HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 01-20Revised 1-19-04
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll -call Attendance:
X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance: Keith Burrell Boy Scout Troup #1
3. Community Invocation by Burton Roberts, Senior Pastor at Meridian
Gospel Tabernacle: Presented
4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve
5. Consent Agenda: Approve
A. Approve minutes of January 6, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting:
Approve
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
023 Request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to
R-8 zones for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ
Enterprises, Inc. — 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Approve
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 59 building lots and 8
other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Soda
Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. — 2310 and 2384
East Victory Road: Approve
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development for a mix of single-family detached residential lot
sizes and amenities for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by
JLJ Enterprises, Inc. — 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road:
Approve
Meridian City Council Agenda— .lanuary 20, 2004 Page I m'4
All malenals presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation fordisabilitiea related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meetinn.
Revised 1-19-04
E. Resolution No. 04-418 : Appointment of Bill Nary and
David Zaremba with Alternates Brad Hawkins -Clark and Gary
Smith to Valley Ride Regional Public Transportation Authority:
Approve
F. Victory Road Water System Improvement Bid Results:
Irminger Construction $122,532.00
G. Black Cat Pressure Sewer Bid Results: Bodiford Construction
$1,005,305.50
H. Sanitary Sewer Main Easement (Correction) for Krispy Kreme
Subdivision: Approve
I. Meridian Senior Grant Application / City Sponsorship:
Approve
6. Department Reports:
A. City Council
1. Proposal / Discussion of City Car for the Mayor's use:
Approve proposal of purchase — bring back within 2
weeks a proposed selection
7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
8. FP 03-068 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on 2.09 acres
in an I -L zone for Wendy's Subdivision by Community Property /
Ammon, LLC — northeast corner of North Eagle Road and Florence Street:
Approve
9. FP 03-069 Request for Final Plat approval of 1 building lot on 17.72 acres
in a R-4 zone for Havasu Creek Subdivision No. 4 by Havasu Creek,
LLC — south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road:
Approve
10. FP 03-070 Request for Final Plat approval of 42 single family residential
building lots and 3 common lots on 15.41 acres in a R-8 zone for
Paramount Subdivision No. 3 by Paramount Development Company,
LLC — east of North Linder Road and north of West McMillan Road:
Approve
11. FP 03-071 Request for Final Plat approval of 70 single family residential
building lots and 4 common lots on 14.55 acres in a R-8 zone for Tuscany
Meridian City Council Agenda — January 20, 2004 Page 2 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation Cor disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Revised 1-19-04
Village Subdivision No. 2 by Tuscany Development, Inc. — west of South
Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Approve
12. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: AZ 03-018
Request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C -G
zones for Kissler I Cobbs I Eagv / Ruwe by BRS Architects — southwest
corner and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road:
Continue Public Hearing to February 24, 2004 Meeting
13. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: AZ 03-022
Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RT to C -G zones for
Kissler (Dealt/ Parcel) by BRS Architects — southeast corner of East
Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to
February 24, 2004 Meeting
14. Public Hearing: VAC 03-007 Request for a Vacation of three feet of
ACHD right of way on each side of West Pennwood Street for Troutner
Business Park Subdivision No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne — west of South
Meridian Road and south of West Franklin Road: Attorney to prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
15. Public Hearing: PP 03-034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for a
re -plat of Troutner Park Subdivision Lots 4-5 and 10-15, Block 2; Lots 1-3
and 5-8, Block 3; Block 4; and Lot 3, Block 5 consisting of 6 commercial
building lots and 1 common lot on 17.26 acres in a C -G zone for Troutner
Business Park No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne — south of West Franklin Road
and west of South Meridian Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law for Approval
16. Public Hearing: AZ 03-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.8
acres from R-6 to L -O a nd C -G zones for p roposed Southern Springs
Subdivision No. 2 by The Land Group, Inc. — south of East Overland
Road and east of South Meridian Road: Attorney to prepare Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
17. Public Hearing: PP 03-036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5
commercial building lots on 2.8 acres in proposed L -O and C -G zones for
proposed Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by The Land Group, Inc.
— south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road:
Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval
18. Public Hearing: CUP 03-050 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
new bank facility with drive up tellers in an OT zone for Farmers and
Merchants State Bank by CSHQA — 703 North Main Street: Attorney to
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
Meridian City Council Agenda— January 20, 2004 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 tical ings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior Io the public meeting.
Revised 1-19-04
19. Public Hearing: VAR 03-021 Request for a Variance for parking of 46
stalls with 13 diagonal on -street parking stalls in an OT zone for Farmers
and Merchants State Bank by CSHQA — 703 North Main Street:
Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval
20. Public Hearing: PP 03-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
building lots on 2.064 acres in a L -O zone for proposed Cherry Lane
Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers — 2150 West Cherry
Lane: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
for Approval
21. Public Hearing: CUP 03-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and
office use with reduced setbacks and landscaping requirements in an L -O
zone for proposed Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. — 2150 West Cherry Lane: Attorney to prepare Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
22. Public Hearing: AZ 03-031 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.04
acres f rom RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Windsong Subdivision by
Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. — west of North Linder Road and
north of West Ustick Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval
23. Public Hearing: PP 03-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 66
single-family building lots and 2 common lots on 15.04 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark
Engineering & Planning, Inc. — west of North Linder Road and north of
West Ustick Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval
24. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: Approve
Meridian City Council Agenda— January 20, 2004 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 hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council Meeting January 20, 2004
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on
Tuesday, January 20, 2004, Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: William Nary, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, and Shaun Wardle.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Brady Hawkins -Clark, Brad Watson, Kenny
Bowers, Bill Musser, Stacy Kilchenmann, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll -call Attendance:
X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the regular Council Meeting to order. It is
January 20"' at 7:00 and I'd like to welcome you all here tonight and ask the City Clerk
to call roll.
Item 2. Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Thank you. We have, I guess, here with us that will lead us in our pledge,
it's Keith Burrell and he's with Boy Scout Troop No. 1. If you will, please, stand.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3. Community Invocation by Burton Roberts, Senior Pastor at Meridian
Gospel Tabernacle:
De Weerd: Okay. Item Number 3, we will have our community invocation by Burton
Roberts, who is the Senior Pastor at Meridian Gospel Tabernacle. Thank you.
Roberts: Thank you, Mayor, and Council, for letting us be a part of these meetings. We
really appreciate it. Shall we pray? Most gracious and kind Heavenly Father, we pause
to thank you for all the many blessings that life has brought to us, for the privilege of
living in this wonderful community and all of those exciting and precious days that are
behind us and that are ahead of us, we give you thanks. We now tonight invoke your
presence upon this meeting and ask that you would give wisdom and guidance and
counsel to each of the decisions that are made tonight, cause the decisions to be of
benefit to each one of the members of this community and for the benefit and the best
of all of our lives. We ask these things in Jesus' mighty name, amen. God bless you.
Item 4. Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Keith Burrell a nd P astor Roberts, for joining us
tonight. Okay. Item Number 4, is adoption of the agenda
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 2 of 81
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the revised agenda as of January 19, 2004, that is
published.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay, It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as presented. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of January 6, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
023 Request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to
R-8 zones for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ
Enterprises, Inc. — 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 59 building lots and 8
other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Soda
Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. — 2310 and 2384
East Victory Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-043 Request for a Conditional Use. Permit for a Planned
Development for a mix of single-family detached residential lot
sizes and amenities for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by
JLJ Enterprises, Inc. — 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road:
E. Resolution No. 04-418 : Appointment of Bill Nary and
David Zaremba with Alternates Brad Hawkins -Clark and Gary
Smith to Valley Ride Regional Public Transportation Authority:
F. Victory Road Water System Improvement Bid Results:
G. Black Cat Pressure Sewer Bid Results:
H. Sanitary Sewer Main Easement (Correction) for Krispy Kreme
Subdivision:
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 3 of 81
Meridian Senior Grant Application / City Sponsorship:
De Weerd: Item number five is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with
the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest to all proper papers. Mr. Clerk, will you, please,
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Department Reports:
A. City Council
1. Proposal / Discussion of City Car for the Mayor's use:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item number six, Department Reports. Item A, City Council. I
will turn this item over to President Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, I think that we have -- you should have a
memorandum from the Police Department. I did ask Chief Musser to be here tonight.
There has been some discussion we have had about purchasing of a vehicle for the
Mayor's office's use. The prior Mayor used his own vehicle for all city business. If -- the
chief is here someplace. Oh, there he is. What I asked the Chief is the Police
Department does a lot of purchasing of lease return vehicles. The chief has provided a
memorandum from Sergeant Fukes on some of the ones that are available in the area
and I also asked Stacy to be present as well to see where the money could be
transferred from to make this purchase if the Council was in a mind to do that. Chief, if
you could give us a little background
Musser: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, when I first had the contact on this, I
was j ust a sked f or s ome g eneral q uote i nformation f rom t he v arious d ealers t hat w e
usually receive quotes from and have dealt with in the past at the Police Department. In
the memorandum that Sergeant Fukes was able, to put together he made contact with
the listed companies on there, Peterson Stampede, Curt & Hal, Dan Weibold, Edmark,
and Dennis Dillon. We also made contact with Meridian Ford. However, they wouldn't
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 4 of 81
give us a printed quote at that time, but said they would be more than happy to try to
work with us on it. The only problem is is we usually need the quotes. Most of the
vehicles that we usually end up buying on a price basis are usually a Chrysler product,
usually the Dodge Intrepid, which is a V-6 vehicle, front wheel drive, mid size sedan,
and usually will seat four people reasonably comfortably, as long as they are not all built
like I am. In this instance with what we have had come in, one of the ones that I did
notice t hat we had on here was a 2004 1 ntrepid f rom P eterson S tampede a t 12,800
dollars, which given the mileage and the new year on it is a relatively good buy in the
grand scheme of things, as compared to say -- moving on down the page to Dan
Weibold, where you have Taurus's that are listed that are both under 12,000 dollars.
However, the miles are a little bit higher, some 4 ,000 plus on the silver Taurus and
another 7,000 miles plus on the gray Taurus. On the back, there are some other older
vehicles from Edmark, including a 2001 Impala, but it has 47,000 miles and it's below
10,000. One of the things that we weigh when we get one of the lease returns, if the
mileage is fairly low. What we are looking for on that is usually somewhere in the
vicinity of about 18,000 or less on one of these returns, it gives us a pretty good vehicle
to have for daily driving with the detectives as an unmarked vehicle. They are not used
the way a regular police car is, they are basically to and from work and for call
purposes, which would probably be real similar to what the Mayor might be looking for
in a vehicle, something to get her to and from work. She can respond to civic functions,
occasionally make trips within the state and all, so we would probably be looking at a
life span of approximately five to six years, maybe a little bit longer, with that type of
vehicle usage. Ultimately, it would just become a matter of what her Honor's preference
would be in terms of a vehicle and what the Council may well think they can afford and
for that I would stand for any other questions or pass it to our finance director.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Stacy?
Kilchenmann: Kenny has canceled the order on the fire truck, so he generously agreed
to give that u p. Actually, when I looked at the budget, the two areas that I thought
would be possibilities would be either the 50,000 that we have for the City Hall that's just
not particularly designated for anything specifically. That's in Council's budget. Or that
we have some money in professional accounts -- or professional services in both the
Council's budget, I think 30 something thousand, and the Mayor's budget, but for the
Mayor's budget I'm not sure how much has been already allocated to AspireOn, so I'm
not quite sure about that -- that contract is. It's kind of early in the year to know where
we will have specific savings. I would suggest for now we code it to the -- we use the
money for the City Hall study and, then, when we get further in the year we will know
where -- you know, what areas we will have specific savings and we can just put it on as
a potential amendment item.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Bird: I have none for --
Rountree: No questions.
Meridian City Council
January20, 2004
Page 5 of 81
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Stacy. Thanks, Chief. Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think the need is there. I think -- I guess, Council, what everyone else thinks on
whether or not we -- where we would authorize the transfer or what type of funding. I
did note on the chiefs memo, as he stated, Meridian Ford didn't want to give an actual
quote, but did want to keep the business here in town. I certain would encourage that
for myself, if at all possible, I think, obviously, we need to explore that and see what kind
of costs there is out there, maybe, before we actually authorize the purchase. But is
there other information I could provide the rest of you before this discussion before we
go further or -- do you think we want to have this discussion today or another day?
Rountree: Mr. Nary?
Nary: Yes, Councilman Rountree.
Rountree: What kind of funds we are looking at in professional services for the Council
and what's remaining in -- potentially remaining in the Mayor's budget for professional
services?
Nary: Well, from -- if I understand correctly, the -- you said 30,000 dollars was
budgeted towards professional services or consulting from the Council?
Kilchenmann: In the Council's budget.
Nary: I guess for me, I would prefer that we at least look at that before we look at the
money we would be using the space study. I think we borrowed that money back last
budge year and I don't think we want to keep doing that, but I don't know if you have
any outlined --
Kilchenmann: We have 45,000 -- 45,000 in the Council budget for professional services
and consulting.
Bird: How much is in the Mayor's?
Kilchenmann: Seventeen thousand but some of that has been spent.
De Weerd: That's for training.
Nary: AspireOn training probably comes out of that.
De Weerd: I think I need to down with staff and look at those line items. A couple of the
studies that we have can report. One is out of the City Hall accounts and that would be
the site selection and we haven't put that out for bid, so I don't know what kind of costs
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 6 of 81
we are looking at. But that's an important next step for that and I'd hate to see that
compromised. Out of Council funds, we have the potential -- and I don't know with
Anna not here what we are looking at, what she had in her budget to look at, the
circulation study for downtown, and how much ACHD is going to be paying for that and
how much we would incur. So, those are things that we need to work out and we can
bring that back to the Council as a body or bring it to the Council president, whatever
your preferences would be.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: My preference is to take it out of Council's. I don't want to take it out of the space
study. Evidently, you have got AspireOn using up a lot of yours. I believe we need a
vehicle for the Mayor. I have believed this for a long time. Our previous Mayor wanted
to use his own vehicle, I guess. Make sure that it's insured right and whoever is driving
it is covered, because when attorneys start suing, we would be the first one they sue,
whether it's your car or the city's car, so -- I know some of these prices are awful good,
but I'd want to see them. The mileage absolutely shocks me on some of these cars.
There are more miles on these cars than my wife puts on hers in ten years. I think that
we have had a look at another car I believe you have, tried out another -- a Buick car,
which is a larger car, more comfortable for four people to ride in. The price is a little bit
more, but I think for what you're getting it is well worth it, but I think that's something that
we need t o work out a nd get the thing. I think we definitely need it a nd I think t he
money should come out of the Council's part.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, did you have something to add?
Nichols: After Council member Wardle, Madam Mayor. I noticed he
De Weerd: I'm sorry.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I'd just like to say that I certainly agree that a price -- a car in
this range is something that I could agree with. I'm not sure exactly what the process is,
but certainly, I'd like to see a specific car come back to us, so that we can approve that.
I agree with Councilman Bird in the sense that I don't think that we should take this out
of the City Hall funding. If we can find the room in the Council's budget or, potentially,
find out exactly what's left in the Mayor's budget to do that would be my preference for a
funding avenue.
De Weerd: Thank you. I have made a commitment to our department leaders and our
mid level supervisors to participate in the training with AspireOn, so -- and I'll work with
the Finance Director on what specific costs we are and let you know what my budget's
like. Mr. Nichols.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 7 of 81
Nichols: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, Stacy, would you refresh my memory
on the -- what the purchasing policy says on purchase of used vehicles, what steps we
have to go through for that?
Kilchenmann: It would be basically the steps that Bill has already taken. He's solicited
competitive bids from -- he's got at least three vendors -- I think you have four. Five
vendors to find what it is he's looking for and, then, he's done the competitive bidding.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I would probably go forward with a motion, then, to move the staff, if --
the Mayor's office and the rest of the staff to move forward on selecting a vehicle for
purchase for Mayor's office. If I'm hearing the rest of the Council correctly, they'd like to
see the vehicle -- what the vehicle is before we authorize actual purchase price, but to
go forward with further study of what's available, including the Meridian Ford dealership
here in town and, then, bring that back to us within two weeks. Is that adequate time? I
mean if we can get it next week, that would be fine, but within two weeks, so we get
back the actual vehicle and a purchase price for final Council approval.
Bird: Is that a motion?
Nary: Yes.
Bird: I'll second it.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to have the Mayor and staff proceed
with the purchase -- or with the selection of a car for Council action no later than two
weeks and as early as next week. Okay.
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8. FP 03-068 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on 2.09 acres
in an I -L zone for Wendy's Subdivision by Community Property /
Ammon, LLC — northeast corner of North Eagle Road and Florence Street:
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 8 of 81
De Weerd: So, we will move to number eight, FP 03-068, request for final plat approval
of three building lots on 2.09 acres in an L -O zone -- I -L zone for Wendy's Subdivision
by Community Property and I will start with staff comments.
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the Council. This Final Plat
came before you under the name Treasure Valley Business Center Phase Three as a
Preliminary Plat. Eagle Road on the eastern boundary and Florence on the south and
Olive Avenue is here. This Final Plat we are talking about is just this southern portion.
What's shown here is the Preliminary Plat that had four lots and if you recall, the
Conditional U se Permit t hat you -- t hat t his b ody s aw o r a t I east m ost o f you s aw, I
guess, c ame t hrough a few m onths a go for a p lanned d evelopment. They o my h ad
three lots, so staff typically views a final plat that doesn't add any buildable lots, just
reduces them as substantial compliance. We did review the application and felt that
since the city had already approved the planned development for three buildings, that
the three lots shown here complied. What they have shown on their other plan --
Wendy's would be here on Lot 1. The Kinko's, Starbucks, multi -tenant building on Lot 2
and a future multi -tenant building on Lot 3. 1 think the only item to point out on the staff
report -- well, actually, there is two. On item number 12 is an error that would need to
be stricken that refers to new public streets, which, of course, there are none in this
Final Plat so, that was the first item. Then, on the last page of the staff report, item
number 15, talks about a cross -access easement within these three lots and, if possible,
I'd just like to have Mr. Arnold, who is representing the applicant, kind of give a little bit
more input on that tonight, but we are -- staffs recommending that -- that that be
modified. We could just add after first sentence: Cross -access easement shall be
recorded for the subdivision or designated on the final plat. And I think that would help
to clear up the confusion that it's a totally separate easement that we have been having
some discussions with Ada County surveyor about. Other than that, we recommend
approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Brad, we had a lot of discussion on this project about limitation of the future
development of not having any more drive-thrus on this lot. Now, is that just part of the
CUP itself and not part of the plat?
