HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 10-03Meridian City Council Meeting October 3,
2006
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M.,
Tuesday, October 3, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Charlie
Rountree and Joe Borton.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Caleb Hood, Brad Watson, Bill Musser, Ron
Anderson, Ken Bowers, Joe Silva, Doug Strong, Elroy Huff 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: I will go ahead and call this meeting to order. Welcome. We appreciate
your attendance. It is Tuesday, October 3rd. It's 7:00 o'clock. I will start tonight's
meeting with roll call attendance.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 2. We will be led tonight in our pledge of allegiance by
Jake Nickles.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Gordon Slyter with Treasure Valley
Worship Center:
De Weerd: Jake, I would like to give you a City of Meridian pin and also one of our
pencils and thank you for leading us. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight
we will be led by Pastor Gordon Slyter with the Treasure Valley Worship Center. If you
will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of
silence. Good evening.
Slyter: Good evening. Let us pray. Almighty God, we know that the heavens are
yours, the earth also is yours, the world and all it contains you have founded them.
Your right hand is exalted. Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne.
Loving kindness and truth go before you. We look to you tonight, oh, Lord, for wisdom,
guidance, and Council. May the majority benefit be served. May the minority, dignity
and interest be protected. But may the charity and brotherly kindness of all be upheld.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 2 of 54
May your blessing be upon us, oh, Lord, as we give you thanks, in the name of Christ
Jesus I pray, amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you, pastor. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Item S on the Consent Agenda is Resolution 06-534. Under Department Reports,
Mayor's office, first resolution is 06-535. The second is 06-536. And Item No. 16 is
Ordinance 06-1266. With that I move we approve the agenda as published.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as published.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 12, 2006 Pre-Council Meeting:
B. Tabled from September 26, 2006: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 06-018 Request for a
Variance for full access to Bienville Square from State Highway 55
(Eagle Road) for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development – 2539 North Eagle Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06-
013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT
to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America
West Homes, LLC – south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten
Mile Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50
4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77
acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons
Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC – south side of Pine
Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road:
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 3 of 54
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-
family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-
plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres
in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision
by America West Homes, LLC – south side of Pine Avenue and
east of Ten Mile Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06-
040 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.38 acres to an R-8
zone for Bellabrook Subdivision by JE Development, LLC – 300
South Locust Grove Road:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and
4 common lots on 4.38 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Bellabrook Subdivision by JE Development, LLC – 300 South
Locust Grove Road:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06-
036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.94 acres from RUT
to an R-4 zone for Bitterbrush Point Subdivision by Majestic, Inc.
– east of Meridian Road and north of Victory Road:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 27 single-family
residential lots and 4 common lots on 10.94 acres in a proposed R-
4 zone for Bitterbrush Point Subdivision by Majestic, Inc. – east
of Meridian Road and north of Victory Road:
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06-
037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85 acres from R-1 to
C-G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker – east of
Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on
4.31 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Cope Subdivision by
Ronald Van Auker – east of Meridian Road and north of Overland
Road:
L. Development Agreement: AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek
Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC – 470 West
McMillan Road:
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 4 of 54
M. Business Associate Agreement with Ada County Emergency
Medical Services regarding Blood Draw Agreement:
N. Blood Draw Agreement with Ada County Emergency Medical
Services:
O. Agreement for Professional Services for Polygraph
Mentorship, Education and Training Services with Idaho
Polygraph Association:
P. Approve ICRMP Insurance Renewal with Joint Powers
Subscriber Agreement:
Q. Agreement for Professional Services with Civil Survey
Consultants, Inc. for Construction Staking for Water and
Sewer Improvements Associated with the ACHD Eagle Road,
Victory to Ridenbaugh Canal Project:
R. License Agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for
Windham Place:
S. Resolution No. 06-534 : Destruction of Temporary
Records – Old Finance Documents:
T. Streetlight Agreement for Kingsbridge Subdivision No. 1 by
Kingsbridge Properties, LLC:
U. Water Main Easement Agreement for Schumacher Building by
VJ Joint Venture:
V. Employee Benefits Client Service Agreement with Mercer
Health & Benefits:
De Weerd: Item 5 under the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda, which includes Item S, resolution
number 06-534 and as printed for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all
papers.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 5 of 54
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Department Reports
A. Planning Department – Craig Hood.
1. Discussion of Possible Annexation and Sewer
Connection into the City of Meridian at 1035 East
Fairview Avenue by Kandy Sealy:
De Weerd: Thank you. Under Item 6, Department Reports, we will start tonight with the
planning department. I don't think that's Anna, but nice to see you, Caleb.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The department report
that's on the agenda this evening has to do with a potential annexation into the city
where services -- specifically sewer service is not currently available to the site. The
site in question is on the screen there. It's kind of hard to see. It is a smaller parcel. It
is in the county. It is surrounded by city properties, but, again, services are not provided
to those properties and so this parcel cannot be serviced at this time. There are some
projects in the works where we think that services will be available to this property in the
near future, we just wanted to get your -- a feel for if you would consider annexing this
property, realizing that services are not available at the time the annexation request
would occur. So, what's not on the table is discussion of development of this site, but
just whether or not you would consider an annexation request of the subject site without
services. So, I will stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Thanks, Caleb. I do know that Kandy is here with us tonight, too.
Council, if you have any questions. Kandy, do you have anything you want to add or --
sorry to make you walk into the light.
Sealy: I'm Kandy Sealy, 1035 East Fairview, Meridian. The only thing I wanted to tell --
may give you a little background of why it's happening the way it is, is back in March I
had come to Planning and Zoning and thought that I was already a Meridian property,
because my property already has water from the city. Come to find out the county said
that I was and you guys say that I wasn't, so I had to do some research and it came out
to be that I wasn't. So, at the time I had my pre-meeting I was told that I could not
annex if I could not connect to sewer, so I did not have sewer available, so
automatically I went to the county and tried to take may process through that. Six
months later I come to find out that they are going to ship me back here to abide by
whatever rules you guys have being that a development agreement I made with the
health department says that I need to annex and connect to sewer within a year, which
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 6 of 54
should put me back into all the rules and regulations of the city, which I wish that's
where I started from. So, that's why we are asking now to be able to have some kind of
partial approval that I would be able to annex, so that the health department would
allow me to get my food license and I could continue on. If it's something you guys
would rather have me start my application right now and go into the city and just take
my application out of Ada County, I'm fine with that, too. But I just want to be able to
see if my -- my business has been -- half in business and half out of business for over a
year now, because I was located in Meridian off the corner of Fairview and Eagle Road
for awhile and when I moved to this new place it's taken me this long to try and get the
business open and I have customers that are like clamoring at my door always going
when are you getting open, when are you getting open. So, I'd like to just try and -- I
seem to get stalled in every which way I go, so I'm looking for some direction here and
hoping that I can just continue on with the hearing process doing the annexation and
the CUP and all of that.
De Weerd: And, Council, Kandy has talked with Anna about this and she has talked
about requesting annexation now and entering into a development agreement that
would allow her to use her septic until the sewer is available that is on her property. Is
that right, Caleb? Okay. So, we are seeking your direction tonight if we can move
forward in that direction, if you would be open to it. Yes, Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, question for legal counsel. Other than the availability for
sewer, does the property meet other annexation criteria for the city?
Nary: For the annexation provisions of being contiguous to the city and having services
available, but for the sewer that you're aware of, yes, I mean there -- there may be other
issues and since what -- what you're really being asked tonight is to give your approval
to her to apply and to go through the annexation process. There may be other issues
that may crop up as part of the process, compliance with city standards and the variety
of things of that requirement, but being contiguous, it being consensual and for services
being available, it certainly meets those criteria. And all you're asked, again, tonight is
to give the approval to go through that process and you will see that again, then.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle, I guess what makes this different is the situation with the sewer,
that it's not immediately available, and so she would be asking to be on the septic until it
was available.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I guess my preference would be certainly -- we have heard information that
sewer may become -- excuse me -- may become available in the near term. I would
rather see the applicant come through our process than work through Ada County
again, only to have to come back to the city in maybe less than 12 months worth of
time. So, I would be in favor of at least processing the application.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 7 of 54
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Brad as it relates to the infrastructure.
Where is it and when could it be there?
Watson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, it's my understanding it exists in the
subdivision to the south. There is a stub street that -- that goes north into the R1-M
parcel and it will eventually flow south. It's my understanding that this property was
approved for annexation and zoning preplat last week and that -- correct me if I'm
wrong, Caleb, another property is in with a certificate of zoning compliance application
right now. So, it has to go through those two properties as they develop. It sounds like
they are imminent that they will develop soon.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I guess I would have a question for Kandy. Do you know
what you're getting into?
Sealy: Do I know what I'm getting into?
Rountree: Yeah. In terms of the annexation process.
Sealy: Well, not specifically.
Rountree: I know you have been visiting a time or two in the recent past, so --
Sealy: I know that it's -- you have to go through the different hearings for the Planning
and Zoning and all of that, but from what I have been told it's, basically, more of a
paperwork type of a legal thing than it is really -- I think the Conditional Use Permit and
all that is more involved for my participation, as I understand it.
Rountree: Very good.
De Weerd: And she's been working with staff on any related issues to that. Okay. So,
is it the consensus of Council to go ahead and approve moving forward with accepting
an application?
Rountree: I'm okay with that, as long as the development agreement is pretty specific
that at the time of availability there will be a hookup.
Borton: I agree.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 8 of 54
Bird: I agree.
B. Fire Department
1. Fire Safety Proclamation:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Kandy. Thank you, Caleb. Item 6-B, our fire
department. Do you want to introduce it? There is the chief.
Rountree: Oh, Sparky's here.
Wardle: Which one's the chief?
Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have come to you this evening with
this request to declare this proclamation for Fire Prevention Month for October '06 and
we realize this is a very important issue here in Meridian. Since the first of the year we
have had 12 related cooking fires, two of which were -- two homes that suffered
substantial damage on July the 2nd and we were hoping that through our efforts in the
Fire Prevention Month activities through the schools and our community, that we can
perhaps affect that problem and the attitudes towards safe cooking practices in the
future. So, with that we'd like to request that you -- and Sparky realizes that it was a
very important meeting to come and spend some special time with Council and the
Mayor this evening.
De Weerd: We are glad you brought your friends, chief. Chief Anderson, do you have
anything to add before I read the proclamation?
Anderson: No, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Sparky it's nice to have you here. It sure beats ET, you know. ET
was just very disturbing. Okay. I will read the proclamation. Whereas the City of
Meridian is committed to insuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting
our city and whereas fire is a serious public safety concern, both locally and nationally
and homes are the location where people are at greatest risk from fire and whereas the
nonprofit National Fire Protection Association has documented through its research that
cooking is the leading cause of home fires and one out of three home fires begins in the
kitchen, more than any other place in the home. And whereas the Meridian Fire
Department, first responders, are dedicated to reducing the occurrence of home fires
and home fire injuries through prevention and protection education and whereas the
City of Meridian residents are responsive to public education measures and are able to
take personal steps to increase their safety from fire, and whereas using proper care
when cooking will have a positive effect on the home fire problem and whereas each
cooking fire that is prevented in Meridian is an opportunity to prevent painful injury and
costly property damage and whereas the 2006 Fire Prevention Week theme, Prevent
Cooking Fires, Watch What You Heat, effectively serves to remind us all of the simple
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 9 of 54
actions we can take to safer -- to stay safer from fire during Fire Prevention Week and
year around, therefore, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby
proclaim October 8th through the 14th of 2006 as Fire Prevention Week throughout the
city and I urge all the people of the City of Meridian to heed the important safety
messages of Fire Prevention Week 2006 and to support the many public safety
activities and efforts of this city and its fire and emergency services, dated this day of
October. Thank you so much for joining us, chiefs and Sparky. And chief. Excuse me,
former Councilman Anderson, if you will speak into the mike.
Anderson: And as somebody who can speak from firsthand experience about cooking
fires -- and I have a couple witnesses up here -- I urge you all to be very safe when you
are cooking, even outdoors with your barbecue.
De Weerd: We do remember that Chief Anderson is very flammable. Flammable
material. Thank you so much for being here.
C. Park’s Department – Doug Strong
1. Change Orders No. 5 & 6 for Heroes Park Construction
with C&A Paving Co.:
2. Budget Amendment for Heroes Park Construction:
De Weerd: Item 6-C, our Parks Department. Elroy.
