HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-28~~E IDIAN~--
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 at 7:00 PM
1. Roll-Call Attendance
X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Community Invocation by Larry Woodard of Ten Mile Christian
Church
4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
5. Consent Agenda Approved (Page 2-3)
A. Approve Minutes of August 14, 2012 City Council Workshop
Meeting
B. Approval of Beer and Wine Renewal and Owner Transfer from
Tuan Ha to Trinh Payne dba Fusion Asian Grill Located at 3161
E. Fairview Ave. Suite 100
C. Professional Services Agreement with Sullivan Reberger
Eiguren for the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $48,000.00 to Assist
the Public Works Department in State Government Affairs
D. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 12-003
Hollybrook by Kevin Howell Construction Located at West
Side of N. Arrowwood Way; North of E. Ustick Road Request:
Amend the Recorded Development Agreement (Instrument
#105195857) for the Purpose of Modifying the Concept Plan
and Building Elevations Approved with the Hollybrook
Subdivision
E. Approval of Idaho Power Service Request -Indemnification
and Limitation of Liability
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, August 28, 2012 Page 1 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
F. Approval of Idaho Power Easement for 1700 E Lanark Parks
and Recreation Maintenance Facility
G. Agreement for Use of Kleiner Park for Barley Brothers
Traveling Beer Show Special Event August 31-September 2,
2012 Moved off of Consent Agenda to Item 6G -Approved with
Conditions (Page 3-6)
6. Items Moved From Consent Agenda Item 5G moved to Item 6G (Page
3-6)
7. Action Items
A. Public Hearing: PP 12-010 Mulberry Subdivision by Settlers
Park, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and
W. Ashby Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting
of Five (5) Building Lots on 2.4 Acres of Land in an R-15
Zoning District Continued to September 25, 2012 (Page 6-30)
B. Public Hearing: CUP 12-006 Mulberry Subdivision by Settlers
Park, LLC Located at Southwest Corner of N. Meridian Road
and W. Ashby Drive Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval
of a Multi-Family Development in an R-15 Zoning District
Consisting of Thirty-Six (36) Residential Units on 2.4 Acres of
Land Continued to September 25, 2012 (Page 6-30)
8. Department Reports
A. Solid Waste Advisory Commission: Correspondence to Ada
County Regarding Changes to Solid Waste Processing
Facilities Consensus to send letter (Page 30-34)
B. Solid Waste Advisory Commission: Request for Funding
Approval -Community Recycling Fund Joint Application for
Split Corridor Art Project Approved (Pages 34-36)
C. Legal/Parks & Recreation Department Report: Recreation
Instructor Agreements Update (Pages 36-39)
D. Police Department: Donation of a 2005 GMC Sierra 1500 to the
Canyon County Animal Shelter
E. Resolution No. 12-866: A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Meridian, Idaho, Setting Forth Certain Findings and
Purposes to Declare Surplus Property and Authorize the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, August 28, 2012 Page 2 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Mayor of the City of Meridian to Donate Equipment to the
Canyon County Animal Shelter, Caldwell, Idaho Approved
(Pages 40-41)
F. Public Works: Proposed Amendments to Meridian City Code:
Sewer Pretreatment; Section 9-2-2-1(D), Relating to Prohibited
Discharge Standards and Grease Interceptor Requirements;
Amending Meridian City Code Section 9-4-9(D), Relating to
Regulations for use of Public Sewers and Grease, Oil and
Sand Interceptors; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-2-
1(6) and Adding a New Section, Section 10-2-1(8)(25),
Regarding Grease Interceptor Regulation Under the Uniform
Plumbing Code; and Providing a Effective Date.
G. Resolution No. 12-867: A Resolution Authorizing the City
Clerk to Destroy Certain Semi-Permanent and Temporary
Records of the Meridian City Finance Department and the City
Clerk's Office Approved (Pages 41-46)
H. Amended onto the Agenda: Resolution No. 12-868: A
Resolution Adopting the Framework Agreement for
Establishing Friendly and Cooperative Relations Between
Pisa, Italy and Meridian City, Idaho, the United States of
America and Adopting Pisa, Italy as its Honorary Sister City
Approved (Pages 46-47)
9. Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 12-1522: An Ordinance for Annexation (AZ 12-
002) of a Portion of Land Located West of N. Meridian Road
Midway Between W. Chinden Blvd and W. McMillian Road,
Commonly Known as Paramount North Subdivision Approved
(Pages 47-48)
B. Ordinance No. 12-1523: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian,
Idaho Amending Ordinance No. 11-1491, the Appropriation for
the Fiscal Year Beginning October 1, 2011 and Ending
September 30, 2012. Appropriating Monies that are to be
Received by the City of Meridian, Idaho in the Sum of
($1,902,834) and Appropriating Monies that are Unexpended by
the City of Meridian into the Fund Balance and Other Sources
and Fees Approved (Pages 48-49)
C. Ordinance No. 12-1524: An Ordinance Providing for the
Adoption of a Budget and the Appropriating of $80,186,803 to
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, August 28, 2012 Page 3 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Defray the Necessary Expenses and Liabilities of the City of
Meridian, in Accordance with the Object and Purposes and in
the Certain Amount Herein Specified for the Fiscal Year
Beginning October 1, 2012 and Ending on September 30, 2013
Approved (Pages 49-50)
10. Future Meeting Topics None
Adjourned at 9:29 p.m.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, August 28, 2012 Page 4 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Citv Council August 28 2012
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 p.m., Tuesday,
August 28, 2012, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, David Zaremba, Keith Bird, Brad Hoaglun
and Charlie Rountree.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Bruce Chatterton, Bill Parsons, Clint Dolsby,
Mike de St. Germaine, John Overton, Mark Neimeyer, Steve Siddoway, Mollie
Mangerich, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Thank you for all joining us here this evening. I will go ahead and open our
regular City Council meeting. For the record it is Tuesday, August 28th. It's 7:05.
Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is our Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the
pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Larry Woodard of Ten Mile Christian
Church
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Larry
Woodard. He's with Ten Mile Christian Church. If you will all join us in the community
invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Thank you for
joining us, Larry.
Woodard: Thank you for inviting me. Before I give our evening prayer I'd like to
introduce Eric Summers in his scout uniform. He's here on one of his citizenship merit
badges. I told him there was nothing more exciting outside of a national convention
than attending a City Council meeting. So, that's why he's here.
De Weerd: Well, I hope you still believe him afterwards, Eric. But thank you for joining
us.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 2 of 51
Woodard: Let's pray. Our dear Heavenly Father, as the fall season comes upon us we
-- and our children are returning to school, I ask your blessing on this community and its
leaders as they weigh issues and programs which make Meridian one of the best places
to live. Our dear Heavenly Father, we see construction going on around our town and
we pray for the safety of the workers. Our streets are being upgraded and we ask that
the impact on businesses will be minimal. We are blessed with the many retirement
homes that are going up throughout our city and we pray for the staff that help our
elderly. As school opens we pray not only for the students, but for the teachers and
staff also. Lastly, I pray tonight for our police, our firemen, and our paramedics who
make this a safe town to live in. Despite our city's push for an upgraded interchange in
the Meridian exit I have to wonder if a bit of divine intervention wasn't involved in the
decision. We thank you for that. This is a city where faith in God remains high and as
summer winds down our churches begin to fill, may we as a city continue to please you,
in Jesus' name. amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Thank you, Larry. And thank you for the reminder of the interchange.
Always. I will ask for a motion, Council, on Item No. 4, adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I have a couple items to amend onto the agenda and move around. Under
the Consent Agenda, 5-G, I'm requesting that it be removed Item 6. So, that will not be
part of the Consent Agenda. Under Item 8-E, that resolution number is 12-866. 8-G is
resolution number 12-867. We need to add an 8-H, which resolution number 12-868
and that is a resolution adopting the framework agreement for establishing relations
between Pisa, Italy, and Meridian, Idaho, and adopting Pisa as its honorary sister city.
Under 9-A that ordinance number 12-1522. 9-B is ordinance number 12-1523. 9-C 15
dash -- Ordinance No. 12-1524. So, with that, Madam Mayor, I move adoption of the
agenda as amended.
Rountree: Second
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second adopt the agenda as amended. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of August 14, 2012 City Council Workshop
Meeting
Meridian City Council
August 26, 2012
Page 3 of 51
B. Approval of Beer and Wine Renewal and Owner Transfer from
Tuan Ha to Trinh Payne dba Fusion Asian Grill Located at 3161
E. Fairview Ave. Suite 100
C. Professional Services Agreement with Sullivan Reberger
Eiguren for the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $48,000.00 to Assist
the Public Works Department in State Government Affairs
D. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 12-003 Hollybrook
by Kevin Howell Construction Located at West Side of N.
Arrowwood Way; North of E. Ustick Road Request: Amend the
Recorded Development Agreement (Instrument #105195857)
for the Purpose of Modifying the Concept Plan and Building
Elevations Approved with the Hollybrook Subdivision
E. Approval of Idaho Power Service Request -Indemnification
and Limitation of Liability
F. Approval of Idaho Power Easement for 1700 E Lanark Parks
and Recreation Maintenance Facility
De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, as I mentioned under the adoption of the agenda, I requested
that we move Item 5-G to Item 6. So, with that being moved, I ask the Council approve
the Consent Agenda and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as changed.
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
G. Agreement for Use of Kleiner Park for Barley Brothers
Traveling Beer Show Special Event August 31-September 2,
2012 Moved off of Consent Agenda to Item 6G -Approved with
Conditions
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 4 of 51
De Weerd: We did remove Item G from the Consent Agenda. So, at this time I will ask
Mr. Nary to give us an update on this item.
Nary: Excuse me, Madam Mayor. Sorry. In front of you, Madam Mayor, is an
agreement for the Barley Brothers Traveling Beer Show for this weekend. There are
some contingencies that are not completed yet and so what we would ask if the Council
is acceptable of the contract itself, to approve it contingent upon those conditions being
met. There are some specific ones and -- I apologize -- one of them -- the ones that are
primary probably of concern is the business -- the state business recognition of -- of the
business of Brewforia to be able to sign this contract to have an entity to actually be
identifiable with an agent for the purposes of signing this agreement. Additionally, there
are some inspections that need to be completed in regards to structural and electrical
and, then, also there is some insurance issues. The insurance they provided now are
inadequate. They don't meet the requirements of our ordinance, as well as our contract.
So, again, they are supposed to provide all of these things by tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. If
they haven't provided them, then, the direction we would seek, then, is to not issue the
permit and, essentially, to cancel the event. If there is other specific questions I can
certainly answer them, but those are probably the three highlighted areas of concern in
regards to the insurance, inspections, and permitting, as well as the business entity
itself.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I don't know if it's fair to ask this, but if Mr. Nary has been working with this
group what's your sense of their ability to comply with all of this on time and has working
with them been a struggle or is this a smooth thing?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba, it certainly
hasn't been smooth for an event that's been existing. I mean we have had -- we have
had newer events that have had some difficulties in understanding the city's
requirements or meeting the -- the basic things, like the business entity requirement or
the insurance and those kinds of things, because it's foreign to them. This is not a new
event, it just happens to be new to the city, so it is a little perplexing to us that some of
these things that seem very routine from a business standpoint or organization seem to
be just as challenging as everything else. There is a lot of moving parts to this event.
It's anticipated to be fairly large. There are a lot of third-party vendors, there is a lot of
logistics, and they have been working very well with the Parks Department on a lot of
the logistics. So, we are really down to a number of things, some fairly critical things for
that matter. You know, we are certainly hopeful they get it done, but this entity thing is
problematic, because that's a state agency, the Secretary of State's office that has to
Meridian City Council
Augusl 28, 2012
Page 5 of 51
approve that, you know, we don't have control over it, but we certainly made them
aware of it well in advance of today. But I think on the park side Mr. Siddoway is here if
you had questions, but I think they have met with parks and I think most of the logistic
issues I think have been discussed, but I certainly would hope they can get these last
pieces done before tomorrow.
De Weerd: Follow up? Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Nary or Mr. Siddoway?