Hawkins -Clark: That's correct. Yes. They have been approved for the two drive-thrus.
Nary: Right.
Hawkins -Clark: Right but, correct, Lot 3 is prohibited from having one, but that really
was a conditional use issue.
Nary: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 9 of 81
Bird: It was in the Findings, wasn't it?
Nary: Yes.
Bird: Didn't we put that in the Findings?
Nary: Yes. I just wanted to make sure we did not leave something out.
De Weerd: Would the applicant's representative like to come forward?
Arnold: Mayor De Weerd, members of the Council, for the record Steve Arnold, I'm with
Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road, I'm here representing the applicant. I
think the way the staff has worded the changes we are in agreement with the comments
and the modifications as presented. So, I will stand for questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Questions, Council? Thank you.
Arnold: Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there anything further for staff for discussion? I would entertain a
motion.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move the approval of FP 03-068, the request for final plat approval of
three building lots on 2.09 acres in an I -L zone for Wendy's Subdivision by Community
Property Ammon, LLC. At the northeast comer of North Eagle Road and Florence
Street, pursuant to all staff comments, with the amendments to the Findings -- or
amendments to the staff report of -- by striking item number 12 -- this is the staff report
dated January 20, 2004. By striking Item 12 and amending item 15 to include the
words: Or designated as part of the first sentence, so it will now read: A cross -access
easement shall be recorded for this subdivision or designated on the final plat, for
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order.
Bird: Second.
De W eerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 03-068, Wendy's
Subdivision, with the changes as noted. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 10 of 81
Item 9. FP 03-069 Request for Final Plat approval of 1 building lot on 17.72 acres
in a R-4 zone for Havasu Creek Subdivision No. 4 by Havasu Creek,
LLC — south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item number nine is FP 03-069, request for Final Plat
approval of one building lot on 17.72 acres in an R-8 zone for Havasu Creek
Subdivision No. 4. And we will start with staff comments.
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, the -- this is a one lot
subdivision. The lot is approximately 12 -- 17 acres in size and it is designated as a
future elementary school site for the Joint School District No. 2. McMillan Road is on
the north and so that would be the primary ingress -egress to the site. There is, I think,
just one item to point out. It's item number two on the staff report that deals with the
Settler's Irrigation District and the pressurized irrigation system that would be used for
watering the playground and the play -- the ball fields and whatnot on the lot. The
Public Works Department, as you well know, has had -- expressed some concerns
about using city domestic water for watering such large open space areas. What Mr.
Freckleton added on the last part of number two was: However, the playground areas
will not be allowed to utilize the backup single point connection and -- because there are
-- I think there are still a few tweaks that might need to be made between the school
district and the Public Works Department, Building Department, rather than actually tie
them to that at this final plat stage, we'd r ather j ust strike t hat phrase. Is that right,
Brad?
De Weerd: Brad, what part of it do you want stricken?
Hawkins -Clark: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, it would start with however on the second to
the last sentence of item number two. I'm sorry. On the last sentence, but second to
the last line. So, it would -- you would put a period after the word buildings, so it would
read: The Public Works Department will work with the Meridian School District on its
own independent backup connection for the smaller landscaped areas that are typically
surround the school buildings. Period.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for staff? Let's see. Is the applicant or representative
here? Please state your name and address.
Arnold: Mayor de Weerd, for the record, my name is Steve Arnold, I'm with Briggs
Engineering, 1 800 West Overland Road. I'm h ere representing H avasu C reek, L LC.
The -- we're in agreement with the change in site-specific item number two. However,
there is another change that we'd like on item number seven, which talks about the --
we're required to include the instrument number on the face of the plat for the 25 foot
wide public utilities and irrigation easement. The school district has requested that we
not dedicate that easement, that the easement just be the standard easement along the
public roadway. So, we are not showing the 25 -foot easement all around the boundary
as requested by the school district. So, we would ask that that item be stricken.
De Weerd: Staff, do you have any comment to that?
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 11 of 81
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor, Council members, that's correct. I didn't get word to
Brad before you turned it over to the applicant, but Steve and I had spoken and item
number seven could be deleted.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you, Steve.
Arnold: Thank you.
De Weerd: Discussion? I would entertain a motion.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve FP 03-069, request for final plat approval of one
building lot on 17.7 acres in an R-4 zone for Havasu Creek Subdivision No. 4 by
Havasu Creek, LLC. South of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove,
with the including of all staff comments, the modification of item two, and the staffs
comment letter dated January 20`h, to eliminate the phrase that they pointed out at the
end of paragraph two, with the paragraph ending at the word building, and the
remainder of that sentence d elated. T hat item seven be deleted with preparation of
appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Thank you. It's been moved seconded to approve FP 03-069 for Havasu
Creek Subdivision No. 4 with the amendments as noted. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. FP 03-070 Request for Final Plat approval of 42 single family residential
building lots and 3 common lots on 15.41 acres in a R-8 zone for
Paramount Subdivision No. 3 by Paramount Development Company,
LLC — east of North Linder Road and north of West McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item number 10, FP 03-070, request for a final plat
approval of 42 single family residential building lots and three common lots on 15.41
acres in an R-8 zone for Paramount Subdivision No. 3. 1 will start with staff comments.
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, this phase is the third phase in
Paramount Subdivision. It's here at the north central part of their project. Again, the
access would be taken off of Linder Road, the street that they have constructed as part
of Phase 1 and 2. This central area here that has a community center in it, this phase is
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 12 of 81
15.4 acres. The Final Plat is shown here. You can see the open space lot in the center
and this phase does substantially comply with their Preliminary Plat. The -- I don't think
there is any modifications for the Council to make, but the summary did reference the
densities incorrectly. I suppose you figured out that there are more than .36 dwelling
units per acre on this plat.
De Weerd: I was ready to buy out there.
Hawkins -Clark: I think with that staff is recommending approval with inclusion of our
memorandum for the hearing date January 20`h.
De Weerd: Any questions from Council? Any comments from the applicant? No
comments. Okay. So, the applicant must be in agreement with staff comments. Any
questions or discussion from Council? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve FP 03-070, the request for final plat approval of 42
single family residential building lots and three common lots on 15.41 acres in an R-8
zone for Paramount Subdivision No. 3 by Paramount Development Company, LLC.
East of North Linder Road and north of West McMillan Road, incorporate all staff
comments and applicant's comments and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 03-070, Paramount
Subdivision No. 3 with staff comments. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. FP 03-071 Request for Final Plat approval of 70 single family residential
building lots and 4 common lots on 14,55 acres in a R-8 zone for Tuscany
Village Subdivision No. 2 by Tuscany Development, Inc. — west of South
Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11 is FP 03-071, request for final plat approval of 70
single family residential building lots and four common lots on 14.55 acres in an R-8
zone for Tuscany Village Subdivision No. 2. We'll start with staff comments.
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, this is the second phase,
Tuscany Village Subdivision, access taken off of Victory Road. The Ten Mile Creek
runs along their east boundary with -- within which they have been approved to
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 13 of 81
construct a 10 -foot multi -use pathway that was part of Phase 1, however. This phase
that you're reviewing tonight -- excuse me -- tonight is sort of the south, southwest area
and there is -- as shown here, basically, out -- they are providing the stub streets as
required by the preliminary plat. I think staff has -- we don't have any changes to our
staff report on this one, so we are recommending approval with the inclusion of our
comments January 20tH
De Weerd: Any questions from Council? Does the applicant have any comments?
Applicant appears in agreement with all staff comments. Any further discussion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve FP 03-071, request for final plat approval of 70 single
family residential building lots and four common lots on 14.55 in an R-8 zone for
Tuscany Village Subdivision No. 2 by Tuscany Development, Incorporated. West of
South Locust Grove and south of East Victory Road, and to incorporate all staff and
applicant comments and for the attorney to draw up appropriate Findings and Facts and
Conclusions of Law.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 03-071 for Tuscany Village
Subdivision No. 2. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: AZ 03-018
Request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C -G
zones for Kissler / Cobbs / Eagy / Ruwe by BRS Architects — southwest
corner and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 12 is a Continued Public Hearing from November 5,
2003, on AZ 03-018, request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 plus or minus acres
from RT to C -G zones for Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy and Ruwe, by BRS Architects. I will
open this Public Hearing with staff comments.
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The -- this item
was continued from your November meeting for a couple of reasons and I -- you should
have in your packets tonight a memorandum from myself that is dated January 14th that
kind of gives some of the background to that. When I wrote that memorandum, I was
under the assumption that we had worked out the noticing with the clerk's office and the
-- however, we just learned I think today that the properties were not noticed according
to the state statute correctly. So, I guess we are recommending as staff that this be
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 14 of 81
moved forward. We have also received a fax from Mr. Strite, who has agreed that
because of the lot split issue, which those of you who were on the Council would recall
there was an addition of some property, a small strip of property on this west boundary
that is adjacent to Carol Subdivision that was added to the Ruwe parcel and that deed
has been worked out. We did receive a new concept plan that eliminated these three
parcels owned by Mr. Eagy. However, in order to really move forward on this
application, this triangular piece that has been added needs to be legally split and that
would happen right here at this point between the Eagy parcel and the Ruwe parcel in
order to just merge this strip of land into these larger pieces. And in order to accomplish
that split, Ada County Development Services is saying they need still another few
weeks. They just received the application, as I understand it, recently and so as Mr.
Strite's letter says -- that was submitted today, says that he's asking for about a 30 -day
continuance in order for them to legally split that piece through Ada County and, then,
City of Meridian could proceed. Since we don't have a one-time lot split mechanism in
our code, we are recommending -- staffs recommending that's the way they go. So,
there are really two issues, I guess, for the reason for continuance. One is that lot split
and the other is the fact that the noticing did not happen correctly.
De Weerd: And so is that continuation request on the 17th or the 24th?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I know I'm not asking for a motion, just clarification.
Hawkins -Clark: The memo just said an additional 30 -day period. I would think probably
conservatively we would go for the 24th
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just so I understand, we are going to have to re -notice the entire thing, we are
not going to -- or we can continue it from this date, even though it wasn't noticed
properly? I don't read that. I don't know what -- I just wondered what we needed to do.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary. We were directed to do a courtesy
notice. We have not violated any notice proceedings. The original notice was sent out,
it was continued to this date, we were told as soon as we got a concept drawing from
Mr. Strite that we would do a courtesy notice. In that, mix up there was discussion of
what the 300 -foot radius included and didn't include. I think we discussed that it
included, but my staff was -- should I say waiting for a new list from P&Z and it was a
misunderstanding that the current one that we had was sufficient, but we were waiting
and didn't get it noticed. T here was no violation as far as noticing process, but the
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 15 of 81
courtesy notice that you instructed us to do did not go out. Hopefully, the applicant will
discuss that issue, too, because he has another proposal as far as the extension and us
being able to get it out to the people again.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Again, this is a Public Hearing, so as part of that we
do ask the applicant to be sworn in. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Strite: Yes, it is
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Strite: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise,
Idaho. I think the staff is -- was quite succinct in what we are requesting, inasmuch as
there are some of the neighbors here. The only reason they are here, quite frankly, is
because they attended a meeting yesterday, as I understand it, with the adjacent
developer and in my discussions with Will today and also with Brad, they were
inadvertently not advertised, inasmuch as it wasn't a legal issue, as it was as much a
courtesy issue and I believe it was Councilman Nary's suggestion. I would ask that we
be extended to the February 24, 2004 meeting, if we could, and I would also ask that at
this point that the neighbors be assured that proper notification be sent out tomorrow, as
far as I'm concerned. I think the neighbors have been very nice in showing up here
regularly and I think it's certainly something that they deserve. February 24th --just one
quick comment and I think Mr. Nichols probably had it right -- hit the nail on the head.
The county didn't act quite as quickly as we thought perhaps we could get that done. If
you remember the testimony that Anna gave and I think Mr. Nichols seconded that, that
it would take at least 30 days. Obviously, it's been greater than 30 days. However, I did
send a note -- I spoke to Greg Abrahamson at Ada County Development Services
today. He says that they standardly turn this thing around in two weeks, but he
suggested, in all reality, if we could put it off for 30 days, hence the February 24th date, if
that's, in fact, agreeable by the Council, that would be satisfactory to us. With that, I
might also suggest that -- as long as I'm standing up here, we might go into Item
Number 13, which is contingent upon item 12, which is contingent upon the request for
extension.
De Weerd: Well, Mr. Strite, I have not opened that item, so -- I guess I could with
Council's permission.
Nary: I have no objection.
Rountree: I can't object to that.
Item 13. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: AZ 03-022
Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RT to C -G zones for
Kissler (Dealt/ Parcel) by BRS Architects — southeast corner of East
Ustick Road and North Eagle Road:
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 16 of 81
De Weerd: I will, then, go ahead and open Item Number 13, the Continued Public
Hearing from November 5, 2003, AZ 03-022, request for annexation and zoning for five
acres from RT to C -G zones for Kissler by BRS Architects. Staff, do you need an
opportunity to comment first on this?
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor, I don't think so. I guess I would agree with Mr. Strite
that since that five acre piece really cannot be acted on until this annexation that you're
talking about now is approved, because it does not -- it's not contiguous to the city
limits, that I think, really, the two items need to be handled together. I think it could wait.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Strite, you are still under -- you have been sworn in, so --
Strite: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Billy Ray Strite, 1010
Allante again. I would request that this be postponed as well and be put on the 2/24
calendar, along with Item Number 12, if you will, please.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you
Strite: Thank you.
De Weerd: Since we don't have much -- we don't have information to really have good
testimony on, if Council would like to continue this and make sure that proper
notification goes out or courtesies, yes. Sorry.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 03-018, request for annexation and
zoning 43.86 plus or minus acres from RT to C -G zones for Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy and
Ruwe by Billy Ray Strite and to make sure that we get some courtesy mailings out on
notification until February 24, 2004.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on AZ 03-018
to February 24, 2004. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All
ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Do I have a motion on Item 13?
Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we continue Public Hearing AZ 03-022, request for
annexation and zoning of five acres from RT to C -G zones for Kissler Dealy parcel by
BRS Architects until February 24, 2004, with courtesy notification also.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 17 of 81
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Public Hearing on AZ 03-
022 to February 24, 2004. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 14. Public Hearing: VAC 03-007 Request for a Vacation of three feet of
ACHD right of way on each side of West Pennwood Street for Troutner
Business Park Subdivision No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne — west of South
Meridian Road and south of West Franklin Road:
Item 15. Public Hearing: PP 03-034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for a
re -plat of Troutner Park Subdivision Lots 4-5 and 10-15, Block 2; Lots 1-3
and 5-8, Block 3; Block 4; and Lot 3, Block 5 consisting of 6 commercial
building lots and 1 common lot on 17.26 acres in a C -G zone for Troutner
Business Park No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne — south of West Franklin Road
and west of South Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. I will -- since Item 14 and 15 are on the same application, if Council
does not object, I will open both Public Hearings.
Nary: No objection.
Bird: Go for it.
Rountree: No objection.
De Weerd: Okay. I will open the Public Hearing on VAC 03-007, request for vacation of
three feet of ACHD right of way on each side of West Pennwood Street for Troutner
Business Park Subdivision No. 2. Also Item Number 15, Public Hearing PP 03-034,
request for preliminary plat approval for a replat of Troutner Park Subdivision, Lots 4, 5
and 10 through 15, Block 2; Lots 1 through 3 and 5 through 8, Block 3; Block 4, and
Lots 3, Block 5, consisting of six commercial building lots and one common lot on 17.26
acres in a C -G zone for Troutner Business Park No. 2. 1 will open these Public
Hearings with staff comments.
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. On both of these
items I will go ahead and just touch -- touch on both 14 and 15. The site is -- as you
know, is a part of Troutner Subdivision today, just about half of which is built out.