Huff: I got picked for tonight. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate
being able to meet with you and come forward with a few things. I want to give a little
overview of some things on this project. In change order number five we are requesting
a 21,000 dollar change order and to do with some drainage issues on that site related
to the parking lot and retention beds. What we did in the beginning of this project is we
have three -- four drainage beds on this site. Three -- two of them are connected in
park property in conjunction with ACHD. A third one is on park property totally. Another
one is across the street. All of the calculations for these drainage beds were the same
ones that we used on this park, which we figured should be the same. They are very
close together, not within several hundred feet or less, and when we went to work on
that and opened up that hole to work on the drainage for that, it would not meet
separation. We were all surprised on that. So, what we did is we asked the engineer to
take a look at re-engineering that to make it better, so that we felt safe with that and
went back to Public Works I think twice with it, to where we could get a minimum
standard that they would accept. And we ended up widening the drainage beds a little
bit, raising the bottom -- raising the top height of them and getting that separation that
was necessary. We lost a few parking places in that. We had to raise some GI vaults
that were already in. We had to go back and raise those a little bit to make everything
work right. And I still feel bad about that, but I feel confident that we have a drainage
system that will work better than anything else around us is now working. I got to watch
those a little bit later in the summer. They all have grass in them and when it got real
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 10 of 54
hot the landscape guys were just pounding them with water, so they were fuller than
they should have been. So, we think we have seen what we can do, but our system
now we feel is better than everything else around us. So, we went ahead with that.
The change order number six has to do with the cost of oil for asphalt, which went up
quite a bit. Everything did this summer. And I struggled with that a little bit and we just
kind of sat on it, began watching it. We have done all the homework on what the costs
really are. We have talked to the company about how they were afforded those. We
have talked to the batch plants and how many other projects that C&A has been on that
they have had to request that and a change of condition. So, we have worked through
all that. So, we have requested on there 53,926 for that 233 -- 2,233 tons. Since we
talked -- or since we have put this on here the other day, that total price has lowered
about 4,400 dollars for oil already. So, it's going down. We want to request the 53,000.
We won't pay over that. C&A said that they will charge us whatever price the batch
plants are charging on that. So, I think we have got that nailed down. They know we
are watching that, so we feel confident that it will be right on the money, so -- it's
actually gone down twice since the -- since the request -- since we got the notice from
them, so -- what I was looking forward to -- oh, there is some contingency in there, just
because you don't know what's going on these days, but the -- what I was looking
forward to is paving starts Monday and about next Thursday that project in phase one is
going to be done, everything is going to be graded. We have certainly nice green grass
coming up out there on the 19.6 acres on the flat. What this will do when they finish up
next week is allow us to go forward, get a landscape company and come in there in
conjunction with PAL and start working on some sprinklers again through the fall, so
that we can get things ready and get it playable as soon as we can next spring. We will
be pushing this as hard as we can. So, the parking lot and everything will be ready for
when it's time for them. So, I feel confident. It's been a very challenging project all
summer for me. I have spent many hours on this project and working through some
things, working through some things with PAL. I'm still not done with that. I learn every
day of how this is -- how these partnerships work and I'm confident -- and I know
Tammy knows a little bit of my frustrations, I have told her once or twice a little bit. We
have to keep going on those once we kind of get in them and we have even had our
department out there working for several days a couple of weeks ago and we did some
things with irrigation that would have put -- would help PAL quite a bit and they were
things that just were good things to do. We happen to have a really good part-time
crew that was really good, so we took advantage of them while we had the opportunity.
So, I'm very confident we have done everything that we can do for the money that we
are spending to get this where it is right now, which is in the -- a little over 800,000
range and so we will have everything playable next spring. We are confident that there
is other things that we are going to be able to put in, trees, and other things. So, we are
coming along with it. It's slower than I wanted, but I want to have this project finished
up next week and closed out. So, that's kind of what we are looking for tonight. And I'll
certainly entertain any questions if you have some.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions?
Rountree: I have none.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 11 of 54
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Huff: Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you, Elroy.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Doug, if you would come forward and talk a little bit about the partnership
relationship with PAL on this project. I know there is -- and we talked about it a little bit
and there has been some efforts on your part to approach PAL in a partnership at the
beginning and held sharing of certain expenses. Prior to this issue there was
discussions with PAL, a decision to share continued change order expenses. Could
you give us an update on your discussions with that group, these change orders and
particular with the paving of the parking lot, you made reference earlier about PAL's
representation that they would take charge of or take the lead on putting in the parking
lot and the paving issues in phase two. Could you talk about that?
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, if we go back to
the beginning of the agreement, just what -- in the signed agreement that we have,
when we added money to this particular project -- as you may recall, the first phase of
the project was to put in a gravel parking lot and as we were trying to get all -- several
projects, including the Meridian Youth Baseball project, Adventure Island, so forth,
through a phase one green up, we decided that we wanted that parking lot paved. So,
in the agreement we -- the city -- the agreement changed that the city took on the
financial responsibility of the parking lot and the irrigation pond, pond liner, pump, those
components of the park. We had already -- we had already funded the pond
installation, the irrigation pump and so forth. PAL continued with their obligation for the
engineering documents and the irrigation system and grass seeding for the project and
they have held true to their part of the project for getting the irrigation system in. Part of
the frustration that Elroy alluded to was difficulty we had with the irrigation contractor,
which we did not control, because that was not our contract that was PAL's contract.
So, when this -- these particular change orders came about, we were -- and we were
trying to settle on a dollar amount, I did contact PAL to see if they would be willing to
participate in a portion of the cost for these increased costs and the e-mail that was
sent back that I believe you have got a copy of, as well as Councilman Borton, indicated
that financially right now they are not in a position to do that. They did -- as you see this
is change order five. The first four change orders PAL did pay for with some kind of
smaller change orders that occurred very early on in the project back very early in the
year when I think they were in a better financial position. So, that's, essentially, where
they are today, but there is still -- we still have phase two or three or however long it
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 12 of 54
takes to put the buildings on -- on the park, the restrooms, concession building, so there
is still some obligation on PAL's part to continue with that. But at this point they are not
able to help us financially with these change orders. Did I answer all of your questions?
Borton: You did.
Strong: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: A follow-up question. Can you give us PAL's perspective, unless -- I don't think
there is someone from PAL here. Are you telling us that it's their position that they don't
have an obligation to share or pay for any of these expenses or -- they understand that
they are supposed to share or pay them, but they are just unable to do so. The reason
I ask is as we go forward and get change order eight through 49, is their position, at
least to you, that after change order four they are done, everything else is us or they
just can't put up the money right now?
Strong: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, the position right now is they just don't
have the money, it's not that they don't feel any obligation in the project and our
development agreement clearly separates city responsibility and PAL responsibility.
Unless we go back and change that agreement, they are still on the hook for much of
phase two with buildings, concessions, restroom, concession buildings, completing the
park. So, it's just to get through the phase one green up. Like I say, their obligation per
agreement was to put in the irrigation system, providing engineering documents for the
project, and they have, essentially, done that. We have done some irrigation
improvements into the landscape beds in the parking lot that we are going to request
reimbursement for the materials that we used to put that irrigation in. They still owe us
for that. But we installed those -- those links into the irrigation bed with our own in-
house staff, so it saved them some dollars on that side.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for staff and Council? Okay.
Strong: Madam Mayor, I asked Keith to be here tonight. He's been kind of on the front
lines of looking at what asphalt costs are, if you have any questions about asphalt. I
think that's probably pretty straight forward. It's been a very volatile summer for asphalt
prices. They are coming down, but he's been watching where they are going, if you
have a question related to asphalt.
De Weerd: Don't you have anything better to do? I could think of a couple, uh? So,
Council, do you have any questions for Keith, Doug, or Elroy?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 13 of 54
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I have a question for legal. Mr. Nary, is there really any recourse if the city
approves the budget amendment, pays for these that are truly an obligation of PAL,
would that agreement need to be amended or, really, is there anything that we could do
to recoup those expenses later on in later phases or --
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, I mean certainly
we can evaluate whether or not there is a -- we have -- I haven't done that in
anticipation of tonight's discussion and we could certainly look at that if that is redress. I
think that issue has always been one for the Mayor and the Council is how -- how much
involvement of these partnerships and what does that mean if they don't participate
where their intentions were to do that, how does that relate at the end of the day and
how the use of that park is going to be. This one is a little -- a little more difficult from a
park standpoint, simply because it really is just a large open space of green -- a green
space. So, how that's going to get used, I guess ultimately that you and the Council
and -- can decide how that use of that field is going to be and certainly have a
relationship to how the contribution has been up to this point. But if you would like us to
look at whether or not amending the agreement would be appropriate, looking at other
future phases of development, whether there is a way to recoup that in the future with
this partnership, we could certainly do that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor -- and I appreciate that. I don't mean to be the heavy on the
topic, but there is -- when someone makes a commitment to share some expenses, I'm
curious if we even have leverage to recoup that or hold their feet to the fire, but,
regardless, it needs to be taken care of and done and --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Joe -- I agree with Councilman Borton that -- but at the same token -- man, I love
partnerships. I have been what I have considered -- or have been involved with
partnerships -- the only partnership I know of that the city is given the ground and the --
in fact, that didn't give the ground, but it was under their deal and they put no money out
was the Storey baseball park. All these partnerships I felt was going to be on the lines
of Boise city and the Optimist noon football deal, but it seems like we have always
taken the stand that we have had to do it. I think that you need to look at the
agreements and their percentage of input with dollars and in kind, reflects on how much
authority they have out there and how much they do. I mean their -- I believe they are
using Settler's Park on Saturday mornings practically a hundred percent and not paying
a penny out there, where at other places that they use they do have to pay a fee. So, I
don't know. I'm like Councilman Borton, I -- I think that these need to be looked at real
hard.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 14 of 54
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd just clarify this particular issue
maybe to help with some resolve. Early on when we changed the agreement -- when
the first agreement that went through, the phase one was to put in a gravel parking lot
and PAL was going to do that. When we changed it that the city came up with
additional dollars, so that we could get through the phase one green up, we agreed to
pave the parking lot. The discussion, I think what Councilman Borton's referring to was
really a verbal discussion that we had on -- early on that as change orders came in we
would discuss with them their ability to participate in helping with some of the costs of
those change orders. The early change orders on the project, they did fund, they did
pay for those. At this juncture, when this one's come forward, I think it's the timing and
the season and the bills that they have had to pay out over the course of the season,
they are not in a financial position to pay anything at this point. They said that by next
spring they may be in a stronger position. I think there is a willingness, certainly, if, by
your direction, you wanted to us to go and renegotiate elements of that -- of that
agreement, we could certainly do that. I don't think they are close to that. I think that
could happen. So, they all along have actually been very willing to work with us. They
have incurred a great deal of additional costs with the irrigation system that they didn't
anticipate, because of the -- of the contractor that came on that -- that particular part of
the project, they had a lot of difficulty with that, so they have had to come up with about
an -- I believe about an additional 50,000 dollars to finish that part of their project that
they didn't anticipate. And what's -- Settler's Park -- actually, the first couple of years
that they used Settler's Park for their Saturday morning soccer play, they didn't pay a
field use fee, because of the impending partnership that we hadn't entered into at that
point. Last year and through discussions with the Mayor at that time was when do we
cut them off from that free deal that they had. We did that last year. They are paying a
per field cost to use those fields to play soccer on Saturday, just like any other group
that would ask to use those fields at Settler's Park. So, that's been in place for over a
year.
Bird: I was misinformed, then. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Doug. Okay. Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: This is -- these are matters that do need to be taken care of and, you know, my
remarks are really intended to make sure that we are not representing to PAL that any
particular agreement has changed or obligations have changed as to who is doing
what. The change orders should be approved in my mind, I think, Doug, you continue
discussions with PAL and -- and their obligations going forward and ability to participate
in future change orders. I guess they are not off the hook, in my mind. And I don't think
they are asking to be off the hook, in all fairness to PAL. And times are tight, so --
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 15 of 54
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: With that I would move we approve change orders number five and six for
Heroes Park construction in the amount of 87,271.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request in front of you.
Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move we approve a budget amendment with that same amount of
87,271.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no discussion on that motion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll on
that.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Mayor’s Office
1. Resolution No. 06-535 : Valley Regional Transit
regarding Coalition for Public Transportation:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6-D, under Mayor's report, you do have in front of you a
new resolution that should reflect a lot of the comments that were made a couple of
weeks ago. I did ask Ray Stark from the task force that's done a lot of -- or the coalition
that's done a lot of the research and whose recommendation did come in front of you
and asked him to be here to answer any questions. Mr. Stark, do you have any
comments to make?
Stark: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. It's an honor for me to be
here tonight. I guess I wear lots of hats in the community, but tonight I'd like to come
before you with the hat of -- since Meridian's in the center of the valley, to wear my hat
of -- of a person who lived over here off Cherry Lane, of a person who lived west of
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 16 of 54
here on Northgate. I have lived in Kuna and lived in grandma's house on Eagle Road
by Ustick. So, I'm here tonight in my transportation capacity of growing up here in the
center of the valley to talk about a future that we can certainly dream about, but one
where we have to get started on our journey. So, I'm here to answer any of your
questions you may have about the coalition for regional public transportation. It's a path
that we are on in the valley that there is no turning back. We know we are many many
years behind Denver, Phoenix, and Salt Lake, but we are certainly not so far behind
Albuquerque, Sacramento, Spokane and other communities. So, we know we have a
public transportation future and we know it's going to be a difficult journey, but it takes
one step at a time and we are not going to go down this path in a very hurried way,
even if we are successful with the legislature in 2007, the first election would be in
2008, with revenue in 2009, two and a half years from now at the earliest. So, if we are
unsuccessful in the short-term, we will be back, I guess, as a region until we can get
some local funding for public transportation. Madam Mayor, for some -- maybe some
discussion, I have a short handout that gives the Council an update of the coalition's
activities the last few months. This is a list you may not have seen before. It's
incomplete. We hope this list will double in time for the 2007 legislature. It's an
incredible list when we think about it. It's targeted toward major employers, so you don't
see a lot of main street business on it, but from your particular point of view it includes
the names of two headquarter companies and a major employer, United Heritage, Blue
Cross of Idaho, and St. Luke's Regional Medical Center. It's a list that will have
business -- obviously, you see government. We are starting our education campaign
now. And other unique organizations, such as the Meridian Development Corporation.
It's -- it's a coalition like no other in this valley's history and, like I said, there is no
turning back. I'm not -- I haven't seen your resolution, don't know particularly what
some of the questions that Council may have, but certainly I see Kelly Fairless here as
well to answer any detail questions you may have. We are asking for your city's name
on this list, along with other cities and counties and other entities throughout the valley
as we go through the Idaho legislature. Madam Chair, I don't know how -- you know,
what -- how detailed you want me to get.
De Weerd: I think you -- you gave a good summary. Council, do you have any
questions in particular about the process of the coalition or -- yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor. Ray, thank you for being here. I have a question -- and we
had a presentation by -- a very detailed presentation by Kelly about both the process
and future planning. The resolution which we -- which we saw a couple meetings ago
specifically addressed the issue of the capital improvement plan. Can you tell me a little
bit about -- I understand that there was what may be termed a compromise in that
capital improvement plan process, which would, essentially, as is proposed, would allow
for future corridor preservation, but not allow for the actual implementation of a light rail
system. Was that compromise that the committee considered at length or --
Stark: Madam Mayor and Councilmember Wardle, the main compromise, I guess,
during the committee's -- the coalition's process was -- was maybe to dream a little
bigger. Certainly in -- as we were trending down the path of funding first maybe a basic
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 17 of 54
bus system in the two county area, that could be done with a quarter a penny sales tax
easily. As the business part of the coalition started meeting with the elected officials,
including state legislatures, the discussion turns a little bit that possibly the voters would
want to vote on something more than a bus system and a penny sales tax and the
discussion turned to if you'd ask the voters for more than a quarter a penny you could
fund something more. To use the over word -- overused word, something more sexy
than buses. And that's when a -- the discussion centered on -- if you go up to a half
penny for a voter approval, you, then, go down the path of much more than a bus
system, you first have to buy the Union Pacific right of way, which we know is a huge
ticket, where you have to start buying the corridor east to west and north-south in the
two county area and the more the coalition talked about that, I think that's maybe the
compromise you mean. If you go more than a quarter of a penny and, then, you start
buying the right of way that leads to light rail, you start buying the corridors, east-west in
particular, which are -- land prices are never going to go down from where they are
today, probably. That's maybe the compromise of your question, to go beyond the bus
system and start going down the path of looking at the light rail.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, a follow-up question. I guess there was two capital
improvement plans in Kelly's presentation and it certainly shed some light and it was --
and I don't have the exact figures, but I believe it's -- a one percent increase would
generate funds over 100 million dollars -- maybe help me out. And a half percent -- and
would fund an actual -- an actual light rail system that -- I guess what I was asking is
from a compromise standpoint, was it -- did the committee feel that -- that one -- that
one cent would be -- would be unpalatable for the voters and that maybe begin with half
a cent or was that even part of the full discussion?
Stark: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Wardle, that was never part of the discussion,
because early on the draft legislation had no more than three quarters of a penny ever
for potential voter approval. The discussion ended on what -- what do you start at, do
you start at a quarter a penny, half a penny, but -- and the draft legislation has -- you
can start with no more than half a penny is the draft legislation, with the potential some
day of asking up to three quarters. So, the discussion was never as high as a penny for
public transportation.
De Weerd: Did that answer your questions?
Wardle: Yeah. And I have a follow up.
De Weerd: Okay.
Stark: Madam Mayor, maybe to continue the answer for Councilmember Wardle, the
light rail isn't going to happen very soon. It just needs -- you need much more
population and density. So, the discussion centered on kind of phasing your way down
the line, so to speak. You have a two county bus system, buy the Union Pacific right of
way, which will not take one year, it's going to take many years to buy the right of way.
Start the corridor preservation, build a combination of things, such as, you know, your --
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 18 of 54
your van pool, commuter ride, and other things like that and be ready for light rail when
population warrants it. And, quite frankly, when we get to that time, we will probably
know it and it's going to be a whole other battle. Certainly using the light rail in Salt
Lake, as an example, the voters approved the funding for that kind of on a leap of faith,
it seemed like, but ridership has far exceeded expectations and now all the discussion
in the Wasatch front is extending that -- that light rail and adding a commuter rail to
Ogden to Salt Lake under construction right now. So, everything kind of happens as
your growth happens. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank, you Ray, for joining us.
Stark: Thank you.
De Weerd: Did you have a question for Kelly, did I understand? And, then, maybe I
can ask Mr. Nary to talk about the changes that were incorporated in this. Thank you.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I guess for -- and not having all the comments in front of me,
the numbers that I was talking about, was that, essentially, a half cent and, then, the
three-quarters of a cent would have been the 128 million for --
Fairless: Madam Mayor, Council Wardle, one -- I think what I'm hearing from you is
when we originally did our plan with a low capacity option and a high capacity option as
the two bookends, we never -- we never did a financial analysis based on a sales tax
for our high capacity option. We, actually, used a personal tax on the vehicle as our --
as our -- just kind of a dummy source of funding that we did to come up with our
financial projections for those two bookends. One of the things that we have been
looking at in terms of the sales tax proceeds for communities like Kootenai county and
some of the local option that are occurring around the state, but the revenues they are
generating are a lot more than what they originally projected. So, we believe that a half
cent sales tax will generate 39 million dollars in the first year and I think those dollars in
that -- and I don't have that right in front of me, but those, projecting out over the next
20 years, get into pretty significant dollars and with -- with that we were able to identify
how much money's available for debt service and to be able to add to -- for -- to pay
debt service and be able to do that capital infrastructure. What the coalition was
thinking about in terms of the staging of a possible rail service -- and I want to clarify
that in our plan that seems to be commuter rail type service, not a light rail service,
which is somewhat different. But that before that could be implemented there would
probably need to be another increase, that maybe the .75 would end up being enough
to do that. And we can do that analysis, if that would be helpful, but to go above the
.75, there is just such a strong feeling that we probably couldn't get it passed the
legislature, that that's really the first hump for us is to get it passed the legislature. So, I
think that's what -- I think that -- that's what you were referring to by the compromise. It
really wasn't a compromise, as a coalition we were just looking at what that
recommendation would buy us.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 19 of 54
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there are two resolutions in your packets
and there wasn't an explanation attached to that that probably would help clarify. The
one -- the one that's new is really what you're considering tonight and what's the one
that's been numbered is, basically, the one that is titled the -- accept the
recommendation of the coalition for regional public transportation to seek legislation
allowing a vote by the electorate to allow for local option sales tax as the funding option
to pursue for the capital improvement plan. The difference between this -- I was going
to prepare a strike and replace, but because it changed significantly, I felt it would
probably be so hard to follow if we did it that way, it would be easier to simply look at
them side by side. The prior one that you have previously reviewed and have -- had not
approved is the second one in your packet and that was one that went a little further --
and went to actually recommending the final decision of local option sales tax and that
was what was not approved and I think what's back in front of you now really takes it to
the -- to the step where in looking at the information that's been evaluated by the
different entities here, that really was what the recommendation was, was to go to the
legislature and get their authority to, then, go back to the voters and I think that's what
you're being asked tonight and that's what this resolution reflects, versus the other one,
really went to the -- sort of ultimate question. Is there any other questions?
De Weerd: Council, do you need any -- do you have any questions for Mr. Nary to
clarify the difference between this resolution and the one in front you a couple weeks
ago? Again, we tried to incorporate the discussion points into this new document to
make it reflect what was said at that time. Okay. I guess the request, then, in front of
you is for support of this resolution as changed.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Thank you, Bill, for preparing this, the additional resolution. I think some of the
comments the Council had and my specific comments were that the recommendation
not only to seek legislation, but to approve a local option tax went a little far in my mind,
in addition to that from a -- and we have had the discussion tonight and one of the
things that I have said before is for the system to actually function and work -- I don't
believe that a simple additional ground transportation bus system will generate enough
ridership to make the program worthwhile and so those are questions that Ray and
Kelly have answered for me that they are still in negotiations, that that's going to be
something that's up to the people voting on the legislation, the potential legislation, and
it would encourage the drafters of that legislation to take a look at -- in my opinion at
funding the entire system and making -- making something that can really achieve
some ridership. So, the amended resolution that we have in front of us I think is, in my
opinion, something that I could support.
De Weerd: Was that could or couldn't?
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 20 of 54
Wardle: Could.
De Weerd: Could. Thank you.
Wardle: I changed my mind.
De Weerd: Wow. Thank you. Can you, please, mark that point in the minutes and I
would like that to be framed and hung in my office tomorrow.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I haven't changed my mind and my mind is still of the opinion that I have
complete faith in our community in making a decision as it relates to public
transportation, if allowed by the legislature. I think it's fundamentally wrong that they
are not allowed to make those kind of choices for themselves. So, again, I support this
revised language.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Rountree.
Bird: Let's have a motion.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve resolution number 06-535.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve resolution 06-535. Is there
any discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
2. Resolution No. 06-536 : Board
Appointment for Valley Ride Board
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Kelly and Ray, for joining us. I do have a resolution
in front of you, 06-536 -- or 536 and it is to approve the board appointments for the
Valley Ride board and that's the valley regional transit board. Those are Charlie
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 21 of 54
Rountree as our Council representative and Pete Friedman as our staff -- staff
representative.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: If I could ask, too, in that resolution that Mr. Berg could correct -- Mr. Friedman's
name is F-r-i-e, not F-r-e-e. It was my error, but rather than pull it and start over, if you
could just correct that on the document.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there any discussion or -- on this?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: If there are no further discussions, I move that we approve resolution number
06-536, with the noted change on spelling.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item No. D-2, that is resolution number
06-536. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
3. Appointment of City Treasurer:
De Weerd: Okay. Council, in front of you is a request to approve appointment of the
city treasurer. As we have reorganized the finance department, the position used to be
held by the person who currently is doing our payroll and it no longer makes sense that
those city treasurer responsibilities are tied to that position. The responsibilities are --
have been integrated into our chief financial officer's position and it is only appropriate
that that be tied to the department director. And that would be Stacy. Is there any
questions or discussion needed on this item? If not, I would appreciate a motion to
approve.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we approve the appointment of Stacy Kilchenmann as city treasurer.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 22 of 54
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. I will ask Mr. Berg to, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
E. Attorney / Human Resources
1. Budget Amendment:
De Weerd: Thank you. Sorry, we are just going to do some sharing right here. Okay.