Bird: I have none.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, I would approve the agreement for use of Kleiner Park for
Barley Brothers Traveling Beer Show, a special event, for August 31st through
September 2nd, 2012, with the conditions that the entity -- I guess they are known as
Fermentation Events, Incorporated, meet the conditions as outlined by legal and the
Parks Department, which include insurance, inspection permits and, of course, the filing
being made with the Secretary of State as a legal entity, before this contract can be
signed.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second and certainly, Mr. Hoaglun, that would
follow the deadline that has been set by staff in advance tomorrow at 5:00.
Hoaglun: Yes, Madam Mayor, that -- I would be happy to include that in my motion.
Holman: Madam Mayor?
Zaremba: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Yes.
Holman: The condition as Councilman Hoaglun stated it was that they file with the
Secretary of State's office. We received documentation this afternoon that they had
done that. What they haven't received yet I believe is the approval.
Nary: Yes.
Hoaglun: Okay. I'll amend my motion that it's their approval from the Secretary of State
for filing.
Zaremba: Second agrees.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 6 of 51
De Weerd: Okay. Any further clarification needed? Madam Clerk, will you, please, call
roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: PP 12-010 Mulberry Subdivision by Settlers
Park, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and
W. Ashby Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting
of Five (5) Building Lots on 2.4 Acres of Land in an R-15
Zoning District
B. Public Hearing: CUP 12-006 Mulberry Subdivision by Settlers
Park, LLC Located at Southwest Corner of N. Meridian Road
and W. Ashby Drive Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval
of aMulti-Family Development in an R-15 Zoning District
Consisting of Thirty-Six (36) Residential Units on 2.4 Acres of
Land
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7 is Action Items. We have two public hearings that are related,
so I will open both public hearings on 7-A and B, public hearing on PP 12-010 and CUP
12-006. For those of you who haven't been to a public hearing before the process is
staff will introduce this item and, then, the applicant has ten minutes to give their
remarks and we take public testimony of three minutes for each individual and I will go
ahead and ask for staff comments at this time.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. These applications
come to you from a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission on the
July 19th hearing. Their recommendation for approval was based on the compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. This subject property
is located on the southwest corner of North Meridian Road and West Ashby Road -- or
Drive. Excuse me. Some history on this site. It was originally annexed and zoned in
2002 with the Cedar Springs Subdivision. It was originally zoned R-4. With the
annexation approval there was a recorded development agreement in place. Under that
DA this property was not subject or restricted to any uses on the site. In 2004 the
applicant came before you the Council and asked for rezone and a plat and a
conditional use permit to develop an assisted living facility. Council did approve action
and approve rezone based on compliance with an assisted living facility. One thing I did
want to note to you that the recorded development agreement was not amended with
that rezone application and now the plat and the CUP have expired. So, what we are
left with this evening is an R-15 zoned piece of property. However, like I mentioned
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 7 of 51
earlier, the DA does run with this land and the only thing that isn't a recorded
development agreement is basically the road configurations that are currently in place.
The applicant is before you this evening seeking a preliminary plat, five buildable lots,
and a conditional use permit to develop 36 multi-family units and nine buildings. Before
you is a plat. My understanding for the purpose of the platting is so that the applicant
can get financing for the project. There is a single access point into the site from West
Ashby Drive that was constructed with the road improvements. That is the only access
point that they have serving the development. The applicant is conditioned to provide a
cross-access, cross-parking agreement with the final plat application. Here is the
proposed site plan before you this evening. Again, you can see the nine buildings in
total with 36 units. They are dispersed throughout the perimeter of the development. I
would mention to Council that the buffers along West Ashby Drive and North Meridian
Road were constructed with the Cedar Springs Subdivision and are owned and
maintained by the homeowners association. So, this project does not really front on any
roads. Internal to the site the applicant is providing approximately one acre of open
space as required by the UDC. Site amenities include a tot lot, bike storage, some
sitting areas with rose gardens and public art. The applicant is also proposing two
pathway connections to the ten foot pathway in Settlers Park along the south boundary.
Along the north boundary and the east boundary is existing fencing. that was
constructed with Cedar Springs as well. That is not proposed to change. And along the
west boundary and the south. boundary the applicant is proposing four foot tall wrought
iron fencing. Parking for this site will have a total of 76 parking stalls. Seventy-three of
those will be covered, consistent with the UDC. Here are the elevations that the
applicant are proposing to you this evening. All of them will have the same structure,
same size. They are roughly 4,000 square feet. A 2,000 square foot building. So
basically 2,000 on the first floor, 2,000 square feet on the upper floor. Pretty consistent
to the existing homes in the area. Mix of materials include cedar shake siding, some
vertical lap siding, decorative corbels and some stone accents. Staff's analysis. We
have -- if you look at the front porches and the outdoor seating areas, the patios for the
structures, you will notice that the columns are very narrow. Staff has conditioned the
applicant to enhance that decorative element, add some stone pilasters along that to --
to beef up the decorative aspect of the building. The applicant was in agreement to do
so. I'd also point out to Council that this project is conditioned to have a minimum of
three building --three color schemes in the development, two body colors, and one trim
color consistent to what you see here as well. As I mentioned to you earlier, Planning
and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at their July 19th hearing. Speaking
in favor was Becky McKay, the applicant's representative. Multiple folks signed up and
testified in opposition of the project. On your hearing outline this evening I have a list of
those for you. I'd also let you know that prior to P&Z hearing staff did receive a petition
of over a hundred signatures from the adjacent neighbors in opposition of the project as
well. Several items of discussion at the hearing were discussed by Planning and
Zoning Commission. The first being subdividing the property. Some of the discussion
stemmed around if these units would be sold off individually to separate investors.
Other issues stem from parking regarding Settler Park events. Planning and Zoning
Commission wanted to insure that there was a pretty solid maintenance agreement in
place that this -- this appears to be a high quality development adjacent to one of the
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 8 of 51
city's nicer parks and they wanted to make sure that the applicant does conform to that
requirement in the UDC. Excuse me. And the following -- the last item was
compatibility with the adjacent residential subdivision. It was their opinion that it did
comply. Looking at the scale, the bulk, the height of the structures, they felt that this
was an appropriate use for the property and that it fit in well with the park and the
surround residential neighborhoods. Based on those findings the Commission did not
have any other recommended changes to staff's recommendation. Since the P&Z
hearing staff has received written testimony from one person Joy Smith. Again, she is
in opposition. Her letter basically discusses the density of the development, the
requirements of the CC&Rs that are in place. There seems to be some discrepancies.
The homeowners believe that the previous developer did not disclose the requirements
for this property and, finally, the same goes with the rezoning of the property. At the
time that this property was rezoned in 2004 there weren't really a lot of homes in the
area and so the developer did control a lot of the buildable lots out there. So, even
though they were noticed -- they -- excuse me. They did the proper noticing on the site,
most of those owners were the developers. From what I can tell looking at the aerial
moving forward. So, other than the neighborhood opposition this evening, staff believes
there are no other outstanding issues before you this evening and at this time I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Bill, you mentioned the DA of 2002 was for the original R-4 zoning. Did the
DA not reference anything other than the streets? Didn't it reference that it was a parcel
and so many acres and it was zoned R-4 and all of that sort of thing and it's not been --
it's not been amended. It wasn't amended in '04. So, what I'm struggling with is how
can you have a DA that is invalid and a rezone in 2004 that's valid? Help me
understand that before we go any further.
Parsons: Councilman Rountree, I will try to do my best for you. Looking at the
development agreement you are correct. Under the uses in the agreement it states that
it's annexation for a preliminary plat of a certain number of lots. At this time -- but it also
stated that it would -- the subdivision would happen and that those things would -- the
concept wasn't clear at that time. So, really, the only provisions that were in place in the
recorded DA was, again, a conceptual layout -- a street layout basically what they
showed on the preliminary plat and I tried to track down the plat on this project and I
couldn't ascertain whether or not this was subdivided with that -- I mean I know it was
part of the annexation, but it was never clear if it was part of that plat or not and so
based on going forward we felt that a DA modification wasn't necessary and that's --but
it's -- we would like -- and I think that's some of the analysis that was in the previous
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 9 of 51
staff report for the rezone as well -- is that they would just let the zoning and the
conditional use control the use of the property and, therefore, did not recommend that
as well.
Rountree: Still not sure I understand, but we will move on and see how it plays out.
De Weerd: Yeah. I guess I'm struggling with the zoning part -- that it was zoned at the
time of the annexation as an R-15?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, it was not. It was zone R-4 with the annexation.
De Weerd: So, why isn't this being requested for a rezone then?
Parsons: In 2004 it --
De Weerd: Has it expired?
Parsons: No. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in 2004 the applicant --anew --
a different applicant came forward and asked for the rezone to R-15 and, then, it went
to a plat and a conditional use permit to develop an assisted living facility and those
plans did not transpire and, therefore, as you know, the rezone doesn't go away, so the
zoning remained in place with the R-15 zone, but the plat and the conditional permit for
the assisted living facility expired. So, that's why we are left with this 2.4 acre remnant
piece that never got final platted, but the zoning is in place today. And Council at the
time did not require -- or staff at the time did not require --
De Weerd: The DA modification.
Parsons: The DA modification with a rezone.
De Weerd: Okay.
Parsons: Like we typically do now.
De Weerd: I think I get it now. Mr. Zaremba
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. I think I'm pretty much on the same subject. I have a
discomfort with rezoning something for a purpose and, then, finding out that that
purpose isn't a requirement. This is similar to the one we had on Ustick a few months
ago where it was originally annexed as an R-4 and at the time that it was rezoned there
was a purpose that it would be an assisted living, the same as this one, and the reason
for rezoning it to R-15 was to allow the assisted living unit, which to me would still be
acceptable and I -- if our ordinance is such that you don't, then, have to do an assisted
living on an R-15 once you have changed it, I think we need to get into our ordinance
something that says it would revert to the original -- my feeling is that this is not going to
be an assisted living, it needs to be R-4. Not that I'm exposing my opinion to begin with,
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 10 of 51
but that's where I come from and I believe that's sort of a decision we made on the one
on Ustick was that it needed to stay that way. So, I guess what I'm suggesting is that
we need to have a review of that provision that would tie the purpose to the rezone and
perhaps invalidate the rezone if that purpose doesn't happen and I guess that's what a
DA is and in 2004 nobody put that in the DA.
Parsons: Correct. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you stated that perfectly.
On that property you are correct there was a DA. In that DA it said if it did not develop
with an assisted living facility it would have to develop at densities consistent with the
R-4 standards. In this particular case we have zoning in place, no DA that said that and
that's probably the biggest difference is there is no DA that can be reverted back to the
R-4 zoning.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Anything further at this point for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to
come forward and make their -- if you will, please, state your name and address for the
record.
McKay: Becky McKay, business address 1029 North Rosario, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKay: I'm with Engineering Solutions and I'm representing the applicant in this
particular application. This is one of those rezones that took place obviously prior to the
UDC being adopted back in 2004. As Bill indicated, initially when Cedar Springs came
through in 2002 with its initial annexation and R-4 zoning request I remember one of the
-- when it originally came it had a collector roadway that was here and came -- and,
then, it kind of went up. The staff at the time -- and I think the Parks Department asked
the developer to redesign this particular project, they felt it would be more important to
incorporate Cedar Springs into the regional park and have the collector roadway
exposed to the park, so it created more of an interface and didn't just create a complete
wall of single family lots all along the north boundary of Settlers Park. Then kind of what
transpired was Mr. Howell and Mr. Murdock came back in in 2004, they came in with a
site plan that had an extremely large assisted living building on it. It also had 13
independent units. I think, Bill, do you have that on your -- Bill has a copy of that on the
overhead. So, they had a total of 40 units. That's what was submitted with the rezone
and at the time the Council rezoned the property to R-15 they made the findings that
due to the fact that it was located adjacent to a regional park that the R-15 multi-family
zone made sense, the fact that the property was adjacent to a minor arterial and located
along a collector roadway and the fact that it was isolated from Cedar Springs. So, as
you can see this is Ashby Drive. It's a collector roadway up to this point and, then, it
transitions into these local streets. This particular 2.4 acre remnant parcel has one
approach to Ashby and, then, no direct lot access whatsoever on Meridian Road. One
of the things that we looked at with this project was -- was, obviously, the transportation,
because that's always important and in looking at this particular section here you see an
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 11 of 51
entire mile section, we have Ustick, Meridian Road, McMillan, and Linder. So, what
they did initially when projects started coming in in the early 2000s is they had Summit,
which was a noncontinuous collector, monument and Ashton and Venable and, then,
this Ashby terminated right here and, then, just transition in this local street and, then,
came back up and connected with Aston. So, it functioned more as a -- kind of a
secondary collector. The school site is located here on Venable. This is the half mile.