Franklin Road is a little over 200 feet to the north of the north boundary of this site. 5th
Street is the main access off of Franklin Road. This area that you can see in bold is the
area that they are proposing to resubdivide as a part of the application. Pennwood --
the portion of the vacation that is involved with Item Number 14 on Pennwood involves
this piece here that runs about in the middle. This is 3rd that runs north and south, not
built, but was approved with the Final Plat. What they are proposing to do is to vacate
all of this right of way, essentially, that runs north and south to 3rd, as well as this small
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 18 of 81
stub street that extends to the south. What you see here is future extension of
Corporate. I will just go to the next item here. The Planning and Zoning Commission
did recommend approval. They did not hold a hearing on vacations, but they make a
recommendation to you and, then, on the plat they did recommend approval. This is
showing just kind of an enlarged area of the lots that they are proposing to resubdivide
and, essentially, they are looking -- let's see. Here is the plat here. You can see that
they are adding some new lots on the south side of Pennwood and, then, eliminating all
of the lots on the north s ide o f Pennwood and m aking j ust one large lot. There was
some testimony at the Planning and Zoning Commission about -- from two members of
the public who had concerns about the -- not so much about the proposed subdivision
itself in terms of creating this one lot in the vacation. More about the future
development of the site and what that -- what that has been expressed in the application
to be become, which is an RV park. The key issues that were discussed by the
Commission were primarily this stub street to the south and whether or not 3rd --
whether or not there is any benefit to having 3rd be a public street extension down to this
large acreage that's on the south side of Pennwood. They agreed with the applicant
that it could go away entirely. Staff did recommend approval in our initial staff report,
that we recommended that 3rd be retained, mainly because this is a pretty large area --
and I'll just -- I guess you can see on this aerial photo all of this property on the south
side of Pennwood. I believe, is under common ownership and could develop as a
single piece and having some access for 3`d, if it's here or if it's shifted, you know, I think
is up for opinion and we certainly don't care either way. It does have 5`h Street several
hundred feet to the west that could give access, assuming that Corporate is extended
into this area that, as you may recall, Mr. John Gode had at one point come in with
these parcels here at the end of Corporate. That plat has expired, so it's not going to
happen at least in the foreseeable future. Until that -- Corporate happens and 5th is
extended, we thought that 3rd Street would provide better access, especially since
Pennwood is proposed to be constructed all the way to Meridian Road. The
Schwangfelder Subdivision also, which came through as Commercial Tire, our
understanding is this applicant and the Schwangfelder applicant had been coordinating
in terms of when Pennwood gets constructed, so it would be made available, you know,
at the time that -- if this is approved that this is built. I think those are the key issues on
the vacation. We recommended approval as to the P&Z Commission, obviously, for 3`d
within the lot to be vacated. There would just become a completely private -- private
system of common driveways in there. Let's see. I'll just go back quickly. Yes. The
current proposal -- I guess this slide shows better that the hatched area is the entire are
we are talking about. The boxes point out the right of way that is proposed f or t he
vacation. We did add a condition -- or I should say the P&Z Commission did, that if
Pennwood is not constructed from Meridian Road to the eastern boundary of the plat
that they would -- that the Fire Department is requiring a turn around -- fire rated
approved turnaround that would be here. Maybe we can ask the applicant to give us a
little bit more update on where that extension is at today. So, as the recommendation is
before you tonight, if you recommend approval as written, there would not be a stub
street from Pennwood Street to the south property line. It would create -- these new
commercial lots on the south side create one lot on the north side of Pennwood and
retain a small area that is right in the middle of the lot for Nampa -Meridian Irrigation
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 19 of 81
District pump station, which is existing today and it's shown to be on its own separate lot
for them to have access to. So, unless you have any other questions of staff --
De Weerd: Any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Please
step forward. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Addleman: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address
Addleman: Ryan Addleman with Keller & Associates, 131 Southwest 5th Street,
Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you
Addleman: I'm the representative for the applicant and engineer of record
De Weerd: Okay.
Addleman: I guess I'm available to answer questions. I think Brad pretty much
summarized everything. I think I would like to add one thing, is that at 5`h Street right
now it is extended all the way to the property line, so it's not set up as a stub right, we
have extended it all the way to the boundary of the subdivision. I guess in -- from our
standpoint, we don't see a benefit of 3rd. The developer here to the south has signed a
petition that he doesn't want to see an extension go down there. I guess we feel it could
ruin some benefits of what he's trying to do, with 5th Street right here being a stub that
we have already pushed all the way to the property line and we feel that that would
provide the access. Technically, we have got to go through the process with ACHD. All
we are asking from you at this time is a letter.
De Weerd: Questions from Council?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Councilman Nary.
Nary: J ust s o I u nderstand, t hat 5 th S treet connection t here, t hat's a 11 p art of t he -- I
guess I thought on the other map it looked like that it was a separate parcel. It's not?
It's the same parcel as what's south of 3rd
Addleman: Same parcel as --
Nary: This portion here is part of this piece here.
Addleman: I'm not sure how far the property line extends, but it's pretty close to right up
to 3rd Street there. If Corporate Drive would extend, basically, it's in line with 5th and it's
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 20 of 81
already there. There is a big storm water facility out here right now that ACHD has
constructed. So, there are plans to take that that far.
De Weerd: Would it help to have the other site plat on there?
Hawkins -Clark: This isn't a site plan that we had before, but maybe it better represents
- this is ACHD's drawing of the Corporate Drive extension project, which is slated for
construction this year.
Nary: So, then, this is 5th here?
Addleman: Yes.
Nary: So, this 3rd Street is not even on here, but it's somewhere right here?
Addleman: It would be right there.
Nary: Okay. I see it. I'm. Sorry.
De Weerd: So, they show it connecting on their drawing?
Addleman: We did a subdivision about -- in '96 and that was the original entire piece
where we did have a 3rd Street planned and that's why we are vacating it today, so --
Nary: But -- Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: But the portion that we were looking at, Brad, the stub ended right here --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Nary: -- and I guess the property I was asking that without this extension, the 5th Street
extension is -- it looks like three parcels over. This piece becomes landlocked until this
extension comes through. Or is that wrong?
Hawkins -Clark: That's correct.
Nary: Because the road ends like right here right now.
Hawkins -Clark: Right.
Nary: So, this piece has no access at all without this stub.
Addleman: Actually, yes, the road ends -- there is just an intersection there right now.
There is no extension at all at this point.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 21 of 81
Nary: Do you have something from this property owner saying I don't think want stub
street there?
Addleman: Yes. I have copies if you want to --
Nary: Is that in here because I didn't -- I just didn't see it?
Addleman: I submitted it to P&Z hearing last --
Nary: Then, it's probably here and I just didn't see it.
Addleman: And I have an extra copy, too, if you would like to --
De Weerd: Okay. Are there any further questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Going back into the depths of my memory here, but I can remember this
when it was the original subdivision and one of the -- as I recall, one of the major issues
was to allow for the future of Pennwood to get to Meridian Road to provide access to
the southern portion of this subdivision. Now you're talking about vacating Pennwood.
Addleman: No, we are not vacating Pennwood
Rountree: Well, I understand 3'd Street, but the piece that you had up there before,
Brad, that showed the crosshatched area --
Addleman: We are going to vacate Pennwood three feet on each side of the right of
way, because ACHD has reduced their requirements from originally a 60 -foot right of
way to 96 to a 54.
Rountree: So, Pennwood will still go through the subdivision?
Addleman: Correct and we will try to connect up -- or we plan to connect up to the
Commercial Tire Subdivision, depending on where that is at in the process.
Rountree: Okay. We can still get access through there?
Addleman: That's correct.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: I don't know if this question's for Brad or the applicant, but is 3rd Street
supposed to eventually go clear out to Franklin? Because right now it does not show
that.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 22 of 81
Addleman: I don't know what the ACHD would require on that, but I would doubt -- I
would highly doubt this in the classification of Franklin that 3rd Street would extend all
the way through, because of the separation of the intersections.
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we did look at -- staff did look
at that and, yes, I think given the offsets on Franklin and the distance from where 3rd
connects to Franklin to where 5th currently does and you have this small, narrow parcel
that exists here that would potentially be impacted by some right-of-way take.
Obviously, it wouldn't have as much of an impact on this parcel here, but both we and
the P&Z Commission felt that the -- it really wasn't a critical access into this area, since
you do have both Pennwood and 5t' serving it. Particularly if this becomes a single user
lot and fairly large lot that would develop as a single development and not have multiple
businesses on it.
De Weerd: And, Brad, I guess to further understand why the extension of 3rd is
important, I realize that the -- it will have a lighted intersection there at Corporate and
Meridian. If they have a large user that wants to get out there and wants to turn left,
they probably would want to go out to Corporate, but why does the rationale -- why is
this extension important?
Hawkins -Clark: I think Craig Hood, you know, probably addressed it best in his staff
report, that it -- you know, at this point in time, we -- I guess we just think that it's better
to preserve the option to get the connections in there. It's not like they have to build it
necessarily today, it would be not unlike what 3rd is that they are vacating today,
approved on the final plat. If it really becomes -- you know, the lot on the south side of
3rd, that owner comes in and says that we really don't -- the way that we want to layout
our site, 3rd is going to -- you know, it's not going to work for us. They really want just
the access off of Corporate. I guess I don't want to make it sound like we are -- this is a
do or die situation for staff, we just felt that it was better planning to preserve the option
to get access to that large development piece, since we don't know how it's going to
develop today.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions or discussions for the applicant or for
staff? Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone else in the audience
who would like to testify on this particular item? Council, what is your pleasure?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird,
Bird: I don't hear anybody jumping out wanting to talk, so I move that we close Public
Hearing VAC 03-007 for Troutner Business Park Subdivision No. 2.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 23 of 81
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on VAC
03-007 for Troutner Business Park Subdivision No. 2. All those in favor say aye. Okay.
All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close Public Hearing PP 03-034, for Troutner Business Park No. 2.
Rountree: Second,
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 15. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Discussion? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion on Item 14.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve VAC 03-007, request for vacation of three feet of ACHD
right of way on each side of West Pennwood Street for Troutner Business Park
Subdivision No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne, west of South Meridian Road and South of West
Franklin Road, and incorporate all of staff comments, applicant comments, and for the
attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of
Order.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve VAC 03-007 for Troutner
Business Park Subdivision No. 2 and it looks like we have some discussion by Mr.
Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when you say staff and applicant
comments, are you talking about eliminating the stub street to the south or are we
talking about just the application as recommended by staff, which would continue the
stub street to the south?
Bird: The recommendation of --
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 24 of 81
Bird: The recommendation of the staff report of continuing it down. That was
comments from the staff recommendation.
De Weerd: Does the second agree?
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay.
Nary: I would second Mr. Bird's motion, then
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: At least for the purpose of discussion.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion. Mr. Nary
Nary: Madam Mayor, I guess -- I understand where the staff is coming from. I'm really
torn on this one. I think what Brad says makes a lot of sense, that the access is fairly
limited if we grant that vacation of the sub to the south. I mean there really isn't a whole
lot else we can do with this property. I guess what makes it difficult for me and, like I
said, I seconded it for the purpose of at least discussion, is the property owner to the
south doesn't want that stub street there either. There is a letter in here from Mr.
Schwangfelder that he doesn't want that stub street to the south either and my
assumption is that it limits what his options are with that property with that stub street
there. So, I am a little bit torn, but it does seem to make sense, because without that
stub street at least for the time being until there is more development, there is no
access to that property. Because they won't be able to use Pennwood without the stub if
we vacate this and this isn't built, this isn't built, there is nothing -- there is no way to get
to this property otherwise. So, I mean I guess I'm a little torn and wanted to hear what
everyone else thought.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Schwangfelder owns the property to the east. I didn't see anything where he
owns anything on the south.
Nary: Oh
Bird: The only thing -- and I agree that -- with the applicant, that, you know, that
probably we don't need that stub street. On the same token, we are land locking some
good property and when somebody comes in and develops that, you know, they will
wonder what this Council was doing to -- you know, how many times have we had to
fight because people went and bought landlocked property and expected us to solve the
problem.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 25 of 81
Nary: Too many.
Bird: What?
Nary: Too many.
Bird: Yes. There are a couple developers that make their living doing that. So, that's
the reason I'm for letting it go on -- you know, go on through, and I don't know, as Mr.
Schwangfelder owns that property to the south. So, I don't know who the -- he owns the
east and he's given easement to get Pennwood out and as Mr. Rountree said, that was
always a plan was to get Pennwood to Meridian Road.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. I have reread the letter, Mr. Bird. You're right, I think it is just this piece here
on the east that Mr. Schwangfelder is talking about and we don't have anything from this
property owner to the south, so, you're correct, I reread that and saw it's just that east
portion, so --
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: That was not my understanding from the testimony provided. I thought that
there was an indication that the property to the south we had a letter on. Is that correct?
Bird: We don't have a copy of it, though, do we?
De Weerd: Brad, do you have a copy from the property owner to the south?
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor, we have been looking through our records. We just see
one from Mr. Schwangfelder. I don't know. Does the clerk --
De Weerd: Perhaps the applicant can get that -- a copy to our staff.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I know. The Public Hearing is closed and we don't want to introduce new --
Nichols: But, Madam Mayor, you have the option of reopening the Public Hearing for the
purpose of receiving additional information.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, we have an active motion on the table.
Bird: We can pull it.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 26 of 81
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: If the second agrees.
Nary: I would concur.
Bird: I would concur to pull my application -- or my motion.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been -- the m otion in front o f us h as b een pulled with second
agree. I would need to have a motion to open the Public Hearing for Item 14.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we reopen Public Hearing VAC 03-007 for the
purposes of additional testimony.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to open the Public Hearing on Item 14.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: The applicant has some information to submit for your information. If you
will get that to the City Clerk. If you can just mention what you just handed to the Clerk.
Addleman: I just gave letters from property owners on all boundaries of the subdivision.
Doug Tamura is the owner to the south. Could I add one more thing, I guess, on the 3`d
Street to the south?
De Weerd: Okay.
Addleman: That if we do continue that and if it is left open, you know, are we going to
have to come -- and the applicant to the south -- or the future applicant to the south
doesn't want that. Are we going to have to come back in and replat on that piece of
subdivision and all the process to get rid of it in the future? Even if it's not a designated
location to allow the flow, I mean we still have that issue to deal with, so something to
keep in mind.
De Weerd: Okay. Brad, can you respond to that?
Hawkins -Clark: I believe Mr. Priester, the county surveyor, has been pretty adamant
about, you know, showing future right of way, which we have had some of those in the
past and they get to be a real headache, where we have had plats where it just shows it
as being future, what does that mean, you know, I mean is it there or isn't it there and I
think if it wasn't vacated, I think it wouldn't need to be plated and -- at least to my
understanding I think it would have to be -- there would need to be a resubdivision.
De Weerd: Did that answer your question?
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 27 of 81
Addleman: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: For the record, would you, with your pointer, point out the properties that
these letters apply to?
Addleman: Tamura, from my knowledge, owns basically to the south. I don't know what
his extension is as far south, but Tamura owns to the south. And Schwangfelder owns
over here to the east. And, then, we have got one in there from Rackham -- is that the
correct pronunciation? Rackham to the north. And there is also a letter in there from
Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District that owns this small parcel that was discussed in the
middle of the big lot. I think that's everything.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions for the applicant?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Is Mr. Tamura representing himself or representing a group of owners? Do you
know?
Addleman: I believe he's representing himself, but --
Bird: He owns the property himself?
Addleman: Yes, sir.
De Weerd: Do you have any further questions or comments?
Addleman: No, other than it's a very lengthy process to go through the vacation and I'd
like to get it all accomplished at once here.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if there are no further questions, I'd move that we close Public
Hearing for VAC 03-007.
Nary: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 28 of 81
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on VAC
03-007. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion on Item 14.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I still am going to make the -- basically, the same motion, because I just don't feel
that -- I, for one, want to land lock that many acres out there. This was a form letter, I
believe -- now this is my belief -- that was sent out, because it's all perfectly in the same
form a nd s ame typing, s o, a nyway, I would m ove t hat we a pprove VAC 0 3-007, t he
request for a vacation of three feet of ACHD right of way on each side of West
Pennwood Street for Troutner Business Park Subdivision No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne,
west of South Meridian Road and south of West Franklin Road and include South 3rd
Street through to proposed Corporate Drive.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Nary: I'll second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve VAC 03-007. Is there any
discussion?
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Just for clarification, you're just simply talking about the portion of 3rd Street,
which is south of Pennwood; is that correct?
Bird: Yes. That's correct.
De Weerd: So, the motion approves the vacation of Pennwood, but not the deletion of
3rd
Nichols: Madam Mayor, I believe the motion is to approve the reduction in the width of
the right of way and vacate the three feet on either side of the existing on Pennwood
and to vacate that portion of 3rd Street, which is north of Pennwood and the
development.
Nary: That's what I thought.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 29 of 81
Bird: And that's what my motion was.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: That's what I thought and the second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Given the testimony received, though circulation is probably an issue, I don't
see that 3rd Street adds much to the circulation in that particular area. If, in fact, that
property is landlocked, there is impetus there to develop the property to extend 5th on/or
Corporate, both of which would be beneficial to circulation, so I see without additional
access potential on 3rd Street that we could probably get that accomplished sooner than
we would otherwise. So, I don't see a need for that stub of 3rd.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just so I'm hearing this correctly, the motion we have on the table is to reduce
Pennwood Street, which I understand because of ACHD's requirements, but also to
vacate 3rd Street to the north, to vacate all of this portion here. However, to leave the
stub street to the south.
Bird: Correct
Wardle: Okay. I would have to say from my point of view I agree with Mr. Rountree in
the sense that if we are vacating 3rd Street to the north. It would certainly make sense
to vacate 3rd Street to the south, especially since the property owner has acknowledged
that they would like to see or would -- excuse me -- would not like to see a stub street.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any furthered discussion? I will ask the city clerk to, please, call
roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, naye; Wardle, naye; Nary, aye
MOTION TIED: TIEBREAKER VOTE
Berg: And Madam Mayor.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 30 of 81
De Weerd: Thank you. I will vote aye. I believe that the connection allows some options
that I would not like to see closed at this point.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO NAYES
De Weerd: Okay, Item Number 15
entertain a motion.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
The Public Hearing has been closed. I would
Nary: I guess just so that we don't have to open the Public Hearing again, but I just want
to ask staff real briefly that based on the action we just took on Item 14, can we take
action on this, since part of this includes the vacation of the southern connection?
Hawkins -Clark: My understanding is, yes, you're recommending approval of the
vacation that has not been completed, since the Ada County Highway District has not
approved it yet. But the -- well, that's a good point. I mean the plat -- Number 15 does
not show the stub there.
Nary: If I could just ask one more while you're at least thinking, Brad, is -- I mean would
it make more sense -- and we may need to reopen this for the applicant's input, but
would we need to set this over to see what the Highway District does, then, because
they can still vacate it, even with our recommendation, they could vacate that southern
connection and, then, their plat would make -- would fit, but if they don't and they concur
with what we just did, then, they will have to do it different -- have to do it over. So, we
should set this over beyond whenever the highway district is going to hear it, 30 days or
something like that. Mr. McKinnon agrees with me, so I have got one in the crowd so
far, but would that make the most sense?