Item 6-E, our city attorney Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm passing down the actual
budget amendment. I hate to bring a budget amendment to you on October 3rd for this
budget, but since the parks department beat me to it, I guess it's okay. These are two
fairly minor budget amendments. One of them is a police department and the other is
the human resources department. In the process of putting together the budget the
position in the police department of animal control, there were two positions at the time
the budget was prepared both by the police department through my office, as well as
through finance. One of the positions at the time was vacant, so somehow in the
process of putting it together it was left out of a portion of the budget and where it
belonged in the salary matrix. So, the finance department asked me to bring that
budget amendment forward to you to make it clear we have positions for it and that
there is adequate funding available to put it in the slot where it needs to be
appropriately and there is already a person in that position as it is. The second one is
our benefits specialist. We have done some reorganization is our department in the two
years -- two years tomorrow that I have been here and one of those was moving a
position that was primarily clerical into one that primarily focuses attention on benefits
for the employees. That person manages our benefits committee, they oversee our
wellness committee, they manage all of the city benefits for the employees, they
prepare all the paperwork that goes to our vendors for those employees, they manage
all of the work comp programs and it's been a two year process of moving that position
from, again, as simply primarily a clerical position to one, really, that has much more
significant oversight responsibilities. Well, when we did that -- and as you all probably
recall when we did all of the changes in the different levels of where the positions
belong, as well as the salaries for them, this one was left in the existing position it was
as a clerical function and not put in where it belongs in this specialist position. So, this
is another one that, I'm sorry, again, it's my own oversight that we missed that one
position and it's a one pay grade difference is where it moved to. So, the finance
department asked me to bring that forward as well for your review, so that we can put it
in the proper slot as we begin this budget year. Both of these positions -- part of the
reason is the way our positions are funded, these particular ones receive their funding
from the beginning of the fiscal year, therefore, there is no salary savings or anything
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 23 of 54
that sometimes other positions are able to accommodate that. These just aren't. So,
that's why they are in front of you tonight and I just seek your approval for both of those
minor amendments. If you all recall, these will be on the list that we do at the end of the
budget year that will include all of the different changes you have done and these will
be ones right behind the park ones you have already approved, so --
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Seeing none. Oh, Mr. Wardle, did you --
Wardle: Madam Mayor -- I don't have any questions, I have a motion.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: I move that we approve budget amendment for the police department and for
the human resources.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the budget amendment in front of
you. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC Music Licensing
Agreements:
De Weerd: Okay. Item two.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The second one is one that
some of you may have seen. We received a lot of information, almost to the point of
junk mail from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC --
De Weerd: No. To the point of junk mail.
Nary: To the point of junk mail and to the point of telephone harassment. We do get a
lot of contact from these folks and they are the watch dogs of the music industry and
there are numerous licensing agencies, but these three are probably the primary ones
that we probably have any interaction with. It is our recommendation from the legal
department that the city I guess move forward with joining these licensing agencies for
music. A few years ago some of you were on the Council at the time we had an
analysis done by our legal counsel at that time on whether or not we needed to do this
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 24 of 54
and what they were looking at the time was music on hold and music in parks
programs. At that particular time we didn't -- and Mr. Berg can correct me if I'm wrong,
we were using a music on hold type of program. We stopped doing it and we weren't
using a lot of music in our programs in the parks department because we didn't have a
lot of programs that were geared towards either children or aerobic exercising or things
that music was a natural part of. So, at that particular time the decision was made that
there wasn't a necessity to do that. These folks are very very diligent and I think -- I
guess editorially the way they seek compliance is it is fairly inexpensive to join, it is fairly
onerous and expensive not to join and get caught either having to defend yourself in a
lawsuit claim or having to pay a penalty for not getting the licensing that's appropriate.
It was our opinion -- Ms. Kane from our office did the analysis and it was her opinion
and Mr. Baird and I agreed that we as a city are growing large enough and diverse
enough that joining these agencies is worth the investment and cost of participating,
because it allows for the expansive use of music in our parks programs, children's
programs that we now have much more participation in and more of an opportunity to
use that and, in fact, Ms. Kane said today if we can use music on hold, we are going to
pay for it anyway, we may as well do it. But she was -- but it's our opinion we should --
we should approve -- we should participate in these. We recommend -- there are the
three agreements that are in your packet. If you are in agreement with that you can
move those forward for approval if you want to do that. We did prepare those for
budget year to budget year. I think the music licensing agreement companies look at it
on a calendar years basis, but I think we can -- we can do it within a budget year cycle.
I will contact the finance department and determine how they want -- where that funding
can come from under the current budget or if they think an amendment is appropriate
for that. We have line items in the various departments, whether it's parks, the legal
department, the Mayor and the Council budgets for dues and memberships and things
and we can do that for the first year and, then, slot that into the parks department
probably would be the most appropriate in the future. If you have any questions I have
provided you that memo from Ms. Kane and if you have any other questions about that
I will be happy to answer them. It's 1,873 dollars for the year.
De Weerd: As you can see in front of you, the cost is minimal, but I would disagree with
Mr. Nary on one thing is it will actually cost us less, because the staff time in responding
to the numerous phone calls and letters have been enormous.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: It's an interesting process that these companies go through. I have been
involved in helping local establishments deal with these companies, who actually -- they
have employees whose job it is to go to bars and listen to rock music and take notes
and turn it in. That's their vocation. I don't know if they are accepting applications. I
don't know -- it's a pretty fascinating career path. At any rate -- and they are a pain to
wrestle with. Absolutely a pain. But I do want to note that what Ms. Kane did and our
city attorney's office is a phenomenal work in giving us the background necessary to
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 25 of 54
make a decision. I do agree that we should go forward with this, but I want to
specifically comment and let the Council and the public know of the top notch work
done. We truly appreciate it and tell Emily that she's done a fantastic job. So, I do think
we should go forward and sign all three agreements and put something jazzy on the city
hold. Big library we get to choose from.
Bird: Is that a motion?
Borton: And I would move that we approve legal, I guess, entering into the necessary
licensing contracts with ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.
Bird: For the amount of --
Borton: For the amount of 1,873.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request in front of you.
If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Well, I'm sure glad it passed, because, otherwise, I'm forwarding you all the
phone calls.
Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. There were no items moved from Item 7.
Item 8: FP 06-043 Request for Final Plat approval for 19 single-family residential
building lots and 5 common lots on 3.92 acres in an R-8 zone for
Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC – 635 and 675 South
Linder Road:
De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8, which is FP 06-043. We do have a letter from
the applicant approving or -- that they are in agreement with staff conditions. So, if Mr.
Hood does not have any further comments, Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve FP 06-043.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 26 of 54
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8. Mr. Berg, will you
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03
acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar
Development, LLC – north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road:
Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 06-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35
residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC – north
side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 9 and 10 are Public Hearing AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030. I will
open these two public hearings with staff comments.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. The subject
applications before you are for Northborough Subdivision. The site is located on the
north of Ustick about 700 feet from Linder. Just for general reference in the vicinity of
this project there is a three acre parcel directly to the north of the project. Sawtooth
Middle School is, then, north of that. You can see on the aerial just almost off the
screen. To the south is the proposed Southwick Subdivision and, then, to the east and
west is still large county parcels. The subject applications are request for annexation
and zoning of the 8.03 acres to R-8 and a preliminary plat that includes 34 single family
lots and four common lots. The average lot size is 7,758 square feet. The gross
density is 4.23 dwelling units per acre and the net is 7.17 dwelling units per acre. There
is about 13 and a half percent of the site being set aside for open space. There is an
existing -- I'm sorry the scaling didn't come in very well with the plat. If you -- north
would be facing to the left there. There is an exist private lane that basically bisects this
property north-south, separating it east-west and there is that existing three acre parcel,
again, in the county that uses that today as access. That will need to be vacated as
part of this application, so you will be seeing the application in the future to request to
vacate that private lane easement. A couple of outstanding issues, if you will, for the
City Council that staff brought up for the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Commission did not make any changes to what the applicant proposed, but in the staff
report we did have a statement or two in there about wanting to see the applicant
consider an alternative design for Block 4 and I'm going to talk about that for just a
second. Block 4 is right here and, again, I apologize, it's hard to see. There is six lots
within Block 4. The lot itself is about 150 by 150. Pretty square. It's a very short block
and although the UDC doesn't have any minimum block length requirement, it's a lot of
asphalt and we just think that there may be a better design and use for this part of the
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 27 of 54
project anyways. Again, the Commission did not make any changes, did not take staff's
recommendation for that change, but I did want to bring it up to you. The other thing I
did want to call out by the White Drain stub -- White Drain stub is located on this side of
the property. During the hearings the applicant -- during the Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing, the applicant stated that they would like to leave that drain open.
I didn't see anything in the file from Nampa-Meridian or anyone saying that it would take
a large capacity facility. That's generally -- or if it's being used as an amenity, that's
generally when the City Council will allow an irrigation ditch, lateral, or canal that's not a
natural waterway to remain open. So, I would like the applicant to further talk about that
I guess this evening and if, in fact, they still want to leave it open and the basis for that
request, I guess. The Commission did act on this application on August 31st and did
send forward a favorable recommendation with some minor changes that are in the staff
report. With that I think I will stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions for staff at this time?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Caleb, did you -- when you made reference to alternative designs, is there an
idea or ideas that have been tossed around with the applicant to fix your concerns?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I personally did not. I was not involved with
this project. I don't know if staff threw out any alternative designs at the applicant or
played with the roadway system to see what would be a more effective design. Jenny
Veatch did write the staff report and worked with Anna and Shawn, I think, but I don't
know if anything was ever put down on paper.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Caleb, would you put up the area map that shows all the
surrounding zoning? Okay. Thank you. That's all I needed.
De Weerd: Caleb, where is it contiguous then?
Hood; Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Southwick here and it doesn't --
for some reason the mapping system hasn't showed it in yellow, so I don't know -- and,
actually, I'm not even sure that that annexation ordinance has been finalized or not.
That would be the point. Again, I don't know -- I can check to see if the ordinance was
done. Usually we don't -- you know, we can't process an application if it's not
contiguous to the city limits, so --
De Weerd: Caleb, I guess the only other question I have is this is an area that has
been a real challenge in that as people and families live there, there is a greater
potential of kids walking to school in an area that has no sidewalks. The areas across
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 28 of 54
the street just south of Ustick have an opportunity to walk maybe in a convoluted way,
but up Venable Lane, but how is this to connect to the school, other than send the kids
down Ustick, which is a really bad road.
Hood: And, Madam Mayor, there is no direct connection, obviously, to the school at this
point. The middle school is -- this applicant would only be required to construct a
sidewalk adjacent to their property fronting Ustick Road. There may be some potential
in the future for crossing -- I believe the owner of the property to the north is here this
evening and would like to testify. I don't know how supportive the school district would
be of a pedestrian connection, at least through this development to the school, but that
is -- there is some potential there when that property redevelops, if, in fact, it does
redevelop here in the near future. But today they would be forced out onto Ustick Road
and up to Linder Road. Neither one have sidewalk until you get to the school.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, if there is no further questions, I would
ask the applicant to come forward.
Nickle: I did e-mail this to Barb this afternoon, but I guess she had a half day, so she
didn't get it on the presentation. Shawn Nickle, 148 North 2nd Street in Eagle, Suite
101, here representing Gemstar Development. I did provide this color copy for you that
-- that's come out a little clearer than staff's. Madam Mayor and Commissioners, first off
on the issue on the redesign, we did meet with staff a couple of times to try to come up
with an alternative plan and we had our engineer layout four or five different plans to try
to -- to try to design this project considering all the constraints that were associated with
it, providing, you know, stub streets to the east. This parcel right here I believe is
commercial, so we had to avoid that for a stub -- a residential stub, providing the stub to
the north, a stub to the west. We had the drain to contend with. So, one of our earlier
designs showed two cul-de-sacs right here and we didn't feel that was really
appropriate to provide interconnectivity and we feel that this internal block -- there is the
six lots -- this does provide -- it is a little more asphalt than the developer would like to
even see on there, but just to try to keep this flowing, we thought it was not appropriate
to have two cul-de-sacs in such a small piece of property. With regards to the drain,
this is, actually, the first time we heard this come up, but it's been our intent all along to
leave the drain open as part of our -- part of our amenity is the open drain. There is a
lot of mature trees back here. We do have a tot lot right here that will be fenced off.
Actually, the whole -- the whole drain will be fenced off. With regards to the connection
to the school -- and if staff could put up the area map again. And, unfortunately, as
splits occurred in the county before the city came along and annexed a lot of the
property -- and you have heard me talk about this before, you end up with these really
funky lots and this one really is no exception in trying to -- trying to get as many lots as
we can to develop it's kind of hard not being able to purchase, you know, everything out
there like the developer would tend to, to make it more -- make it a better design. We
are stuck with this little piece right here now. We do have a stub to the north and we
also have a stub to the west. In discussions with this gentleman right here, it doesn't
sound like he's too long -- it's too long before he's going to be selling to a developer. If
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 29 of 54
staff could verify the land use -- I believe this was the recently approved comp plan for
mixed use; is that correct?
Hood: Mixed use.
Nickle: Okay. And all indications are that they are going to be developed in a
reasonable amount of time. So, I think we are going to -- we are going to see
improvements along Linder and Ustick relatively soon. I don't know if it's as soon as the
city would like to see it, but in this case, this being kind of an island right here, you
know, we did -- we did keep that in consideration, but there is really nothing we can do,
but we are confident that that is going to occur, you know, relatively soon. I think that's
all we have. We are in favor of the staff's recommendation and the city Planning and
Zoning Commission's recommendation. I'll stand for any specific questions you have at
this point.
De Weerd: Council, any questions at this point?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'm confused how a drain can be an amenity when you are
going to fence it off.
Nickle: It's more of -- if staff can put the colored back up there. It's more of a visual
esthetic with the mature trees and the openness back here. This is going to be a see
through fence, it won't be solid, so it can provide that open feel to these lots here and
here. So, it's more of a natural -- yeah, we are not -- we are not going to have people
playing in the ditch itself and it is not that large of a ditch. It's more of an esthetic
amenity.
Rountree: Follow up.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Rountree: So, am I to understand we will have some kind of a landscape design and
some kind of a maintenance agreement in the CC&Rs that that will be taken care of?
Nickle: With the -- in coordination with the irrigation district, because there is an
easement located right here.
De Weerd: I guess that raises a question from me. If you're fencing it off, is the fenced
off open space part of your open space allocation?
Nickle: It's part of the -- I believe it's part of the 13.5 percent that Caleb spoke of, but it
doesn't -- it's not included within our required five percent. In other words, our -- the five
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 30 of 54
percent required is our tot lot and this area right here and this area right here. It doesn't
include the landscape strip on Ustick or that -- that drain area.
De Weerd: And the area that you pointed out that seems to stub into it, what is the use
for that?
Nickle: This right here will be landscape. It will be some drainage and it also provides
access back to this area right here. More of a passive walking path back here along the
back and in that -- there will be a clear vision fence along the easement line of the ditch
itself. That will be what will not be usable. This area will all be accessible and fenced
off for safety, but open fencing and, then, the tot lot itself.
De Weerd: Does that mean chain link?
Nickle: Wrought iron.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any other questions, Council? Thank you.
Nickle: Thank you.
De Weerd: We do have a couple of people who did sign up to indicate their neutrality in
this. If you would like to provide testimony when I call your name, please, step forward.
Steven Lloyd is signed up neutral. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Lloyd: Steven Lloyd and I am at 1371 West Ustick, which is directly to the north.
De Weerd: Okay. Caleb, do you want to show the other map? And there is a pointer
there in front of you, if you can maybe point out to Council where your property is. If we
find it. There you go.
Lloyd: Okay. Well, I am that parcel there, this parcel here, and, then, this triangular
parcel.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Lloyd: So, I'm between there and the school.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Lloyd: Okay. I might be able to clear up a few things as far as the ditch goes. Like I
said on the -- or I put down neutral, I'm not really -- I guess I'm more for than for
against, but I do have some issues that I'd like -- I think I'm probably more affected with
this than anybody, because I am just a slight bit landlocked back there. That -- right
now, currently, the blue line is my driveway that goes through it, 700 feet long. So, that
would be my first issue when they starting building the subdivision, I would -- I don't
want to get stuck with -- I have seen these developments go before and as they
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 31 of 54
happen, you know, there is heavy equipment in there and it could go on for -- I would
like to know how long it's going to go on and when it's -- the pavement is going to
happen, what is my access going to be throughout the process, how often will I be
moved around, will there be certain days that I cannot even access my property. What
I'd like to see happen if it goes forward -- because I'm not against it happening,
because, actually, when it does happen I do receive services back there to my stub and
that's not a bad -- necessarily a bad thing for me, but if I -- as soon as they start
breaking ground on this, I'm pretty sure I will not be able to get through this lane
anymore, since I'm going to vacate it. So, what I'm going to ask them to do or I'd like to
see happen, if I could suggest it, would be that I have a driveway -- and I am willing to
go down this -- that is the west property line and I would like that access to be there
throughout the entire project. Now, we run into some problems when we get to this little
stub road here, they are going to have to do that. So, what do we do when that
happens? What happens when they run pressurized irrigation down the back of the lots
right where the driveway that I'm going to need to have? These kinds of issues are
what I would like to have answered before, you know, I vacate my road that's in there
now and, if I have a choice. I don't even know if I have a choice in the matter, as far as
that goes. My number one concern is that at no point during this whole process am I
ever not allowed to get to my house. There is emergency concerns, there is, you know,
emergency vehicles, fire, whatever. And if so, if there are going to be times where, you
know, that the communication between myself the developer is notched up -- I'd like to
see it notched up a little bit more than it has been throughout the process to this point.
Okay. Because, like I said, I'm pretty well affected by the whole deal. I do have some
concerns about traffic. Sorry, the red light's on, but I don't know if you have been here
during -- we have a subdivision going here, here, this parcel right here has been
purchased. These people are selling probably within the next 20 or 30 days. I don't
know about this and I don't know about this. The traffic backs up from this stop light
right here -- stop sign right here to right about there at 5:00 o'clock at night. At Linder
it's backed up just about the entire mile when the school lets out right here all the way
back. This isn't too bad. This is backed up at least a half a mile for -- from about 5:00
o'clock until 6:30. I'm sure some of you have been there at that time. It's impossible to
get through. So, I don't know, we have got four or five hundred -- I don't know how
many houses are going in all this area here. What are we going to do with this roadway
through here? I know that it cannot handle what we have now. I want to know, you
know, how is it going to handle all this increased traffic. There is going to be 35 lots --
okay, there is 70 more cars right there coming in and out of there every morning and
every evening. That's an issue as far as I'm concerned. What else do I have? As far
as connection to the school, if this goes through and this happens the way we think it's
going to do, I have talked to Planning and Zoning and I'm going to possibly do
something in here. And if that happens, my plan is to talk to the school district and run
a pathway right along this property line and over to access the school. So, that could
happen at some point in time and I would -- if it was fenced between this property line
and, then, my property through here, I plan on keeping this back acreage right through
here and, then, doing something up here. I would not be opposed to a little fenced off
pathway that goes through that connects to the subdivision. Okay. The option is still
there for the developer, if they want this parcel here and that helps them get through
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 32 of 54
with the connection, that's always an option as well. I'm not trying to be a real estate
agent here at City Council, but that -- I do know that this is going to be developed, the
subdivision is going to -- they are going to try to connect it through with the meetings
that I have had with these people. This is all supposedly going to be sold right away, so
there is going to be some other access points that go through. The drain ditch. I would
like some more research done on this drain ditch, because all the homeowners -- this
homeowner, this homeowner over here -- the drain ditch used to come, I believe, from
way down here. It's all closed off now all the way through to this point, I believe, and,
then, it's just a little bit of it right through here. The only thing that's coming into it is one
homeowners drainage is coming through when he irrigates his field. It's a very minimal
amount of water. It's -- I think it should be filled in. Most of the other homeowners
around agree. And as far as everybody has told me, the research we found is it's a
private ditch anyway. So, it could be filled in and I think it would look a lot better if this --
whoever buys this I think they are going to probably want to do the same thing. We
have a lot of usable space here that is taken up by this drain ditch. It's about six feet
deep, about 25, 30 feet wide and it's overgrown with weeds, bushes, and trees. So,
there are a lot of big existing trees that we'd like to stay, but I think it could be cleaned
up and the easiest way to take care of this drain ditch -- as soon as this gentleman right
here sells, nobody else -- these two properties, which is happening as we speak,
nobody else is draining into this ditch. It can be -- and it has been filled in all the way to
this point right here. So, it's also another issue that we could look at as far as that drain
ditch goes, because I know I want to fill mine in. There is about a half acre of space
that I can't use because of it, so -- and I get absolutely no benefit out of it, except for
kind of a -- you know, mosquitoes and numerous other things that come rolling through
it. So, it's -- it's an eye sore for my property. It would look pretty good if it was cleaned
up from the -- from the aspect of the new subdivision, however. If it was maintained it
would look pretty decent. So, that's -- that's about all I have.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Lloyd: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, I apologize, I know his time was up and I got caught up in what he
was saying and didn't pay attention to it. So, I apologize.
Rountree: That's all right. It was good information.
De Weerd: Yes. Lester Vogel is signed up neutral. Good evening.
Vogel: Good evening. Yes. My name is Lester Vogel and we live at 3610 North Linder
Road, right south of Sawtooth school. And we don't have any concerns with the
subdivision, but I guess you have a list of concerns we wrote in. And my concerns are
with the fence and I have already talked to the developer and they said they would
consider all my concerns with the fence and probably we will need an electric fence on
the west side of that, because livestock would be rubbing on it if you didn't have an
electric fence. And the irrigation water that comes down in front of the property, it
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 33 of 54
comes up and feeds our property, so we will need a way to get into change the water
there. We'll have to have a headgate. And the elevation we have talked to the
developer about and they are going to try to keep the elevation up so that it doesn't --
when we flood irrigate it doesn't flow into their property. So, other than that, we don't
have -- and there is a neighbor -- we have tried to work with them and they have been
good to -- whenever I have called and talked to them. So, maybe we are on the right
track on this one. When the school went in and Watersong and some of them, they
didn't have our concerns -- they just kind of went the way they wanted to and they didn't
-- here they made our problems -- their problems our problems and they are still that
way and I'd like to, you know, get along -- as a neighbor I will work with them and I will
do -- go 50-50, whatever it takes to get the project done. And I have -- I'd like to get the
inspector to make sure things are done right before he signs off. We had a little project
with the sewer when Meridian done the sewer up Ustick Road that kind of left us in a
bind. We finally had to take care of ourself. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Yes.
Rountree: You heard Mr. Lloyd's comments about the White Drain. Do you drain any
irrigation water that direction?
Vogel: Yes, I do.
Rountree: So, you do use the White Drain?
Vogel: Yeah. And to the east of this project -- I don't know whether I know how to run
this thing. This property irrigates -- flood irrigates and drains into that ditch. The ditch
starts right there and it drains in there and this property drains into it and this property
drains into it. Until it's developed. And we drain into it right up there.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Vogel: I think it takes about an 18 inch pipe to carry that water. But our irrigation
comes down along here and right at this point it goes to the west and, then, we have to
take it right up to here and there. So, right in here is where we are going to have to
have access to our -- to change the water. This is -- all this property down in here has
been on a rotation for years and years and so this water -- they will take it out with a
weir and it will skim off a little bit and the rest of it will go down here and, then, this
property and this little portion here, but they will -- somehow they are going to -- when
they irrigate there will not be water for this and it's not too long a time, but -- until this
property develops and they won't be able to irrigate. Any other questions?
Rountree: No. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 34 of 54
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would
like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
for final remarks.
Nickle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Again, Shawn Nickle. To address Mr. Lloyd's
concerns or comment, we will absolutely work with him and make sure he has access at
all times back his property and we will coordinate exactly where that driveway needs to
be and make sure that it's open. These two gentlemen that are sitting right here will be
responsible for that and I'll make sure that Mr. Lloyd talks to them and gets phone
numbers and actually knows how to get ahold of Gemstar. But, yes, we have no
intention of ever cutting him off at any point. With regards to the drain, considering the
testimony tonight, I guess we'd like the ability -- if we do go in there and pipe that -- it
sounds like we are going to be piping for a short period of time -- or the need for it to be
piped is going to be for a short period of while these -- until these properties develop
right here, if we do go in and pipe it, we are going to lose a lot of those mature trees, so
I would like to have the ability to kind of research and see, you know, exactly what --
just to make sure that these are the only properties that go into it and, then, have the
ability to go in and fill it in and clean it up and not remove those trees by piping what it
sounds like is going to be maybe a couple years that we are to pipe before it will be
abandoned, because it doesn't sound like there is a whole lot of property that would
drain into that. We, obviously, would maintain flow at this current time on it. And also
Mr. Lloyd's question about completion as -- this will be one phase. It will start in the
spring and it will be 120 day duration to completion of the construction of the road
system and the sewer and water lines and all that. So, I will stand for any other
questions you may have.
De Weerd: I guess while you're there I will just make my little editorial remark is when
this came in as part of the Comp Plan to consider that as a neighborhood center or
neighborhood mixed use, my whole concern was looking at this area one piece at a
time, because there are a number of issues and the drainage and the sidewalks and the
connecting to a real critical piece for me in the safety of the residents we would be
putting in and around that, as well with the road that's very heavily traveled, it is hard to
look at this critical piece one piece at a time. If everyone seems to be selling at the
same time, it would be nice to see a master plan or how all of these pieces would fit
together, so that we know infrastructural-wise how those pieces are going to fit together.
So, again, that's my editorial piece and it was a concern I had then and I continue to
have now.
Nickle: And, Madam Mayor, it's, obviously, frustrating and difficult for us to try to plan
these type of properties piecemeal as well. Unfortunately, getting all the property
owners and the develops together never -- never ever works out. It doesn't seem like
anyone wants to sell their property or even talk to anybody until the piece next to them
develops and gets approved -- or gets approved and all of a sudden they are willing to
sell when this happens. Nearly every time we develop a small piece like this we are --
the next day someone comes in and says, okay, we are ready to develop and it's like,
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 35 of 54
well, it would have been nice if we could have done that and planned it at the beginning.
I do share your concerns. It is difficult to try to accomplish that. I think we have done a
pretty good job in the past, as fast as these areas are growing and developing, I have
no -- no concern that you're not going to see development on most of these properties
in the next three to five years and it sounds like Mr. Lloyd -- and at one time we actually
had a portion -- or, actually, I think we had most of Mr. Lloyd's property as part of this --
as part of our original design, but negotiations fell through and I believe Mr. Lloyd has
at least considered going at it himself and so you are going to see -- and he did state for
the record that he might be interested in providing a pathway there. So, I think you
have an opportunity to get something a little sooner to the north and connect into that
school and not have to wait for these few parcels here to develop. But I do agree with
your comments.
De Weerd: Well -- and I do appreciate what you're saying and all of the pieces coming
together over a certain time. Well, Ustick's not even on a five year plan right now and
so, again, just one more piece of my concern. Council, any questions for the applicant
at this time?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Hood: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Hood: If I may, while Shawn's at the podium, I think you brought Southwick before the
Council, did you not? Isn't that correct, Shawn? Can you help us out with the contiguity
thing and where that's at, because we don't see that the annexation ordinance has
been completed yet.
Nickle: Caleb, thank you, I did have that to discuss. I believe two weeks ago you guys
acted on the ordinance. I think it was on your agenda two weeks ago. I don't know if
the clerk can verify that now or if you have to go back to the records, but -- okay, two
weeks ago the ordinance was approved. So, this should be published as the
annexation.
Hood: Okay. We just couldn't find that and I guess just until that happens, if it hasn't
happened, of course, we can't have the ordinance until that happens, so thank you.
Nickle: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you need any further information from the applicant for
staff?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 36 of 54
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we are all going to be tongue tied, I move that we close Items No. 9 and 10.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have motion and a second to close Items 9 and 10. All those in
favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Just to throw out my thoughts. This is a different situation on a parcel like this.
I share the Mayor's concerns with efforts of somewhat piecemeal development, you
know through no fault of the developers or landowners, some situations you have got
small parcels. I think Shawn's comments about the difficulty in trying to get other
people involved in assembling proprieties and doing more the master plan concept that
the Mayor talked about, it's extremely difficult, perhaps -- perhaps that's our fault, not
the developer's fault, to the extent we allow it to happen. If things come before us in a
piecemeal fashion and we approve them we are, in a sense, telling the community that
it's acceptable by us. So, maybe some of the fault lies on our end. Having said that
and in light of what Shawn has talked about with regards to what might be happening in
the relatively near future, there would be other parcels, so it's not parcel -- a private
parcel in this location in this area that I'm encouraged about and I am not inclined to
approve it. I don't think, in light of those concerns, it's necessary for the city to take this
on at this point. I'd like to see it joined to other parcels before at least I'm willing to go
forward with it.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I don't disagree with what Joe said, but one of the issues that really stands
out to me is that we have an adjacent property owner who will be significantly impacted
by this and seemed pretty agreeable to what was going on, but indicated that there had
been little or no agreement as it relates to his access to his property and it seems to me
that this is one of my favorite topics, lanes, and I would just as soon not have a property
with a lane annexed into the City of Meridian without some kind of agreement in place
between the affected parties. So, I'm not inclined to support moving forward with this
particular application until all the homework is done.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 37 of 54
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we deny Item 9, annexation request -- somewhere here. AZ 06-
030.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item No. 9. Is there any
discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10. Mr. Nary, since we don't have an annexation, do we still
need a motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor, yes, you would.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we deny Item 10, PP 06-030, preliminary plat.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 10. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06
acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regency at
River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC – east of Eagle Road
and north of Fairview Avenue:
Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
approval to construct a multi-family development consisting of 204 multi-
family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regency
at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC – east of Eagle Road
and north of Fairview Avenue:
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 38 of 54
Item 13: Public Hearing: VAR 06-014 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3C-6A to
provide less than 2 covered parking stalls for each multi-family dwelling
unit for Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC –
east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue:
Item 14: Public Hearing: VAR 06-015 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-
4.3.27B3 to provide less than 80 square feet of private, usable open
space for each multi-dwelling unit Regency at River Valley by The
Regency at River Valley, LLC – east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview
Avenue:
Item 15: Public Hearing: VAR 06-016 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B2
to construct a vehicular access to a state highway at a location other than
a section line road or the half mile mark between sections Regency at
River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC – east of Eagle Road
and north of Fairview Avenue:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank You. Items 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are all public hearings on
this same application or same subdivision. AZ 06-035, CUP 06-022, VAR 06-014, VAR
06-015, and VAR 06-016. I will open these public hearings with staff comments.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The Regency Subdivision -
- there is, actually, not a subdivision application associated with this project. I'll talk
about that a little bit more later. There are two parcels that you can see outlined here in
the teal color just south of the C-G. That's our subject site. It is located on the east
side of Eagle Road, approximately a half mile north of Fairview Avenue. I'll throw up
the aerial here. To the north is the Finch Lateral and, again, I'll talk about that here in a
minute as well. There are also some single family homes mixed in here on some large
parcels. Most of this has been zoned in the city with a commercial designation as part
of the Redfeather development. There aren't any commercial uses approved on this
site currently, but, again, it is zoned C-G in the city. To the west is Stokesberry
Subdivision. It's an office park. And, then, you have got the elementary school, River
Valley Elementary School, just to the west of that. To the south is the turf farms. To the
east, as I mentioned, there are some future single family homes in Redfeather as it
progresses back to the west. Madam Mayor, I went through all of the applications that
are associated with this and I will just briefly touch on each one of them and, then, go
into some more detail on each one, I guess, as well. So, annexation and zoning is 12
acres requested for zoning. 1.5 acres -- one and a half acres is requested to be C-C
right on Eagle Road. So, it would be this pad site here along Eagle Road and, then, ten
and a half acres is remainder area proposed for the R-40 density residential zone.
Concurrent with that request is the Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family
development that consists of 204 multi-family dwelling units. Now, this is a little bit
different multi-family development than we are used to seeing in that they are multi-
multi family units. There are -- most all of these are 24 unit buildings. There is a 12 unit
building right here. There is a mix of bedrooms within these. Some are one and two
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 39 of 54
bedrooms, some are two and three, some are one and three. This area I think is
business -- I can't read it exactly, but it's kind of got a different little professional feel to it
anyways and its marketed to those folks a little bit differently. There is also a private
street request -- there are several private streets. The one I want to touch on first has
to do with its connection to Eagle Road, a state highway, which is not at the mid mile
location. This property does have access to the mid section line. However, that does
not extend out to Meridian Road at the mid section line. So, they'd ask for a variance --
a temporary variance, if you will, to have access at this access point to the development
at this time. It is their only frontage. There is no other public street frontage today.
Staff is recommending approval of that variance on a temporary basis until this public
street -- public collector roadway can you extend out to Eagle Road, get a signal put in
here and, then, this will be the primary entrance into the development until Allys Way,
which I'll touch on here -- a little bit here in a minute, gets pushed up to Ustick Road.
So, as a condition for recommending approval -- a temporary approval of that variance,
we want to see all of these lots take access -- consolidate their access points, give
cross-access, so we can eventually feed all of these properties that have access to
Eagle Road down to the future public street and use this as an access and close off the
access points that these parcels particularly today utilize. So, that's one of the variance
requests. The other one has to do with parking. I did talk with the applicant just
actually during the hearing. There is a little bit of a -- I counted the number of stalls
proposed through the multi-family and, actually, I came up with a count of 403 parking
stalls. They assured me that there will be at least 408 parking stalls, which is a
minimum number required per the UDC in this development. The variance is related to
the requirement to provide covered parking stalls. This plan is not the revised plan.
Essentially, staff's recommendation is that anywhere that is not encumbered by the
irrigation easement, which all these parking stalls up in here, and that are not adjacent
to this building and up to about half of this building and around the loop at the
clubhouse -- I'm sorry, that's the clubhouse there and open spaces and trails -- some
walking trails in between. That those areas I just pointed out not be required to have
either carports or garages. That's what the UDC requires. Two covered parking stalls
per dwelling unit. We will talk about that a little more. The applicant, I understand, has
a visual that they can show you. It's kind of color coded showing where garages are,
where carports are, and where surface parking spots are. And, then, finally, the third
variance request has to do with the 80 square foot private usable open space that's
required for multi-family developments. This requirement was added to the UDC
primarily because there is no private usable open space outside of the units that
someone can call their own and barbecue or just hang out on a patio on their deck,
things of that nature. The bottom units on those -- of these, if not all these, do have a
patio area, but the upper two floors do not propose any private usable open space for
those residents. I think real quick what I will do is I guess I'll finish with the private
streets. So, all the access drives in here are private streets that will carry a separate
private lane, blue signs, so that emergency services can find the units that are
addressed off of each private lane. I do have a hot-off-the-press e-mail from Joe Silva
stating that he's okay with having just the one access point here and in the future the
one access point being here, because all these buildings are going to be fully fire
sprinklered NFP 13, which, basically, I understand is everything gets sprinklered, the
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 40 of 54
attics and everything are fully sprinkled. So, there is currently a lack of access into this
site, but it will be -- at least the fire department's okay with having a single access point
of this development temporarily. In that same vein I want to touch on Allys Way just for
a minute. Allys Avenue is what it's also been called. I'm not quite sure what it's going
to end up being called, but that's the other collector that shoots up north, comes out at
Lowe's. It's currently got the conduit and the signal mass and things for the
signalization right there at the Lowe's entrance. ACHD is requiring developers as they
come in and develop in the city to construct their portion of that collector roadway, so
maybe I'll jump back to the vicinity real quick. It doesn't go all the way up, but if you can
use your imagination just for a minute. Ustick Road is right there. So, we -- here
probably a couple months ago ACHD on this parcel on the south, that first leg of that
collector being constructed to that point, so when Redfeather comes in we will at least
have the first half mile of that constructed and, then, hopefully, they will come down and
tie in with Records when this property develops. And, again, we will have this
connection out here. So, this applicant will be -- I think one of the requirements from
ACHD was they will be road trusted for half of the requirements of a crossing of this as
well, so Redfeather will do the other half and we will actually have a bridge crossing and
they are constructing their portion of this collector road, which will align with River Valley
or whatever it's called across the street. The development agreement is proposed by
staff, just because this isn't your standard single family development that we typically
see, there are quite a few -- I don't want to call them odd ball requirements, but the out
of the ordinary restrictions and requirements that we felt it was a good project to have a
develop agreement on and restrict the uses that occur on this property. I think I
covered all the variances that were partially supportive of one, not recommending
approval of the waiver of another one, and I think I'm pretty clear. If not, you can sure
ask me any questions. The applicant I believe is also going to clarify what they intend
to do with the Finch Lateral, aka the South Slough, if you prefer and similar to the last
project if it's going to be tiled or not tiled. It is a pretty large facility. Maybe just quickly
some more highlights -- and I will let the applicant kind of sell their project, if you will, to
you, but the gross density of River Valley is 17.86 dwelling units per acre. There is
approximately 2.7 acres or 22 percent of the site being set aside for open space. They
are providing a community clubhouse with an exercise room, billiards table, a lounge
area, a barbecue area, dining facilities, children's play area, tot lot, the open space I
mentioned, a hot tub and pool, a water amenity right in the center of clubhouse visitor
area and walking trails throughout as I mentioned earlier as well. With that I think I
have touched on all of my points and, hopefully, gave you the -- I gave the full view of
the project and what's before you all and allow the applicant to supplement that, but if
you have any questions I will be available for those.
De Weerd: Okay. Caleb, I guess I just need a little more clarity on the connecting --
maybe a backage road per se that runs parallel to Eagle between this multi-family and
the commercial piece. Is that currently in that design?
Hood: Yeah. Madam Mayor, the piece they own -- and maybe I'll jump back real quick,
just to the parcel configuration. So, everything here is what's going to be C-C. So, that
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 41 of 54
north side -- south driveway is there and, then, these parcels -- there is two to the south
and one to the north. I don't know if that helps or not, but the cross-access would be --
De Weerd: They are just running it through a parking lot?
Hood: Correct. It's a backage road that will be -- the building and parking between
Eagle Road and this backage drive aisle. It does have -- as you can see in this
conceptual -- and totally conceptual in nature, there is a development agreement
requirement that that come back in for at least design review approval, if not Conditional
Use Permit approval. I can't remember. And, yeah, I don't know that this parking lot
layout would fly when we review it, but the idea is to get a drive aisle connection to the
property to the north and the property to the south and that could or may not have --
preferably may not have on back off parking or people backing into that drive aisle.
That's certainly something that -- if that's the desire of the Council to restrict it further
than that, I guess, but, again, we haven't spent too much time reviewing that parcel,
because there is no real -- they don't have anyone that's ready to move in there now
and the plan is just conceptual. We could use this as a potential use.
De Weerd: I don't know what our chief of police thinks, but running a two way through a
parking lot can't be all that safe and when it's private it makes is more cumbersome.
But, chief, do you have any comments on that?
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you're absolutely right, it would be
cumbersome and if it becomes a private access drive there is not much enforcement in
activity or anything else we can do on that, especially in terms of a two way. We can
still respond in there reference collisions, but there are probably other ways to look at
designing it.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any questions for staff before I call the
applicant up?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant -- if you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Rindlisbacher: Yes, Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, grateful to be
here and to discuss this project. My name is Greg Rindlisbacher with the Bach Team.
Our address is 11650 South State Street, Draper, Utah. I just want to kind of quickly
overview what our company does and the project that we are proposing, so you can
have an idea of what type of product we produce and that will help clarify I think a lot of
questions that you may have and concerns.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 42 of 54
Rindlisbacher: And, then, we will haggle from there. And I'm hoping this clicker will
work. Okay. As Caleb mentioned, this is the project that we are proposing to do. We
have been in business now for about 30 years and we specialize in doing apartment
projects and residential communities. We have been doing apartments for about ten or
12 years now and through our experience we have learned a lot about what works in an
apartment community, what's going to look good now, what's going to look good in five
years, ten, 20 years and so these variances that we are asking for and some of the
improvements that we put in the project -- and for that reason we want this to look good
for years to come. We have never sold a project. We are the developer, the builder,
the property manager, and the owner of the projects, but 15 years from now I can't say
we will still own the property and it's still going to be part of your city. So, you know, we
take a lot of pride in the project that we do and we know it's going to be here for a long
time, so we want to make sure that the product we produce will last for a really long
time. First of all our entrances -- this will be our primary entrance eventually. As Caleb
mentioned, this is the temporary access that we are requesting. Just to clarify, Madam
Mayor, your concern here, this is -- these are just cross-easements. This piece to the
north is another acre, which will probably be some type of commercial development. It
will be a cross-easement so they can actually come through here and access Eagle,
turn, and, then, come through down here to access River Valley in the long term -- it's
just these -- basically, it alleviates the traffic problem onto Eagle. They can come down
to River Valley, catch the light here at the mid mile and, then, get onto Eagle safely. So,
it, actually, reduced traffic congestion and safety issues onto Eagle. You see that all the
time in malls where they are having cross-easements between restaurants where you
can cross through different restaurant pads or different offices. Right across the street
there is cross-easements between each -- each office building and you see -- I have
seen that quite a bit along Eagle Drive and it really, actually, works out to the benefit of
the city and traffic. The entrances to our project -- this is a typical entrance into our
project. This one was built in Tri-Cities, Washington. We will have signs as you enter
in, a water feature. This is another entrance sign to a project we built in Idaho Falls.
This project is another shot of -- a close up of a shot in the Tri-Cities area of our
entrance into the project. This is a -- we can talk about the clubhouse. There is an
entry -- I'm going to show what the area here is going to look like and clubhouse and
the water features. This is a water feature in Tri-Cities again. You can see the statute
we do here. This is called the Crossings at Chapel Hill. We kind of followed a horse
theme. We haven't quite picked the theme here for Regency, but we are going to do
something similar to this. This one is up in Montana in Billings. We have got an Elk
and a lot of features, actually, in front of this, but same kind of feel. Clubhouse interiors,
which will be right here as you enter in. We try to make it a really nice area. We want
this project to be a Class A project. This project will rival we think any project in the
Treasure Valley area and, in fact, probably the state of Idaho and it's going to be
something that's going to be something that residents will feel -- I think feel proud to live
at and will be a nice benefit to the community. We have a 24 hour fitness center. Key
card access. You can enter the fitness center and workout anytime you want. We can
track who is coming and going with their key card access. Another picture of the fitness
center. A pool area. We take a lot of pride in our pool areas. This will be shots that we
are going to be doing something similar to this area and with our pool areas I want to
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 43 of 54
mention that we have our in-house landscaping company. We do not subcontract that
out. We have learned that we are very picky about our landscaping, we want it done
very well and maintenance free. All of our flower beds we cover with small rock or
aggregate, we put weed barrier underneath that, so when people come in to maintain it,
all we need is a mow and trim and the project looks great. No weeds, always looks
nice, and you will see that in these pictures. This project is in Tri-Cities, Washington,
just finished a month or two ago. This one is in St. George, Utah. This one is in Twin
Falls, Idaho. Another shot of St. George from the top part. We add little green areas.
These are gazebos where people can come and lay out and read while their kids are
swimming. Hot tub. We have water falls into the pool if area public law permits that.
Common areas, which will be these areas. Tot lots. Some grass areas. Something --
similar projects we have done. This is the barbecue area. I want to point out these
barbecue areas are fire proof. These are on concrete, masonry all construction, vented
properly up at the top. And these are to help prevent fires. This is where we want
people to barbecue and we are going to cover this in the variance request later on on
the decks. This is a typical tot lot. This one's in St. George, Utah. Typical
landscaping. These are the putting greens. I think this is Tri-Cities, Washington, again.
This is the common area shot of our landscaping in St. George, Utah. Building
interiors and exteriors. This is in Ogden, Utah, our Pinebrook property. This one,
again, is in Billings, Montana. This is the Tri-Cities project again. Interior of our
apartment models. This is, actually, an older unit, so we want to show some of the
quality we put in here. We do nice -- nicer wood cabinets, instead of Milamean, which
you see in some apartment complexes. Microwaves above the ranges. Washers and
dryers back here in the laundry room. Now we come to the Regency. This is what we
are proposing that the clubhouse looks like. It will be very similar to this. The color
scheme will be similar to this. It's not been finalized, but very similar. A building
elevation. And you can see on here we have built product in the past with private
balconies on them and we are trying to get away from that and I will go through that a
little bit later on. And you can see here there is private patios on the first floor, but we
are not proposing these on the second and third floor, but on the first. I want to go onto
the covered parking variance. We met with our engineer today and we wanted to throw
the color scheme in here so you could see exactly what we proposing. We do not meet
the ordinance. We have some obstacles that we cannot overcome. This north side of
the South Slough or Finch Lateral, I'm not sure which one it's named. I keep hearing
different names. But there is an easement there and we are not allowed to put anything
along that easement, any type of structure. So, we are requesting that this variance be
approved for parking. We have placed the covered carports, which are kind of in the
pink color. You can see where those carports are. And the purple area -- these were
blue and red. I don't know why they are purple and pink. The purple area are garages
that we are proposing to put in there. There is 36 garages, upgraded from carports.
We prefer to do more garages, but there is only -- it's kind of a supply and demand. We
do as many as we feel like we can do for the return we can get on that investment. But
it adds something a little bit nicer to the community as well. So, we have 192 covered
carports, 36 garages, and, then, 180 open parking stalls, which equates to 480 parking
stalls, 408, which will give you the two parking stalls per unit. Now, the back of garages
are not the most beautiful things. What we have done here -- this one's in Tri-Cities.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 44 of 54
We have put a lot of landscaping behind these to kind of help hide the look from the
street side. This is a public street here and we have done that to help -- you know,
makes it a little esthetically pleasing. We also broke up the garage here in back. We
can do that as well if the City Council would like to see that. All right. The private
balcony variance. One thing we want to cover -- and I know economics isn't a thing that
city councils and mayors generally look at, but we have to make the project pencil. If
we are required to put in the private balconies, I'd just have to take something from the
project somewhere else. Maybe it might be microwaves, it might be a tot lot -- who
knows what it would be, but to make it pencil I have to put in -- I have to basically move
money one way or the other and I think the return on what you get for the balcony is not
that great. I still am being able to provide one-third of all the units -- one-third of all the
units with private balcony space. If somebody really wants private balcony space they
can rent a unit on the first floor. We are also providing in a common area places for
people to come and barbecue that has been designed to be safe. So, we won't have
people throwing debris -- I mean it's not -- you know, people throwing cigarette butts out
on the grass. Children falling from balconies. You might think that's kind of funny, but it
does happen. It happened actually two days ago in Salt Lake City where I mom
actually caught the baby before it landed and got hurt. Also, a concern about
barbecues being a fire hazard. People do barbecue and smoke on their -- on their
balcony. Now, if they smoke on the patio outside on the first floor, it's not quite as scary,
because they are on concrete. They get on the second, third floor they are on outdoor
carpeting and wood deck flooring. I'll show you a few pictures and concerns. Our
insurance companies do not like having people put -- I guess that document didn't show
up. It's a letter from our insurance company that we just received two weeks ago. It's
kind of ironic that it came at the same time, but, basically, they have gone down to our
St. George project and said get these barbecues off the decks. Oh, and there it is right
there. In order to -- the paragraph showed up. In order to reduce the risk of fire, gas
and charcoal grills or similar devices used for cooking, heating, any purposes, should
not be used on any balcony under any overhanging portion or within ten feet of any
structure. So, they are concerned about that fire hazard. Here is a fire we had about
months ago on a project. This was in Idaho Falls, Idaho. And as you can see, we have
provided a barbecue area around the pool that the residents can use at their discretion.
If it's available they can use it. A shot from the front. So, you know, in conclusion, I just
want to point out we have patios on the first floor for residents to use if they want private
area. We have storage units -- we have people storing -- oh, I guess this isn't quite the
conclusion piece. We have people that store stuff on those balconies as well and it
becomes unsightly. Now, we can try to police it, we have on-site management, but it's
very difficult to police the barbecuing and people storing stuff on the balconies. You're
going to see some pictures -- not all of these are from our properties, but some of them
are. And, you know, it just doesn't make a goodly amount of curb appeal and we want
this to be a nice place for our residents and when people drive by that are city people --
or, you know, citizens of the city, we don't want them to be thinking about all that stuff
hanging out on the decks and patios. So, we would ask for your -- we'd ask for your
approval on these applications that we are requesting tonight and I would be happy to
field any questions that you might have.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 45 of 54
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: No? Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who
would like to provide testimony on this application?
Stanfield: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Scott Stanfield,
Mason Stanfield Engineering, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. I'll address some of the
engineering issues as quick as I can. We can meet all the engineering and planning
requirements for the site plan, including the 35 foot buffer along Eagle Road to the
west, the 25 foot buffer along our collectors to the south, and Allys Avenue -- Allys Way
to the east. We can provide our five foot minimum buffer adjacent to non-Bach owned
parcels adjacent to us. We can meet the landscape island criteria inside our project.
Covered parking. Again, we are asking for a variance on the covered parking. Asking
for your discretion in that item. Greg indicated on the north boundary along the
Slouth/Lateral Nampa-Meridian has made it clear they don't want any structures of that
type inside the easement. We worked it out just prior to P&Z meeting and just recently
in other discussion with Mr. Silva. We are going to put the covered patios -- or covered
carports up front and in order to get around the fire code issue regarding separation for
horizontal clearances with a ladder truck going over the top of them, we are going to
upgrade to an NFP-12 -- 12 fire sprinklers, attics, crawl spaces, every room sprinklered,
in order to go ahead and provide what cover we can adjacent to the buildings. The
amenities. Greg went over the amenities quite well, I believe. The tiling of the Finch
Lateral. Our boundary is generally following the Finch Lateral/South Slough.
Sometimes is crosses over the center of it, sometimes it doesn't quite go that far. It's
called in a metes and bounds and not necessarily following the center of it. So, we
don't necessarily have ownership and certainly we don't own the entire Finch Lateral.
So, the question that I would have is can we legally tile that and trespass. With all that
aside, the South Slough, in my opinion, throughout the valley, acts more as a natural
drainage way. It is a natural low point. If you drive up there and look at it and it looks
like Ten Mile, Five Mile, Nine Mile Drain, versus a lateral that just happens to have a
water right associated with it and it is a supply ditch for some downstream users, hence,
the name Finch Lateral. Up and down that lateral, that slough, there are various pipe
sizes. There is 48 inches, there is some in excess of 48 inches. There is some box
culverts. There is some smaller than 48 inches. Downstream there has been some
projects over the years that have been allowed not to tile that. Valen Courts,
Woodberry, I believe, some projects north of Chateau Meadows, Waterberry, and
Clearbrook and, then, maybe even Fothergill going back many years ago. I'm not sure.
Most of that, to my knowledge, has been left open over the years. I did have a
conversation with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on September 13th and Bill
Henson reiterated to that upstream of there the county -- I'm assuming he meant the
highway district, has a storm drainage to overflow and when it rains the runoff goes into
the slough and his comment to me was even the 48 inch is not adequate. And I asked
that -- and I have copies of the letter in writing, I asked for him to put that in writing, but I
haven't received that yet and I haven't had any return phone calls. So, other than my
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 46 of 54
testimony and my experience, I can't offer any more than that on the Finch Lateral. But
that's all I have to say and I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? No? Okay.
Stanfield: Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Caleb, I guess I have a question. Is there
not a needed landscape buffer between multi-family and commercial?
Hood: There is, Madam Mayor. By ordinance there is a 25 foot wide landscape buffer
requirement and that's -- I mentioned it in the staff report or to the Council that we did
not receive a revised landscape plan ten days prior to this hearing that we could
evaluate and update you as to the changes made. I did receive a revised site plan, but
it doesn't depict landscaping and there was several changes to the landscape plan. I
did talk with Scott and Greg on the phone today. He mentioned that the five foot
landscaping adjacent to the -- one of the -- the outparcels, if you will, on Eagle Road,
has now been provided some of the landscaping between -- on Eagle Road, the 35 foot
wide landscape buffer on Eagle Road, which is now being shown -- I do not -- still don't
have a copy of that landscape plan, but we will get that when that C-C lot develops,
they will be required to construct -- the higher intense use constructs the land use
buffers. So, yes, there is a requirement.
De Weerd: Wouldn't it make sense, though, to have it on what the Council is looking
at?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we tried to get a revised plan for you to
look at and it just -- it wasn't provided, so --
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for the applicant or staff?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: If the applicant has a response to that -- the question on the landscape plan, is
that -- is that something that could be provided relatively soon or is there a reason that it
couldn't --
Rindlisbacher: When I was reading through the staff report last week --
De Weerd: If you will state your name again for the record
Rindlisbacher: Oh. Sorry. Greg Rindlisbacher. Address?
De Weerd: No. You're good.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 47 of 54
Rindlisbacher: I was reading the staff report last week and came across that
requirement and didn't know that -- like I said, I received the staff report last week and I
didn't know it had been requested earlier than that, or I would have had it completed
and to you, but that's something I could have done, I imagine, within a week, week and
a half.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay.
Stanfield: Could I add to that real quick? Scott Stanfield. I think I need to reiterate
what Caleb said. What you, really, have before you tonight is a site plan for the multi-
family. The commercial up front, Rindlisbacher is not sure what kind of tenant is going
to be in there and certainly if that application moves forward for a site plan approval we
will have to meet all of the requirements that you have, but I believe with the multi-
family, the requirement is to landscape the 35 foot up front. And Bach is willing to do
that with the multi-family, kind of dress up their approach. Back on the temporary
approach coming off Eagle, should you grant that variance, both sides of that will also
be landscaped, just to kind if clean up the approach, because their access points will be
right here and not at their focal point, which is kind of backwards. So these will be
landscaped, both sides, 35 foot buffer along Eagle will be landscaped. In fact, the
revised site plan -- engineering site plan I have this area open for landscaping right
there and we can put landscaping on the corner there and on the corner there, just to
kind of jazz up that approach in the interim. So, again, as the commercial application
comes forward we won't have any problems meeting the city requirements for the
commercial application. Just wanted to kind of -- what they want to do to clean that
area up now.
De Weerd: You know, I guess I understood that, but it doesn't show it and that is what
always concerns me on interpretation of those kind things and, then, to come in and
say, well, that plot is a little bit too narrow, we can't really do all of the landscaping and
maybe we need a variance and so --
Stanfield: I understand. I'll almost promise you that Bach won't come in for a variance,
but he'll have to make that commitment. And the staff report did have that ten days,
even if at the P&Z, it's just something we all got busy and the landscape architect got
busy and we overlooked it. So, it's not that it wasn't in the staff report, because Craig
did a wonderful job of putting the staff report together, even at the P&Z level. So, it's
not on the city, it's on us as a project team for not having that in ten days prior.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council?
Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just a point of clarification. For the
record that NFP-13 is sprinkler all areas of those buildings. One of the other benefits --
and we were speaking earlier about cooking safety and on the balconies, it would
require that all those balconies -- that particular standard would require all those
balconies to be also fire sprinklered. Just a point of clarification for Council to consider.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 48 of 54
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I'm looking for your direction on what you would like to
do.
Bird: Has the applicant had his rebuttal?
De Weerd: He doesn't -- can he rebut his engineer? I don't know. But does the
applicant have any further comment?
Rindlisbacher: What staff has asked about the landscaping plan, we will comply with
those requirements. If you have any other questions, I'll answers those as well.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rindlisbacher: Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Greg, I do have one question or at least invite you to comment on Chief
Musser's remarks with regard to the drive aisle connectivity just to the --
Rindlisbacher: Over here?
Borton: Correct. And that's going to -- I think if I heard you right, it will be a -- basically
a parking lot drive aisle behind --
Rindlisbacher: Yeah. This piece here I have been told it's going up for auction.
Borton: Is it correct that it will connect all the way down to River --
Rindlisbacher: River Valley?
Borton: -- River Valley Road?
Rindlisbacher: The idea is, yes, it will, but I don't have control over these two parcels.
Borton: Right.
Rindlisbacher: So, that's going to have to be worked out with the city and those parcel
owners. However, by providing this cross-access here, this parcel now has access to
Eagle through my property and so it will have to have access out onto Eagle on that
piece. Also this parcel here, the same thing, they can come out onto this road and
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 49 of 54
come onto Eagle. So, we are reducing just by having a shared -- a shared cross-
easement through there. Instead of three accesses onto Eagle, one. And if we can
have an access easement through here, you reduce it down to the intersection and
eliminate all those accesses. So, that was the thought behind it. And I know that when
I was starting with this development I knew this was going to be a hot issue and I was
just trying to come up with any ideas to help resolve those concerns.
Borton: Madam Mayor. Then that access to Eagle Road is temporary until River Valley
is --
Rindlisbacher: Correct.
De Weerd: And so a full access?
Rindlisbacher: Temporarily we have requested a full access, yes.
De Weerd: And how many trips is this to generate?
Rindlisbacher: I believe on multi-family it's about six -- but I haven't seen those
numbers lately, but about six trips per day per unit. So, 1,200 trips per day on the multi-
family. I don't know what will be generated from the commercial out front.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: If nobody needs anymore public input, I would move we close AZ 06-035, CUP
06-022, VS 06-006, VAR 06-014, VAR 06-015 and VAR 06-016.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items
11 through 15. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Is there any discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'm always concerned when we have variances to make projects work, but
I'm really concerned when we have three in this particular project and possibly a fourth
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 50 of 54
as it relates to the Finch Lateral. It may not be a variance, but it may be a request to
deviate from what our requirement is. I like some of the features that I see here, but I
would like to see a good number of the features that have been represented, but not
specifically stated on paper as it relates to design, materials, colors, textures, esthetics.
Some of the features I saw and some of the displays they had were not, in my opinion,
particularly esthetic. Not that my opinion counts, but that's a concern I have. So, I
probably at this point would not be in favor of annexation of this particular request.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Regarding the Five Mile Drain or Finch Lateral, whichever you want to call it, I
think we are going to start getting ourselves in trouble -- this has been an issue since
the eight years I have been on the Council -- is our aquifer is going down and down and
down and -- because we are not flood irrigating anymore as much and we are seeming
to want to tile everything and get it down and, then, when you got a drain ditch like that,
which is -- which is a drain ditch, when you're running off and stuff you have heavy
rains, you're -- if you have got a tile with no way for it to be open and having the runoffs
run into it, you're asking for trouble. So, I'm definitely not for tiling that. I am also, like
Mr. Rountree, I'm not really sold on this. This is something that I don't think I could buy
into right now. It's a lot of area in -- or a lot of density in one little area.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just a specific comment about the issue which was -- not necessarily in front
of us at the current time, but from a policy perspective if we are going to consider
variances to our current ordinance, based on water use and aquifers, I think we need to
take a look at that ordinance and have our Public Works Department make some
determinations. I don't want to banter about the scientific need for those sorts of things
without good information. So, if that's something that -- certainly, like I said, is for
another discussion, I think we should take a look at and maybe have the Council
request that we have some more information.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Follow up on Councilman Wardle. We have had this discussion many times. We
have had the Bureau, the Corps of Engineers, in to talk to us. I'm sure Bradley has got
a lot of backup. I have backup that I will -- I can get for you, but that's not regarding this
project. It's something we do need to look at. I think we need to look at our whole UDC
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 51 of 54
ordinance. We have had more requests for variances since we adopted than we ever
did before. And I helped pass it.
De Weerd: Any further discussion? Okay. Do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we deny Item No. 11, annexation AZ 06-035.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item 11. Is there any
discussion?
Rountree: I have no further.
De Weerd: Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 12.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, before I make a motion, could I do a motion for all four of the
remainder hearings?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, yes, you can.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we deny Items 12, 13, 14 and 15, CUP 06-022,
VAR 06-014, VAR 06-015, VAR 06-016.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Items 12 through 15. 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.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 52 of 54
Item 16: Ordinance No. 06-1266 : AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek
Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC – 470 West McMillan
Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 16 is Ordinance No. 06-1266. Mr. Berg, will you, please,
read this ordinance by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 06-1266, an
Ordinance for annexation of property located in a portion of the south 1/2 of the
southeast 1/4 of Section 24, Township 4 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 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, the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by
law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing a waiver of the reading
of the rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there
anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Seeing no one wanting to hear the ordinance, I move that we approve Item 16,
06-1266 with waiver of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 16. Mr. Berg, will you call
roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Item 17: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a) – (to consider
hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, not to
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 53 of 54
include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective
office) and (c) – (to conduct deliberations concerning labor negotiations or
to acquire an interest in real property, which is not owned by a public
agency):
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we go into Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(a).
Bird. Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: Just a point of clarification. There is also a letter (c).
Rountree: And (c)? And (c).
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wardle -- I mean -- I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr.
Wardle, for clarifying that. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: Okay Council I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Move to adjourn.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 2006
Page 54 of 54
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:45 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
_______________________________ ______/______/______
MAYOR TAMMY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK