Ustick
Road and Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. I'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. This is a Public Hearing,
Item 18, on PP 06-002. I will open that Public Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Gateway Marketplace
project. It's at the southeast corner of Ustick and Meridian. Ustick. Meridian. And this
is a preliminary plat application. As you can tell, it's already been -- Ustick and Eagle.
Sorry. Have I got the right project? The Gateway Marketplace or Meridian Gateway.
You are Gateway Marketplace. Okay. I have trouble keeping these next two separate
in my head.
De Weerd: I know. There is something in common with their name, I think.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Gateway.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 65 of 99
Canning: My notes are incorrect. It is Ustick and Eagle. The development includes 18
commercial lots to construct up to 250,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses on
approximately 22.5 acres. Apparently we don't have the site plan, Tamara.
De Weerd: Slow down.
Canning: Sorry. I was looking for the site plan, but we don't have one, but I know the
applicant does have one. As I mentioned before, there are 250,000 square feet of
proposed commercial square footage and staff has added some conditions of approval
about no -- no one building being larger in size than half of that approved. So, there are
some conditions regarding that in the staff report. There is a concurrent variance
application that will be discussed after this hearing. There are no elevations for this
project as proposed right now. The applicant has stated previously that the
development will be consistent with the Sadie Creek project that was approved just
west of the site, so that was presumed to be the development style for this project as
well. The Commission did recommend approval at their March 16th hearing. Tamara
Thompson, the applicant's representative, spoke in favor of the application. No one
spoke in opposition or commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission
were the constructing sidewalk -- the key issue was the Eagle Road access points. It
looks like that other one -- I copied it over from the staff report, but that must be in error.
The key Commission changes to staff's recommendation were including a full access to
Eagle Road at the quarter mile south of Ustick. And I think we touched on that briefly
as part of the Bienville application and variance application. And, then, supporting a
public road connection at the quarter mile south of Ustick Road. The outstanding
issues for Council clearly are the Eagle Road access points related to the variance
application and also construction of Allys Way and I do want to touch on that a little bit.
As you know, the highway district has submitted an application -- annexation application
for this long skinny property here and their intent in purchasing that property was to
facilitate the construction of a collector road that aligns with Allys Way across Ustick,
comes down through their property. It would be a continued by development of this
commercial property, kind of adjoining the Red Feather development -- or that was
brought in and annexed as part of the Red Feather development. And, then, it would
come here through this property here. There is a small frontage there. And, then,
you're at the half mile. And we showed that half mile access point at the school. Here
is the school. So, it would -- that half mile collector would come in and, then -- from
Eagle Road at this point and, then, would continue onto Fairview. So, this was, really, a
rare opportunity to have a full alternative road section to Eagle Road that would take the
traffic off of Eagle Road. The development agreement for this project does say they
need to have a frontage or a backage road system. When this was proposed by ACHD,
staff has always supported that this would provide that backage road system. ACHD is
asking now that the Council consider whether this development should, in fact, be tied
to the construction of this. They have purchased the property. They have not allocated
funding for the construction of the collector road. So, that would be one of the large
outstanding issues for Council. And with that I will let the applicant show the -- how the
site will develop. I know she has a presentation regarding that. Unless the Council has
questions, Council or Mayor.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 66 of 99
De Weerd: Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Tamara Thompson.
I'm with Landmark Development Group, 1882 Taluka Way in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Thompson: With me tonight I also have Patrick Dobie, the traffic engineer, and Bill Ray
Strite, the architect, that will have brief comments after I'm complete. And just so --
De Weerd: Okay. You're all within the same time period, though.
Thompson: We are doing the variance separate, is -- is that correct?
De Weerd: Yes, we are.
Thompson: Okay. As Anna said, our site is located at the southeast corner of Eagle
and Ustick Roads. We are proposing to develop approximately 23 acres and the
proposed development will consist of commercial, retail, restaurant, and office. The
exact mix will be dependent upon market conditions at the time of development. The
site plan looks really small in here now. Just want to point out a few things to you. The
property was originally annexed and rezoned in 2004 and a development agreement
went along with that. What we are before you tonight is for a preliminary plat and for a
variance for access onto Eagle. We went before Planning Commission twice, once in
February, once in March, and the site plan was revised substantially to comply with their
comments. Basically we had -- these were originally in line, so we have staggered
those and we have kind of -- more of a meandering driveway along the front. We made
more of a -- more pads and the -- or the in line space used to come clear out to here
and we have eliminated some of that and added more -- more pads and we have added
landscaping and patio areas adjacent to the pads and we have added considerable
more pedestrian linkage between -- in the site. And, then, the cross-access points to
the east and to the south. Staff wanted three access points, so we have been working
closely with the Una Mas folks on exactly where these accesses work for both of us and
these are the locations that we have determined here and here goes to Una Mas. This
one down here is actually south of their property and that goes to a third party that we
have tried to contact, but have not been in touch with at this point. Back in October of
'05 we held a neighborhood meeting and due to the sensitivity of Una Mas and at the
time they were planning office, which I still think they are going to have a portion of it as
office, not all of it, we have proposed to mitigate some of their concerns with -- including
a three foot landscape berm with some larger 12-foot trees at the time of planting along
our eastern property line. So, along this line adjacent to -- to where their office uses are
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 67 of 99
going to be. We will include that. And, then, if you could go forward one. This is just --
this is just an architectural vision. This is the same as what we were proposing for the
Sadie Creek Promenade. These are the same -- right now the same ownership, so
they are looking to keep these centers architecturally consistent. And, then, the next
one. One of the things that Una Mas was concerned about is having some sort of a
block, if we have a recessed truck dock, to limit the view and the noise and so we have
agreed with them that we will put up some barricades along the truck docks, but make
them a little higher, probably around six feet, to help limit the view. And the next one.
Oh. And one other thing on that -- on that slide. The back of the building -- this,
actually, is at the Crossroads -- Meridian Crossroads. The back of this building is just
kind of a plain color and what we'd like to do -- sorry, Anna. Next one, please -- is just,
you know, color bands with paint, maybe some texture changes, stuff like that, is just,
you know, wrap the back of the building, so that the back isn't just plain, that it is -- does
have some sort of an architectural element to it. And, then, you can see on this one,
this is a trash compactor, that there is a wall to screen the noise there, that if we do
have any trash compactors, that we would provide and, then, any other trash would be
in an enclosed dumpster area. We met collectively with ACHD. So, Una Mas and
myself met with ACHD to discuss the cross-access needs and the construction of the
roadway, which isn't necessarily on this drawing, but, basically, Una Mas sits here and,
then, the new roadway for ACHD is here. Collectively, we have agreed to pay for half of
that new Allys Way -- Allys -- yeah. Allys Way is what it's called. The new roadway that
ACHD is proposing to put in here. And, then, those three access points would go
through and connect to that road. There was a requirement for a backage road with the
development agreement that was approved in 2004. Anna, could you go back to the
site plan, the very first one, please? We can still accommodate that on site. It
meanders through a little bit where you would come in here and come through and,
then, you can get out to the south. But we do believe that the Allys Way is a better
alternative for that and since we have been in agreement with Una Mas, that those --
those should go through. But we are still at the mercy of another property owner to -- to
actually get access over there. You know, if -- if and when they develop is -- because
we don't have easement rights, we just access to cross over at this point. There are a
few areas in the staff report that I'd like to point out that -- that I need clarification or give
clarification. The first one, Anna, I think I already brought up, is on page two of the staff
report under the key issues. I -- it talks about constructing a sidewalk along McMillan
and Meridian Roads and I think that's just either left overs from something else or a
typo, since we are not -- not at that location. The next is on page five and this talks
about the access onto Eagle Road, but those dimensions that are given there under N,
as in Nancy, are wrong. It is correct in other areas of the staff report, but those, instead
of 700 feet, should read 850. And instead of 1,200 should read 1,350. Page ten, the
commercial amenities, my only problem with this is that this is a conceptual site plan. If
you could read these closer, they -- some of them are designated as drive-thrus. If
that's how the tenant mix goes, if that's how, you know, the market interest goes, so I
just -- the intent is that we are going to comply with the site plan as much as possible,
but I just want to point out that if we do have drive-thrus in different locations, then, they
-- and we haven't necessarily shown those on here. We labeled them as such, but they
are not shown that way. So, I just wanted to make sure we have the leeway to work
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 68 of 99
with staff on exactly how the landscaping and the -- and any pedestrian areas flow for --
for those areas. And that goes along with -- on Exhibit C, page one, has the same -- on
1.1.4, the first one there calls out different -- different landscaping and patio space for
the different lots -- different pad sites and, again, our intent is to comply with this, but we
do want the leeway to work with staff on exactly how -- how that works. And, then, the
second bullet point under that calls for perimeter landscaping to be 20 feet along the
eastern perimeter and I believe this to be left over from when this was -- prior to it being
zoned and annexed, but now that it has been zoned C-G, the same as what we are, a
20 foot buffer or perimeter landscaping there doesn't -- doesn't seem appropriate. I
think our site plan is showing ten feet. And with that I will stand for questions. We will
keep our other consultants for the variance application. And appreciate your time and
would like to respectfully request approval of our preliminary plat.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there any public testimony?