That is a location that is designated for a future signal when it meets its warrant. So,
one of the -- one of the critical factors that we looked at was, obviously, compatibility,
trying to mesh with the existing neighborhood, obviously, compliment the park, and to
provide some density in this particular area. Meridian Road and Ustick are designated
as a transit corridor in your Valley Regional Transit report. So, obviously, we see that at
some point in time, hopefully, as the city grows we will see some type of public
transportation in this vicinity. Now, one of the things that we look at now is getting the
densities to the point that regional transportation makes sense. If you look at Smart
Growth, you know, they talk about we need a minimum in these areas of at least eight
dwelling units per acre in order to make it cost effective and so, you know, we have kind
of taken a different look at planning over the past ten years and instead of segregating
uses now we try to integrate these uses. One of the -- one of the things in our design --
we had five different designs. We had two different buildings. We had two different
neighborhood meetings to try to get input from the adjoining residences. The key thing I
think that the staff and my client wanted to make sure is that we kept the bulk down.
One of the designs that we had was a larger building, but it appeared to be just too
bulky. These are two story. They are 29 feet in height. They have doors on every side.
They are more like a townhouse. They are not a traditional four-plex where you have
two up and two down with the very unattractive stairs that go in the middle. These are
more like what we call a big house concept. I like them, because you have got a lot of
modulation to the exterior. The roof lines and the building styles are very similar to a
single family dwelling and that's why they call them a big house concept. The other
critical thing that I saw was -- little -- the other critical thing that I saw was creating a
view corridor to the park. When -- when people come by the approach what do they
see. We wanted to make sure that that view corridor was protected. We have a rotary
here with flowers and either a sculpture or a -- Bill, it's not cooperating with me. There
we go. A sculpture in the middle. We thought that that would be more decorative. We
wanted to internalize all the parking. So, the key concept worked great, because the
parking was all internalized within the project. What you see are the buildings. We
have a 20 foot landscape buffer that's existing along Ashby that was installed with the
Cedar Springs development and, then, they have abuffer -- I think it's 30, 35 feet along
Meridian Road. Our perimeter setbacks are from our boundary, not from their buffers.
One of the other critical things we looked at was interconnectivity to the multi-use
pathway. This is an existing multi-use pathway within Settlers Park. We have two
points of access. We are proposing that we have a four foot wrought iron fence around
the periphery with two gates to define the private space from the open space. Here is a
copy of the buildings. We have three different color schemes. They are all, you know,
residential type colors that you would see within the development. They are gray,
green, and, then, kind of tans and browns. As you can see we have varied roof lines
when you look at it. What that does is it makes the building, obviously, look like a house
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 12 of 51
from every side. Every side looks like a single family dwelling. There is a green one
there. These remnant sites are difficult. Anytime we have a remnant that's the last
thing to develop it always creates a problem and for some unknown reason the most
intensive use is always the last to develop because that's just the way it is. And, then,
we have residents who, obviously -- you know, were not aware that the property was
zoned R-15. They -- they are not happy about amulti-family use. But when we -- we
talk about multi-family uses where we are going to put them? I thought we want to put
more density next to the park, because there you have the open space. I have a project
in Boise city that just went through the hearing process here a few months ago called
the River's Edge. It's a five story podium type parking building for student housing right
on Royal Boulevard, abuts Ann Morrison Park, abuts the greenbelt and that particular
project I never seen such a welcome mat come out from the city of Boise because they
said, you know, there is public transportation for the students and we have pathways,
we have a park, that's exactly where we want to see our density go. So, you know, like
I said, we are taking a different look at planning nowadays and we are trying to balance
out the residential and not segregate it like we used to. Lastly, I think I wanted to talk
about the parking. We do have 76 parking spaces. The requirement is 72.
De Weerd: We need to wrap up.
McKay: Yes, ma'am. We have ample parking. We have over an acre of open space
and pathways within the project that far exceeds what the code requires. We feel that
we have brought forward a very nice project and we ask the Council to -- to please
consider it and approve it. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree
Rountree: Madam Mayor, thank you. Becky, staff indicated some concessions or
desires on their part. Are you in agreement with the recommendations they made?
McKay: Yes, sir. We are in full agreement with all staff conditions.
Rountree: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I think staff mentioned that the parking would be covered. I don't see that
depicted. But are you in agreement with that?
McKay: Yes, sir. We have provided elevations of the covered parking. Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Okay. The other thing I'm not seeing on this depiction is a maintenance
association storage facility. Is there something like that there?
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 13 of 51
McKay: Yeah. It's my client's intent that this -- the first unit that you come to it will have
an on-site manager. They will, obviously, live there 24/7, keep an eye on the place,
assist with, you know, renting the units. It's the intent that these will be high end or
around 1,100 square feet and they want to provide that upper echelon that want to live
next to the park and so that on-site manager would contract with a management
company and they will have maintenance agreements. As far as how the landscaping
is taken care of, my client said he wouldn't even object to -- obviously, you know, even
contracting with the same landscape company that the Cedar Springs HOA has, so that
it was, you know, mowed consistently and so forth. So, that -- with the size of the
project a rental office just doesn't make sense. We have 36 units.
Zaremba: But the maintenance materials and stuff need to be stored someplace. Is
that -- I'm not sure I heard the answer to that.
McKay: Yes, sir. What we have is in this building there will be a storage area -- every
building has enclosed bike storage areas and this particular unit would have an
enlarged area where they would have, obviously, necessities required to properly
maintain the facility and my client lives in the City of Meridian and he's going to be
building the buildings and this is part of his retirement plan.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Becky, could you show the preliminary plat and -- brought that up yet?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Rountree: There are two buildings per lot with the exception of I ended up with one
stray building on one lot and the purpose for the plat was because of financing
purposes, the banks wanted some separate lots, and the other thing was the property
has to be platted because it's a remnant. They never platted it. Platted it that is.
Rountree: So, by this plat the internal access from Ashby, once it leaves the curb cut, is
private? Is that the intent?
McKay: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Rountree: Okay.
McKay: And I think the staff wanted us to delineate that clearly on the plat as far as all
the cross-access for the parking and access and it will overlap, obviously, lot lines.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 14 of 51
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun?
Hoaglun: Becky, if you go back to the -- slide three. Or that was -- whichever one --
yeah. I was trying to read here. Play area. That is the tot lot that is right there and they
have -- it's typical -- what does it have there in that tot lot? It's just --
McKay: It would be play equipment and, then, we have like a parents' bench located
there for, you know, just internal play for the kids and, then, we have two rose gardens
and, then, we have public art and, then, we also have an outdoor bike rack.
Hoaglun: And the trash --are those two things right there, the enclosed --
McKay: Yes.
Hoaglun: Okay.
McKay: Yes, sir. Those are enclosed and it made the most sense, because of
accessibility. This does meet the fire department's inside and outside radius turnaround
and we thought that would be most convenient for the sanitation services for pick up.
They just come in through the rotary.
Hoaglun: Okay. That answered one of my questions I had as well. And you had said
when they were looking at the assisted living -- it was a 40 unit assisted living facility?
McKay: Yes, sir. They had -- they had a site plan that had one large building and I
believe it had 27 assisted living units, but, then, I think in the conditions they talked
about that they would be independent -- or self preservation I think units, meaning that it
wouldn't be a nursing home but more be --
Hoaglun: Independent living.
McKay: -- independent type living and, then, they had 13 townhomes that were a part
of that and Idid -- I did bring a copy for the Council. We did outline the buildings, so
that the Council can see -- I believe, Bill, do you have that?
Parsons: Becky, I don't.
McKay: You don't?
De Weerd: If you want to give it to Bill he can put it up on the --
McKay: This was the site plan that was submitted September 24th, 2004, to the City of
Meridian. As you can see they have this large building here. Trying to scale it. It's not
quite to scale, but based on it being close, this was over 200 feet in width and, then, this
length was 270 feet. So, it was quite a large structure. Excuse me. They had a parking
Meridian Cily Council
August 28, 2012
Page 15 of 51
lot in this location and, then, these were the independent living units that they talked
about, the 13 units. And, then, they had some exterior parking. So, as you can see
there was, you know, very little open space. No elevations were provided that we could
find. I assume, based on the size of this building, that that was one level, because it's
pretty good size. It had -- it talked about it had these two plaza areas in the middle of
the building, but other than in detail it wasn't -- we didn't see that the staff or the Council
asked for that information.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Becky.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions at this time from Council?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. I do have asign-up sheet from those that have indicated their
position on this. When I read your name and at some point, since I can't read some of
them, I'm going to guess and I don't want to offend anyone, so if my guess is wrong you
can correct me. I will state for the record if you're for or against. If you would like to
provide testimony at that time I will invite you forward and at the conclusion of the public
testimony the applicant will have an opportunity to have final remarks and respond to
any questions that came up during the testimony. So, Joy Smith is the first one that
signed up. She signed up against. Okay. Okay. Please state your name and address
for the record.
Smith: Yes. Joy Smith. 3635 North Staunton Place, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you very much.
Smith: As I submitted earlier previous to this meeting I'd like to read what I submitted.
We live in Cedar Springs Subdivision. Howell and Murdock Development Corporation
were the developers of this subdivision. We were informed the developers are the
people that write the HOA guidelines. Mr. Howell's signature is on the HOA guidelines.
We find it very interesting how they were written and mentioning Lot C is zoned for R-4,
office, school, business, single family homes. Then we find out later signing and
moving in that it was zoned R-15. In speaking with a number of neighbors they were
never informed of the changes in the rezoning and the ones that were notified said they
didn't have a problem, because it was stated it was rezoned for retirement-type living,
but they would have disputed the rezoning. There was never an attached addendum for
the HOA guidelines, which we have to abide by and pay for. You would think that one
would have some ethics and compassion and update the HOA guidelines and contract.
We hope that these concerns will be taken into consideration before approving the
project to go forward. Medium high density is also a major concern due to our
protesting of existing homeowners. We purchased this home due to the fact our realtor
informed us the lot was zoned for small business, commercial use, and/or school and
possible single family homes. She never mentioned any zone change, nor does the
HOA guidelines. We would have never bought here if we knew then what we know
now. If we wanted people looking down in our backyard or our neighbors we would
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 16 of 51
have purchased a home accordingly, let alone 36 multi-family housing units behind us.
Building such type housing in a park shouldn't be an option, especially when the
developer got it rezoned for assisted living, independent living in mind. Or was this the
plan all along. Again, developers went about this in a deceitful manner. Interesting
what wealth and greed can do. We are advising homeowners within proximity of the
property the zoning should not and should not be valid. It was done improperly.
De Weerd: Mrs. Smith, I'm sorry, you will need to wrap it up and just for your
information we have your record -- or your letter on the record.
Smith: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: We did have access.
Smith: Kind of let everybody else hear it if they didn't get to read it, but thank you very
much.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Dennis Kramer signed up against. Yes. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Kramer: My name is Dennis Kramer. I live at 3790 North Greenwich Way, Cedar
Springs Subdivision.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Kramer: Thank you. Madam Mayor and distinguished Members of the Council and
guests, I'm here tonight because I have a concern where I'm living. I have lived there
almost seven years in that wonderful subdivision and also like the fine lady that just
spoke ahead of me, I -- I would have never purchased my property there and have
300,000 dollars in cash investment in my home if I would have known a rental situation
was going to accrue in my subdivision, so I'm against this from the beginning since I
heard about it and I hope we can revert this to just the wonderful subdivision that it has
always been and it will always be next to one of the greatest parks in the city. So, thank
you for my time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Eric Smith signed up against
E.Smith: Hi. How are you?
De Weerd: I am very good. Will you, please, state your name address for the record
E.Smith: Eric Smith. 3635 North Staunton Place, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 17 of 51
E.Smith: What I'd like to make mention of -- and I'm not sure if you guys have had a
chance to take a look at our CC&Rs. We have a whole booklet that according to us
moving into our home six years ago when we moved in, we are to abide by all the rules
of our CC&R. I'm not sure if that's something any of you have had a chance to look at
the copies of what we are -- what's expected of us is community members of Cedar
Springs Subdivision. If you haven't I would be happy to get you a copy of everything
that we are -- we are to uphold on our end as homeowners. We have a whole stack of
rules and regulations here and one of them is -- is the most important, which is why we
are here, both my wife Joy and I, is that -- to our realtor we had moved in our biggest
concern was what's going on with the lot behind our home, which happens to be this
one. It's directly behind our house. I have a copy of Exhibit -- Exhibit C, which was
given to us, which shows at that point seven separate lots and as you know by now
these rule and regulations were written and signed by Mr. Howell back in 2002. We
moved in in November of 2006. Since then these have never been amended and what
they make reference to is what is going to be built on that lot and what we are to look
forward to, which is -- had everything to do -- we looked at 25 different homes before we
chose this one and it had everything to do with both my wife and I's decision of
purchasing this particular home because of the location and what it makes mention of
here in the -- in the covenants is notice of development of later phases of Cedar Springs
Subdivision. It makes mention a depiction of the preliminary plat of Cedar Springs
Subdivision is attached hereto as Exhibit C and if I can get you guys a copy at some
point I would like to show you Exhibit C, because it makes reference to possible
businesses, when they are making reference to this in particular lot, possible phase four
business lots and it's segmented into seven separate lots, which appear to be single
family home lots and it also goes on to make mention notice is hereby given to all
homeowners that this configuration is subject to change and that future portions of this
subdivision, if developed, may be developed differently. And I notice that Becky McKay,
in her closing statements at the last meeting, made mention that in here it makes
mention that he can do whatever he wants and when I make mention to he, I make
mention to Mr. Howell who signed these, who is developing this property, what it makes
mention to is that the configuration is subject to change on Exhibit C and it labels
everything in here that might possibly be built and it has everything to do with what's
allowed under R-4 zoning.
De Weerd: Mr. Smith.
E.Smith: There is nothing here that's allowed under R-15.
De Weerd: Mr. Smith.
E.Smith: We got single step -- I'd like to get you a copy of this so you can review this on
your own before you make your decision. I would be happy to give you this one if you
like, because we have a contractual agreement that we feel like if you guys step in the
middle of and make a decision I think it's very important that you don't supersede the
agreement that we already have that I seem to think somebody needs to pay tribute to,
since we are paying tribute to our end.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 18 of 51
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I have a question for --
E.Smith: Yes.
Hoaglun: -- the attorney -- for Bill Nary our city attorney. Bill, the CC&Rs, as I
understand I -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that is an agreement between the property
owners and developer and purchaser of properties in that subdivision. Does the city
have any -- is that a private agreement and the city has no enforcement action, nor any
other type of involvement in that?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, that's correct.
The CC&Rs are a private agreement between the property owners and the developer or
the HOA that's existing subsequent to the developer, but it has nothing to do with the
city. The city really can't pay deference to that agreement that really is -- there is a
redress in that agreement between the property owners and developers and they have
the legal means to address it. But whether the property owner or the developer comes
and rezones property or creates a request for an application such as this, that if the
property owners believe violates their HOA requirements, then, they need to take that
private regress themselves through the courts. That's not anything the city's really in
the middle of. The city's relationship here is with the developer or -- and with the
request that's being made and its codes and our ordinances that govern that and
nothing to do with the HOA or the CC&Rs that exist.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Bill.
E.Smith: Well, excuse me if I might -- and I know my time is up, but didn't they have to
submit CC&Rs before they could adequately develop that subdivision to the city?
De Weerd: No.
E.Smith: Okay. Well, now you know that we have a commitment that's not being met
on their end and we have met all of our commitments. If we don't meet ours we get
liened, we get fined 2,500 dollars, if we leave our trash can out we get tagged, you
know, we can't move sideways without abiding by every rule and regulation that's in
here, there is only one and he happens to be the one who wrote these CC&Rs --
De Weerd: And Mr. Smith. And we have heard that before and as our attorney said
that's a contract between you and your -- the developer at the time and now your HOA
and I can tell you it's not comfortable sitting in this seat hearing how many people said
our realtors didn't tell us that and oftentimes the realtors don't know it either, because
they see what you're seeing and there is very little we can do about that.
Meridian City Council
August 26, 2012
Page 19 of 51
E.Smith: But are you still wanting to do business with someone that can't keep a
contract with a community member of this city? I mean we hire you guys, right? Don't
we all pay -- I mean you guys don't pay me. I think I pay all of you don't I?
De Weerd: Mr. --
E.Smith: At what point am I represented by anyone other than getting into my wallet
and having to represent myself with thousands of dollars against someone who is taking
advantage of me.
De Weerd: Mr. Smith, I guess alts I can recall I can say is this is someone that owns
property in the city and they are asking to do something that is allowed within the city
and so what the Council needs to decide is if that fits our plan, the area, and those kind
of things and that's why we do have the public hearing and the public forum.
E.Smith: If you were in my shoes how would you handle my situation? Would you go to
-- would you go to court on a separate issue altogether to handle this situation?
Because I'm not going to take this lying down. I got every last bit of my money tied into
this house. I got to say I have had --
De Weerd: Okay. Sir, I'm sorry, but your time is up and I do understand your
frustration.
E.Smith: But her time's not up. She can close. She can say whatever she wants as
long as she wants. Not to be disrespectful, but I'm a community member here. I'm
really tired of this. Just so you know. Please help me. Please help us all. There is a
lot of people that didn't show up, because they didn't feel like anything would be done.
De Weerd: Sir. I'm sorry, I'm really trying to be polite and respectful and I need to ask
you to as well.
E.Smith: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you.
E.Smith: Please consider my -- my -- what I have to say. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Marcel Bujarski. I'm sorry. I was just a little bit rattled I think.
If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Bujarski: Marcel Bujarski. 522 West Welch.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bujarski: Becky has done a very good job of selling this. I commend her for that. And it
sounds really good and I have no doubt the present developer would keep it up the way
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 20 of 51
you want it kept up, the way we want it kept up, the way he wants it kept up. But it's my
understanding that this is divided into five lots, they can sell one, two, three or four -- is
that correct? That they can sell off a lot at a time. To anybody. To me. Mr. Hoaglun.
Anybody who wants to buy that building. Is that correct? Okay. What rules then apply
for that new person to maintain his 1/5th of the plot? Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. And we will ask that in the wrap-up remarks. Okay. Margo. If
you will tell me how to say your last name.
Comoroski: Comoroski
De Weerd: Comoroski. Thank you. You are signed up on this paper against and if you
will, please, state your name again for the record and your address.
Comoroski: Sure. My name is Margo Comoroski. Our address is 3804 North Alexis
Way, Meridian, in Cedar Springs.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Comoroski: I have done my share of research about this whole thing. I do concur with
your attorney. If we are investigating city, county, and state laws, there are none that
have any enforcement authority on HOAs. But the city did have a DA and did have an
agreement on R-4. We have lived there since 2003. We purchased with that
understand, knowing full well what was going on. Did not know about the R-15,
because we were not informed though we are part the community. What makes it
allowable for the city to go, oh, well, we forgot to do something and we don't have to
follow through now, we can change it around and make it accommodating for whatever
else comes along. That's not fair for any of the ordinances that you guys pass.
Because we expect consistency from you guys. And so I implore you as a Council and
Mayor that you would revisit that and look at that zoning issue, because this has
changed incredibly different from what all of us understood it to be. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. I think it's Annette Munsey or Morrow. Signed up against.
Okay. thank you. Chuck Herling. Signed up against. Thank you. Walter. Herbet.
Yeah. Herbert I had no idea what the first name was. I guessed. It's William?
Herbert: Yes.
De Weerd: And you're signed up against. Would you like to provide testimony?
Herbert: I just want to add a comment.
De Weerd: Okay. Sir, if you will, please, come up to the -- to the microphone so we
can get you on the public record.
Herbert: That's fine.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 21 of 51
De Weerd: If you will state your name and address for the record
Herbert: Yeah. I'm William Herbert. I'm president of Cedar Springs Homeowners
Association and I live at 3641 North Barron Way, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Herbert: And I just have a couple of quick comments regarding the Cedar Springs --the
Mulberry apartment application that's being processed by you guys. The only issue that
stands forth -- and this has been passed on to me by a lot of homeowners there in -- is
the entrance off of Ashby into the area where the apartments will be located and that's a
safety issue and I hope you will look at that, because I think that's a very serious -- there
is only one entrance as you see on the screen there. There is going to be a lot of traffic
from Meridian Road into the short approach to the entrance into that location and there
will be a lot of traffic, so I hope that you will look at that, because there will be I'm sure a
lot of kids living there, there was a lot of kids that live in the subdivision now that have to
get to school buses, et cetera, and I think it can be a very strong safety issue. So, I'd
like you to take a look at that and I will pass that onto you. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. Sir?
De Weerd: Yes.
Herbert Sorry.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba
Zaremba: Since you're chairman of the homeowners association I'll ask you an opinion
that may apply to everybody. If for some reason this property were able to be
incorporated into the park and became mostly a parking lot, would that be an
acceptable use of that piece of property?
Herbert: I think it would be perfect.
Zaremba: I'm not saying that's possible, but I'm just wondering for sake of discussion.
Herbert: I think it would a good design, to be honest with you. I really do. With the
proper application and control I think it would work out very well. Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Augusta McGowen Haffe. Please come forward. Signed up against
Thank you. If you will state your name and address for the record.
Meridian City Council
Augusl 28, 2012
Page 22 of 51
Halle: Augusta McGowen Halle. 3762 North Anton. I have lived in the neighborhood
approximately three weeks and unbeknownst to me -- and hindsight is 20/20 -- I
purchased -- my husband and I purchased this property because it was a quiet
neighborhood. Finding out that the 36 units with 76 parking and higher density, more
kids, I was very very disappointed in what I had done. I do feel that you do need to
revisit the zoning on this, because it's looks like almost a piecemeal zoning and as our
homeowners association president stated, traffic will be a serious issue right there. We
have two schools. You have the Heritage and, then, you have Rocky Mountain real
close and those are thoroughfares for kids to get back and forth to school and adding
more into there would be frightening and a park and apartment complexes just don't mix
in my opinion. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Harold Green something. Greenway. Please come forward.
Signed up against. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Greenway: Harold Greenway. 3762 North Staunton Place.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Greenway: My wife has previously spoke. We just purchased the home. Haven't even
made the first payment yet and this is going on and in reference to what Ms. Becky said,
you know, about what went on Boise. This is not Boise, Idaho. I just moved from here
-- there and am proud to be in Meridian thus far. But very much blindsided and like she
said very disappointed on what we just moved into and the sign hasn't even been down
a month, you know, that the place was sold and, I don't know, got the feeling I'm
thinking maybe it should be Jackpot, Nevada, because I'm going to be walking away
minus a little. Thank you.
De Weerd: And Madenda -- Adena. Sorry. Okay. Signed up against. Brian Werning
signed up in favor. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Werning: My name is Brian Werning and I have a house at 3209 North Alexis Way.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Werning: I wasn't planning on speaking, but since I'm probably the only one here that --
that says I'm for it, I thought I better at least give you some reasons why I think that I'm
for it. This one gentleman -- actually, Ihad -- the only argument that I really had any
concern about and that was the possibility of it becoming an investment-type property
and having individually owned units, if that's the case, if that's possible. Just a little
history on me. I do For Rent Magazines, so I deal with, you know, over 150 different
apartments communities in the valley and I think that this is a pretty nice looking layout.
I do not have any concerns with, you know, the additional so-called traffic through the
subdivision. I see people turning in there and into the apartments and, you know, taking
the short way out back onto the main streets and they are not really causing any
additional traffic onto the subdivision. I don't think that it's going to be an issue of
Meridian City Council
Augusl 28, 2012
Page 23 of 51
people looking over fences and those kind of things that I'm hearing, but the legitimate
concerns of living up to an HOA or whatever might be in place when the community is
finalized, that would be my main concern. That, you know, something's put in place so
you have one -- one entity over the whole community and that they are living up to
some kind of rules that we put into place and tend to be maintained by multiple owners
if that's the option. So, other than that I know, I think that -- with occupancy rates
pushing 98 percent that there needs to be some options for multi-family housing and
because of the rents I think that it's going to be a little higher clientele and I don't think
that anybody is going to be able to tell the difference between, you know, a few more
kids running around, you know, that aren't already at the park. So, I'm for it at this point.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Michelle Wilson. Signed up against. Good evening. If
you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Wilson: It's Michelle Wilson at 3826 North Greenwich Way, Meridian Idaho
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wilson: I'm not good at speaking, but --
De Weerd: That's fine.
Wilson: But my son and I fish at that pond a lot and it's one of the nicest parks in
Meridian that I have been to and I choose to fish at that pond, because it's quiet, there is
-- you know people that walk by, they are with their dogs -- it's not a big building there
with people staring out their windows, their music playing, you know, I run ahead and
my son catches up. I wouldn't be able to just walk with him and just him go by myself,
because it's going to be two entrances to the park, better entering into -- I mean into
those apartments. You know, she said it's going to be a really pretty art when you drive
by and see -- well, when I drive by and I look and I just see cars and, then, Isee -- you
know, I see a trash can and I see a bike rack, Isee -- you know, all those things are
right there when I drive by and that's not what I want in my community. He talked about
what would it be if there was a parking lot. Well, yeah, if there was a parking lot there
would still be all those cars and it would still be, you know, a lot of traffic right there, but
it would be -- you know, after everybody is home from work getting their kids to a sport
or it would on a weekend, it wouldn't be when our kids are walking home from school or
to school. You know, that far would be okay, as far as traffic goes, because it wouldn't
be in the congestion. It takes me 20 minutes to get from my house to the freeway.
Fifteen if I'm lucky. And adding 72 more cars during those times that I'm traveling I'm
sure that they have to work if they are going to be affording, you know, what they say
they are going to be paying in there. So, I know that it will be added to my traffic time
and I just don't think it's a very good idea and I hope you guys consider all those things.
De Weerd: Thank you, Michelle. Terry Burnfield. Signed up against. Okay. Thank
you. Those are the people that have signed up. Is there anyone else who would like to
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 24 of 51
provide testimony on this application? Okay. Well, at this time, then, I would invite the
applicant up to have concluding remarks.
McKay: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council.
De Weerd: If you will restate your name for the record.
McKay: Oh. Becky McKay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKay: Thank you. I did go through the original DA that was, obviously, the first thing
when we took a look at this particular project that Mr. Alexander brought us. The DA
dated back to 2002. It was your language. In 22.1 it talks about no condition governing
the uses or conditions, governing development of the property herein provided, can be
modified or amended without approval of the Council. After the city has conducted
public hearings in accordance with the noticed provisions provided for a zoning
designation and/or an amendment in force at the time of proposed amendment. So,
you know, my interpretation of that -- and, obviously, you have your legal staff to guide
you -- is that at the time that the R-15 rezone was submitted they utilized this provision
and they rezoned it R-15. The contract zoning was for the original R-4 zoning. So, this
is a strange situation. I haven't faced it before, because typically when we are working
on projects we have development agreements that are in place with the zones. This
one, obviously, took place years ago. There is a reason that this property sat there for
for ten years and didn't develop, because the right use hadn't come along. Obviously,
they kicked around the assisted living, but the assisted living went on the southwest
corner of Ustick and Meridian Road. I also had a chance to look at their covenants,
because, obviously, that was one of the things brought up at our neighborhood
meetings. Mr. Howell and Mr. Murdock, in here under 1.3 of their CC&Rs that they
were giving notice of development of latter phases and it said notice is hereby given to
all owners that this configuration --
E.Smith: I object.
McKay: -- is subject to change, that the future portions of the subdivision, if developed,
may be developed differently.
E.Smith: I object. That's not what it says.
De Weerd: Okay. Sir, you're out of order.
McKay: I'm reading this and it talked about that they were under no obligation to
develop in later phases and it talked about that they may be developed in some form
commercial, office, retail, or other related business uses. And that in the event that
these -- this property were developed as single family, then, at that time they would be
annexed into this CC&Rs and subject to them. This particular property is at the corner
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 25 of 51
of an arterial. We are talking -- there is between nine and 12 thousand vehicle trips per
day running up and down Meridian Road. Ashby is a bona fide collector. One of the
things that we are always concerned about with multi-family is what we call intrusive
traffic. Are we sending traffic down local streets and intruding into a neighborhood. If
you look at -- if you look at the map you can see that the neighborhood is all to the
north. This is an isolated segregated parcel. The traffic is not intrusive. It's coming
onto a collector. ACHD gave me current counts out there. There is between 500 and
368 counts on Ashby and Ashby is a collector. A local street carries a thousand trips.
We also looked at, obviously, the location of the homes and where are they in
conjunction with this property. If we look over here this is 125 feet from the edge of the
subject property to the homes. As far as is this going to be looming in the backyard --
it's separated by a landscape buffer on the north, a landscape buffer on the south, and a
collector. Under the ownership and maintenance agreement, the only reason that we
have this in the five lots and the two buildings per with the one odd lot is for financing
purposes. My client is going to contract. He has been meeting with different multi-
family contractors to correct this facility and the bank asked that -- that that was the best
way to do the financing. The whole project will be constructed, everything will be
landscaped as one. There is no phasing as far as the infrastructure, landscaping, and
amenities. It will all be put in and, then, he will build two buildings at a time and, then,
roll to the next.
De Weerd: Okay. I'm sorry, Becky, but you will have to wrap it up.
McKay: I will wrap it up. I guess if multi -- if this is not a good location for multi-family,
then, where should we put it? I thought this was where we wanted it. Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: This is a question for Becky and I think I may have Bill Parsons or Bill Nary
weight in, because Mr. Bujarski asked a very good question and that was this gets -- if
this gets developed and a portion is sold, what rules do govern how that is managed,
what that looks like, how it's maintained. Can you address that?
McKay: Yes, sir. Under the UDC it requires that we submit a maintenance agreement
that deals with landscape maintenance, amenity maintenance, exterior maintenance,
consistency of upkeep and et cetera. That document is recorded with the county
recorder. It goes with the property. Like I said, this is my client's retirement project.
He's been in the multi-family business for years and he's currently retired. I asked the
staff to provide me an example that they were happy with as far as that maintenance
agreement. I think they were kind of looking for some examples that would, obviously,
make sense here. This isn't a big project. It's so small. I'm willing to work with the staff,
work with the city's attorney to come up with language that the Council is comfortable
with. I mean this is a high end project. We want to make sure it stays that way. They
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 26 of 51
are looking for the upper echelon of those rents. It's location, location, location and your
park is the driving force of why this is going to warrant higher rents and people that want
to walk, people that want the open space.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor. Becky, if you could give a little more detail. You say it would
be filed with the county.
McKay: Yes.
Hoaglun: What protection does that give folks there if they see something that's amiss,
saying, wow, that paint's peeling, the lawn is not being maintained, what's their
recourse?
McKay: We -- obviously, that's going to be part of our city conditions that we -- that we
provide that document and so they would be in violation of the conditions. It wouldn't be
any different than their CC&Rs if a next door neighbor starts not maintaining -- you
know, isn't maintaining his yard or allows his trim to start peeling and looking poorly. It's
obviously in my client's best interest that he maintain this facility. I mean they spend a
lot of money on this -- you know, this is not -- this is an -- these are expensive buildings
to build and the amenity within the buildings will, obviously, warrant that this be of a
luxury type apartment. You don't let a luxury apartment run down, because, then, you
don't get the higher rents. Like I said, we have to have that condition. They could call
the city. The staff or enforcement. Hey, what's going on. You know, they have got --
they have got a maintenance agreement. They have conditions of approval, they are
not maintaining it. So, that would be the recourse. It's recorded with the property in its
entirety and I would be glad to work with the staff and the -- your legal staff and my
client's attorney, maybe get a draft where we start and come up with that type of a
maintenance document.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, maybe to add
to that as well, as we discussed earlier that the CC&Rs are a contract relationship
between the homeowners and the developer. The CUP is a contractual relationship
between the developer and the city. So, the -- for example, the Sagecrest Apartments
that are over off of Overland Road adjacent to Mountain View, virtually all of those
buildings are owned by different people, yet the consistency of look and fencing and
landscaping, mowing, all that are the same, because there is a maintenance agreement
that's recorded against the property, so not just filed with the county, but recorded so
that any subsequent property owner is aware of those condition requirements. With any
other CUP that the city may issue, whether it's for business in regards to their hours of
operation or their methods of operation or whatever, that the subject property is subject
to code enforcement and planning for notification when they are out of compliance with
those requirements and they are ultimately to be subject to coming back before the
Meridian Cily Council
August 28, 2012
Page 27 of 51
Council if they are out of compliance and refuse to get into compliance on whether it's
the fencing, whether it's the landscaping, whether it's the maintenance, whatever it is
with all those conditions can be incorporated into the agreement, which is required by
the UDC, recorded against the property so the current property owners or any
subsequent owners would be on notice of that requirement and, then, they are subject
to code enforcement from there.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you, Bill.
De Weerd: Any further questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information needed from staff?
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, question for Mr. Parsons. You had mentioned this earlier.
One of the people testifying brought it up that they didn't receive any notice when this
went through before when the other zoning changed. Have you found anything -- did
the city comply with all their zoning notice requirements at that time?
Parson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think during my presentation I did
inform you that the -- the only record that I went through was aerial photos. We have a
history to go through and it just kind of shows how the city looked throughout the five
year period and the 2003 photos show that these subdivisions were under construction
at the time that this rezone came forward. So, based on -- I don't know what the
noticing requirements were under the previous ordinance. Maybe Mr. Nary could
elaborate on that, too. I believe it's always been 300 square feet. I mean 300 -- a 300
foot radius to all adjacent property owners. So, if you look at this, the city owned the
parcels -- the park property at that time. Developer owned the majority of the lots in
Cedar Springs and Sundance, because that was under construction at the same time.
So, conceivably this 300 folks that got notified -- the majority of those could have been
developer-owned lots and not homeowners. That's what I tried to conveyed to you. So,
from that standpoint of those -- of those were -- those ordinances were consistent to
what we have now, then, yes, a lot of those homeowners probably didn't get notified,
because they weren't -- the homes weren't constructed or they weren't occupied and
that's where I think the homeowners are saying they weren't notified. As far as this
application goes, tonight's hearing application, I guarantee you it was noticed property.
We verified that with the clerk. We have affidavits that it was posted correctly and a lot
of times I have even had communications with the HOA on this project as well. So, the
word was out there.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, he mentioned the requirement to notify recorded property
owners within 300 feet, but at the time there also was a requirement that a sign be
placed on the property and I'm sure that was done, because it was a very standard
Meridian Cily Council
August 28, 2012
Page 28 of 51
thing, so even if somebody lived beyond the 300 feet and didn't get a notice, if they
drive on -- is this Ashby? If they drive on Ashby they would have seen a sign on the
property notifying about the public hearing.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean just for the record, the findings of
fact that were signed in -- actually in January of 2005 by the Council indicated in the
very first one that notice was properly done. So, there was evidence at the time that
that proper mailed notices were sent, the proper radius notices were sent out, the
newspaper notice, the sign notices were all done and accomplished. So, at this
juncture notice in 2004 is not an issue. If there was an objection to notice it would have
had to have been raised in 2004. It can't be raised eight years later. The findings of
fact at the time indicated that notice was done. So, that's not an issue from a legal
perspective at this point.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Bill.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, did you have something?
Bird: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Still working on the first question I asked of Bill and I'd like to see a written
response to that question so it's clear whatever decision we make that we fully
understand the relationship between 2002 and 2004. Having said that, I would suggest
that we continue this hearing until we get that information and enter it into the record
and, then, make the decision. Just my thought before we close the public hearing.
Bird: Is that a motion?
Rountree: Just for discussion at this point.
De Weerd: You want to pull that closer. I think --
Rountree: Dean's not yelling at me.
De Weerd: But I did hear someone say I can't hear, so --
Meridian City Council
August 2t1, 2012
Page 29 of 51
Rountree: Okay. Sorry about that.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would agree with Councilman Rountree. I -- I would like clarification -- written
clarification between what the development agreement and the rezoning -- I just -- I just
have -- I don't know. They come in and wanted an R-15 because they had that Spring
Hill development specifically coming in there and I -- I'd just like to see a legal. I'm like
Mr. Rountree, I'd like to continue it and get something in writing between those two
dates, 2002 and 2004. I don't feel comfortable.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, I agree. It would be good to get that -- I mean this is a little
different than the one that was handled on Ustick Road, because that DA did
specifically mention that if that approved use did not happen it would revert and this we
don't have that, but I would like to delve a little deeper into that DA and see what -- what
it got into before I make a final decision on this.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, then, do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing on Items 8 --
seven. Excuse me. 7-A and B for the receipt of information from the city attorney with
-- for the relationship of the 2002 development agreement and the 2004 rezoning and at
that time consider the close of the public hearing for further discussion and decision.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this public hearing. Did you give
me a date?
Rountree: Oh. Excuse me, Madam Mayor.
Bird: September 8?
Rountree: Bill, what kind of timeline are we looking at?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, since our deadline for Tuesday is two
days from now, that's fairly tight, so if you're willing to want to hear it on your workshop
or you prefer to hear it on the 17th, which is your normal evening meeting --
De Weerd: 18th?
Nary: Or 18th. I'm sorry. That probably would be more appropriate and that way we
would have a written decision -- or a written opinion for you by then.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 30 of 51
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would suggest the September 25th meeting.
Bird: I'd second that.
Rountree: Add to my motion.
De Weerd: Okay. Second agrees?
Bird: Second agrees.
De Weerd: The motion is to continue this until September 25th for staff to respond to
Council's questions. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: This item, then, will be continued for discussion and decision on September
25th. I won't guarantee a decision. I will at least say it will be continued until the
September 25th date. So, thank you. I'm sorry. This item is over, so If you will save
that thought to September 25th or you can also submit something for the public record
and our clerk will make sure to get it to City Council. Okay. Thank you.
Item 8: Department Reports
A. Solid Waste Advisory Commission: Correspondence to Ada
County Regarding Changes to Solid Waste Processing
Facilities
De Weerd: We will move to Item Item 8 under Department Reports. Item A is Solid
Waste Advisory Commission. I will turn this over to Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The item before you is a
letter that was discussed at the most recent Solid Waste Advisory Commission meeting.
The chair is here as well, but I think Andrea told me I'm supposed to present it, so this is
a discussion --
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Sorry, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Go ahead.
Nary: In your packets is a letter that was drafted and reviewed by the Solid Waste
Advisory Commission and this is in regards to the county landfill and whether or not the
new -- most recent project there is in compliance with both the state code for the
opportunity to provide input from the cities and the users. The way the state code is
crafted currently, the landfill, is that when the county wishes to make any change -- the
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 31 of 51
counties are required to manage landfills. They are not required to provide them, they
are not required to staff them, they are required to provide some form of landfill within
the county. What this code also contemplates is if they make any changes to those
landfills on the facilities and how the garbage or the waste is processed, then, they are
also required to go to the users within the county to request their input and the intent of
the statute is to determine whether or not whatever the county is wishing to do in the
management of the landfill is supported by the users of the landfill. You can recall --
and it's in the letter -- is back in 2004 the county was considering alternatives to the
current method of how the landfill was being operated and one of the considerations
was the north ravine cell. They also were considering an alternative cite in the south in
the Kuna-Mora Road area, they were considering options outside of the county for
waste hauling and they were actually considering awaste-to-energy type of project
even in 2004. The county held public meetings is what the statute requires and getting
input from all the various entities within the county as to their desires and their role in
the future. There is no commitment financially by the cities or by the entities in the
county. What the statute does allow is that the county, if they want a financial
commitment they can require it and, then, if they want a commitment of any time or
length, the entities aren't required to participate, but they could be imposed on them
later if they choose to later participate they may be required to pay some of the up front
costs that the other entities may have paid and, again, the intent I think behind the
statute is to make sure that if you're going to do something that you get buy in from your
customers and make sure they are going to participate or -- and if you don't want their
buy in or you don't want their money you still have to have the hearings to have them
have an opportunity to provide input. So, on the recent waste to energy circumstance
with the company the county has contracted with, none of that happened. So, our Solid
Waste Advisory Commission discussed that at their most recent meeting and
considered this draft letter from the city to the county and, really, the intent of the letter
and certainly if there is wordsmithing or changes that you want that's within your
purview. The intent of the letter was to point out the requirement of the statute, the fact
that it wasn't followed, but also to just reiterate to the county that, again, the entities,
whether it's the City of Meridian or another city or another private hauler that the --
underthe state code -- and our contract is very specific on this point, the state code the
city owns the trash until it's taken to the landfill. Our current agreement with our -- with
our franchisee says that once it's on the curb and picked up by the franchisee it belongs
to the franchisee. So, that arrangement can certainly be renegotiated if the city wants to
do that, but it's just to reiterate to the county that the city really controls where the --
where the city's garbage can go and it isn't dictated by statute or any other requirement
and it's just to reiterate that point, because there has, obviously, been some contention
on whether or not this particular facility or methodology we are going to use will impact
the rate payers of the city and so the intent of the Solid Waste Advisory Commission
was to at least make it clear on record as to the city's position in regards to the trash
and that whether or not any changes would be considered by you folks by the Mayor
and the Council is going to be consistent with what is in the best interest of the rate
payers in our city and since we had never -- the city had never been consulted prior to
them contracting for this additional processing facility and we feel that was probably not
appropriate, we just want them to understand that we are not bound by any requirement
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 32 of 51
that they may have as to the amount that's provided or the daily amount that they are
going to provide and if the city wanted to do something different they certainly could. If I
misstated any of that I'm sure Mrs. Mann, the chair, could correct me and Council
Member Rountree is an ex-officio member of the commission, but that's the intent of the
letter that's in front of you and that's what you're being asked to consider.
Rountree: Spoken like a true lawyer.
De Weerd: Oh, my head is spinning.
Nary: I'm not sure if that's good or not.
De Weerd: I'm just trying to figure out what you just said.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? You built the watch and you told the time six different ways.
Bird: To me he just made the circle.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, on the second page that see as the key where it says we will
observe the right to transport our waste to any alternative location to protect our rate
payers as necessary. I think that sums it up very nicely. We do want to protect our rate
payers and we will look for their best interest in this situation. And I like the letter. I
think it's a good letter, something that should be sent, in my opinion.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: I agree. And the committee obviously by their transmittal letter agreed.
De Weerd: Nancy, do you have any comments? Since you lasted all evening.
Mann: Hi. I'm Nancy Mann, chairperson of the Solid Waste Advisory Commission.
Thank you, Bill, for explaining that so eloquently. Our piece is going to be really short
tonight. As you know we meet monthly and we have been hashing out a lot of these
issues over the last couple months. The only statement I'd like to make in addition to
what Bill's already stated via the letter that we reviewed last week is that these folks that
are putting together this proposal for the foothills for the waste to energy on three
separate occasions we asked the Dynamis Corporation, the people that are putting this
project together, on three separate occasions they were on our agenda for the Solid
Waste Advisory Commission. I believe they asked us to come and give a presentation
and they never showed up. And somehow or other they got one million dollars from the
county -- no. Two million dollars.
Bird: Two. Two million.
Mann: They got two million dollars and they weren't like talking to anybody. So, we got
a little -- we got a little curious and a little concerned about that being that we deal with
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 33 of 51
solid waste issues, so Bill and his office worked with us very closely to draft that letter
and I think it's very poignant and very important that the City of Meridian takes a stand
on this, because nobody else in the valley seems to be concerned about this and what
little I know about it the red flags are going up for me saying, you know, what are these
guys doing. I just -- I just see a lot of disaster in the future on this issue and I think
people are being blindsided and we are trying to wave the red flag and let people know
that we don't want to be blindsided, because we are paying attention to this.
De Weerd: And we appreciate that, Nancy, and I know at least one member or more
have been at whatever informational meetings there have been on this, which has been
limited as well.
Mann: Yes.
De Weerd: So, it has been frustrating and certainly in five years when their contract
says Dynamis gets 25 percent of tipping fees, I haven't quite figured out how expensive
at the landfill change that they can afford to give away 25 percent of tipping fees and so
who are they going to get that 25 percent difference from. It is a concern.
Mann: Well, I suspect we will see a large rate change is probably where it's going to
come from. I'm just guessing. So, that's just one little statement I wanted to make about
it due to my concerns personally as the chair person on the committee.
De Weerd: Thank you. And I know that the SWAC has been very good about sharing
the concerns and those concerns have been verbalized by the city as well, so --
Mann: Good. Nice to know we are all on the same page.
De Weerd: We are. So, thank you for being here this evening. Any questions for
Nancy?
Bird: I have none
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Mann: I'm going to stay, because I think we are next.
De Weerd: Oh. Very good. Thanks for being here.
Mann: You bet.
Rountree: So, do we just need a consensus to send this letter?
Nary: Yes.
Rountree: Okay. I think you have it.
Meridian Cily Council
August 28, 2012
Page 34 of 51
B. Solid Waste Advisory Commission: Request for Funding
Approval -Community Recycling Fund Joint Application for
Split Corridor Art Project
De Weerd: Okay. Very good. The next item is also with SWAC and --
Mann: This will be a joint presentation.
De Weerd: Okay.
N.Rountree: The two Nancys.
De Weerd: Nancy Mann as the chair of SWAC and Nancy Rountree as the chair of the
Meridian Arts Commission.
N.Rountree: So, we are here as joint applicants asking for approval from you for a
20,000 award for -- from the community recycling program fund for our split pretty
corridor public art project.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, you do have information. Any questions for either Nancys?
Any of the Nancys in front of you?
N.Rountree: Did you have achance -- just this one? Okay. We have a vote here.
Meridian Arts Commission has already published the request for qualifications and the
request -- request or proposal for this public art project. The art will be a sustainable
project created by recycled, refurbished, and/or reused materials, which makes this
project a perfect match for this SWAC funding.
Mann: Just so you will understand, this 20,000 dollars that's coming from the dedicated
fund that Solid Waste Advisory Commission gets to spend every year for our own
sponsored projects of which this year we have already had two. We have done the
recycling containers over at Settlers Park and we have done the 5,000 reusable
shopping bags, which we handed out in April. So, so far this year we have spent about
40,000 dollars on those two projects and we still have 62,000 dollars in the current fund
and our -- our requirement is that we don't spend more than 50 percent of the funds in
the community recycling fund. So, we still have, essentially, 32,000 dollars to spend of
SWAC money. We didn't have any other projects on our docket for this year and it's not
the open period for people in the community to ask for money, so we agreed last week
at our meeting that this would be really a perfect project to use the SWAC designated
funds, especially since it's going to such a visual project in the community, which will be
signed so that people know that part of the money came from the curb side recycling
fund and I think it's just a beautiful blending of what we are trying to do in Meridian with
those curb side funds. Just really rolling that money around and getting it out in the
community so people can really see when they recycle they get good stuff in the City of
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 35 of 51
Meridian. So, we are asking for Council to approve that funding tonight, so that the
Meridian Arts Commission can move forward with their project.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just in looking through the information we have been given I see that one of
these is going on Main Street at the south end of Old Town, one is going on Main Street
at the north end of Old Town and I think that's an excellent idea to identify our Old
Town, which we are really looking forward to doing as well and just out of curiosity are
you thinking that the two bookends are going to be identical or are they two different
projects?
N.Rountree: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, Councilman Zaremba, you know, what we
are thinking right now is that they will be complimentary.
Zaremba: Okay.
N.Rountree: This is such a large piece that, you know, it will be the vivid piece. The
other piece should fall right in line with that and we have given the artist an option of
submitting a proposal for one or both and we are hoping to get both in the process, so --
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Council, you do have a
recommendation and a request in front of you. What is your pleasure?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the 20,000 dollars to the art commission for the spilt corridor
art project.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve item 8-B. If there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 36 of 51
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you both.
Mann: Just keep recycling that garbage.
C. LegallParks & Recreation Department Report: Recreation
Instructor Agreements Update
De Weerd: We will. I do my share, because I need to, I don't have room in my
garbage. Okay. Item 8-C is under our Legal and Parks Department. Turn this over to
Steve or Bill.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess I can start. We had a recent
circumstance with an instructor with parks. They hire instructors for various programs
and classes and such and it was unclear to the instruction, I guess, that the contract
that we had that says you're not an employee of the city wasn't clear enough. So we
decided to make it clearer and trying to get more language to just make it as clear as
possible -- as clear as lawyers can make it that when we contract with folks to do a
service, such as instructors that they aren't employees of the city, that they really are
providing us a service. The normal course and the reason we are in front of you is, one,
to sort of close the loop, because I knew you were of that, but, secondarily, our normal
course -- because these are very small contracts they fall under our purchasing policy
and normally are signed by our purchasing agent. In discussing it with Steve we
wanted to make sure that you were comfortable with that and if you would prefer to
have them in front of you either prior to the engagement or a least as a ratification of the
engagement. We certainly can bring those forward. There is minimal language in there
that really is of -- from a city perspective a liability concern. Three is an issue that if
there is a dispute between the parties that the potential is you could be responsible for
the other parties' attorney's fees. It's a very standard contractual provision that we have
in all of our contracts big and small. There is no indemnification of any sort, because
we don't indemnify them, they are actually giving us -- they are holding us harmless for
their behavior, we are not providing them any liability coverage of any sort, so there isn't
that, which is the normal contracts you might see is when we do that. But, again, we
wanted to make sure you were comfortable with both the changes, as well as the
process and if you, again, would like to see them either prior to the engagement with the
instructors or subsequent at least prior to us paying them we certainly can do that, it's
just a change in process and I don't know if Steve has other points he wanted to make,
but that's the reason it's in front of you tonight.
De Weerd: Steve, did you have additional comments?
Siddoway: Nothing really to add, but since I'm standing up here I will just reiterate for
number one we did clarify the independent contractor section is Item G on page three of
six of the contract, if you have that in front of you. That's the language Bill was referring
to. And, then, the current process as I understand it, meets policy. It works well for us
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 37 of 51
to be able to enter -- get the contract signed by the contractor, have them ratified by the
purchasing agent, in this case Keith Watts, and we just want to make sure that that is --
that you're comfortable with that process continuing or if you want to see all those. I'd
stand for any questions.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I'm comfortable with that process. My thinking, Bill, the way it seems, the only
time that we as Council -- a hiring issue comes before us is when we are -- I think we
are at the director level. Is that -- I mean the Mayor makes a selection and usually we
have -- she says, hey, do you want to hire a Bruce Chatterton and we go, oh, of course
we do, you know.
De Weerd: And, then, I can blame it on you.
Hoaglun: Yeah. But -- and so that's the only time those types of things come before us,
so if we brought them -- in my mind if we brought instructors to us that's raising them up
to this level that we don't already do. Am I -- that's how I see it logically. Now, legally it
may not matter. So, can you advise me, Bill?
Nary: Sure. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The answer is it depends.
The circumstances --
De Weerd: What a good attorney.
Nary: The circumstances -- you are correct. The only hiring decision or authority of the
Council is in an appointed position. But you routinely review contracts. You don't
review employment issues. So, theoretically, by bringing contracts in front of you for
hiring of professional services or services is very consistent with when we hire
engineers or other types of contracts. But because this threshold amount is so low you
have already established in policy that even -- even professional services contracts of a
low enough threshold don't require Council approval and it still is -- doesn't give them
greater status or a greater position.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Nary: So, the reality is if you chose to do it because you would like to see them, I don't
believe it has any impact on their status as a nonemployee. If you chose not to do it
you would be consistent with the existing policy you already have and so I don't think
either decision really is going to matter for the question you have, it really is a comfort
level of the Council.
De Weerd: I guess, Steve or Bill, what -- what are the ranges these contract are
generally for in terms of price?
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 38 of 51
Siddoway: The contracts don't specify a dollar amount, because they are just based on
an 80-20 split of what -- it depends on the number of people that sign up for the class.
So, it really just, you know, defines a relationship that they get 20 percent of the
registration fees, we keep 20 for administrative costs and, then, the actual amounts are
based on registration.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: 1 consider these people the same as our building inspectors. And I think that they
should be treated the same way in contracts. I think that's one of the reasons that will
keep us out of problems. I don't have -- I mean I don't have a problem whether they
come here or -- or whether Steve signs off or who signs off, but they, basically, should
have a contract, because -- I mean they are subcontractors to the City of Meridian. It's
nothing -- no different than hiring Joe Blow Construction to do the work.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor. And they do have contracts and they have had contracts
since I have been here. We are just confirming that the process is --
Bird: We know they have contracts, but --
Siddoway: Yeah.
Bird: Steve, let me ask you a question.
Siddoway: Yes.
Bird: Madam Mayor, may I? Do we need a -- do we tell them when and where they
have to be in, how -- what time and all this kind of stuff or do they set that schedule
themselves?
Siddoway: Well, we have to work with them because we have one facility. So, we can't
tell them how. We can't treat them as an employee. We -- we cannot define the
content. But we do control when they can access the community center.
Bird: You basically tell them that the community center is available --
Siddoway: What's available.
Bird: -- at this time, it's yours if you want it.
Siddoway: Correct.
Bird: Okay.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 39 of 51
De Weerd: They will tell them -- they will tell them the time availability and, then, the
contractor will get back to us on when they could do it. But a lot of these instructors are
doing it in their own facility. You know, there is probably more in private facilities than in
ours.
Siddoway: Well, you're mostly -- they are either in ours or in parks. I don't know that
there is very many in private facilities. There used to be, like when it was --
De Weerd: The dance and karate and --
Siddoway: Or gymnastics. We really have moved from that model, which it used to be
to more community based recreation in the recreation center.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: My comment would be that I appreciate the wording change for the
clarification and I don't feel the need to see these. I think the system works well enough
the way it is.
Rountree: I agree.
Hoaglun: I agree as well.
Bird: I agree.
Siddoway: Okay.
Bird: I just want to make sure the language is right.
De Weerd: Thank you. And we got the clarity on the language?
Nary: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay.
Siddoway: Any motion needed, Bill?
Nary: No.
Siddoway: Okay.
Meridian Cily Council
August 28, 2012
Page 40 of 51
D. Police Department: Donation of a 2005 GMC Sierra 1500 to the
Canyon County Animal Shelter
E. Resolution No. 12-866: A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Meridian, Idaho, Setting Forth Certain Findings and
Purposes to Declare Surplus Property and Authorize the
Mayor of the City of Meridian to Donate Equipment to the
Canyon County Animal Shelter, Caldwell, Idaho
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Steve. Thank you, Bill. Okay. Our Police Department.
Overton: Good evening, Madam Mayor, President Hoaglun, Members of Council. This
won't take longer than 30 minutes.
De Weerd: You normally have ten at the max.
Overton: I will have seven left over.
De Weerd: Before the hook comes out.
Overton: What you have in front of you is a donation request of a 2005 half ton Chevy
pickup. This is our old animal control truck. We retired it at just over 122,000 miles --
that's physical miles. Because of animal control and how they work it had at least twice
that many miles on the engine when you look at engine hours. The bed on it, the
animal control bed on it, the fans don't work, the cages are in disrepair, we first offered it
to our shelter group that we have and they don't even want it because of the condition
it's in. We are looking to donate it to the Canyon county animal shelter and for those
that don't know Canyon county no longer runs their shelter, they have turned it over to a
nonprofit group, a 501(c)(3) ,and they are running on a shoe string budget in Canyon
county to keep that place afloat and they are interested in it, they believe they can fix
everything, take care of it, and they are still interested. We will give it to them tomorrow.
But that's what we are trying to do. We think it's a great way to keep a truck like that in
use, because they want to use it for what we used it for for seven years. And with that I
would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, John. Any questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba Can we supply it to them with a dog in every one of the compartments?
Overton: I wasn't supposed to give that part away, but --
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 41 of 51
Zaremba: Oh. Okay.
Overton -- it will be full.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Oh, my gosh.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Dean, don't type that. Okay. For the public record we need to. Mr.
Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Item 8-D, the donation of the pickup
to the Canyon county animal shelter.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-D. Madam Clerk --
Hoaglun: Is that the resolution that --
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry.
Bird: Do the resolution.
Zaremba: That actually is a resolution.
De Weerd: We did approve the resolution.
Rountree: That would be approve Items 8-D with the following resolution 12-866.
Bird: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. We do have a motion to approve the request under 8-D with the
accompanying resolution of 12-866. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
F. Public Works: Proposed Amendments to Meridian City Code:
Sewer Pretreatment; Section 9-2-2-1(D), Relating to Prohibited
Discharge Standards and Grease Interceptor Requirements;
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 42 of 51
Amending Meridian City Code Section 9-4-9(D), Relating to
Regulations for use of Public Sewers and Grease, Oil and Sand
Interceptors; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-2-1 (B) and
Adding a New Section, Section 10-2-1(6)(25), Regarding Grease
Interceptor Regulation Under the Uniform Plumbing Code; and
Providing a Effective Date.
De Weerd: Thank you. We appreciate you waiting to give us that report. Okay. Item
8-F is our Public Works Department and I will turn this to Mollie.
Mangerich: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council President and Council
Members. I'm here for an informational presentation only and a brief one and to receive
any feedback that you may choose to give me regarding two recommended Meridian
City Code changes that we will be bringing forward. The proposed amendments to our
Meridian City Code that I'm speaking to are directly related to Title 9, Chapters 2 and 4
of our code, which deal with our sewer pretreatment and sewer use. Currently our city
code reflects the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code that states that each service
establishment that must have a grease interceptor must only have aone-to-one
relationship with that grease interceptor and that you cannot share. Not more than one
food service establishment can share a grease interceptor. These amendments are to,
A, insert comparable. language in each chapter that will be consistent with the 2009
Uniform Plumbing Code and that will also provide us the authority and to be flexible to
make a determination of approval or disapproval when more than one food service
establishment may request to change -- to share a single grease interceptor. So, in our
pretreatment program we have many tools to enable us to provide the best customer
service we possibly can to our commercial businesses adopting these recommended
changes to our code that would provide another tool in our tool kit and to consider the
opportunity for some businesses, where feasible, that they could share a grease
interceptor and our code would provide for that allowance as well. Our tool in this
matter would be entering into an indirect discharge permit with the generator such that
they become the responsible party and would work with us to insure that they abide by
the recommendations that our pretreatment and wastewater staff recommend regarding
anything from cleaning of grease interceptors to best management practices both inside
the house and service agreements and maintenance on the outside when it comes to a
grease interceptor. I'd stand for any questions, concerns, recommendations.
De Weerd: Mollie, can you tell me is --has this been an issue?
Mangerich: We have situations, yes, in the past where shared businesses have come
in -- tenants in and out and start utilizing a single grease interceptor where in our code it
states clearly that there should only be a one-to-one relationship. Now, we have been
operating under the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code for quite many years, but the state of
Idaho will be adopting the '09 UPC this legislative season, coming into effect January
1st, 2013. Am I correct on that, Bruce? Just nod. Yeah. Okay. So, yes, these do
happen and mostly under us not knowing. But what we have noticed is that with more
innovative construction coming into our community, larger commercial constructions
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 43 of 51
where configurations of utilities are a little bit different than in traditional design
standards of before, that it allows for a creativity and a conversation and a collaboration
to occur with those construction and owners of those properties to consider the
challenges posed on the builders and who are filling occupancies and, then, the
requirements we have to have to protect our sanitary service sewer systems, provided
an opportunity under indirect surge permit with the responsible party that is willing to
take on those responsibilities of the pretreatment that we prescribed. It allows for us to
answer both best customer service, best practices for protection of our sewer systems.
So, it really is a step up in terms of what we would be able to provide our commercial
entities.
De Weerd: You took lessons from Bill, didn't you. I guess just afollow-up question.
Have we had an incidence where someone has come in and wanted to have two on one
that because of our current code it does not allow that?
Mangerich: Yes, we have. And it is at the discretion -- and just by saying that doesn't
mean that their request held merit in terms of protection of our sanitary sewer system.
So, we also have to provide that discretion that, no, it's not allowed in our current code
and currently the way that the plumbing is and the lines that are within that facility are
not conducive to it. We would, then, request them to either utilize other grease capture
equipment or to install another grease interceptor.
De Weerd: So, today we do not have flexibility under our current ordinance to allow the
flexibility needed.
Mangerich: The only language we have is or -- or agreed to by the authority having
jurisdiction and they are located in -- that phrase is located in two sections in two
different chapters of the sewer use and industrial pretreatment and it is our effort to
marry those up and make them pertain to our '09 MPC code that's coming down at us ,
which would be able to allow us by code to entertain the conversation to see if it is
reasonable or not.
Hoaglun: Well, Madam Mayor, it sounds like they are meeting the tenants of the
Meridian Way that you have laid out, so I think that's a good thing.
Mangerich: It is a good thing.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, this does sound like the right thing to do. I'm just -- I don't
know whether we can do it without naming names. I'm just trying to visualize where
there are places that would apply to -- comes to mind down Main Street there is a
combined A&W and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Is that the kind of business we are talking
about or would this actually be separate restaurants that maybe share a common wall in
a shopping or maybe there is another business between them and -- I'm trying to
visualize what this applies to.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 44 of 51
Mangerich: Both of those scenarios can exist within our community and do as such
Zaremba: Okay.
Mangerich: And so what we are referring to is knew construction coming in that as we
are going through the site plan review process, which we do personally, eyes on plans,
looking at the plumbing and the configuration of where interceptors, A, are needed and,
then, B, where sited, and the capacity of said interceptors and who will be using those,
that we can, then, work with developers of major developments of such or other smaller
strip malls to see if there is a viable willingness on the part of the property owner to be
the responsible party in relationship of an indirect discharge permit of the city of
Meridian pretreatment. It is a permitted contractual relationship and it would go with the
property owner. So, it behooves the responsibility to that property owner that they will
abide by our best management practices and what we say we should have those
grease interceptor service levels, et cetera. It can be small. What we are seeing right
now is that there is an effect in the larger commercial developments where we see a
broader array of these sort of questions coming up.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor. Mollie, are we out there on the cutting edge here in Idaho?
One of the first cities to do this? Other cities doing this? Where are we nationally on
something like this?
Mangerich: I am proud to say that we are actually pretty brilliant in this one in that we
are getting ahead of the curve. So many communities in pretreatment -- our hands are
held and we are dealing with mistakes of the past and it is expensive to go back in and
bust up parking lots and pavement and go and install very expensive equipment that
may or may not be utilized fully by tenants who may or may not be there. So, we are
actually looking ahead. Not only are we looking ahead and providing flexibility, we have
empowered ourselves to also take the tools that are prescribed to us by EPA with
businesses that generate hazardous waste and say can you mellow this permit out and
make it compatible with those businesses, food service establishments, who generate
grease. What is one of the largest problems of sanitary service overflows in our
system? Grease. And so we visit our businesses twice a year, that's once more than
any other community in the Treasure Valley, because they pay very particular attention
to what is coming into our treatment plant. So, by adding, Mr. Hoaglun, the ability to
permit with partners who are willing to take on that responsibility in order to have the
freedom to have shared interceptors and that flexibility to tenants no one has done that.
Not even in California. In fact, in one particular case the pretreatment of a large
California city who has a comparable large development by one of our larger firms here
in the city, that they wished they were thinking about this when they came into town in
the California city. So, I'm really proud of my staff to be thinking this way. It's protection
oriented, but it's also customer service oriented.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 45 of 51
Chatterton: And, Madam Mayor and Council Member Hoaglun, now that I'm actually
listening -- I do want to confirm that -- that this idea has been talked about a lot around
the country and it's great to see that -- and Public Works moving ahead with it. It -- it's
similar to about 20 years ago we began to see a different front for development --
stormwater shared facilities for detention, treatment, retention stormwater attenuation
and just much more efficient way to do things, easier to maintain and so this is -- this
is a great trend. I believe Boise is looking at it, but they are not as far along as we are,
so --
De Weerd: We are glad you clicked in
Chatterton: Yes.
Rountree: Glad you showed up.
Chatterton : Just saying.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mollie, just so I fully understand, this -- this is an option, this is not a
requirement.
Mangerich: Absolutely. This is an option, not a requirement. And it is the responsibility
of us as staff -- wastewater and pretreatment, to make that determination and that have
we justification and documentation to show why it would beano to -- for such case if
somebody wanted to have a shared interceptor.
De Weerd: But at least this gives them an opportunity for a yes.
Mangerich: It brings us to the table and it starts getting creative juices going, what
works, what doesn't work.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions?
Mangerich: Well, thank you very much and you will be seeing this revision to the
amendment coming forward in the next couple weeks from our legal department in
going through the proper process.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Mangerich: Thank you.
De Weerd: Appreciate it. And congratulate your staff for thinking out of the box.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 46 of 51
Mangerich: I will.
G. Resolution No. 12-867: A Resolution Authorizing the City Clerk
to Destroy Certain Semi-Permanent and Temporary Records of
the Meridian City Finance Department and the City Clerk's
Office
De Weerd: Item 8-G is resolution 12-867. Council, in front of you you do have a
proposal by our city clerk to destroy temporary records. Any comments you wish to
make, Madam Clerk?
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Sorry. I thought we were on the next resolution
first. This is just Finance's annual purge of records. It's through fiscal year 2007, so
their five year limit. Basically, obviously, September 30th of 2012. By the time this
resolution gets passed and I notify the state archivist, they have 30 days to respond and
say we want the records or don't want the records. There is 1.5 items in the clerk's
inventory that were ever allowed to be destroy in the history of all time, we are going to
destroy all six of those records, so -- a public records request and permitting and
licensing everything else we keep forever and ever, so that constitutes what's in this
resolution.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for Madam Clerk?
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: No question, but I will move that we approve resolution number 12-867.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-G. If there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
H. Amended onto the Agenda: Resolution No. 12-868: A
Resolution Adopting the Framework Agreement for
Establishing Friendly and Cooperative Relations Between
Pisa, Italy and Meridian City, Idaho, the United States of
America and Adopting Pisa, Italy as its Honorary Sister City
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 47 of 51
De Weerd: Item 8-H is resolution 12-868. Council, this is a resolution that is
establishing or adopting a framework to consider an agreement between Pisa, Italy, and
the City of Meridian to explore the benefits of an honorary sister city relationship and I
would open for any questions.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I have to say that I'm really leaning towards this.
Rountree: You're too late on that one.
De Weerd: Oh, my gosh. Is it getting late? I think, Council, I did want to say this has
certainly been driven by an local Meridian business that is entering into a very important
business relationship with a famous artist in -- in Pisa and in talking with the notable
artist, as well as the Mayor, they -- they did plant the seed of a sister city relationship
because of this business arrangement and the because of similarities in their family
oriented community and the value we place on the use, on the emphasis they have in
the health sciences and they do have a teaching university of -- for surgery and other
medical type of activities, as well as their emphasis in agriculture. They did have a lot of
similarities and they did want to pursue what a mutual benefit would be in forming this
kind of a relationship.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I appreciate that and this being a framework I think we should move forward
and look to see if that is something we should do down the road and with that, Madam
Mayor, I would approve resolution number 12-968.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-H. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 12-1522: An Ordinance for Annexation (AZ 12-
002) of a Portion of Land Located West of N. Meridian Road
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 48 of 51
Midway Between W. Chinden Blvd and W. McMillian Road,
Commonly Known as Paramount North Subdivision
De Weerd: And I will also add to Council this --this will be going to the city of Pisa next
month, so we will keep you updated. Item 9-A is ordinance 12-1522. Madam Clerk, will
you, please, read this ordinance by title only.
Holman: Thank, you Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 12-1522, an ordinance AZ
12-002, Paramount North Subdivision, for annexation for a portion of land located in the
southeast one quarter of the northeast one quarter of Section 245, 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, Medium Density Residential District, in the Meridian City Code,
providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the
Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and
providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules
and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: So, now, Eric, you actually lasted until almost the last several items and
after hearing that read, aren't you glad you did. I do have to ask, just because there is
people here -- or a person here -- is there anyone who would like to hear this ordinance
read in its entirety?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeings how that young man is really smart, I move we approve the ordinance
number 12-1522 with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Motion and a second to approve Item 9-A. Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Ordinance No. 12-1523: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian,
Idaho Amending Ordinance No. 11-1491, the Appropriation for
the Fiscal Year Beginning October 1, 2011 and Ending
September 30, 2012. Appropriating Monies that are to be
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 49 of 51
Received by the City of Meridian, Idaho in the Sum of
($1,902,834) and Appropriating Monies that are Unexpended by
the City of Meridian into the Fund Balance and Other Sources
and Fees
De Weerd: Item 8-B is Ordinance 12-1553. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this
ordinance by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No . 12-1523, an
ordinance of the City of Meridian, Idaho, amending Ordinance No. 11-1491, the
appropriation ord inance for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, 2011, ending
September 30th, 2012. Appropriating moni es that are unexpended by the City of
Meridian, Idaho, in the sum of $1,902,834 into the fund balance and providing an
effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance under 9-B read by title only. Is there anyone
who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Ordinance No. 12-1523 with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-B. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Ordinance No. 12-1524: An Ordinance Providing for the
Adoption of a Budget and the Appropriating of $80,186,803 to
Defray the Necessary Expenses and Liabilities of the City of
Meridian, in Accordance with the Object and Purposes and in
the Certain Amount Herein Specified for the Fiscal Year
Beginning October 1, 2012 and Ending on September 30, 2013
De Weerd: Our final item under nine is ordinance 12-1524. Madam Clerk, will you,
please, read this ordinance by title only.
Meridian City Council
August 28, 2012
Page 50 of 51
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 12-1524, an
ordinance pursuant to IDAHO Code 50-1002 and 50-1003 providing for a title and
findings, providing for the adoption of a budget and the appropriate of $80,186,803 to
defray the necessary expenses and liabilities of the City of Meridian in accordance with
the object and purposes and in certain amounts herein specified for the fiscal year
beginning October 1st, 2012, ending on September 30th, 2013. To levy also
appropriate taxes and levies as authorized by law upon taxable. property and to collect
all authorized revenue, to provide for the waiving of the second and third readings
pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902 and providing for an effective date and the filing of a
certified copy of this ordinance to the state.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title and seeing how I don't see any
interest in hearing it read further, Council, I ask for your action.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Ordinance 12-1524 with suspension of rules
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-C. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: We are at Item 10. Future meeting topics. Council, any topics for future
agendas? Hearing none, do I have a motion to adjourn?
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: We are adjourned.
Meridian Cily Council
August 28, 2012
Page 51 of 51
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:29 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
~e 9 i !/ i a o!~
MAYOR T MY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTEST: o~z>:~noaor
~°~ rr9~
s
JAYC HOLMAN, CITY CLER ~ ID~~--
~oeno
a"~ SE"P1L
~~
HfFR °! 1 e e t04 ~9~0.~,