Hawkins -Clark: I believe it would, actually. I mean think you have got -- if you approve
this Item Number 15, it does not include 3rd Street and so some of the lots that they are
showing on the south side of Pennwood, one of them is going to change, if not two of
them, in terms of width. I mean it's not going to have a big impact on them other the 50
feet, one of those lots is going to be taken up with right of way. I think that it probably is
possible and maybe Mr. Nichols could comment, just is it -- it's a condition of this
preliminary plat that 3`d -- that a stub on 3`d be shown to the south and that when the
final p lat comes through, as long a s that's shown, we could probably f ind it to be i n
conformance, I think, because it's a condition of the preliminary plat that it be there,
even though it's not depicted graphically on their preliminary plat.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't think that the addition of the
stub street would be a substantial change, particularly where it would be contemplated
in the findings if it were approved. So, you could do it that way. You could also possibly
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 31 of 81
approve the -- approve the plat without the stub street, if that's the way ACHD
eventually ends up dealing with it or approve it and require that the stub street be
shown, if ACHD changes and goes along with your recommendation. The other issue,
to complicate it further, is with no longer a street to the north, a stub street could be
moved along Pennwood and that may create a substantial change, however, depending
upon distances and some other things, but --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nichols: So, I guess we kind of opened a can of worms is what it boils down to.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nichols, I guess if ACHD were to not agree with the Council
motion, what -- I hate to create something that we are in conflict with. So, it might make
sense to continue this until ACHD action, so you at least know if it does, indeed,
change.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess for me I think that's probably the best option at this juncture, because I
think at least our recent history we have tried to make sure that what we pass is what
the staff gets to review later and there may not be a substantial change here or, as Mr.
Nichols pointed out, there may be a significant change, and so rather than put us in a
pickle later where we have conflicting decisions and we put our staff in a bind as to what
our intentions are or what we would approve, I think it would be wiser to simply continue
this Item 15 for I would say approximately 30 days would be adequate. I think usually
ACHD is pretty quick on making these, but the applicant is shaking his head no. I don't
know if he was shaking his no at continuing it or shaking his head no as to 30 days. But
I think we -- I think we need to have some idea of exactly what we are approving and I
think Mr. Nichols is wise to say that stub street could move significantly to satisfy ACHD.
If they do want to comply with our recommendation, they could move that stub street to
the east or to the west all along Pennwood to put it on a lot line, instead of in the middle
of the property. So, we may have a lot to change, so we may want to set this over, I just
don't know how far.
Bird: Is that a motion?
Nary: No, because I don't know how far. I don't know if someone could tell me whether
or not 30 days is adequate and give us some opportunity revisit it within 30 days. I hate
to set it out too far, because I don't know that we are doing the applicant any favors any
further by setting it out even longer without knowing.
Hawkins -Clark: The vacation process is a lengthy process. I think 30 days is looking at
the glass half full for s ure. Then, again, I mean I think, obviously, the applicant has
testified tonight they want to be able to move this thing forward through the agencies.
They have your recommendation on the vacation, you know, I think they wouldn't
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 32 of 81
necessarily -- my guess is that they wouldn't make a -- they wouldn't proceed on the plat
anyway until they know for sure what the highway district is going to do with the
vacation, so not knowing for sure if this is -- you know, where they have gotten the
relinquishments a nd o ther r ights t hat h ave t o h appen w ith v acations, I t hink 3 0 d ays
might just be preferable to the applicant and not knowing what ACHD's time frame is I --
I think that that's a good move.
De Weerd: Well, it's pretty safe that you can continue it for a month and extend it at that
time when you have a better idea.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just a procedural question. Can we hear from the applicant without opening the
Public Hearing? Excuse me. Reopening.
De Weerd: Just on a date? Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if it's just simply to get some potential
input as to when they might be in front of ACHD, I don't think that's testimony that
pertains directly to the information in the preliminary plat and, therefore, would be
acceptable.
De Weerd: Okay. Could the applicant's representative, please, step forward?
Addleman: State my name again?
De Weerd: Yes. If you would state your name and --
Addleman: Yes. Brian Addleman, Keller & Associates. The vacation process at ACHD is
about eight weeks, is kind of what they have said is an average time frame. However,
that's from the point that they receive your letter from the City Council. So, at this time
we are probably looking 10, 12 weeks at least, so that's three months. And, then, there
is time to, you know, prepare the final plat and get the preliminary approved and so I
mean I think you're talking about whole gobs of time here.
De Weerd: Which is a process you would need to go through regardless.
Addleman: Yes, but --
De Weerd: Because your vacation -- or your --
Addleman: Yes, but if we could track them parallel, that's what our goal is to do here.
Because ACHD has basically said they concur with the recommendation, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 33 of 81
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have a question for counsel. In terms of substantial change or the definition
of that, it seems to me the issue here as Council's has indicated they want to have
access to that property to the south. That could be provided anywhere within that
particular replat, whether it's 3`d or 2nd and a half or 3`d and a half or whatever you want
to call it. It's still a stub street off of Pennwood. To me, the intent of the motion was to
provide a stub a ccess to the southern p roperty. I d on't k now that it -- a t I east i n m y
particular case it doesn't -- I didn't see the need for it, but if we do have a need for it, I --
it doesn't matter to me where they put it in their subdivision, that if we move forward with
this subdivision with two caveats, one, that if ACHD decides that there is no need for
that stub street and they go ahead and do vacate, even though our recommendation is
otherwise, they could still advance work on moving towards getting from the preliminary
plat to the final plat waiting on that. I don't believe they could bring the plat back to us
until that's resolved, but they could continue work. The other caveat would be based on
the decision of ACHD where that stub street would be or how that stub -- whether or not
there would be a stub street, the applicant, knowing that, they can identify where that
access to the south would best accommodate -- be accommodated in their plan. I see
no reason why we would require a stub street on 3d. We have no 3`d Street, if we are
going to vacate the majority of it. So, it could be on either side, as long as it provided
access to the southern properties. I don't know if you can get that cloudy in a motion or
not.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, can you get that cloudy?
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was looking for the question
Rountree: The question is is any of that substantial?
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's one of the questions that staff
struggles with all the time is whether a change is substantial or not. How many
additional lots a developer slips into the final plat is a substantial change or how many
feet eliminated from a common space is a substantial change and it's one of those
things that's kind of -- kind of the Potter Stewart standard, you know it when you see it
sort of thing. So, that's why I hedge and gave you a lawyer -like answer that the stub
street moved may be a substantial change. Or not.
Rountree: Or not.
De Weerd: Could you build that flexibility into the motion?
Bird: I'm sure they could.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we try.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 34 of 81
De Weerd: Okay
Nichols: And if you were to approve the preliminary plat requiring that it show a stub
street from Pennwood to the property to the south as currently shown has stub a street
in the form of 3rd, the findings would so reflect. Then, staff would look at it when it came
through to tell you whether it was in substantial compliance in their opinion. And the
applicant would have the opportunity to respond.
De Weerd: Council, you have some choices. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I would prefer -- I kind of agree with Councilman Rountree that I
think there is a way we can go forward with this, so that they can be working together,
so that they are not out 12 weeks and, then, have to come back for preliminary plat
approval again. I think there is ways the finding can be worded. That could -- that stub
street moving this way or that -- east or west isn't going to -- you know, I don't think is
going to be a major effect. You're still getting basically the same amount of lots and stuff
in there, so I think it can be done myself. That's my personal opinion.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would certainly also like to see the preliminary plat move forward. I believe if
we worded a motion, which were to address two findings, which would be set on
ACHD's decision, one, if ACHD were to vacate, then, the plat would stand as is. Or
what I'm hearing from this Council is that we prefer a southern stub street to the
property along Pennwood and if we -- I'm not sure if we can require ACHD to approve
that stub street or its location or a recommendation from that within the plat. I guess that
was a procedural question, Council, if we could ask for ACHD's recommendation as part
of our findings.
De Weerd: How many different ways can we ask this question? Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't think you need to go that far. I
think you just simply want to indicate that the plat would need to have a stub street from
Pennwood to the property to the south if ACHD does -- you know, goes along with the
city's recommendation. Or, in the alternative, as you said, the plat as shown would be
approved if ACHD agrees with the applicant and vacates 3rd Street south of Pennwood.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 35 of 81
Nary: I think that the answer to this is how many lawyers does it take to screw in a light
bulb.
Rountree: Are you going to make a motion?
Nary: And I will make a motion. I would move that we approve preliminary plat 03-034,
the request for preliminary plat approval for the replat of Troutner Park Subdivision, Lots
4 and 5 and 10 through 15, Block 2; Lots 1 through 3 and 5 through 8 of Block 3, Block
4, and Lot 3, Block 5, consisting of six commercial building lots, one common lot on
70.26 acres in a C -G zone for Troutner Business Park No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne, south
of west Franklin Road, west of South Meridian Road, to include staff comments, with the
conditions that applicant may comply with the preliminary plat as submitted if ACHD
concurs with the applicant and vacates the stub street to the south of Pennwood to
connect to the southern boundary property or if ACHD complies -- or ACHD concurs
with this Council's decision for a stub street to the south, that stub street to the south of
Pennwood can be located anywhere along Pennwood connecting to the southern
boundary, pursuant to whatever ACHD staff conditions are available and for Mr. Nichols
to make sense of that, draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and
Order.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: Second,
De Weerd: Would you repeat that?
Nary: I'm sure Mr. Willis could if you'd like.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the PP 03-034, with the
conditions as stated by Councilman Nary. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. Public Hearing: AZ 03-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.8
acres from R-6 to L -O and C -G zones for proposed Southern Springs
Subdivision No. 2 by The Land Group, Inc. — south of East Overland
Road and east of South Meridian Road:
Item 17. Public Hearing: PP 03-036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5
commercial building lots on 2.8 acres in proposed L -O and C -G zones for
proposed Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by The Land Group, Inc.
— south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 16 and 17 are regarding the same application. If
Council doesn't object, I will open both Item 16 and 17, public hearings for AZ 03-030,
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 36 of 81
request for annexation and zoning of 2.8 acres from R-6 to L -O and C -G zones for the
proposed Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2, and PP 03-036, request for preliminary
plat approval of five commercial building lots on 2.8 acres in proposed L -O and C -G
zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2. 1 open with staff comments.
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. As you may recall,
Southern Springs No. 1 was approved a few month ago, this triangular shaped piece on
the southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road. The same developer that
brought that plat through, which was 11 commercial lots, is also bringing this 2.8 -acre
parcel through. So, it is foreseen to develop as a single project. The annexation and
zoning request is for split zoning on the parcel. The Comprehensive Plan actually
designates this parcel as medium density residential and we did that during the
Comprehensive Plan process primarily because it did have existing residential on it and
it had Country Terrace Subdivision and Running Brook Estates Subdivision on both
sides and we had not received any request for it to go commercial at that point. That
being said, we have reviewed these medium density residential or high density
residential areas in the Comp Plan as being, essentially, a guide and we have -- staff
has determined that there are other text policies that do support a nonresidential use on
this acreage, mainly because you have commercial on the north and east and you have
the same developer who is proposing to develop both and they are proposing a
transitional u se w ith o ffices a round t he e dge. S o, I t hink those t hree reasons w e felt
supported a C -G and L -O zoning, even though it says medium density residential on the
future use map. So, we -- the P&Z Commission agreed and they also recommended
approval. On the plat -- this -- before I go into that one, this last slide on No. 16 does
show the split zoning, essentially, L-0 around the edge where there is existing
residential and, then, C -G in their northwest corner. This slide shows their preliminary --
propose preliminary plat. One point of access off of Overland Road. They are
proposing a private street that would include a bridge crossing over the Ten Mile Creek
that would end up connecting here into Southern Springs No. 1. The private street
would have curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides. The frontages -- minimum
frontages are met on all the lots. We have recommended that there be a left turn bay
built to ACHD standards or to the Institute of Transportation Engineers standards on this
private street, since that would not have Ada County Highway District conditions on it,
but that left turning bay to provide the left onto Overland Road. The fire department has
also asked that if -- if this phase develops before the access is provided here to State
Highway 69, that there be an adequate turnaround, obviously, on the east side of Ten
Mile Creek. This slide shows both Southern Springs No. 1 and the proposed Southern
Springs No. 2 together. One comment that we did get from the Ada County Highway
District, they had a concern initially about the alignment of this private street having a
direct shot through to Meridian Road, Highway 69, for obvious reasons, the cut through
potential. However -- and the applicant representative Mr. Koga can probably update
the Council on where they are at with ITD on access points onto Highway 69, but from
what staff was told it, appears that it's highly unlikely that you would see Southern
Springs 1 develop with a direct access out onto Highway 69. So, it would be pretty
circuitous to get out to Highway 69 from Southern Springs No. 2. So, we have
supported the location that they have shown. There was a little bit of discussion about a
development agreement and whether or not that was necessary, since they don't have
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 37 of 81
any uses or development plans right now and neither the staff, nor the Commission, felt
that it was necessary, since these C -G lots, really, are not large enough to develop with
any uses that would be offensive. They are small and it's anticipated that they would
probably be uses that would be very compatible with the area. So, we didn't feel a
development agreement would really provide much benefit. And I think that's all staff at
this point has to present.
De W eerd: Thank you, Brad. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Is the
testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Koga: I do.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Koga: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is David Koga with the Land Group
at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle, Idaho, representing for Roger Mitzger and Lawrence
Ross for this project. Brad summarized the report very well and we agree with all the
staff reports and their site specifics. There were three issues that we discussed with
P&Z Commissioners that Brad also discussed in regard to the private street, the
question if there is any need for a development agreement in the Comprehensive Plan. I
thought Brad did a good job explaining that, so if you have any questions specifically on
those issues, first of all, I'm more than open to summarize or explain a little bit more on
those three issues. Any questions on that?
De Weerd: Council?
Koga: Brad mentioned about ITD and there was -- the discussion with ACHD, like Brad
said, i s whether -- if this d evelopment h ere would come straight into M eridian Road.
When we went through the process with the first phase here, the warranty deed for the
owners has two accesses already approved -- excuse me. One is right here, the other
one is right here -- already previously approved with ITD and so with ACHD we
definitely would not be providing any direct access through the development, but the
access would have to go around and through this access right here, which ACHD felt
comfortable with that. Secondly, the other question about ITD has to do with -- just for
the record, the developers are still going through the process for approval with the two
accesses with ACHD. Even though it is on the warranty deed, they do have questions if
the -- if those two accesses should be approved or not. I guess in closing I just want to
also mention that through the process prior to P&Z that we did have a neighborhood
meeting and also met with -- there are seven neighbors around the perimeter to the east
and the south of the site. We personally met five of the seven neighbors, either on the
phone or on site or through letter. Two of the members we were not able to get a hold of
and all five of the seven have support of this project. So, any questions?
De Weerd: Questions for the applicant?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 38 of 81
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just a couple of questions, Mr. Koga. This particular lot seems awfully small for a
commercial lot and not an L -O lot. So, I guess I'm curious as to -- I mean how much can
you really develop it besides a C Store? That's about it, it seems like, on that lot.
Koga: Think the developer --
Bird: Put a Carl's Junior on there.
Nary: I don't think Carl's Junior is going to fit there either, but --
Koga: This area right here, to answer your question, is the C -G -- the total area is a little
more than an acre and it is a small area, because you are limited with the setback along
the road, plus, also, there is a 50 foot easement from Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District,
so there is a half an acre combined on those two lots for a buildable area. The bottom
line is the developers would like to provide the right to have a little bit more flexibility for
development. They anticipate there is possibility for maybe a small sit-down restaurant,
veterinarian, or something like that.
Nary: Yeah. I guess with this large commercial development it seems like an odd place
to really do much commercial, but on this, though, you wanted this to be a private
roadway, which normally is narrower than the public -- than a public roadway, so is it
adequate for fire access through this? I mean have you gotten approval from the
irrigation district to build a bridge over this ditch wide enough for a fire truck?
Koga: The report on -- with the staff did have a -- well, through the preliminary approval
-- through the preliminary plat from the fire department and you are correct, typically that
road would be a 50 foot right of way, on this one would be -- with the city would be a 42
foot right of way with a 28 foot road curb to curb. I think the key thing, though, is we are
required that there is no on -street parking on that also, so -- because of that, the fire
department must be adequate for that.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any more questions from Council?
Nary: Just one more question, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. On this other side, then, Mr. Koga -- I mean this seems to just sort of spill
out into the parking lot; is that --
Koga: Correct.
Meridian City Council
January20, 2004
Page 39 of 81
Nary: -- sort of where the landing is is just kind of right in the middle of the parking lot
like that?
Koga: Yes, sir.
Nary: Wasn't there some path on this side, too?
Koga: Yes, sir.
Nary: Okay. So, the path will cross under this bridge?
Koga: No. What we would do is the -- there is going to have to be a crossing on the
pathway -- it would come right through here to continue the pathway system, but there
is room for that and we would definitely take care of -- we will continue that pathway.
Definitely.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
Koga: You bet.
De Weerd: Thanks. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to testify on this
application? Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Items 16 and 17.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close Public Hearing AZ 03-030, request for annexation and zoning on
southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by the Land Group.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 16.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 40 of 81
Bird: I move that we close Public Hearing PP 03-036, preliminary plat approval of five
commercial building lots on 2.8 acres for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by the
Land Group.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 17.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion on this item, Item 16.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve AZ 03-030, request for annexation and zoning of 2.8 acres
from R-6 to L-0 and C -G zones for the proposed Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by
the Land Group, south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road,
incorporate staff and applicant comments and for the attorney to draw up Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 03-030. Mr. Clerk, will you call
roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 17. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve PP 03-036, request for preliminary plat
approval of five commercial building lots on 2.8 acres in proposed L-0 and C -G zones
for proposed Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by the Land Group, Incorporated,
south of east Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road, to incorporate all staff
and applicant comments, for the attorney to up proper Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 03-036. Mr. Clerk, will you call
roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 41 of 81
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 18. Public Hearing: CUP 03-050 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
new bank facility with drive up tellers in an OT zone for Farmers and
Merchants State Bank by CSHQA — 703 North Main Street:
Item 19. Public Hearing: VAR 03-021 Request for a Variance for parking of 46
stalls with 13 diagonal on -street parking stalls in an OT zone for Farmers
and Merchants State Bank by CSHQA — 703 North Main Street:
De Weerd: Okay, I will go ahead and open Items 18 and 19, Public Hearing CUP 03-
050, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new bank facility with drive -up tellers in
an OT zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank and Public Hearing VAR 03-021,
request for a variance for parking of 46 stalls with 13 diagonal on -street parking stalls in
an OT zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank. I'll open with staff comments.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Before staff comments, I have to declare conflict of interest for our
consideration.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: And step down.
Bird: Would you state your --
De Weerd: Would you like to state your conflict?
Rountree: My conflict is significant connection with Farmers and Merchants through a
relative.
Bird: I agree.
Nary: I would concur.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rountree. Mr. Nichols, can he remain in the room or
does he need remove himself?
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, tradition has been that he -- that
anyone who declares a conflict leaves the room altogether, but whether or not that's --
you can't participate in deliberation or decision and if he -- I really see no harm if he
wants to sit and watch, but that's his choice.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 42 of 81
De Weerd: Okay. Well, he's left the room. Only if he sat there and made faces at us
would it make a difference. And that's happened before. Staff, would you like to present
this application?
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you. Just for clarification, did you also open Item No. 19?
De Weerd: Yes, I did.
Hawkins -Clark: I'm sorry, I missed that. Okay. So, comments on both Item 18 and 19.
There are several existing parcels that are immediately south of where we are sitting
here tonight. Part of the traditional -- I mean historical township plat for Meridian. The
property does extend from Main Street all the way across Broadway Avenue to Meridian
Road. There is alleyway that is platted, ACHD, and then, of course, City Hall here to the
north. Creamery site on the other side of Broadway Avenue. Item No. 18 is a variance
request. I'm sorry. Nineteen is the variance request that deals with the parking. This is
Meridian Code 11-13-5-B that is the schedule of parking spaces ordinance. The original
application that came through showed a 7,344 square foot building, which would have --
the site would have accommodated all of the parking off street, but as noted in Steve
Siddoway's staff report, that was transmitted January 15th, he gives some of the history
there. There was discussions with the city, MDC, with Mr. Tom Hudson, who is involved
with the contract right now and that building was changed, increased in size to about
16,000 square feet, which meant, obviously, they had more parking and all of that
parking cannot be met on site. The number does include 13 diagonal parking stalls that
are here on the north side of Broadway Avenue that would be would be on street and
even with that they remain 27 stalls short of code. However, since the building is far
more compatible with the historic goals and revitalization plan, et cetera, the staff and
Planning and Zone Commission were supportive of it. So, I think that addresses most of
the issues related to the variance. The Conditional Use Permit site plan is what's shown
on the screen and I should say this is one of the two options that they are looking to
have. This option shows the existing Farmers and Merchants Bank building being
removed and in its place a plaza that would include a flag pole, some benches, they
would also have some parking here to the west of that plaza. There would be two
access points in either scenario. Obviously, the other scenario the building, which is
shown kind of here in shade, would remain, and a few parking spaces would be
removed. Other than that, the rest of the site remains largely as shown. They do have
drive-thru lanes here on the west side of their mind building. From north to south main
access would off Meridian Road. Three through lanes that would, then, exit onto
Broadway Avenue. I think one point of discussion to point out that happened at the P&Z
Commission was the street trees and how those street trees are going to be improved
as far as the base, whether that be pavers or stamped concrete, something like that.
The way that the conditions are worded right now, ACHD actually does not have a
specific condition in their staff report, but their policy is to not allow the pavers, but the
pavers are the preference of the city P&Z Commission. The parks department has listed
numerous comments as far as how they want to see those street trees designed, how
the well would be built, how the grate would be, et cetera. I don't think there are really
any issues with that. The main question is -- relates to the pavers versus the stamped
concrete and the maintenance of those. So, I think that would need some discussion by
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 43 of 81
Council tonight. I think the last point is the Sanitary Service Company did raise a
concern about accessing the waste enclosure from the wrong way on the one-way alley
and if the applicant could just address how they propose to deal with that comment from
Sanitary Service that would be helpful. I think that's all staff has at this point.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant's representative
here? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Slocum: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Slocum: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, for the record, Craig Slocum with
CSHQA Architects, 250 South 5t", Boise, here representing Farmers and Merchants this
evening. Thank, Brad, for staffs, I guess, brief report on what's been a very lengthy
process, but I think we have, through the process, come to you with a very great project
that will really serve as the catalyst for downtown and the redevelopment of downtown.
The two items that we left Planning Commission with that did need some resolution, the
Sanitary Sewer Company, we actually met with this morning. Their only issue is the
rotation of the trash enclosure as it's shown on the plan that you're seeing now is
oriented towards the alley. The alley is one way, which would require them to back up
the alley to get to that. All we are going to do is rotate that 90 degrees so it faces
southwest instead of northwest and that issue has been taken care of. The other item
that Brad mentioned is the issue of pavers versus stamped concrete. There was a joint
meeting between ACHD and Meridian city held last Thursday, that issue was brought up
to them and I think Madam Mayor can speak to that or any of you as I think all of you
were in attendance. The applicant has been -- or the owner has been the gracious
enough that they are willing to do, really, whatever the city and ACHID can come to
agreement on. I guess the only other item I might pass on, just to -- somewhat personal,
but I know all probably near and dear to your heart, certainly, Steve Siddoway from
planning staff has been very involved with our process and working with us and we just
hope that everyone keeps him and his family in their prayers as they are going through
some difficult times on a personal note. Other than that, I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Slocum, if we use pavers or we use stamped concrete, who is going to be
responsible for maintenance of it? Is the bank going to take care of the maintenance?
Slocum: T hey at this p oint h ave not offered to do that. I u nderstand the city's parks
department has offered to take on the maintenance of those items. The design of not
only the pavers, but of the street trees, the vaults within those street trees, our
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 44 of 81
landscape architect is working closely with your parks department in that this project will
more than likely be the catalyst from the standpoint of adopting those standards to be
used throughout the downtown a nd a large portion of M eridian. I believe the current
pavers are under -- that are on Main Street are being maintained by them and I -- that
was our assumption that that would continue on this project as well.
Bird: And that's why I'm questioning the question, because our current pavers, as you
well know, are not in the best of shape and it's not just randomly, it's at every tree. I, for
one, would like to look in -- and I got the feeling that ACHD would prefer the stamped
concrete also and I think for maintenance wise it would be better, but that's something
we can work out. I want to compliment you on your project. Thank you. And thank the
bank for helping out Meridian. Appreciate it.
Slocum: Thank you.
De Weerd: I was waiting for elevation.
Slocum: They have been submitted.
De Weerd: Thank you
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary
Nary: Could we go back to the last slide, Brad? The parking area, I guess, doesn't -- it
doesn't alarm me as much, I mean we get a lot of folks that were concerned with the
growth of business, but not adequate parking to meet the needs the business is
providing and I think although there is certainly that argument to be made here, I there
is adequate parking. I think there is adequate parking here, there is this parking lot
across the street that's available, there is street parking -- I mean I think there is -- I
think that some of that's probably going to get addressed, but I am a little tiny bit
concerned -- I mean if I read this right, this is the alley; correct? So, City Hall is
approximately here?
Slocum: That is correct. The line that runs east to west is the back wall of City Hall.
Nary: Right here. Okay. And this is the current little -- this is where the door is?
Slocum: Correct.
Nary: Okay. What is this right here? Is this a walkway?
Slocum: It is. As we dealt with staff and discussed some of those items, as you know
and mentioned, there is a city -owned lot across Broadway. We know today that that lot
is used by many city employees, many employees just in general downtown, and we
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 45 of 81
certainly wanted to provide them safe access across this property, so that they wouldn't
just be walking through parking stalls, so --
Nary: I guess what concerns me is a couple of the -- the parking. This appears to be
straight in parking, but the, essentially, exit is right into the alleyway, if I'm reading this
correctly. It seems kind of narrow in getting cars in and out with, you know, cars and
garbage trucks a nd the I ike using this alley now as a road. And the other thing, M r.
Slocum, if you could address, is this is a drive-thru? These are drive-thru bays?
Slocum: That's correct.
Nary: Okay. So, I guess I'm not sure how this is going to prevent people from coming
from Idaho Street, cutting through the city parking lot, to get through into here, because
there doesn't appear to be -- it seems to be pretty tight and I think the city parking lot is
about right there, if I'm not mistaken taken, or unless it's on this side, but it seems like
there is almost a natural cross through there and there doesn't appear to be any way to
-- there isn't anything on the plan that shows there is going to be a barrier or something
like that.
Slocum: And two items. I will address the alley item first. Our original plan that we
brought into a pre -application meeting with staff had more on -- had additional on east -
to -west circulation on site, but it flanked the alley, separated by a four foot landscape
strip. Staff brought up what I -- what we felt was a very appropriate comment why not
use the alley as your drive aisle. It will allow you to provide better on site and so we
went and met with ACHD, because our -- my initial response was I don't think ACHD
would like that. We went and met with ACHD on just a tech review basis and they,
actually, fully supported it. What we have done, as you described the 90 degree parking
here, ACHD has required 22 feet of right of way, this -- and the city's requirements for
90 degree parking and a drive aisle behind that is 25, so we -- while we are providing
ACHD 22 feet of right of way, we are providing an additional three feet of land and that's
the distance between that line and the end of those parking stalls, so that the drive aisle
width is actually 25 feet. So, it's the same width here as it is anywhere else on site. So,
the backing distance is the same throughout the entire site, whether it's the alley or any
other drive aisle. In regards to the drive-thru lanes, access would be off of Meridian onto
the alley and through here. The stacking is approximately five cars a lane, 15 cars, don't
feel at all bothered that there is going to be any stacking out into the alley, as did --
ACHD didn't have an issue with that either. The access from the City Hall parking lot is
right here and we certainly maintain the access at this point. I'm not sure why that, I
guess would be a problem. I'm not sure people are going to come through the city
parking lot to get to the drive-thru, would when they could simply access it off of
Broadway or off of Meridian.
De Weerd: They can't access it off of Meridian, can they? That's a one-way alley.
Slocum: Good question. Let me clarify. It will be -- what ACHD is requiring is that it's a
one-way alley from this point to Main Street. From Meridian Road to the drive-thru they
are allowing people to access it, the drive-thru.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 46 of 81
De Weerd: And do you have signage there that --
Slocum: Certainly we would have signage at the end of that that says, you know, one
way, do not enter.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Slocum: Typical alley sign.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Then, in other words, you're either going to come down the alley going west and
you're either going to go through our parking lot at Idaho Street or you're going to go
through the drive-thru. I can't believe that -- and there is no way you can two way traffic
that alley, if they are not taking some of the property off of there --
Slocum: You're going to come out of your parking lot go out to Meridian Road.
Bird: No, we can't. But what we are going to do is when they come down going west,
they are going to have to exit through our parking lot. You're one way. You're going
west.
Slocum: It's one way this way. It's one way heading west.
Bird: West. And you got to either come through the drive-thru or you got to go through
our parking lot.
Slocum: Or go out to Meridian.
De Weerd: You go straight out.
Bird: I thought you said that was -- that road is not wide enough to have two cars on it,
unless you're taking some of your property and making a road.
Slocum: We are. We are.
Bird: Okay. That's what I thought, but --
Slocum: I believe the plan shows it as 30 feet in width that approach.
Bird: You're taking 30 feet to add to our alley.
Slocum: Correct.
Bird: So, that we can pass cars. Okay.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 47 of 81
Slocum: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I'm still bothered, Mr. Slocum, because I think what Councilman Bird,
though, is saying is you're still going to have people that come through this alley and are
going to end up exiting through our parking lot here, because they are either -- the traffic
here is going to have cars coming in or cars making lefts to get in here. I mean I guess
there is nothing that prevents any cross -- crossing into the city parking lot and, then, it
ends up becoming almost a through street, because this drive-thru is here. That kind of
concerns me and I guess I'm not totally convinced on this 90 -degree parking. It appears
to me very dangerous, even with one-way parking, unless this is bank parking only, I
mean for the -- is this the front door?
Slocum: There are two doors. There is a door here and a door off the street.
Nary: Okay. So --
Slocum: More than likely it will be bank parking.
Nary: I was going to say, unless they are bank employees, then, they are not likely to
move much during the day in getting in and out of the alley, but I just can't see with
traffic coming in this way to get into here, traffic coming this way to get into here and
traffic cutting through, it seems like a lot of traffic movements in this one location. I
mean the only thing you're missing is a Carl's drive-thru right here. I mean it seems very
dangerous to me.
Slocum: Which is no different than this access point or this access point or this access.
They are all -- it won't be acting as an alley anymore, it's acting just as a drive aisle, as
any over drive aisle within the site. It's 25 feet wide, which is more than adequate to --
we could have -- in the normal circumstance you would have 90 degree parking on the
other side. Just like you have right here.
De Weerd: I think you have diagonal parking right now going -- and backing into the
alleyway, anyway, to get out of the --
81MIT 51
De Weerd: We do. So -- can you make those diagonal? Can you make those diagonal,
Craig?
Slocum: These ones?
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 48 of 81
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Nary: You would lose some
Slocum: It may be -- and we have -- our -- I don't know if staff has a -- just the site plan
that has directional arrows on it. It's a little easier to understand. I don't know if it's in
your packet. It may be a little easier to understand. I mean that -- I would say that the
turning movements in this alley are going to be less than exist in this parking lot. I mean
you have got less left and rights, you have got one way up to this point and, in fact, a
one way drive aisle can be 20 feet, so you have got more than the room that -- that you
would normally have, I guess.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: You know, in theory, Mr. Slocum, I agree with that, that makes sense, but I guess
I have a hard time seeing that that one way drive aisle is going to stay that way, even
with a sign right here. And you have got two way traffic coming right here and you're
going to have traffic that's going to get to here and if there is staking in this lane, they
are going to go here or they are going to go straight and all of a sudden this isn't a one
way alley anymore.
Slocum: And it's 20 --
Nary: And there is no other exit for them, if they come in this way and they don't go into
the drive-thru, the only exit out of this, theoretically, is through our parking lot. There is
no other escape lane and so I guess that's what troubles me is that you have got this
much traffic movement in this one location and you really are going to end up with
people driving eastbound in this alley or through our parking lot.
Slocum: And if they do, that's -- it's 25 feet wide, as is required by any two way drive
aisle with 90 degree parking on it by the city. That's as large as you will see in this city in
any parking lot.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Craig -- and this I know we can't do, but why didn't we bring the drive-thru off of
Broadway in and exiting out there? Is there a reason? Couldn't we get enough staking
room there?
Slocum: Bringing them in --
Bird: Off of Broadway and out. That way you wouldn't have two-way traffic coming in
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 49 of 81
Slocum: Well, the problem is you would stack onto a public street.
Bird: Well, you don't think you're going to be staking out onto Meridian Road?
Slocum: No. I don't think there is --
Bird: Turning left coming in? Don't ever kid yourself
Slocum: The branch manager is here this evening and the executive vice-president Ed
Zimmerman is here and, obviously, Terry knows his bank facility and I don't believe
there is ever 16 cars stacked up waiting for his drive-thru.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I guess I can appreciate your concerns of the cross -through traffic,
but right now we cross through their parking lot all the time.
Bird: We use their parking lot all the time.
De Weerd: So, you know, I -- parking lot people drive with more caution and I don't see
it as an issue.
Nary: Well -- but you're also building a facility that's four times larger than what they
have now, so -- I mean I agree that currently it isn't a problem, but currently the level of
use is significantly less than what this anticipated level of use is, so you're bringing more
people, more traffic, now more pedestrians through the parking lot than currently exists
and you have alleyways as through streets, which is not common here, you have 90
degree parking that empties right into the alley and into the drive aisle, which isn't
common, and, then, you have got a two way access through an eighth of the property,
but no exit out, other than through that, and I agree that maybe there isn't normally 15 or
16 cars stacked in the drive-thru -- that also presupposes that all three drive-thrus are
always open the entire time the bank's open. I have been to many banks and it isn't
always all three drive-thrus that are open that entire time, sometimes it's just one,
depending on the usage, so I mean those are the anticipated things, because they don't
call you when all these people get jammed in there, they call here. And so that's why we
are asking those questions, is because when people come to pay their water bill and
park in the city parking lot and go in and they can't get through, because there is traffic
driving through or going to the bank, that's what they are going to call here about. So,
that's what I'm asking. You're right, it isn't a problem today, but this is anticipated to be a
real showboat facility for this city and for the Farmers and Merchants Bank. This is their
showcase for them and for the city and so we intend to have a lot of people come and
see it and so I guess I'm just concerned at how the traffic pattern is being configured
here and I don't -- I guess I don't know -- and that's all we are kind of stuck with is trying
to guess with now how do we make that work the best that we can make it work and I
just see some issues here. I agree that it would be nice, as Mr. Bird said, to have the
drive aisle -- or the drive-thrus on the Broadway side, but I agree with what you're
saying, the potential is that it may be stacked out in the street there as well, but it avoids
the alley and, you know, we have had issues before with these very narrow drive aisles
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page. 50 of 81
and people trying to get in and out and I guess I'm just not convinced yet that we have
really resolved the problem here.
De Weerd: Mr. Slocum, I guess maybe Mr. Amiss or Mr. Zimmerman can talk about
some of the use, because that 17,000 square feet is not going to be all bank, it will be
some offices and that sort of thing as well. So, maybe they can address that, the usage
of the drive-thru window.
Slocum: I can very quickly and if there is something additional -- the entire ground floor
will be a branch bank facility. It is 6,300 square feet of the 16,000. There is also a -- I
believe 1,200 square foot basement, which will be utilized by the bank as well. On the
second floor there is about 1,300 square feet, I believe, that will be utilized by the bank
currently, w hich I eaves, I b elieve, a bout 7,000 for additional I ease s pace, w hich i s --
there are not any specific users associated with that as of today. So, not two-thirds of it
is by the bank, but close to it.
De Weerd: Is there examples of a larger size bank and what their drive-thru window
usage is? I think one of you can answer that, so are there any further questions for Mr.
Slocum and we will ask --
Slocum: I guess just -- and I know Mr. Nary's -- and I appreciate your concern on the
alley widths. I g uess f rom t he standpoint of m e a s a professional and Farmers and
Merchants from the standpoint this is going to be their showpiece. They don't want to
design something or have us design something or have something built that isn't going
to serve their customers. The alley width is currently 18 it's going to be 25. ACHD has
supported these widths and movements on site. While I understand your concern and
when we share a concern that it not function correctly, I think it will, but I'll leave that
decision to you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Slocum: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Zimmerman: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Zimmerman: My name is Ed Zimmerman.
De Weerd: Please state your address as well. I'm sorry.
Zimmerman: What's our address, Terry? 703 North Main in Meridian. Farmers and
Merchants State Bank. As far as the drive-thru, in answer to your question, Mayor, in
our busiest location -- and our busiest location right now is in Nampa, at one time, we
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 51 of 81
may have six cars stacked at our busiest location, and that's with one window open.
That's a two -window facility. This is going to allow for five cars before it hits the
alleyway on one lane. We will probably rarely ever -- if ever, at least initially, have the
third lane open. We will probably only have one and two lanes open. The history of this
branch here now is we rarely have more than three cars stacked in the drive-thru
facility. It just hasn't been an issue. In terms of the number of employees we are going
to have, as soon as we open this building we are not increasing staff at all. We
presently have everyone cramped in the location here. We are moving our trust
department upstairs, we are giving them, actually, about 1,700 square feet and we are
going to have about 4,700 square feet that we will have available to lease to someone
else and we are thinking possibly a law firm, a title company, a firm that would be a
good mix with our bank business. We are not anticipating many more than seven or
eight additional employees from the folks that we lease that space to. Possibly ten. We,
honestly, think that the parking spaces that we are designing will more than meet the
needs for that building when it's completely full. We don't anticipate a need to increase
our present staff. I think we can continue the growth that we have had without
increasing staff for maybe five, six years.
De Weerd: So, you can stack up to 15 cars at any one time without overflowing into the
alley?
Zimmerman: Exactly.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zimmerman: And the reason that we flowed the traffic through that way is because
when we wait on our customers, they are working out of their driver's side window and
as they come through, we need to wait on them right against the bank building. If they
came in this way, they would have to go over on the passenger side and roll down their
window for us to wait on them. Additionally, right in the front of the building here is a
drive -up ATM, which is safe, they will be able to roll their windows down, access the
ATM for cash, make a deposit, or whatever, without ever getting out of their car. if they
were going in this way, we would have to -- we'd have to do remotes and totally
reconfigure the way this thing works and it would stack right into the street I think after
the third car and this way we have more than five. So, we really did take all of those
things into consideration when we designed the building and we think that for the needs
of our customers and for the needs of the bank, this best facilitates what we are trying to
accomplish. Our original plan with just a single story building and only 6,300 square foot
with a lot more parking, would work even better and we were ready to present that and
build it and, then, we met with the folks for the downtown historical group and they
talked us into redesigning our building and we went with the bigger plan and this is what
we came up with at a considerable cost to the bank, by the way, but we did want to
make a statement for Meridian and be the first to design something that would meet the
standards that we are trying to accomplish for the new historical downtown. Any other
questions?
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions?
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 52 of 81
Bird: I have none. Thank you.
Zimmerman: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Is the testimony you provide
tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Amiss: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address
Amiss: I'm Terry Amiss and my business address is 703 North Main Street, Meridian,
Idaho. I would just like to say that after having spent four years here managing the
Farmers and Merchants office, the -- I believe the congestion and danger, the narrow
alleyway, and the use of our parking lot by the public is probably as extreme as it could
be based on current population growth and usage of the facilities around here and I
think probably the changes we are proposing would facilitate traffic more than hinder it.
De Weerd: Any questions for Mr. Amiss? Thank you.
Amiss: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further testimony?
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor, if I could just clarify before you close the Public Hearing
that as the applicant -- as the application is written, the existing structure would be
removed, but they did ask for the option, obviously, to retain the building and if that was
to be the case, then, obviously, a little bit of change would happen to this site plan, but I
just wanted to clarify for you that if you approve it, you're essentially approving kind of
an option, unless you otherwise clarify during your motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Would Mr. Slocum -- what do they want to do with the existing building? How is
that going to affect the parking?
Slocum: Introduce or not?
De Weerd: Just restate your name, please.
Slocum: Craig Slocum with CSHQA. Mr. Bird, the original proposal that we brought into
staff at a pre -application meeting was the site plan -- well, from the standpoint of the
existing building and the site plan you see in front of you, staff felt strongly that they, if
given the choice, would retain the building from the standpoint -- and, then, I'm sure the
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 53 of 81
Planning and Zoning staff report -- I know it deals with it, that it provides presence on
Main Street and some other things. Obviously, from Farmers and Merchants standpoint,
it is a building that doesn't function very well it has severe mechanical and HVAC
problems. Their desire is to take it down. As well discussed that with staff and I
discussed it with Farmers and Merchants representatives, they came and said, well, can
we get the option if we can find some financial way to make it stay as you would like, we
will go ahead -- and staff, Anna Powell, actually, said submit us two plans and we will go
with both of them and so what your -- the packet that was submitted has is two site
plans, two landscape plans, it shows both ways and so the owner, while their
preference is the plan in front of you, is committed to at least leave that option open as
staff requested it.
Bird: Basically, what they would do is -- would try to lease it out to a viable business or
law firm or something like that?
Slocum: And the site plan should be in your packet. The only -- the only change is that
there is some -- there is some additional 90 degree parking abutting the parcel line
here. as mentioned.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Slocum, so -- and your client wouldn't be adverse if this Council decided to go
ahead and take the building down and to allow that, that would be your preference, but
you're willing to live with the optional plan. Because I just think it's going to hide your
building. I mean why would you --
Slocum: That would certainly --
Nary: Why would you want to leave it there when you can't see your brand new building.
Slocum: That is certainly one of the other concerns of the owner.
Nary: And, then, if we add another tenant there, we are going to have parking problems
again, because they are going to want to have somewhere to park there, so, then, there
is not enough room for that either, so --
Bird: If we get that plaza, it would be beautiful.
Nary: Oh, the plaza will be great, but I was just afraid that another business on that site
will just end up with a drive-thru issue -- to leave the drive-thru or have parking issues
and -- I mean it just doesn't -- I understand the staffs rationale of maintaining a facade,
but it seems like you're going to hide your brand new building and that doesn't make a
lot of sense. I'd rather people see it, so -- you can live with that? I guess that's all I was
asking.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 54 of 81
Slocum: Yes, they can.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Thank you, Craig.
De Weerd: Is there any further questions or discussion? I would entertain a motion to
close the Public Hearing on Items 18 and 19.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close CUP 03-050, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for
Farmers and Merchants State Bank.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 18. All
those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on VAR 03-021, the variance for parking of 46
stalls for Farmers and Merchants State Bank.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 19. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion on Item 18.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve CUP 03-050, the request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a new bank facility with drive -up tellers in an OT zone for Farmers and
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 55 of 81
Merchants State Bank by CSHQA at 703 North Main Street, incorporate staff,
applicant's remarks. We would recommend that removal of existing building once new
building is occupied and working and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order showing so.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-050. Mr. Clerk, will you
call roll. Oh. Is there any further discussion? Sorry.
Nary: No.
C• 0•
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, did we properly address the issue of pavers versus stamped
concrete or --
De Weerd: No.
Bird: No. That's something that will be taken care of I would say at the ACHD level.
That's the way I -- it was left when we met with them the other day.
De Weerd: It probably will be worked out at staff level and -- do you feel comfortable,
Brad, with that being worked out at staff level?
Hawkins -Clark: Well, unless the Council would have a strong opinion one-way or the
other. I mean, obviously, we would need to have that information before working with
ACHD staff, but --
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. I guess at this juncture I think the only direction that we would have is they
have to have some sort of idea what that's going to entail from both the parks
department for staffing and cost as well and so it gives you folks an idea. I think we
were supportive of -- we have been supportive of the idea of pavers, but I think we also
want to look at what's the cost is going to be versus stamped concrete or some other
alternative, but it sounded to me like that -- from all the discussions that they have had,
ACHD was willing to discuss it, we are willing to discuss it, the bank's willing to discuss
it, and I guess if it's unclear after all that they will probably come back and tell us.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: That's very unclear. Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 56 of 81
Bird: I don't think it's an item that we need to hold up the CUP on.
De Weerd: No.
Bird: Definitely not. And I think that some -- as the Mayor said, staff can work out and
get it -- you know, I think whatever we use would satisfy me.
Wardle: I agree.
Hawkins -Clark: Okay. So, what I'm hearing is you're comfortable either way, really, as
long as we come to agreement.
Bird: Yes.
Hawkins -Clark: Okay. That's good.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg,
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, absent; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
De Weerd: Thank you. Item Number 19.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve VAR 03-021, the request for a variance for parking for 46 stalls
with 15 diagonal on -street parking stalls in an OT zone for Farmers and Merchants
State Bank by CSHQA, 703 North Main Street, incorporate all staff and applicant
comments, and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
and Decision and Order showing so.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR 03-021. Is there any further
discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, absent; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
De Weerd: Thank you. I would entertain a motion to take a recess. O kay. We are
going to take a recess for ten minutes. We will reconvene at ten to 10:00.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 57 of 81
(Recess.)
Item 20. Public Hearing: PP 03-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
building lots on 2.064 acres in a L -O zone for proposed Cherry Lane
Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers — 2150 West Cherry
Lane:
Item 21. Public Hearing: CUP 03-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and
office use with reduced setbacks and landscaping requirements in an L -O
zone for proposed Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. — 2150 West Cherry Lane:
De Weerd: I'll bring this meeting back to order. We are on Items 20 and 21. If there is
no objections, I will open both public hearings on PP 03-029, request for preliminary plat
approval of six building lots on 2.064 acres i n a n L -O zone for the p roposed Cherry
Lane Office Park Subdivision and CUP 03-048, request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a planned development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and office use with
reduced setbacks and landscaping requirements in an L -O zone for proposed Cherry
Lane Office Park Subdivision. I'll open with staff comments.
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. These items are in
this general vicinity of the Vineyards Subdivision on the south, Valerie Place Subdivision
is here on the east, and what's platted as One Subdivision on the north and the west.
The property is currently in the city limits zoned L -O, limited office, existing church here
on the west end of the property. It has a designation in the Comprehensive P Ian as
public, quasi public, because of the church and not unlike the Southern Springs No. 2
application that you had earlier tonight, there was some justification shown in the staff
report there, as well as in the application, as to why office uses in a public, quasi public,
would be allowed. The Commission -- P&Z Commission did make the finding that it did
conform, so they did recommend approval. There is not a rezone request at this time.
They are proposing uses that would either comply with the L -O or be conditional use.
The aerial photo just shows mainly the large vacant, undeveloped portion on the east
end of the site, with the exception, of course, the parking lot for the church. All built out
subdivisions around the site. This is the revised plat. They have had a couple of
renditions of this. The first rendition actually included another building. They have -- up
kind of in this area they have trimmed that down to four office buildings, two that front on
Cherry and, then, two that are in the back of the property and, then, the existing church,
which is where they would propose the future nursing facility to be located. They have
two entrances onto the site, which is existing, just they are proposing to shift the current
entrance on the east end -- to close that off and shift it a little bit down to the west. The
existing church entrance would remain the same. So, they would have two entrances off
Cherry Lane. The applicant is requesting some reductions to setbacks as a part of their
planned development. Particularly here on the front on Cherry Lane, they are -- since
they are bringing their buildings up to the street and proposing to have entrances to the
buildings off of the sidewalk, as well as make a -- you know, construct a facade that is
friendly to the street and the pedestrians, the justification was made that they could
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 58 of 81
reduce the front setback and not do the full 25 foot wide landscape buffer on Cherry
Lane. So, the buffer itself would only be seven to eight feet of landscaping and, then,
the building setback would be 15 from the property line. They are proposing two small
landscape plazas with picnic benches as amenities. The site does meet the off-street
parking, but they would have cross -access, cross parking throughout the five lots within
the subdivision. As far as the discussion that happened at the Planning and Zoning
Commission, they talked about the Comprehensive Plan designation that I mentioned.
They also talked about the perimeter landscaping and some of the building elevations.
Here is the site, as it exists today. Site photos. The one on the bottom right there shows
the rear of the buildings up against the subdivisions that are on the north of the site and
Planning and Zoning Commission did ask for a few more trees to be added in there for
-- to help improve the buffer a little bit. Here are the proposed elevations for the office
buildings. Anything that comes through in the future we would check against these
substantial compliance, you know, with the single level, somewhat of a hip roof
structure. The stucco. They haven't committed to any of these, I don't believe. M r.
McKinnon can address -- can address that. They would, obviously, orient the windows.
Some of the other treatments were asked for by the Commission to be on Cherry Lane
and they were also proposing this to have a pedestrian connection, a couple of them, off
of the sidewalk on Cherry into the site. I believe most of the site specific conditions have
been agreed to for both the CUP and the plat by the applicant. There were several
changes made on the CUP by the Planning and Zoning Commission. I don't think there
is really any need to highlight any of those. A lot of those were just bringing them into
conformance with the ordinance and their motion. So, with that I'll stand for any
questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. Are there any questions at this point?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Brad, just so I understand, you're saying -- is it just one of the buildings that's
going to be up to the buffer on the street and, then, the other part is parking and the
other buildings are behind it?
Hawkins -Clark: There will be two, actually. One here in the corner, here is the footprint,
and, then, another one here.
Nary: Because isn't it fairly low there? I mean they have to build up quite a bit to move
the building up to the street there.
Hawkins -Clark: Correct.
Nary: Okay. But they just -- and they are going to move the driveway you said further
east?
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 59 of 81
Hawkins -Clark: Further west. Yes. The entrance is shown right about here and the
existing one is closer to the corner.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant's representative here? Is the testimony you
provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
McKinnon: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
McKinnon: Thank you, Madam Mayor. David McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber,
Meridian, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of the developer tonight to try to get this project
approved. Brad did a great job explaining all the issues that we have gone through in
working through this project. It's been through several reiterations. Just to point out a
few things that Brad didn't necessarily highlight on, just to talk about. One would be the
landscape area. The original plan that we had actually showed a lot of parking that was
running east and west in this location. What we have done is move that parking so it
would be north south, so we could add the additional landscaping across the front to
give it some more depth for the landscaping. Brad mentioned the length, the distance
of landscaping between the buildings and the back. You mentioned it was seven to
eight feet. It's, actually, 15 feet. On either side of the subdivision there is residential
subdivision. Brad, could you flip back to the aerial photo? That's great. The setback for
these houses -- actually, the landscape buffer provided on either side is seven feet on
one side and eight feet on the other, so the actual landscape buffer will be
approximately twice the size of the landscape buffer on either side. So, it provides the
additional landscaping that you do not typically see in the older areas -- or developed
out areas of Meridian. Something to point out that the design of this -- this project, just
so you understand the reason why we have brought some of the buildings to the front is
because we have basically a long, narrow building -- building site and the typical design
that you would see under the current ordinances would require a 25 foot landscape
buffer and a 30 foot setback, so you basically have a large setback for landscaping,
then, parking and, then, you would have buildings in the back and that, basically, leaves
you with nothing more than strip development by putting an office building lengthwise
across the back and we have tried to avoid doing that and tried to do something
different by bringing the buildings closer to the street to provide a more attractive
streetscape. So, like Brad said, we have paired it down to basically four buildings. There
are still six lots on site. And the reason for that -- if you could flip back, Brad, to the site
plan -- was to provide some additional landscaping where the sixth building would have
been a nd provide a dditional p arking. We became c oncerned t hat we m ight n of h ave
enough parking. The Meridian code requires only one parking spot for every 400 square
feet, which is somewhat inadequate when you consider the amount of people that
actually work in office structures and so we have added some additional parking there.
But in the future if this site develops and its a use that is very low in use, such as what
we have requested tonight through the Conditional Use Permit for a nursing home, this
site, if there is not a need for parking, we anticipate it to be the last site to be built. If
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 60 of 81
there is no need for additional parking, then, the site could have an additional building
on that. That's why we have requested that to remain as a site, but for all intents and
purposes right now, our intent is make that parking for the rest of the site, just because
the minimum requirements are lower than what we have actually provided on site. So, if
you have any questions I will be happy to answer them at this time. I think Brad
mentioned that we are in agreement with all the recommendations that the Commission
had for us and staff had for us and we'd like to move forward with this project.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, David. Are there any questions for the applicant?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Tell me again, Mr. McKinnon, on the nursing home facility there is up to 40
patients, but I guess the parking lot is fairly small. Was it intended to use just cross -
access parking for here? Because this doesn't appear to be enough parking. This Is the
piece; correct?
McKinnon: Uh-huh.
Nary: This isn't enough parking for visitors to that facility, so was the intend just to
simply have cross -access parking?
McKinnon: Councilman Nary, it sounds like there are two questions there. One is, yes,
there is a cross -access across the entire site. To answer a question that wasn't really
asked there, but parking for the entire facility here, according Meridian ordinances
again, would only be nine parking spaces for the entire building, if you had 40 patients.
And so, again, that's rather inadequate for what the actual demand would be.
Nary: Thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to testify?
Council, any further discussion? Council, I would entertain a motion, then.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close Public Hearing PP 03-029, preliminary plat approval --
request for preliminary plat for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 61 of 81
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 20.
All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close Public Hearing CUP 03-048, request for a Conditional Use
Permit for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 21. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Any discussion on Item 20?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve PP 03-029, request for preliminary plat approval of six
building lots on 2.064 acres in an L -O zone for the proposed Cherry Lane Office Park
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, 2150 West Cherry Lane, incorporate all staff,
applicant comments and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law and Decision and Order showing so.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 03-029 for Cherry Lane Office
Park Subdivision. Is there any discussion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I f the maker of the motion a nd the second would include i n t he conditions of
approval that there be a cross -parking access agreement as part of the condition. It's
not listed in the conditions here, but as Mr. McKinnon stated, it, obviously, is inadequate
on that site by itself by our standards, but, obviously, it's necessary. They have added a
few more and I just want to make sure there is not an issue in the future of people being
able to access that facility for the nursing home care.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 62 of 81
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Nary, I believe that Mr. Hawkins -Clark and also Mr. McKinnon both quoted that
and that should be part of the public that will be put into the findings. They both --
Hawkins-Clark: Condition Number 3.
Bird: -- stated that.
Nary: I have been corrected.
Bird: Is that right?
Nary: Yes.
Bird: Is that okay with you?
Nary: Yes. That's perfectly fine. I just didn't see it. So, thank you.
Bird: No problem.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay. Item 21,
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve CUP 03-048, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a planned development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and office use
with reduced setbacks and landscaping requirements in an L -O zone for the proposed
Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Incorporated, 2150 West
Cherry Lane, incorporate staff, applicant comments, for the attorney to draw up Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order showing so.
Rountree: Second.
De W eerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-048 for Cherry Lane
Office Park Subdivision. Is there any discussion? Mr. Clerk?
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 63 of 81
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 22. Public Hearing: AZ 03-031 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.04
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Windsong Subdivision by
Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. — west of North Linder Road and
north of West Ustick Road:
Item 23. Public Hearing: PP 03-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 66
single-family building lots and 2 common lots on 15.04 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark
Engineering & Planning, Inc. — west of North Linder Road and north of
West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Items 22 and 23, if there is no objection, I will open both
public hearings. Public Hearing AZ 03-031, request for annexation and zoning of 15.04
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Windsong Subdivision and Item 23, PP 03-
037, request for preliminary plat approval of 66 single family building lots and two
common lots on 15.04 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windsong Subdivision. I will
open with staff comments.
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. On the first
application for annexation and zoning, the request is to be rezoned -- annexed and
rezoned to an R-8. Watersong Subdivision to the north, which is currently under
construction, has the same zoning. Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision shown here to the
west does have R-4. The other properties on the north side of Ustick that abut the
parcel remain in Ada County and have not been annexed. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property as medium density residential, so they do comply with that. This
map shows generally the north Meridian area and there is a few lots that have been
preliminary platted over the last couple of years. Down here in this corner you can see
the -- kind of see it, the build out of plans for Bridgetower Crossing and Watersong. You
certainly can't see it on this map, but Watersong does have a stub street coming to the
north boundary of this parcel and Bridgetower Crossing has a stub street coming to the
west boundary. You can maybe pick out that the Coleman Lateral comes across on the
north boundary here and does continue all the way through Bridgetower and, then, the
Creason Lateral is on the south side, the larger of the two irrigation facilities. Both of
them are in Settler's Irrigation District. Oh, I'm sorry, yeah. The Creason is Nampa -
Meridian and Settler's, so they do have split irrigation districts here. This triangular
piece down here, if it hasn't already been, I believe it's well under the way of being Ada
County Highway District land for the purpose of storm water facility. So, there is no
access to Ustick, the only access, as I pointed out earlier, is through Bridgetower
Crossing and Watersong. They are proposing to tile the Coleman Lateral along the
north, but the Creason would remain open. This slide shows their preliminary plat
proposal. They have meta II them inimum lots\ sizes for the R-8, 6,500 square foot.
They do have a range of lot sizes throughout it -- throughout the project. Their open
space is located at the southern end both here and in this -- in this very southwest
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 64 of 81
corner lot. Their gross density is 4.4 dwelling units per acre. Lots range from 6,500 to
11,700. There was a little bit of discussion in the staff report about whether or not this
was an illegal split and I think Craig Hood in his analysis addressed that, that it was
shown that it's been in this same configuration since 1978, which preceded the adoption
of our subdivision ordinance. So, it's not -- it is not an illegal split. The Planning and
Zoning Commission did recommend approval. There are a couple other access issues
and design issues that I'm Mr. Boyle, who is representing the applicant tonight, will
address, but I think from staffs perspective that's probably the highlights. Thanks.
De Weerd: Any questions for staff?
Hawkins -Clark: I'm sorry, if I could make one other point. There was some testimony
given at the Planning and Zoning Commission. I will go back to this. About -- from
property owners on the east boundary and the condition that the Commission placed
was a new site specific condition number ten that states that the boundary dispute
between the property -- between this property and the neighboring property to the east
on the south portion shall be resolved before signature on the final plat. So, I think that
will, obviously, need to get some discussion here tonight.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant's representative here? Do I need to give you a
timing limit?
Boyle: Three minutes if you limit everyone else to one.
De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Boyle: It is, Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address
Boyle: Mayor and Council Members, Clint Boyle with Landmark Engineering and
Planning, business address of 104 9th Avenue South in Nampa. I do live in Meridian, if
you want that address as well. I don't like to give that in public hearings, though,
because a lot of times I'm watching my back from angry neighbors, so -- to dive into a
few things, Mayor and Council, it's a pleasure to be here tonight. It's always a pleasure
to work with your staff and I will just give them kudos, because I think you have a very
competent staff that understands a lot of the issues that impact these projects and they
are good to work with in trying to resolve them. A couple of things that I wanted to
mention. We are in agreement with the conditions of the staff report. There are just a
couple of highlights that I would also like to make. The triangular piece of property that
sits immediately south of this piece, Brad had mentioned that it was in the works for
ACHD to purchase that piece. That parcel has been purchased by ACRD. They closed
on that property in December. ACHD is going to utilize that triangular piece for a future
storm water retention pond out in that area to serve the -- some of the roadways in that
area. So, that has already closed with ACHD being to the south of us. The other point of
clarification is the Coleman Lateral, which is the lateral that is on the north end of the
Meridian City Council
January20, 2004
Page 65 of 81
property -- it's, actually, off site, but it's adjacent to the subdivision, that lateral -- we are
certainly happy to tile it. I might just note that it has already been tiled by Watersong
development, which is under construction to the north, so that particular lateral -- you
can leave the requirement in, but it's already a facility that's been tiled as part of their
project. The real advantage here with this piece of property -- as Brad mentioned, it's --
I'm not going to say that it's totally landlocked, it had an existing access easement that
actually f ollowed t he Creason L ateral -- a nd can we j ust b ack u p, B rad. R ight t here.
Thank you. Right there. The aerial. That existing access easement follows the Creason
Lateral. Starting at Ustick, it's just north of the Creason and it enters the site right down
in the far tip of the site, comes down on the east boundary line of the site. Typical
access easement that has historically provided the access for the parcel. So,
essentially, it is about as close as you can come to being landlocked. Obviously, with
the -- with the growth that has occurred in the north Meridian area as was demonstrated
on the other exhibit -- now Bridgetower and Watersong have come to the point where
they have wrapped around this parcel and both of them are in the process of providing
stub streets to this parcel, thereby facilitating the developer's ability to come in with a
project on this particular parcel. As noted in the staff report, we understand that the
development of this project is contingent on the final platting of either Bridgetower or
Watersong providing that stub street and, just to note, the Watersong stub is already
paved, so that plat is going to be recorded here real soon and will have a dedicated
access to the site. Outside of that, at the Planning Commission there were just a couple
of items of interest from some of the surrounding neighbors and know that some of
them are here tonight, regarding some fencing issues and boundary line issues. I can
certainly touch on that a little bit here if the Council wants. We can have some of the
testimony I know from the neighbors that they want to provide, but, in a nutshell, since it
is somewhat late in the evening, the boundary that is in the southeast portion of the site,
which would be this north -south boundary line in this area here, there has been an
adjoining neighbor that has disputed the placement of the survey pins and I think you
will hear that testimony tonight. In other words, what's happened is there is an existing
agricultural fence, as many of these properties are fenced and have been historically.
When our surveyors went out and did the survey, the boundary survey on the parcel
and set the corner pins for the property, the corner pins in this location actually are set
roughly seven to eight feet off of the fence line. In other words, the actual fence that's
there right now, as we like to think of, is seven feet into the developer's property and --
so there has definitely been some discussion there and I think they can -- the neighbors
certainly speak, because our surveyors have gone out and checked it a couple of times
and I believe they have also hired a survey to be done on their particular property, just
to verify that those pins are actually in the right location. So, that was the issue, again,
that was I think part of your report and I can dive into that more if you want me to really
get in and wade through some of the -- some of the background on that. With that,
though, we think it's a good project for the city, it's got some nice open space areas that
are centrally located in the project and we think it fits in well with the surrounding
developments that have occurred out there and request your favorable decision on both
the annexation and preliminary plat to this evening. Thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council?
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 66 of 81
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: You mentioned some fence issues as well. We heard about the property
issues. Could you mention those briefly?
Boyle: Sure. Mayor, Council member Wardle, two things with the fencing. One is there -
- the adjoining property owner that owns the larger parcel to the north here, we agreed
to work with him on the fencing in this location. His concern there was that he -- he's
had some livestock on the property in the past and he didn't know if the standard vinyl
fencing or wood perimeter fencing was adequate for his livestock, so we are certainly
going to work that outwith him as far a s if he needs -- if we need to provide some
electric fencing on the back side of those fences for his livestock. That was one of the
issues. The only other issue was in the general requirements it talked about providing a
solid perimeter fence around the site and the consideration we requested there is that
the developer had the option of either solid or fencing similar to Bridgetower where they
have got the -- I call it semi -private, but there is some spacing between the vinyl slats
and the Planning Commission seemed to feel that was acceptable and so that was
incorporated into their decision.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Boyle, if the neighbors to the east happen to be -- lay claim or someone
ultimately determines that they own that seven foot strip, despite the survey markers,
that would affect the minimum lot size on that side, would it not?
Boyle: It sure would.
Nichols: And would it change the number of lots in your subdivision?
Boyle: Mayor and Mr. Nichols, I'm glad he brought that up and that certainly is a valid
question and a very good point for the Council to understand. The lots that are adjacent
to -- and I think Mr. Nichols must have read the staff report a few times to pick up on
that. The lots -- if you look at the preliminary plat, the lots that are adjacent to that
boundary line are well over the minimum requirement and even if we had to lose ten
feet off the back side of those, we would still be able to hit the minimum zoning
requirements and I have got the map here if the Council members don't have it, but, you
know, I can read off some of the lot sizes there and we have certainly gone through that
scenario and, essentially, it would reduce the sizes, but not below the minimum zoning
requirements. So, in other words, 75 -- 7,578 square feet, 7,500 square feet, 7,950
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 67 of 81
square feet, you know, those lots are typically 75, 76 feet wide, so even if there was a
ten -foot discrepancy, you're still coming in above the 6,500 square feet.
Nichols: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Is this green -- this is the green space here; right? Is that right?
Boyle: Correct.
Nary: And is it just drainage or is there something else to it?
Boyle: This right now -- both of these are incorporated as part of the drainage system
and I guess, you know, that -- if the Council wants some discussion there, typically what
we try to do with those is keep them as shallow as possible and that's why they are
spread over that entire area. We can certainly deepen those drainage facilities if we
needed to to provide areas that are outside of the drainage, but right now, from what I
recall -- and I would have to look at the full-size plans, I mean the drainage areas
through the middle section there, typically they are about a two to three foot depression.
So, it's going to be something that is very difficult to notice for anybody that's passing by
as being an actual drainage facility. Of course, it will be landscaped in accordance with
the ordinance.
Nary: And I assume this is all sidewalk to get to there; right?
Boyle: Correct.
Nary: All the way around?
Boyle: Correct.
Nary: And there is no intention to do anything with this other than grass?
Boyle: I'm not sure if I understand where the question is going as far as like want to
have trees in it or other facilities?
Nary: Does it have anything other than just grass? Is it just grass?
Boyle: Right now we haven't submitted a final landscape plan, so I guess that's
somewhat up for negotiation, but I would assume that, yeah, at a minimum it would be
grass in there that was maintained.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 68 of 81
Nary: And, then, this is the county drainage down here? Right here?
Boyle: Correct. That's the --
Nary: Do you know if that's intended to just be grass?
Boyle: I don't know that they have actually gotten into any design. They just recently
closed on it and in my discussions is it's a future site that may be down the road a few
years and so I don't know if they really thought that far ahead based on what I have
seen from the highway district.
De Weerd: Any further questions? Thank you.
Boyle: Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to issue testimony? Please raise your
right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
ICFiiil1111111M
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Rath: My name is Joan Rath and my address is 631 Lawndale Drive in Meridian. And I
-- what I would like to do is just read a letter that's been prepared by our real estate
attorney, if I might. He wanted that entered into the record. Excuse me. I am the
personal representative of my father's estate, the estate of Warren A. Watson, Senior,
deceased. The estate owns a parcel in excess of five acres or the estate's parcel, which
is located immediately east of the proposed Windsong Subdivision between the
proposed Windsong Subdivision and North Linder Road. I testified to the following
matters at the Planning and Zoning meeting relative to this proposal held last month and
believe my comments are in the official record. I do, however, want to be sure that the
full Council knows these comments. Last fall a number of survey stakes were observed
on the estate's parcel located approximately five to seven feet east of the fence, which
we understand to be located upon the westerly boundary of the estate's parcel. So, in
other words, the stakes are located on land that we understand to be ours. These
stakes are roughly parallel to the historic common property line between the estate's
parcel and the developer's parcel, which is the subject of this meeting. The estate's
attorney has spoken with Mr. Stubblefield, who I understand is a principal in the
developer entity. Mr. Stubblefield advised my attorney that the developer claims that
these stakes represent the actual boundary between the estate's parcel and the
proposed development parcel. At this time the estate of Warren A. Watson, Senior,
disagrees with this conclusion. The estate had previously scheduled a survey of the
Estate parcel. The on-site survey work has been completed and a pin has been located
in the northwest corner of what the estate believes is its parcel. However, the final
survey report has not been received and information requested from the Ada county
assessor's office relative to the description of the tax parcel description of the estate's
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 69 of 81
parcel has not yet been received. Thus, despite our effort to resolve this apparent
conflict in claims, I am advised by the estate's attorney that the information that is legally
relevant to a resolution of these conflicting claims has not yet been received. We are,
therefore, unable to resolve these conflicting claims at this time, but we do hope to be
able to do so in the near future. Until this boundary discrepancy has been resolved, the
estate objects to any annexation, rezoning, for preliminary or final plat approval for any
portion of what may ultimately be determined to be estate's parcel, even if it might be
presently claimed by the developer of the Windsong Subdivision. And I have a copy of
this if you'd like to have that.
De Weerd: Thank you. Yes. If you could submit that to the city clerk. Thank you. Is there
any further testimony on this application? Okay. Discussion by Council? Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Council and that would be the annexation
-- whether we can annex this parcel -- in your opinion whether we can annex this parcel
with a property dispute currently in place.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the annexation itself can occur if the --
which is generally by a legal description, which is verified by the engineering
department. What you often find is that these boundary issues come up where there
has been rural property that unless the developer's survey is completely wrong, in which
case the legal description is still going to be the same or there is some issue of
boundary by agreement or boundary by acquiescence or adverse possession or some
of those legal doctrines, you could have the legal description being resolved by a court,
which is along mete and bounds and, then, says excepting there from the east seven
feet thereof or whatever the -- you know, that sliver might be, in which case there would
still -- if you had gone ahead and annexed it, the sliver would be annexed into the city of
Meridian and the rest of the parcel to which the sliver now belongs would still be in the
county. So, you can still annex it, according to the legal description, the only risk is that
there would be a seven foot strip or so that you had not received a consent from the
owner for, but you have consent from the legal owner at this time. So, it gets into one of
those chasing your tail around the tree sorts of issues.
De Weerd: Does that answer your question?
Wardle: It did. I have a follow-up matter, Mayor. Would -- for example, if that sliver were
to be found not to be in a legal description and were to be annexed, it would be
annexed with this zoning in place; correct?
Nichols: Yes.
Wardle: Would the owner, then, have -- I guess my question is would the owner, then,
have the option to de -annex that portion from the city?
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, don't -- I really don't know. We have
never run into that before. The only time we have run into a boundary issue with a
parcel is where after the preliminary plat was approved, the developer discovered a
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 70 of 81
problem with a boundary dispute, resolved the dispute by purchasing an additional 15
feet from the farmer and submitted the final plat without telling us that he -- that it
included an additional 15 feet which had not been annexed and so they don't come up
everyday, but in that case the legal description was short of what the developer actually
needed on his plat to meet his minimum square footage on his lots and what he had
shown on the plat. So, it's probably possible to de -annex it, the Council could entertain
an application to de -annex that seven foot strip. And even if it weren't de -annexed,
where it's a farm, the farm is a nonconforming use and that use would be allowed to
continue in that little strip anyway, so they wouldn't -- but the real enemies you make
would be with the assessor's office, because they'd have this little tiny strip that now has
to be allocated a parcel number and it's zoned differently than everything else and it
does create kind of a mess. I would hear from my friend Jack Clark, the surveyor.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Is there any further questions or discussions?
Would the applicant like to rebut?
Boyle: Thank you, Mayor. Clint Boyle, again, with Landmark and I will try to be very brief
on this, because I think there were some good points. We submitted an applicant, the
boundary description is based on the deed -- there has been a deed that's been in place
since at least the 70s. That's what this annexation request, is on. We have had a
professional licensed surveyor go out and verify that boundary and set pins and they
are very confident that they have placed them in the right spot. They have actually
checked them again to make sure that they haven't made a mistake in setting those
pins. We have had the opportunity to talk with the surveyor that Mrs. Rath had hired for
the survey on her property and the indication that we received from that surveyor was
that the pins that were set by our survey were correct to within -- what did he say, one
inch in the field. That's the information that I have heard from the discussion with her
survey right now. So, you know, with that said, we are comfortable in stating that we are
very confident that the legal description that we submitted for the annexation is correct.
Mr. Nichols will certainly know of -- as he mentioned, some of the other issues, I guess,
that could come into play if somebody was perhaps presenting a claim for adverse
possession or something of that sort, but based on the deed that's been in existence
since at least the 70's and surveys, what we have submitted to you is correct. There
has been two different professional surveyors that have at least indicated that that's
correct and, really, I think -- and Mr. Nichols can correct me -- I mean it's a -- my
impression would be that it would be more of a civil matter to resolve, rather than
something for this Council to get involved in the middle of a potential boundary dispute.
Again, what you have in front of you is an annexation request with a legal description
that your staff has, obviously, reviewed with the application. We have got a surveyor
stamping it and we believe that it's correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further?
Boyle: Hopefully, that covered all the questions and appreciate your time this evening.
Thank you very much.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 71 of 81
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Clint, what's the hold up with getting both these surveyor's notes together? I mean
you evidently got yours out. We got the legal description, so if you got the legal
description on the property and the legal description on the other property, why haven't
we got back both of the engineering surveys?
Boyle: Mayor, Council member Bird, my understanding from talking to Mrs. Rath's
surveyor, is that their survey crews were hit with the flu bug, I guess, at the end of the
year and so it's created a backlog and delayed them as far as getting their surveys
done.
Bird: But you stated that they were -- that they had surveyed it and was -- it was within
an inch of where the -- your surveyor put the pins.
Boyle: Right. And that's been a verbal discussion that we have had, conversation on the
phone, and I think what -- and what Mrs. Rath was indicating is that they haven't
received any written final document as of today, as of this date, from him with his
conclusions. And, then, the other item that was brought up I just might mention was the
tax assessments. The information that I could gather is the acreage that we are
submitting here is identical to the acreage that the assessor's office has been assessing
Mr. S tubblefield f or t he years t hat In e's owned i t. T hat's b een from m y own p ersonal
research from the records at the assessor's office and parcel information that I received
and, you know, I haven't verified it with Jack down at the assessor's office, but from my
research those two are -- have been synonymous.
Bird: Now, you stated that you've had it surveyed twice by the same firm, though; right?
Boyle: I wouldn't say that we have had it surveyed twice. We went out, did the initial
survey, and, then, they have gone back out and field checked those pins. So, I don't
know that they actually went and redid the whole survey, but it was --
Bird: At least they checked those two.
Boyle: Going through and checking their -- the pins that they had set.
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Brad.
Hawkins -Clark: Could staff request before Clint leaves one question? On the issue of
the Creason, the staff report talks about -- it says that the engineer had determined that
a 48 inch pipe would be necessary and the question before -- that came to my mind, I
guess, we have Craig, who wrote the staff report was not here when Bridgetower was
done, but Bridgetower Crossing did have to pipe it and I guess if we could just clarify
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 72 of 81
that the engineer did, indeed, find that a 48 inch diameter pipe would be necessary to
pipe the Creason.
Boyle: The 48 inch pipe is similar to what is -- is the same pipe size as is located at
Ustick for the Creason. So, you know, making the assumption that you have got the
same pipe for the existing facility that's there, you know, I think is where you
extrapolated that from, but the crossing that's in place right now for the Creason there at
Ustick is a 48 inch pipe. And we could get into the whole discussion, I guess, on the
Creason and the merits of that. It's another item that -- that we went about with the
Planning Commission, so there is definitely some history there. ACHD is purchasing
that parcel, it's going to be a drainage facility, you have got the Five Mile Creek beyond
it, so as far as tiling the Creason Lateral in this location, it didn't seem to serve the
public safety or the public benefit to do that, because by doing that, essentially, you're
facilitating easier access into ACHD's storm pond, as well as the Five Mile Drain, which
is an even larger facility and so there was, you know, definitely discussion at the
Planning Commission level on that, but --
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions?
Boyle: Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, discussion? I'm sorry. Council, would you like further testimony from
the neighbor?
Rountree: That's fine with me.
Nary: I have no objection, as long as she understands Mr. Boyle still gets the last word.
No matter what, he always gets the last word.
De Weerd: It's not typical, but yes, please, come forward. Just, please, restate your
name.
Rath: My name is Joan Rath.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rath: I would just like to clarify a few things. I think it's interesting that -- I don't even
think I know your name, actually, but it really doesn't matter -- that this gentleman has
been privy to information from our surveyor that is not the same information that I am
receiving, but somehow that's accepted a s factual and somehow it's factual that Mr.
Stubblefield is the legal owner, when we have -- the estate has a deed that declares us
to be the legal owner of the property. It seems to me that, as I told Planning and Zoning,
it's a very -- a small issue on the Council's part to simply wait a small amount of time to
determine how is this going to come out. If it turns out that the seven feet belongs to Mr.
Stubblefield, well, then, fine. But if it's the way around, as he's indicated, it is going to
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 73 of 81
cause some problems with the tax issues, because I know that our real estate attorney
has been talking with them at the tax assessor's office and there does seem to be some
further problems. I really hate to make definite statements without all the information in
front of me, but I do know that there has been enough information with the tax assessor
and with our own surveyor that indicates that it's quite probable that it's going to go the
other way and not Mr. Stubblefield's way. So, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Boyle, do you have any response -- we have more
testimony.
McKay: I can't be quiet. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. Can you put the map --
De Weerd: Will you, please, raise your right hand?
McKay: Oh, yes.
De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
McKay: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKay: I have been working on the Bridgetower Crossing project for over two years and
when we came through, this Council requested that we pipe that Creason Lateral that
runs through here and to my knowledge that was a 36 inch concrete pipe. When we
piped that, we had been monitoring our groundwater for two years -- in excess of two
years. It made a substantial difference in that groundwater level. We had a section here
that we were willing to pipe when we did these cul-de-sacs and we built phase one. We
got leaching into our crawl spaces when these homes were under construction, so we
accelerated our plan and had our civil engineer go ahead and design this and we piped
it. So, I just want the Council to be aware of that, that there is high groundwater in this
area and when we pipe those facilities, we do see that groundwater level drop. And you
also had us trust fund for 50 percent of the piping next to Mr. Husky's property and we
had a long discussion on what constitutes adjacent to, because the facility was on Mr.
Husky's property, but the easement overlapped on us. So, I just wanted to go on the
record, because that was a while ago and you guys probably forgot. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions? Try one more time.
Boyle: At least I'm getting my exercise tonight. Clint Boyle, again, with landmark. And
those are valid points. And I guess I'll get into more of a lengthy description, then, which
I did at the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, that meeting went until about 1:30 in
the morning.
De Weerd: So keep it short.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 74 of 81
Boyle: The Creason Lateral is, actually, located south of our parcel -- of this particular
property in question. Now, how this even comes into a discussion on the Creason is
because of Meridian's adjacent to provision in their ordinance, that if you have a facility
that's adjacent to, you will tile it or work with the property owner to tile it. The Creason is
actually on ACHD's parcel. The overall easement width of that Creason encroaches into
our site, but the actual facility itself is an off-site facility. So, one, it's -- the facility itself is
not on site. Two, again, we went through the issues with ACHD in this location having a
storm water retention pond, regional storm water pond. You have the Five Mile drainage
facility in this location as well and in Bridgetower, you know, maybe 36 inch further
downstream. The one that we reviewed in this location here was a 48 -inch culvert. I
know, not just f rom being out there on site personally, that when it was flowing into
Bridgetower that water -- it looked like it was -- the pipe was full, if not backing up where
it enters the Bridgetower pipe here. So, I don't know, you know, we could banter around
I guess the size is 36 versus 48 and what's required, but it's definitely up near that 48
inch limit. The public safety just didn't seem warranted in this location because of
ACHD's regional storm water pond that's planned in that area and if you tile the
Creason, essentially, all you have done is just provided easier access into that drainage
facility into the Five Mile Canal beyond. Outside of that, the only other comment is -- we
had more discussion regarding the boundary. The assessor's -- the deeds and the
boundary -- I mean they are what they are and the legal description we submitted for
the annexation is based on the deed, which is what it is. Now, maybe there is some
discrepancy among surveyors. It sounds like Joan still isn't confident that those pins are
in the right spot on the ground itself. That could be the case, but as far as the
annexation, it is what it is. The legal description with the deed is what we have got
submitted. It's been in place for years. So, again, I don't -- I don't know that it
necessarily has an adverse -- any sort of adverse impact on you proceeding with the
annexation tonight. Maybe out in the field there may be some discrepancies there that
need to be resolved. With that said, I'd certainly hope and request that this Council
would move this forward tonight with a favorable recommendation and --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Boyle: -- go from there.
De Weerd: Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Discussion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 75 of 81
Nary: I guess I have a couple of concerns with this particular project. I think the legal
counsel of Planning and Zoning, when I read the minutes, I thought did a very good job
of explaining that there are some times these types of disputes -- and Mr. Nichols has
also said that here, that they are not always a reason to hold up a project, but this one
gives me some concern. I think it -- I guess I'm just not feeling very good that moving
this forward at this time, for me, makes a lot of sense from the city's standpoint. It does
appear there is some potential fairly quick resolution to this issue, so I'm not sure that a
delay isn't warranted on that regard. My other concern is in looking at this project, in
looking at the site plan and all of those things and other developments, Mr. Stubblefield
has brought forward in this city have been very good and, to be honest, this one just
isn't. We turned down a project last week that we felt was unimaginative and needed
some work and needed some further review of the density, the layout, the open space,
and this one has all of the same concerns that I think I expressed last week and I know
in the past I have said, you know, I will not support ones that I just can't feel very good
about i n a dding t o o ur community t his o ne just d oesn't feel g ood. I t i s a c hallenging
piece, I recognize that. It's a landlocked parcel. It's a not very large piece. It only has
access through other subdivisions, which, by itself I personally don't like. But they can't
control that and I understand those things. But, boy, there is very little imagination into
that site plan. The open space is horrible. It just doesn't -- it's not going to enhance that
subdivision at all, it's not going to enhance the people living in that. The design of it is
about as straight and cookie cutter as you can get. I just think it needs more work and
more looking at trying to find more imaginative and creative ways to make this an
enhancement to our city and when we are looking at annexing, that's what, we are
looking for. The density is a little concerning, but, again, it's more of just the layout and
the design. This is just about as plan as you can get and I am very concerned about
annexing this at this point without some resolution to this boundary issue, so I guess I
wouldn't be supportive.
De Weerd: Is there any further comments?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I think there are two things that I have heard tonight. One deals with this
issue of the boundary dispute and I tend to agree that that's probably not an issue that
we want to get in the middle of in terms of a civil matter between the applicant and the
neighbor. I don't see that as a reason to hold this up. I am concerned a little bit about
the information about high groundwater and the advantages or disadvantages of doing
something with the Creason Lateral. I don't know if staffs got any comments on that
particular issue or not, but I would want additional information in terms of the
subdivision, whether it's this one or one with -- what's your word, Bill? More creativity?
Do we have a future issue with the ultimate homeowners in that area, again, with the
crawl space problems? But I don't believe that the dispute on the border is an issue
necessarily to hold this project up.
De Weerd: Staff, do you have any comments on the groundwater?
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 76 of 81
Watson: Madam Mayor and Council Members, I'm caught a little bit off guard, because I
guess I wasn't aware of this not being a requirement until tonight. Becky is correct that
the Creason is tiled throughout Bridgetower and a portion trust funded. As to the size, I
can't remember what size it was, but, obviously, if it was tiled it was 48 or less. I know
we do have some pretty severe groundwater problems about a mile west of here. I
wasn't aware of these problems that Mrs. McKay brought up. I guess I would like to look
into it a little further, too.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I got a question for Brad and I think -- and I believe what Becky said, too, but as
we quit flood irrigating and we develop all these farm grounds -- when I built in '65 on
West 8th Street, I could go two feet down and be in mud. I don't now, because we don't
have farm ground around us anymore. We are not flooding irrigating, everything is
sprinkled. And we did not -- they did not at that time require our ditches to be tiled So, I
believe as you take these -- this farm ground out and quit flood irrigating you will see
your water level start to go down. Maybe I'm wrong out there, I don't know, but you have
got a lot of ground out there that was flood irrigated for -- and would have the aquifer
pretty high. But it should -- and it will -- and I think it's been historically done all over
Meridian that way. I think Meridian was very high water table groundwater when -- in the
'50s, '60s, and you go around here you will find in the old town very few basements.
You couldn't put basements in because of that. Now it isn't that high.
De Weerd: Any further comments? Or motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I would move to close the public hearings, I don't think we have done that,
on both Items 22 and 23, AZ 03-031, the request for annexation and zoning and PP 03-
037, request for preliminary plat approval, both for Windsong Subdivision.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items
22 and 23. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All
ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 77 of 81
De Weerd: Now, I guess, Mr. Attorney, correct me if I'm wrong, but if we are going to
wait for further information, should we not have kept the Public Hearing open?
Nichols: Madam Mayor, I agree, but I'm not sure the Council is going to need any
additional information. I presume by passing the motion they had enough information.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any discussion or motions by the Council?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I was just trying to move it along. I mean if Council member Rountree -- I
don't disagree with what he's saying, as to some further information. I'm not sure what
that information is or how we get it. I understand Brad wants to look at that on the
groundwater issue. I certainly don't have a problem in us continuing this matter and we
can certainly reopen the Public Hearing if we are going to receive more information. I
think I've already stated that's not, by itself, enough for me, anyway, but I don't care.
De Weerd: We have had discussion. Do I have any motions?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: For comment, I would like to say that as far as Mr. Nary's comments on zoning
and g reen s pace a nd t hings I ike t hat, I d on't n ecessarily a gree. M y c oncern -- i f M r.
Rountree would like some more information, certainly, I could be amicable to that idea.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just -- no motion at this point, but just a comment on Mr. Nary's comment,
that I think we are right back to where we were last week. The additional information is
still not sufficient to get it over the goal line for you. So, Madam Mayor, I'll make a
motion to see if we can either punt or move forward here. I move that we approve the
request for annexation for AZ 03-031, for the annexation and zoning of 15.04 acres of
RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and
Planning, Inc., west of the North Linder Road and north of West Ustick Road.
Bird: I will second it, but don't you want -- you want the attorney to draw up the Finding
of Facts?
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 78 of 81
Rountree: And the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
and Decision.
Bird: I will second that.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 03-031. Is there any
discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk?
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, naye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 23.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if the motion of the Council is to
approve the preliminary plat, given the testimony about groundwater, it may be
appropriate to include an additional condition that prior to signature at final plat the city
engineer verify that the groundwater levels are not such as to preclude the anticipated
buildings, without tiling the Creason Lateral, if the Council goes along with leaving the
Creason Lateral open.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the request for preliminary plat approval of 66 single
family dwelling lots and two common lots on 15.04 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc., west of
North Linder Road and north of West Ustick Road, with the further inclusion of all the
staff comments with an additional condition that plat be verified that the groundwater
conditions are not an issue for this particular piece of property. That the attorney
prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 03-037 with the amendments
as suggested by Councilman Rountree. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk?
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, naye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 79 of 81
Item 24. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 24 is water, sewer and trash delinquencies. This is
to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to a pre -termination
hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 20, 2004, before the Mayor and City Council to
appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this city
that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your
service will be discontinued on January 21, 2004, unless payment is received in full. Is
there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash
delinquency? Okay. They are hereby informed that they may appeal and have the
decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho
State Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the
turn-off list is $40,026.95. Council, do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the turn-off list, which will be discontinued on January 21,
2004, if the payments are not received in full and the amount of the turn-off list is
$40,026.95.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the delinquency for turn-off
scheduled for January 21, 2004, in the amount of $40,026.95. Mr. Clerk, will you call
roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: I believe there is an additional item to be discussed or --
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: It was just a question I had. We had had some contact and discussion with the
applicants for Redfeather Estates after last week's denial. From what I understand --
and I don't have more information than this. From what I understand, they are revising
their plat and working with our Planning and Zoning Department on that. I had made a
comment to the applicant that in my recollection for Meridian, we have had a situation
before where we have reconsidered a matter after we have denied it and we didn't
reconsider it the following week, because our ordinance doesn't require it be done the
very next week. I wanted to verify with Mr. Nichols -- I haven't had an opportunity to talk
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 80 of 81
to him before the meeting to see if that was accurate and whether or not we could
reconsider it when they are finished working through the issues with the Planning and
Zoning Department.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, until those findings are approved, the
matter is not concluded and, therefore, is subject to reconsideration. You do have the
issue, though, of the issue of substantial change and whether or not it has to be
remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review.
Nary: Great. That's all I would have a question about
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird,
Bird: I don't -- unless they have done it -- and I don't believe they have from what my
letter stated that I received, that we have had some of these come before us and we
have denied them and, then, had them come back after they have done a change
without going through the Planning and Zoning. I would definitely be in favor of looking
at this on that scenario. If we need a motion to bring it, anyone one of us can, because
we all voted for the denial. I would certainly move a motion to bring it back before us for
reconsideration of the denial. Is that what we have to do?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would prefer you wait until it's on the
agenda as part of the Consent Agenda and, then, you can take it up at that time. If any
of you wish to have it placed on the agenda as part of the regular agenda ahead of time,
you can notify the Mayor that you wish the reconsideration to be so noticed and it can
be noted on the agenda with the Mayor's approval.
Nary: Great.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: That's it.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anything further? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Nary: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 20, 2004
Page 81 of 81
De Weerd. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Thank you. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:17 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
I MINOR
�!
ATTESTED:
DATE
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., C
In
\o°\\OFunn+a,,
v� \�ofk
Oft cwt4
- SEAL
L E il�o'
c ,9 0
-76 �r iss • .r sc