Okay. Seeing none, Council, any information needed from staff or the applicant?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, would you like me to comment on
those two conditions of approval that they have recommended changes to?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Canning: On the first one regarding the amenities, this is zoned as mixed use regional
on the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan does specifically talk about
providing some amenities in the commercial development, specifically some plazas and
gathering places. When we have left it open we have had a very difficult time going in
as staff and requiring amenities that are really very meaningful. We felt that the ones
that Mrs. Thompson recommended on this site were a nice amenity and we would like
to see something like that. And I think that's why that condition is worded a little more
strongly. We have had a very difficult time in other places as staff negotiating any type
of meaningful amenity. Regarding the 20-foot landscape buffer, she is right, this was a
hold over from when that was not part of a zoning application for the city, so I believe
that her comment regarding that is fine. The errors in the staff report are noted. Really,
the only ones that we need to be concerned about amending are those in the conditions
of approval, so that we get those correct over time.
De Weerd: Anna, I guess I have a question for you or Bill. Without granted easements
back to the collector road, can that be counted as their backage requirement?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant indicated that they
have made a commitment to pay for half of the construction cost of that collector road. I
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 69 of 99
believe that's a verbal commitment at this time. What I had suggested in my
presentation that Council may want to consider construction of that collector road as
part of the development of this project. They do have the development agreement. You
could modify that development agreement to include construction of that collector as
meeting that requirement -- their current requirement in the DA of a frontage or backage
road, I believe.
De Weerd: But without the surety they are going to have access back there, how can
that be required or asked of?
Canning: Well, we did get commitments from Una Mas as part of their development
agreement that they would provide that cross-access.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: And we are assuming ACHD will provide that cross-access on their portion --
unused portion of the property. We anticipate we will be able to get that, so --
De Weerd: You'd have to ask Gary. I guess if he wants help to developing the road,
that would help. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just to follow up on a couple of those comments from Mrs. Canning. In the
applicant's final rebuttal I mean they could maybe address if they have a concern with
that access issue. They are already required to build a road. The access that's being
provided, the cross-access, the property that's there, they don't have to purchase to
build the access backage road that's been required by the development agreement
appears, at least to me, to be a fair consideration for the city to require that
commitment, but I mean they, obviously, get to comment about that if that's a concern of
the Council. But it appears if there is a necessity to amend the development
agreement, then, we may need to continue this hearing to notice up that that's being
amended as well. Under the state code to amend the development agreement requires
a separate Public Hearing or a noticed Public Hearing and that's not part of this noticing
that was done. So, that may be another issue. We may have to continue to make sure
that anyone who had a -- wants an opportunity to comment about that particular
condition being amended has an opportunity to come and appear before you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Any public testimony? Would
the applicant like any final word?
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 70 of 99
Thompson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to reiterate that it is our intent to
comply with this and that language was just pretty strong and that I didn't want it to be
taken very literal that this site plan was locked in place, because this is a preliminary
plat, not a final plat, and, you know, we wanted the leeway to work with staff, as long as
that is the intent, then, we are okay with that. As far as the backage road, like I said
before, you know, we do have connectivity through the site that I believe meets the
intent with, you know, no back-up parking within the -- within the access and no -- or it
has to be a certain width and no back-up parking and that kind of stuff. But it doesn't
necessarily have to be a straight shot, that it can -- that it can meander through the site.
So, we are providing for that, but, again, we do feel that the better alternative is the -- is
the other road that ACHD is asking for and we are agreeable to help contribute to pay
for that.
De Weerd: And I think a backage road is a public road and so the meander through --
Thompson: The development agreement specifically states public or private backage
road. so, it doesn't -- you know, it doesn't have a requirement for a public road, as far
as the way it currently reads.
De Weerd: Okay. Gary, would you like to come and provide public testimony?
Inselman: Madam Mayor, Gary Inselman, representing ACHD, 3775 North Adams
again. I think there is an important clarification, maybe, that we need. This is a unique
situation that -- we haven't acted on this preliminary plat yet. Normally, we act before
the Council acts. We have requested that the applicant tell us that they want to use
Allys Way in lieu of the frontage or backage road that your code requires through the
site, be it public or private. I think it's an important point to be made that they are
requesting that that meet your requirement for the frontage or backage road for us to be
able to take an appropriate action and for this body, I believe.
De Weerd: Thank you, Gary.
Thompson: I assume you're asking me that question. Yes, we would like to use Allys
Way as our backage road requirement for the development agreement. But, like I said
before, technically, we have cross-access to get there, but we do not have a
construction easement to go on somebody else's property to physically construct an
access point to that. So, I believe it's going to happen concurrently, that the two
developments will go concurrently, but -- which, you know, you never know on timing,
especially when we are at the mercy of a third party.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council, do you have all the information you need and, if so, I
would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 71 of 99
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing PP 06-002.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 18. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any discussion, comments, or --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: A question for Mr. Nary. Did I hear you right that the only way to require that
contribution for the construction of Allys Way be through an amended development
agreement, which would require this to be continued and noticed up for that?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm pulling up the development
agreement now to see if it needs to be amended. If it does need to be amended, then,
the state code requires a Public Hearing to amend it and it hasn't been noticed as a
Public Hearing to amend the development agreement, so you would have to continue it.
But while they were talking I have been trying find it, so I can verify if it needs to be
amended. If the requirement is that a backage road is required and, as Mrs.
Thompson stated, it simply says public or private backage road, if the Council wants to
consider if that can be satisfied by this -- construction of this roadway and that the
construction through Allys Way and the easements that are necessary and that ACHD
is committed to working with the applicant, then, it probably doesn't require an
amendment to the development agreement, you're just making a determination that that
satisfies that requirement if they can accomplish that. And so, then, another hearing
won't be required.
De Weerd: But since we have not had comment from ACHD on using that as a
backage road, we would need to wait and have that comment; is that correct?
Nary: Right. I think that was what -- I was trying to look at Mr. Inselman, so, I'm sorry.
I think he wanted to have a little more time to at least --
Rountree: He wants direction from the city.
Nary: Oh. Okay.
Bird: Yeah. He wants direction from the city.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 72 of 99
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I don't, obviously, know what the development agreement says, but if it's a
question of whether or not the ACHD parcel and the joint venture between this
development and Una Mas can develop the Allys Way, I would see that that complies
with the city's desire to have a backage road. So, unless the development agreement
says something more specific than that, I don't see why it's a question.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would agree with Councilman Rountree. I think this is what we heard in
Pre-Council today, having a backage road and it comes down. I think it's ACHD,
according to a letter we got today, they are just waiting for us to let our desires be
known and they would pay for it, so I agree with Mr. Rountree.
De Weerd: Okay. So what would you like to do?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I don't disagree either. I'm just making sure there wasn't anything that -- any
agreement that would --
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm not finding any -- the way the
development agreements used to be written they are fairly lengthy, so they are a little
different than how we do them now. But I'm not finding anything that requires you to
amend it. I think you can certainly make that finding if you need to.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Borton.
Borton: I think Mr. Nary's search and Mrs. Thompson's statement as to what that
development agreement does reflect, I feel comfortable that this agreement, along with
Una Mas to help pay for the backage road, Allys Way, accomplishes the goals the city is
trying to take care of and with that I'd move to approve Item 18, PP 06-002.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 73 of 99
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 18. Any discussion? Hearing none,
Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19: Public Hearing: VAR 06-002 Request for a Variance for two access
points to Eagle Road SH / 55 for Gateway Marketplace by Landmark
Development – southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 19.
Rountree: I need to recuse myself.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree is recusing himself, so I will open Item 19, Public
Hearing VAR 06-002 with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- actually, I should probably go back
to the one I was just at. Sorry. The applicant -- this is the request for the variance. The
applicant is proposing two access points to Eagle Road. My notes are incorrect once
again. Sorry about that. One would be a full access point located here. The other one
is right-in, right-out only. That's the northern of the two proposed access points. This
access point would have lined up with the Bienville access point across Eagle Road. I
am going to briefly go through some of the reasons why staff is recommending denial of
the various application. The development agreement clearly states that no access
points were proposed or addressed as part of the annexation application and the
development agreement between the applicant and the city requires, again, as we have
already discussed, either a public or a private street backage road that would be
constructed parallel to Eagle Road and ACHD -- this is another twist on that. One of
the reasons that that collector road is so important is also that ACHD has stated that --
I'm sorry. I'm getting confused. That ACHD with that has -- we do have these three
access points, so the need for the two on Eagle Road are diminished. They have two
going onto Ustick and they will have three going out to Allys Way. The access points do
not meet ITD policy standards for being at the half mile. ITD specifically stated their
opposition to access at this site in 2003 and the City of Meridian incorporated their
recommendation into the consideration for annexation. Now, the letters received from
ITD during 2003, 2004, do talk about approving access points, but they make no
guarantees that any would be approved. Most recently ITD has said they will
conditionally approve the access points if the City Council approves the variance. This -
- when we started talking about the frontage, backage road with ACHD, ACHD also
pointed out that the reason they acquired the property that they did to build the collector
road was to alleviate the need for access points onto Eagle Road. If Council does
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 74 of 99
approve a number of additional access points to Eagle Road between Ustick and
Fairview, ACHD may decide that it's not in the best interest to provide the separate road
system, since everyone will be just accessing Eagle from their access points. So, this is
kind of the other half of that -- that collector road story is that for that to be a viable
investment from the highway district, there needs to be limited access on Eagle Road,
so that people are actually using those collector road systems for what they were
intended, which was to relieve pressure from Eagle Road. Moving on. In this instance
the City Council is specifically on record during the 2004 hearing process opposing
access points in Eagle Road for the eastern side of the development and you did
require the frontage road access only. In Councilmember Bird's motion it said -- he
stated: We are basically just annexing the property. We are not giving any go ahead
on anything or any design. So, with that said I would move that we approve the request
for Kissler and moved on from there. So, there wasn't specific approval of the access
points or any of the development with the annexation request. Again, as I pointed out
earlier today, the traffic data from 2004 -- we don't have updated 2005 numbers yet, but
it would support not approving the variance for safety concerns. Our greatest number
of traffic accidents do occur along Eagle Road. The sixth reason for recommending
denial of the variance, the access points are not shown on the Eagle Road corridor
study, nor are they shown on the Eagle Road arterial study, which was an alternate
study. And, finally, the request does not meet the standards for access approval as
required by the UDC and they don't meet the variance findings from the UDC as well.
So, you do have Finding before you tonight. Those are for denial. And with that I will
answer any questions that Council may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none now.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant --
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Tamara Thompson,
Landmark Development Group, 1882 Taluka Way in Boise. Just for the record, I'd like
to give you my background and credentials. I have worked with and for commercial
retailers and developers since 1982, assisting in site planning, site development, site
selection, entitlements, construction and operations. I have specialized knowledge in
access issues as it relates to retail developments. We are proposing two access points
on Eagle Road at approximately 850 feet and 1,350 feet from Ustick Road. Those
dimensions are from the center line of Ustick Road. The existing development
agreement discusses in several areas the potential connection and access to Eagle
Road. But specifically it states that the applicant and property owners are to work with
ITD for access. Immediately after the development agreement was executed in April of
'04, the property owner was Mr. Kissler, which he still owns a portion of the property
today. He immediately started working with ITD and Mr. Kissler was issued an e-mail
from ITD in October of '04 stating approval and the details for access onto Eagle Road
at the two locations that we are currently proposing. In his mind he thought access was
done and, I'm sorry, Anna, could you go forward a few? I have -- right there. One back,
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 75 of 99
please. That one. Yes. This is a letter that Mr. Kissler received from ITD, which, I'm
sorry, I'm not able to read. I have submitted this to the city. Back in February I gave the
city a copy, so I don't know if you were given a copy of it. But, basically, it was a
meeting between several members of ITD, including Chuck Winder and Mr. Kissler and
the outcome was that -- number one says full access with the construction of a
deceleration lane will be granted at the southern edge of the parcel approximately a
quarter mile from the intersection, to be either shared with the adjacent property owner
or a cross-access agreement shall be given to that owner. And number two is a right-in,
right-out access with the construction of a deceleration lane will be granted at the
appellant's preferred location within a minimum distance of 780 feet from the south
edge of Ustick to the north edge the approach to a maximum of 930 feet. The right-out
movement controls the minimum distance. If you want a right-out -- I'm sorry, a right-in
only access, we can reevaluate it and get it more southern along the property. And
there is a couple other things there. Hopefully you have a copy of that. But at that point
that -- that e-mail is dated October 25th of '04. Mr. Kissler thought the access was a
done deal. The existing development agreement language should grandfather this
project, since it was executed over a year prior to the new ordinance. The ITD access
executive committee re-approved the proposed access points on March 22nd. The City
Council should feel comfortable that ITD's review and analysis of our traffic impact
report that was prepared by Stanley Consultants is adequate and ITD did review that
report to come up with their decision. The design for the Eagle Road corridor shows
the proposed approaches. One forward, please. Go to the next one and, then, stop.
One more, please. These are getting fairly small. This is -- this is Lowe's here. This is
the Eagle Road concept plan. I went to ITD, they gave me copies of their pull-outs, so
they have a binder, then, they have kind of some pull-out aerials that go along with that.
This design was presented to the public at an open house at the Hilton Garden Inn on
June 15th and 16th of 2005. And the -- I'll get my copy, so I can tell you exactly what it
shows. What this shows is that there is access here and access here. And there and
there. And on the opposite side of the road there is access right there and at that
location and at that location and it does not show anything here on the northwest
corner, which subsequently has been given three access points. But at the time of this
it was not. So, this is for the north side of the road. And this is for the -- for the median
design going in. Once the median goes in this gets -- from the full access that they
have right now to a right-in, right-out and, then, this one you can see there is some
channelization in the median, where they would be given a left-in, right-in, right-out and,
then, this property here with that channelization would have a left-in, right-in, right-out.
One more, please. In front of our site the two -- and I'm sorry you can't see this. The
two access points that we are proposing here for a right-in, right-out and here for a full
access, you can see that -- that they have accommodated that in their design of the
median and, basically, what this has is it's a channelized left-in and, then, a channelized
left-out. So, you can't go straight across. But it's not the same as what the -- like south
of Fairview where all the accidents are occurring that -- you know, it's not just a free for
all, that it is, actually, more controlled. And, again, that's -- these designs were
presented to the public on June 15th and 16th of 2005. Both the northeast corner,
which is Lowe's, and the northwest corner, which is the proposed Kohl's, utilize backage
roads and multiple access points onto Eagle Road. Go backwards. Right there is fine.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 76 of 99
Mr. Unger stole my exhibit before, by the way. The Lowe's sits here and they do have a
backage road that gets them to their full access point here and, then, Mr. Moore in his
development is required to put in an access point, plus he has three accesses onto
Eagle Road. Lowe's has two access points there. So, both the northeast corner and
the northwest corner utilize backage roads and multiple access points onto Eagle Road.
We are asking for the same access at the same locations. So, basically, the distance
off of Ustick is consistent for the access points that we are requesting. What we are
asking for is that the playing field be level. It's an issue of fairness and the exact same
accesses have been granted on the north corners. Eliminating access on Eagle Road
will destroy the convenience factor of the site. Failure to grant access will substantially
impair its access for its highest and best use. Factors contributing to the site's highest
and best use of high density commercial retail include its superior visibility. It's a large,
relatively flat, rectangular parcel with significant state highway frontage located at a
signalized intersection of a state highway and a principal arterial. It's located on the
going home side of the state highway. It's in close proximity to I-84. It is mixed use
regional land use designation and general commercial zoning designation. It's located
in an area of ongoing intense development. The existing public services are sufficient
to service this use and ITD's 2004 and 2006 approval to -- of the two approaches on
Eagle Road. Reasonable access for this site consists of two accesses on Eagle Road
and two on Ustick Road and an access to the future backage road. With these
accesses the property will accommodate a retail center. Denial of the property's two
Eagle accesses will unreasonable burden the site. Access to Ustick only does not
constitute reasonable access. With the elimination of access onto Eagle Road the
developability of the site will be limited due to increased congestion. The overall square
footage of the project will be -- will need to be reduced. The use down graded to office
and there is a high probability that the site or a portion of the site will sit vacant. The
highest and best use for the property changes dramatically for high intensity retail
commercial to that of a much lower value use of an office park development with a
minor secondary retail commercial component and our brokers are estimating that,
basically, the retail component of this project would go down to ten percent of the size,
so roughly 20,000 square feet, instead of -- yeah, 25,000 square feet, instead 250,000.
Convenient access -- convenient Eagle Road access for trip capture is critical for
commercial purposes. The variance finding -- the variance does not grant special right
or privilege that is consistent with all the other commercial centers along Eagle Road
and specifically at this corner. It relieves undue hardship. The access to the backage
road of Allys Way and at the half mile point -- I'm sorry, Anna, could you go back one.
Ultimately, the backage road will connect to the half mile point. We -- like I said, we
have cross-access, but we don't necessarily have a construction easement, but this
only gets here. So, even with access to this backage road we still ultimately only have
access to Ustick, which we already have two accesses onto Ustick. So, it doesn't help
us much until this road gets through all the way, which is the future plan, but we are at
the mercy of other land developers and that would limit our ability to develop anytime
soon. So, that would potentially down grade the site or put on hold indefinitely. Also,
the site has two deeded access points onto Eagle Road and we have to proceed per
the 2004 development agreement stating to work with ITD, which this property owner
did immediately. And the variance shall not be detrimental to public health, safety, and
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 77 of 99
welfare. ITD has analyzed our traffic impact study and it's comfortable that the access
can be designed safely, which I have shown you with the channelized accesses. And
our traffic impact study shows that the level of service at the Ustick and Eagle
intersection operates at a better level of service with Eagle Road access. With that I will
turn over the microphone to Patrick Dobie, our traffic consultant.
De Weerd: Okay. Just to note the time is very short. Please state your name and
address.
Dobie: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Patrick Dobie. My address
is 777 Heartstone Drive in Boise. Let me give you a little bit of the background on this
site. In 1995 the Idaho Transportation Department acquired additional right of way to
widen the highway. The current -- the owner of the property at that time was Fearless
Ferris company. They sold the right of way to ITD for some compensation and two
access points. Those access points were included in the right of way contract and they
were deeded access easements, which was a substantial portion of the compensation
to the right of way that was taken by the state. Early in the planning process, around
February of 2004, we attended a workshop with the Idaho Transportation Department to
look at a concept study for a median divider on Eagle Road. Following that meeting we
prepared a traffic impact study and reviewed with the staff at ITD the needs of the
project and the transportation impacts that could be created by restriction of access.
The state reviewed that study which contained a finding that the site could not provide --
that without a direct access to Eagle Road reasonable access to the site could not be
accommodated. Reasonableness was quantified with the objective criteria that dealt
with a level of service, on site queue lanes, delays, internal circulation problems, and
the loss of access to pass-by --
De Weerd: Sir, if you will, please, summarize and conclude.
Dobie: Okay. If I may, the -- based upon commonly accepted engineering criteria --
and for the record I'm going to submit three documents. One is the Access
Management Manual of the Transportation Research Board, the Traffic Engineering
Handbook of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the Policy of Geometric
Design for Highways and Streets by the American Association of State Transportation
Officials. In addition to that, a copy of the letter that Mr. Kissler received from the Idaho
Transportation Department approving the locations of the driveways. What these
documents show is that the proposed access do not create any safety or operational
impacts on the highway and that they can be improved without any interference or any
detriment to public health. Thank you.
De Weerd: If you will submit those to the city clerk. Thank you. Okay. This is a Public
Hearing. Is there any public testimony?
Strite: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Billy Ray Strite, and I am a member of
the public. However, I come on behalf of Mr. Kissler, so I hope you will give me just two
or three seconds.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 78 of 99
De Weerd: I'll give you three minutes. How about that?
Strite: Three minutes. That's excellent. Thank you very much. He asked me to pose
two questions to the Council as it related to the access approval process. The first of
which is that is a variance actually necessary considering the fact that we proposed, we
submitted, and were approved an annexation and a rezone which were all tied together,
if you will, by a concept use plan. That concept use plan delineated the two deeded
access points onto Eagle Road. So, his contention is since this preceded the UDC, that
is, in fact, a variance even necessary. Similarly, he has asked me to suggest that under
the policy, development along federal and state highways in the UDC 11-3-H-3, the
decision-making body may consider and apply modifications to the standard of this
section upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Department. It
makes no reference to the requirements for a variance. So, I will make this very quick.
I'd like to propose and I'd like make part of the record the original concept plan
delineating the two required access points that were approved under the March 16th
date of '04, I believe, Mr. Nary. The development agreement and the Findings of Facts.
And, lastly, Mr. Kissler would suggest that if, in fact, the variance is required, should he
not be granted the same Findings of Facts as the Kohl's approval dated in March of '05.
With that I will hand you these documents. Any questions, if you might have them?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Strite, I -- as you testified, Mr. Kissler feels that the motion of the annexation
and the development agreement back when it was done was giving approval to these --
entries -- these two entries on and off Eagle Road; am I not right?
Strite: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, I think that the parcel annexation sketch, which
was the zone use map, that was actually requested by the staff and the Council at the
time, became part and a parcel, if you will, to the approved development agreement
and the final Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law of 3/16/04. And if you -- Will, if
you could pass those out, I don't think that this thing reads very, but you will note that
the two access points delineated as B on this map refer to as ITD approved access
points. And it's our contention that this plan, which was requested by this Council -- a
previous Council, was part and parcel to those agreements. And, thus, it's Mr. Kissler's
contention that a variance, in fact, wasn't even needed. Or, certainly, if a variance is
needed, the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law should be consistent with that of
the Kohl's application, which was approved a year later. And that's all I have. I will
paraphrase Councilman Wardle and that's my last word.
De Weerd: Is there any further testimony on this application? Okay. Any final word?
Dobie: Madam Mayor --
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 79 of 99
De Weerd: If you will just restate your name and address.
Dobie: It's Patrick Dobie, 777 Heartstone Drive. The city has adopted, you know, an
access control plan for the state highway system through the city and it's a very
progressive, far thinking proposal and -- but there are -- there are instances where
variances from that policy are appropriate. Restricting access to the highway creates
problems that need to be considered. It increases u-turns at intersections. It takes
green time allocation away from the through movements on the highway and assigns it
to side streets. This decreases the efficiency of the highway. As far as safety is
concerned, in looking at the safety of a road -- or an intersection, generally it's
compared to what the base rate is for similar facility within the state of Idaho. For the
intersections along Eagle Road the base rate is .58 accidents per a million vehicles.
The accident rate at the intersections on Eagle Road is .62 accidents per million
vehicles. It's roughly ten to 15 percent higher than similar facilities around the state
and, quite honestly, there aren't a lot of similar facilities in the state that have this high of
traffic volume, you know, on a five lane urban road. The segment accident rate, on the
other hand, is quite different. Now, these are -- these are the driveways and this is the
spacing between the signalized intersections. The base rate for the state is 3.44
accidents per million vehicle miles, but the segment of Eagle Road adjacent to the site
is only 1.70, approximately half of the base rate. So, the driveway regimen that exists
on the road is actually safer through the same facilities than other parts of the state,
which indicates -- and I'm sure this was a consideration that ITD weighed in in making
their decision to approve these driveways. Allowing a few driveways and allowing
driveways at the spacing that was approved for this site actually improves the safety
and improves the operational efficiency of the highway. And these are the criteria that
ITD uses to grant variances, they are included in their access policy manual, and they
are included in the IDAPA standards. Now, as far as the access policy manual of ITD, it
recommends that on type four urban principal arterials, that the intersections be limited
to half mile spacing, except if a frontage road is involved. In the case of a frontage
road, full movement driveways can be approved at a quarter mile spacing. And the
proposed entrance to the site at the south driveway location is the quarter mile point. In
the planning that was done for the median divider on Eagle Road, a break in the
median is being proposed and left turns are being accommodated through that
movement. I'm sorry. That location. This is consistent with ITD's policy and since your
ordinance reflects ITD policy, it should be consistent with your ordinance or at least it
should be the grounds for granting a variance. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Okay. Any other comments?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 80 of 99
Borton: A question for legal counsel. Can you clarify succinctly, briefly, clearly -- the
question, as I see it, is whether or not the variance is -- should or should not be granted,
not whether or not a variance is even necessary in this situation. Can you clarify the
legal basis for needing to get a variance for this access? I mean there has been
discussion -- I don't like hearing concerns from applicants about whether or not there
was prior agreements or prior understandings. I empathize with those frustrations. But
when there is discussion about a belief that a variance isn't even required, that that's
not accurate. Can you sort of spell that out?
Nary: I'll try. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, it seems
like we have heard a lot of testimony in regards to some grandfather right and I think
what the planning director stated initially is correct, is that you don't have a grandfather
right to a concept plan. You have a grandfather right to a use that's already been
approved. All that this property had approved is an annexation. The findings in the
minutes reflective at the time indicated that the concept plan was merely that. This is
sometimes referred to in some settings as a bubble drawing and this is not a -- a
transportation plan, this is not a circulation plan, this is not anything other than a
concept of where the annexation parcels are. So, there is no grandfather right. All of
the development agreements that the city has require you to comply with the laws of the
city when you apply for further development. Annexation is one part of the puzzle and
that's all that's been accomplished on this parcel prior to this request for this preliminary
plat. So, it appears that the development agreement at the time and the minutes reflect
that, that the intent was that the concept plan was adequate for the comfort level of the
Council in office -- seated at the time to annex the parcel, but there was clear direction,
both in the minutes and the development agreement, that access was not resolved or
decided. It was placed on the record that they still needed to bring back all of the -- all
of what's in front of you today in regards to a plat. It's, I guess, my opinion that the city
is the land use agency, not the Idaho Transportation Department. The decision on the
plat and the access to the roadway is the city's decision, not the highway district. They
grant approval to access, contingent upon your decision that the access goes there.
So, it's -- so there is no grandfather right that's being -- being impinged on here. There
was no right that the applicant had prior to making this request for this parcel. The
other properties which is being raised north of Ustick, the property immediately north of
this parcel where the Lowe's currently sits and the other development of that, all of that
application and all of those approvals occurred prior to the UDC being approved. It's
not relevant to this application. The other parcels the Council made a consideration at
the time when the application was made and the information was brought forward that
Council did consider that to be adequate for approval of those requests. Each of them
are independent of one another. Granting an access to one parcel does not mean you
are obligated to grant an access to another. The condition -- or the information that was
brought by the applicant as to the highest and best use is not a legal standard in
regards to granting a variance. That the applicant may have to down grade their site is
not a legal standard that's required to be made and is not really a consideration for a
variance. Looking at this drawing, it appears that where they believe the access site
goes means that the same argument can be made for the property that's immediately to
the west of this parcel, which the Council had previously considered as an access point
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 81 of 99
to that parcel and denied it and that was not appealed. So, again, I don't -- I
understand their arguments. I don't think they have legal merit in what this Council
needs to consider as to the variance requirements. So, the short answer is --
De Weerd: I knew we would get to that.
Nary: The short answer is there is no grandfather right. The variance is the appropriate
standard that they need to meet today, because of what they are applying for today, is
that's the current city code that they have to meet. The decision this Council has is
does it meet the standards for a variance and the issues about economic viability and
marketability and highest and best use are not the standard that is before you to make
that decision.
De Weerd: Thank you for the short answer.
Nary: The long and the short of it.
De Weerd: The long and short. Did that --
Borton: That answered it.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? Okay.
Bird: Council, anybody need anymore public input? Madam Mayor, with that I would
move we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 19.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 19. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? If not, do I have a motion? And you all know I can't
make one; right?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I will go forward with it. Whether it gets a second or not, we will find out. I move
denial of VAR 06-002, request for a variance of two access points of -- on Eagle
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 82 of 99
highway, on Eagle Road, State Highway 65, for Gateway Marketplace by Landmark
Development and while making that motion I'd like to also say that when the motion was
made in '03 by myself, there was no plan and it was stated that all we were doing was
annexing and zoning. We weren't approving any accesses. That's the motion.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny the VAR 06-002 for Item 19.
Is there any discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 20: Public Hearing: VAR 05-027 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3.H
requirements for access to State Highway 69 for Meridian Gateway by
White-Leasure Development Company – 1601 South Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Item 20 is a Public Hearing on VAR 05-027. I will
open this Public Hearing with staff comments.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I might make a note for the record, Councilmember Rountree had previously
recused himself on this matter. I could get him to come back and say that on the record
or we could make note of that.
De Weerd: Council recognizes there is a conflict and so Mr. Rountree is absent for Item
20 as well.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Meridian Gateway project.
It's located at the southwest corner of Meridian and Overland. You did hear this
application previously and make a decision. There was some confusion as to what the
final motion for approval was. I have included the minutes from that in my short notes
for you tonight and there were several clarifications to the modification -- or to the
motion, as well as discussion about the signal in there. So, there is some question as
to whether you approved one access point or two for this property. The two proposed
access points right now -- I'm sorry, staff put in the wrong drawing. I know the applicant
has an updated site plan. Sorry I didn't catch that before we brought this in. The
applicant is currently proposing an access point to the southern portion of the property
and, then, one in this general location here. I'll get that up for you soon. I have asked
you to reconsider this item, one, to either clarify the motion or to reconsider the --
granting the request for the two access points on this piece of property. I'm not going to
go into a lengthy discussion, but I do want to kind of hit some of the highlights why staff
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 83 of 99
was proposing denial of the variance application. One, again, we have an ITD initial
response that says that access points are only allowed at the half mile. Then, you have
a separate staff report -- or staff response in request to specific access points, where
they felt they have needed to grant approval of those access points if the Council grants
the variance request. The development agreement for this property does note, similar
to the last application, that -- that the access points to Eagle -- or to Meridian Road don't
meet the ITD policy and in this case it specifically says in compliance with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan no curb cut shall be allowed in Kuna-Meridian Road, State
Highway 69. There is also additional language about the type four access as approved
by ITD. The third reason staff doesn't believe that this meets the findings test for the
variance -- again, we raise the question of safety concerns and accidents and there was
a lot of discussion about a signal -- a possible signal at the southern location for the
access point. You should have received a subsequent follow-up letter from ITD that is
about as plainly and as strongly as I have ever heard anything from ITD, said that there
will be no signal at this location. The fire department has also submitted additional
information regarding this. There was an initial letter that said that they were in favor of
access from the state highway. That -- that initial letter was based on the fact that the --
they were told that the two access points had been fully approved and that the southern
one would have a light. Mr. Silva's intent in providing that first letter was to make sure
that they had funds contributed toward an opticom. I later spoke with him about what
had actually been approved so far and also that they would not get a signal there. He's
amended his letter to indicate similar to what I had indicated previously in the evening
that they are opposed to any left-hand movement unless it's at a signal and if there is a
signal, they request that the applicant fund part of an opticom device. So, the fire
department has provided different -- or additional testimony on this item. Finally, I tried
to communicate to you that this project was relatively small compared to a lot of the
other ones you have seen and I don't think I was very effective in that, so I have just
kind of overlaid the approximate size of property in orange here compared to these
access requests that you have heard at the -- for the intersection of Ustick and Eagle.
And as you see, this property would be about the size of the Sadie Creek development.
At least frontagewise. Certainly a lot less depth going this way. So, their frontage
would be similar to what the Sadie Creek project had. This is the Bienville and, then,
this is the Kissler, Cobb, Egge, Rewe -- or the Kissler portion, I'm sorry, over here that
would end about right there. So, this is relatively small compared to these other access
requests you have seen. So, again, the Sadie Creek you denied any access. This one
would have an access point here and an access point roughly in here. Also, even in
comparison to the Southern Spring application, it's approximately half the size. And,
again, Southern Springs went to additional efforts to acquire the property that would get
them access to Calderwood, so that they would have that as an alternative access to
the site. They did get one approved. Towards the center of the site. That was prior to
our ordinance going into effect. So, with that you do still have Findings for denial. We
have not prepared new Findings for you. And I will answer any questions you may
have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 84 of 99
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. The applicant. If you will, please, state your name and address for
the record.
Huber: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Jeff Huber. My address is
416 South 8th Street, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Huber: I represent the applicant.
De Weerd: Okay.
Huber: Could you put up figure one, please, Anna? We started the process of
annexing in 2004 and at that time we were requested to provide a site plan, which we
did. I'll get to that in a moment. This is the site. Currently there are approximately nine
accesses around this site. Is this microphone on? Okay. That's Southern Springs
across the way. They have a recently approved access at this point also. Full access.
And they also have access out to Calderwood and access out to Overland. Could you
put up figure two, Anna. I'm going to try and be brief. I have got two traffic engineers
here that want to address some of the issues and, then, at the -- following the
conclusion of the hearing Mr. Leasure might like to make some closing comments.
This is the site as it is today with the country corner store. We have got four accesses
on Overland and five accesses on Meridian Road. Two of these accesses are legally
permitted. They have been there a long long time and are currently being utilized as full
accesses, all of them. So, what we are going to do -- well, at the -- could you put up
figure three, please, Anna? When we submitted it during the annexation process this
was the conceptual plan that staff asked for us to submit. This showed two accesses at
this location here. A full access and a right-in, right-out. Now, if you could put up figure
four, Anna. This is the site plan that -- that we are using today. We have presented to
you -- it's a little different than the one we presented at the last hearing. We have
provided a loop -- a connection here to the property to the west, which was what was
requested by the Council at that time. We are requesting -- we are requesting a full
access here and a right-in, right-out here. The letter from ITD states that they would be
in favor of -- and agreeable to allowing a full access here and a right-in, right-out here.
We have changed this to a left-in only and a right-in, right-out. We have provided a loop
road to connect these -- there are approximately six different lots in this subdivision
once we do the plat. So, we are connecting all of these lots with this loop road. We
have consolidated the accesses down to two accesses on Overland Road and two on
Meridian. So, we are limiting from nine accesses down to four, actually. This is the
going home side of the road. This is what makes this a unique site. This is the full
access across the way that's been recently approved for Southern Springs. The vast
majority of the traffic that's going to be shopping in this center, which is going to be a
neighborhood center, will be traveling home on this road headed south to Kuna and
also west on Overland. If all of the traffic were to have to access this site through this
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 85 of 99
one access point here, it would cause some problems and probably some of the
stacking here and probably cause some problems at this intersection. This is a left-
hand turn movement in here. All this traffic -- again, the vast majority going this way,
can easily access it in through a right-in, right-out at these two locations. I have got two
traffic engineers here that would like to address some of the issues here. If you have
any questions for me now I would be happy to answer them.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Okay. If you will, please, state your name
and address.
Ringert: Madam Mayor, Council, my name is John Ringert. I'm a traffic engineer with
Kittleson and Associates. My address is 101 South Capital, Suite 301, Boise, 83702.
I'm going to try to keep this brief. I think we are all -- it's getting late and -- but what I'm
going to do is just describe a little bit about the findings of the traffic study. I think there
were a lot of issues that came up in the previous discussions that, you know, actually,
were addressed and the traffic study may allow you to get some information. I think the
first thing is to describe how we -- when we started out the discussions with ITD on this
it's, really, realizing what has been said previously. Really, this site -- you know, it isn't
that large. In fact, reality is it's an in-fill site. We have, basically, built-out development
to the south, even to the west it's -- it will probably redevelop at some point, but there is
really no way to get to the next planned signal at a half mile. If this were the -- if this
were similar to some of the other cases where there is imminent collector roadways
being constructed, I don't think we would be here. I think the base concern here is,
really, we can't get over here and there is nothing planned -- there is not even, really, a
half mile roadway on Meridian Road for a signal. So, you can see there is really no way
to get there. So, really, there is kind of three things that we are kind of -- we are a small
in-fill development. We really don't have other, you know, development -- a larger piece
of development to really get us to the right places. And we don't have -- and we have
existing development with no stub streets or any way of getting through there. So, I
think was where we started when we discussed this with ITD. Could we go to the next
one, Anna? When we look at access -- hopefully you can kind of see this and the
colors aren't showing up great, but when we looked at access, the first thing we looked
at were, really, you know, how are these accesses going to work on Meridian Road and,
you know, what's some unique issues. The first is that all right -- all right turn
movements. This just shows right-in, right-out movements on each -- at each entrance.
They are, actually, unique in this case, because you are south of the intersection.
You're south of a signal. So, every time this left turn goes there is a pretty large gap
with no traffic at all coming through here for the most part, other than, you know, a right
on red that might occur. Also, when the cross-street goes, there is very little -- there is
a huge gap in traffic here. So, in this case when ITD was working on that with us, we
looked at this and said, well, we don't want the right-in to cause any conflicts with the
through traffic, so let's put in deceleration lanes and, basically, a deceleration taper here
and a full length lane here. That keeps those rear-end accidents from happening as
commonly as you'd see from statistics from active management studies. The next thing
was is these right-outs, they can cause issues if you're -- especially upstream of a
signal, because you're coming into either right turn lanes or queued traffic. In this case
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 86 of 99
we are, actually, benefited by this signal up here. So, when we went through this with
ITD, it basically -- if we can catch that going home traffic, slide them in and out, get
them into decel lanes, get them back out in gaps -- in large gaps in traffic, you know, ten
to twenty second long gaps, you know, it seemed like the most logical thing to do in this
case, instead of running them through -- you know, essentially, take a right here,
through here, right out, as well as, you know, traffic that could -- you know, that may
have to come take -- you know, come all the way through that signal here. Could we go
to the next one, Anna? We also looked at the left-in here. This was a critical look by
both us and ITD. The issue here is very much the same as this right turn here. This is
a unique situation, because any time you're downstream of a signal, we get all those
gaps in traffic. If you go out there -- I was out there and counted multiple times there
was, you know, ten to twenty seconds of a pretty much gap with maybe one car drifting
through. So, what we are able to do is we are able to take all that traffic that might be
coming up from Kuna here and turn them in and, essentially, get them into the site.
Now, we did identify in the traffic study a problem with the left turn out. That was -- that
was documented in the study as a potential problem, especially during the peaks. It's
really -- those are the movements that create most of the crashes. If you look at crash
statistics, they are not -- they are probably one of the most common at the un-signalized
intersections and they are also the most severe. So, as a result of that, we have been
discussing with ITD for awhile, you know, can we limit this to a right-in, right-out, with a
left in? And what we are showing right now is an island there. At this point ITD will
probably sometime come through here with a median, but they really can't at this point,
just due to, you know, the other access there and, then, make it one big project. So, we
have looked at limiting that. So, hopefully, that gives you a little bit of -- can you put the
last one up, Anna. You know, our biggest concern is if we don't have access onto --
onto Meridian Road, essentially, we end up with about 85 percent of all the traffic
entering, essentially, at this one access on Overland and we are, basically, in the back
end of a double -- a future double left turn pocket. So, this was -- you know, this was a
concern. There was some idea mentioned, well, you know, maybe there won't be as
much traffic, but, you know, I think we need to look at it that one way or another we do
have to plan for the traffic. You know, if it does happen, we don't want to be in a
situation where we, actually, create a worse problem with an access issue here and,
then, running all the traffic through this signal, which, actually, degrades the signal
operation, because all those left turns are now taking time from the through movement
coming down from the interchange. So, I just wanted to give you a little insight into the
types of discussions we did go through with ITD as part of this process. So, were there
any questions?
De Weerd: Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Kunz: Okay. Greetings, Madam Mayor, City Council. My name is Dan Kunz. I am the
former district traffic engineer for ITD. I held that position for approximately five years. I
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 87 of 99
currently work for the Transpo Group, which is at 6148 North Discovery Way, Boise,
Idaho. 83713.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Kunz: I have been hired by White-Leasure Development Company to provide
additional traffic engineering review for their development referred as the Meridian
Gateway Retail Center on the southwest corner of Overland Road and State Highway
69, Meridian Road. I would like to applaud the city in their commitment toward access
management and the land use connection to it with the adoption of the Unified
Development Code, specifically Article H. It is a hard balancing act between
development accessing on state highways and providing safe, efficient movement of
traffic for the general public. Article H provides a good base for developments that
encompasses large tracts of land or large developments that could easily be developed
with ideal access spacing. Corridor planning, such as you heard this morning, like 20-
26 and State Highway 44 -- and they already completed State Highway 16 -- are great
tools for access management. The corridor plan effort provides future developments,
the understanding of what is to come along that corridor. The landowners can plan
accordingly, as long as they know what is to come. Article H becomes a little bit more
challenging with developments that are, you know, landlocked or smaller tracts of land.
You know, properties with frontage that is less than ideal should probably be given
special considerations. The Meridian Gateway is -- I mean you guys heard it today,
Overland is on the north, Meridian is on the east, developments to the south and there
is this junk yard right here. So, it's pretty much landlocked currently. I reviewed the
Kittleson's traffic impact study and I agree with the recommendations and conclusions
from the report. ITD has also reviewed the impact study and is agreeable to two access
points onto Meridian Road. We have a letter from ITD and I believe you guys have that
in your possession. It states that ITD is agreeable, based on the traffic study that
Kittleson done. Due to the proximity of the interchange here, you know, Overland Road
and Meridian Road are a critical intersection in trying to preserve the efficient movement
of traffic. If this intersection becomes, you know, overwhelmed with traffic, then,
potentially, that could increase interchange problems in the future. It is important to
preserve the intersection by reducing traffic to it. Anna, can you go to the one -- thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Can you, please, summarize.
Kunz: Okay. I just want to say that the -- really, the left turns going in are going to be
combined with the left turns on Overland. White-Leasure has developed a -- you know,
a pretty good access control issue there by eliminating any left turns out, because those
are the killers. Everybody's kind of seen that. Really, so, you know, this could, actually,
reduce, if you allow this, this could, actually, reduce any of the problems that you will
see here and potentially onto the interchange. So, if you guys have any questions. I
was speeding up, so -- do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Any questions from, Council?
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 88 of 99
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there any public -- I
have two people signed up. Sorry. Jay Story signed up for. It's late. If you will, please,
state your name and address.
Story: Jay Story. My address is 2202 North 19th Street, Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Story: I'm here on behalf of the property owners just to the west, because they were
unable to make it tonight. But I have been working with them over the last three years
and I guess there was some question at the last hearing if they would be amenable to
working with these property owners on cross-easement if these access rights were
given and if we were in support of access rights given -- being given to White-Leasure
and we are in support of that and have spoke with White-Leasure about these cross-
access agreements. That's all. If there is any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council? Thank you. James Prather.
Prather: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Councilmen. James Prather, 707 East United
Heritage Parkway, Suite 150 in Meridian. Anna, if you would put up that first -- that first
screen, the plat. The yellow and red one. The one that showed the larger vicinity.
That's fine. Thank you. It was mentioned in open comments that this size of property,
certainly smaller than the ones certainly presented this evening, but I'd like to add just a
little to it. This is the subject property and, then, the -- Mr. Cool's property, from his
representative that just spoke, is right here. And, then, I'm the third property owners,
and the last that controls all of this dirt. We don't have this before you this evening, but
I can just about guarantee that within maybe 30 to 60 days we will have something
come before you that will include all of this dirt together, not just the applicant tonight,
but the additional five acres and the additional 20 acres to that. So, roughly, around 35,
37 acres. Now, since we don't have the privilege of a -- because of the room, a
backage street here, it is almost paramount if we are going to do something here, a
development, especially something that is truly needed here, a hard good and soft good
user, we are going to need some way to get out on Meridian. The only way that we are
going to have if this is denied is everything is going to have to hit Overland and, then,
either go north or south. So, I respectfully request that some consideration be given to
this application this evening. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 89 of 99
Nary: And maybe Mr. Prather said this the last time and I guess didn't hear it the same
way. I guess I would caution the Council on his testimony in making consideration on
this project based on the potential of some other project and how it may or may not
impact this one. You need to look at this project by itself. That's all that's being
requested and that's all that's in front of you. So, although Mr. Prather has put that on
the record, that really isn't something that Council can consider in granting this
variance.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Leasure: Madam Mayor --
De Weerd: Good evening.
Leasure: Good evening. Members of the Council. Larry Leasure of White-Leasure
Development Company. Also a representative of the applicant and perhaps one of the
causes of confusion at the last hearing. I don't know. Once again -- and it's very very
late, but I would like to make two or three quick comments. I think you have heard our
story. I think that one of the other key elements, though, that the staff indicated that this
is a very very small piece of real estate. I don't consider ten acres a small piece of real
estate necessarily, not to argue that issue, but for the very reason that it is a small
parcel in a very strategic location, makes it even more critical when one looks at Article
H and looking at your program, it makes all the sense in the world, by the way, Mr.
Kunz's comments that I'm very supportive of what you're doing. I think that the state
highway system needs help and it's just unfortunate it didn't happen earlier. So, I'm
very supportive of what you're doing, but it also lends itself to larger parcels, especially
along -- whether it's Eagle Road or Chinden or so forth, where there is the opportunity
to do it right. In this case we don't have that option and we are talking here. This is
where the major traffic flow is as we have talked before. That's why the property is so
strategic as it is sitting here with the convenience store. So, I would simply say to you I
think -- we are different from what is presently out there where you have large
opportunities to tie in with your neighbors, to tie in with the access. We do not have that
right. At the same time we were talking these two access points, which we thought
were approved for a right-in, right-out in this location and -- and we discussed and I
think discussed, because I think it's -- in fairness to Councilman Bird, he asked me the
question, if we were to look at a signalized intersection at this location, which is the far
south, because the -- ITD had recommended in their letter, which they have done from
day one, that this be a full access, partially, I'm sure, because of across the street they
have a full access across the way and I'm sure that that was an issue. If we had just
the left in signalized and they didn't, that would be a problem. So, in that discussion at
our last hearing and appreciated the support of the Council for approval, I was asked
would we be willing to pay for that if that, in fact, were to be approved and if a traffic
signal were to go there for a left-in only on the site. I also mentioned that was what we
had done at our Home Depot Center on State Street and that it was working very very
well and it is at that location. We did go back after this hearing, because of the
confusion -- and that's the reason you also have a letter from ITD outlining that from
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 90 of 99
their perspective they would rather keep it at a full access at this stage and we had
recommended a left-in, which is what you heard a few moments ago, still leaving the
gentleman across the street with their full access. Now, we all know that there will be a
median there. We all know that it, eventually, will be a right-in, right-out, unless there is
some other traffic element that is designed and agreed to in the future. So, this
ultimately will be, I'm very confident, right-in, right-out if you approve these two access
points, which I think are critical, certainly, for our two tenants. I think we have a letter
from a bank. We have been working with a bank on the site plan behind Walgreens --
with Walgreens on the corner. They, obviously, need the access here for them to move
forward. The bank has similar concerns. So, once again, we are requesting for your
consideration a variance, we believe is justified based upon our discussion and the
inability to go any further to the south and that we also believe that with the -- as was
indicated with the right-in, right-out, and the decel lanes on both of these access points,
to eliminate the so-called life safety concerns, number one, and -- and in this area here,
number two. So, thank you very much. If you have any questions I will be --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Leasure?
Leasure: Yes, sir.
Bird: If the Council so desired, which one of those two accesses would you prefer for
right-in and right-out if you was to only get one?
Leasure: That's a very difficult question. And not that it isn't a reasonable question to
ask. I hadn't planned on that question, number one. Number two, for the short term for
the site I could share with you that I would prefer the one next to Walgreens, because if
Walgreens doesn't get it, they are not going to come. So, I would say to you from that
standpoint someplace in this area. It's substantially back now, the Walgreens location.
It's at 240 right now. So, I guess I would have to share with you that this would be the
highest priority. I think it's important that we get some drug and, frankly, food on the
other side of the freeway if there are any ways to do that in the community, because it's
drastically needed and so I would -- I guess I would say at this stage, if that were the
case, I would be wanting to talk about the --
Bird: Madam Mayor, can I follow up?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Mr. Leasure, when I -- and I will be the first to tell you that my motion is -- I don't
even understand it, it was so confusing. It didn't come out clear. So, anyway, what -- if
that can't be signalized down there, which I understand it can't I have been told, I
cannot -- I don't think that we would be right in allowing left hand. I mean I travel that
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 91 of 99
road a little bit during -- I mean it's -- I wouldn't want people trying to come across
without a signalized deal and I had felt that if that -- that entry -- one of the entries would
go away, if that couldn't be signalized -- and I felt that that would be your decision which
one you want to keep and I see you want to keep the closer one to the deal and I
understand that, too, because you got a tenant there and you don't have a tenant,
probably, at the other locations. So, that was my thinking when we did it before.
Leasure: I see. Okay.
De Weerd: Anything further from Council? Okay. Thank you.
Leasure: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Bird: Council, need anymore public testimony? Madam Mayor, hearing none, I move
we close the Public Hearing VAR 05-027.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye.
All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Some of the comments and concerns on this application ring especially true. I
think Mr. Bird -- Councilman Bird brought up a question that I think is right on the money
in my perspective of the access points -- and I understand the concerns and difficulties
of potential tenants or which portion of the parcel may need to or be desired to be
developed first. I see to the extent a variance may be necessary for these parcels, I
see, perhaps, a single point of access on the southern portion, the southern access
point and the right-in, right-out, without the left-in, as, from my perspective, really, the
only option which I think clears the hurdles for a variance. I think that's one of the
unique features in this parcel. That might be sufficient. I don't know -- it doesn't sound
like the applicant would be interested in that, unless I didn't hear it right, that, actually,
the northern access is what's preferred. I have got some concerns that the northern
one is too close to the intersection and in light of the safety concerns that we have got
to be looking at when trying to approve a variance that doesn't meet that test. So,
those are my thoughts on what would fly with me.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 92 of 99
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would concur with Councilman Borton on -- of the two accesses and I have no
problem giving one of these accesses to the development, because they have went in
and put in a nice internal road to get over to Overland Road and while I know that their
number one tenant -- and probably one of their larger tenants, would like to have that
access right next to them, I believe with their interior roads it's -- I don't -- you know, not
being a marketing person or anything, I think that it's not going to hurt and I think Mr.
Leasure stated it right when he said that -- that south of the freeway needed some
pharmacies and stuff and I think people will use it, even if they have to drive back an
eighth of a mile or something, as they have got a good road in there. I, too, agree with
Councilman Borton, that one to the north is just too close to that intersection and I
would have been in that intersection too much between 5:00 and 6:00, but I don't want
see any -- even though you have off lanes and stuff, we -- you know, people especially
get on cell phones and forget what they are doing driving, but I just -- I could agree with
the one access in the south part.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve VAR 05-027, a variance application, limiting it to a right-in,
right-out access only at the southern most -- of the two Meridian Road access points,
the southern access point be permitted as a right-in, right-out.
Wardle: Second. And I need a clarification.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, since you have seconded it, you can have discussion.
Wardle: Anna, do you have a dimension center line from Overland Road as to just a --
Canning: I don't have an exact one. If you wanted to tie it to the -- to line up with the
Southern Springs access, that would -- that would pin it down.
Wardle: Okay. I'm just looking for a reasonable not to exceed -- would 700 feet be --
let me rephrase that, Anna. If I were to amend the motion to include the phrase no
closer than 700 feet from the center line of Overland Road, would that suffice?
Canning: I think that will do it.
Wardle: Okay. Would the maker of the motion allow that clarification?
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 93 of 99
Borton: Yes.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary.
Nary: The maker of the motion may also want to consider including that staff bring back
new Findings. I think the Findings were for denial, so --
Borton: Please. The motion maker would so request.
De Weerd: Second agree?
Wardle: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: For the sake of discussion and the applicant, one of the things from my
perspective -- it's not to step on toes. I like discussions about economic viability of the
project and the need for -- the tenant's concerns and -- and commercial development
there, but specifically with regards to the variance request, we talked about those things
and if -- with regards to the variance, they are not -- at least from my perspective they
are not specific factors that weigh into whether or not a variance should or shouldn't be
granted, just because the rules don't permit that to be one of the bases as to whether or
not it does or doesn't improve the economic viability of the property. I do think that this
particular parcel and its topography, in light of this -- these restrictions on the variance,
make this a proper way to go. Just wanted to make sure that was clear.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 21: Public Hearing: Building Department Fee Changes:
De Weerd: Okay. If someone will go find Mr. Rountree, I will go ahead and open the --
these are really quick, right? Unless a lot of people are waiting to testify on this. Okay.
Item 21, Public Hearing for Building Department Fee Changes. Mr. Freckleton, you
have waited all night for this opportunity.
Freckleton: I have.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 94 of 99
De Weerd: I thought Clint was going to do it. We have been waiting to give him an
initiation and we haven't been able to do that.
Freckleton: Well, good morning, Madam Mayor and Council. We have a proposal that
includes four modifications to some permit fees that we have. First being a modification
of the methodology for calculating residential electrical permit fees. The second is an
increase in the re-inspection fees for structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical
disciplines. The third is an increase for residential spa, hot tub, hydro massage and
swimming pool electrical permit fees. And the fourth is a rate increase for temporary
construction power pole permits. We put this proposal together and on the 31st of
March I forwarded a copy of the entire proposal to Jason Ronk over at the BCA. He
turned around and forwarded out the proposal to all their members and asked for any
comments on that. I followed up with Jason this morning via e-mail. He responded
back basically stating that he got no response and -- but he forwarded my e-mail from
this morning out to their member group as well. He later followed up this afternoon
about 4:15 and said that he didn't hear anything back from anybody, so --
De Weerd: They are all out in the field I think.
Freckleton: Well, they have had since March 31st. His canned response was, you
know, basically BCA isn't crazy about having any fees increased, but they have no
comment. So, I will stand for any questions and leave it at that, unless you want me to
go into great detail with these.
De Weerd: No. Any questions from Council?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Freckleton: Thank you.
De Weerd: Since I have to ask and don't see any person, I don't think there is any
public testimony on this item.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on Building Department fee changes.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 95 of 99
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the public -- or the Building Department fee changes as
published and bring forth a resolution.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve and to ask staff to prepare a resolution.
Freckleton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Freckleton: If I might, I would like to suggest an effective date of June 1st. That will
give us a little over 30 days -- less than six weeks to prepare notices to be posted on
our website and on the counter and that sort of thing.
Bird: With the effective date of June 1st, 2006.
Rountree: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 22: Ordinance No. 06-1226 : AZ 05-063 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 5.03 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Quenzer
North Subdivision by Brighton Development, Inc. – north of East Ustick
Road and west of North Locust Grove Road:
Item 23: Ordinance No. 06-1227 : AZ 05-066 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of .50 acres from R-12 to C-G zone for Meridian
Veterinary Clinic by Architecture Northwest – 415 West Franklin Road:
Item 24: Ordinance No. 06-1228 : AZ 06-002 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 0.43 acres from RUT to L-O (Limited Office
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 96 of 99
District) for Strada Bellissima Subdivision Outparcel by Strada
Bellissima, LLC – 3015 South Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, will you, please, read Ordinances 22 through 25, in rapid order, by
title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 06-1226, an
ordinance for annexation of property located in the southeast quarter of the northeast
quarter of Township 31 -- or, excuse me, Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 1 East,
Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain
lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the
corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian,
establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT
to R-8 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed
with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax
Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and
providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance No. 06-1227, an ordinance for annexation of property located on a
portion of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northeast of Section 13,
Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in
Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho,
and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as
requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning
classification of said lands from R-12 to C-G in the Meridian City Code, providing that
copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County
recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a
summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and
providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance No. 06-1228, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the
southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories
situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of
the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining
the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to L-O in the Meridian City
Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County
assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required
by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the
reading of the rules and providing an effective date. Those are the ordinances.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Berg: Those are the three ordinances.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 97 of 99
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard these ordinances read by title only. Since
there is no one in our public, I don't think anyone wants to hear it read in entirety. Okay.
I'd entertain a motion.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move to approve Items 22, 23, and 24 with suspension of rules.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Items 22 through 24. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 25: Resolution No. 06-514 : Establishing the Meridian
Parks & Recreation Commission and Adopting the By-Laws of the
Meridian Parks & Recreation Commission:
De Weerd: Item 25 is Resolution No. 06 -- oh, I'm sorry, I don't know the number.
Bird: 514.
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: Has everyone had an opportunity to read it?
De Weerd: Yes. In fact, they almost got a motion earlier tonight -- or last night.
Mr. Borton.
Rountree: Yesterday.
Borton: I move we approve Items 25, Resolution 06-504.
Bird: 514.
Borton: 514.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Wardle: Second.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 98 of 99
De Weerd: Okay. All those -- oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Council, just to remind you that we have Every 15 Minutes on Thursday and
Friday. You're certainly invited. There is information about it in your material and we
are another Tree USA city. We just got that announcement. And I'm sure you got the
copies of Michael's of Oregon. They are closing their doors by the end of the year. I
have been in contact with their COO and we will help them in any way we can.
Bird: And Arbor Day is Thursday.
De Weerd: Arbor Day is Thursday. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved. Will has something.
De Weerd: Oh, yeah. I'm sorry, Will.
Berg: Madam Mayor, if I could, a reminder from last meeting. I asked about the Public
Hearing for the budget on August 29th, if that would accommodate everyone, because I
do need to send a letter to the county commissioners. That is a 5th Tuesday of August,
so it isn't a regular planned meeting. I need to know if that's okay and what time you
want to have the hearing.
Bird: It's okay with me to go for 6:00 o'clock, so we are out of here at 7:00.
Rountree: I'm for that. 6:15.
De Weerd: It is a Public Hearing on our budget, so just to remind you. Does that work
for everyone?
Rountree: That works for me at this point.
De Weerd: Okay. And did everyone see the rest of the hearing dates on the budget
presentation?
Rountree: Yeah. Will sent us the --
De Weerd: Okay. And if there is no comment, we will solidify all of that. Okay. So, do
you need a motion to set that date?
Berg: No. I think just discussion is okay.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
April 18, 2006
Page 99 of 99
Berg: We just will have it there or else we won't get the new construction or annexation
rolls if we don't have a -- get it to the county commissioner on time.
De Weerd: Okay. I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Wardle: Second.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:36 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
_______________________________ ______/______/______
MAYOR TAMMY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK