HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 01-27CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 27, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Roll -call Attendance:
X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance:
3. Community Invocation by Shawn Reagan, Pastor at Church of God
Seventh Day: Presented
4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approved
5. Consent Agenda:
A. 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 as
amended
B. 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 as amended
C. 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 as amended
Meridian City Council Agenda—January 27, 2004 Page 1 of 5
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.
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
03-019 Request for a Variance for an additional Time Extension for
recording of the Final Plat for Schwenkfelder Tire Subdivision
(fka Commercial Tire Subdivision) by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. —
west of South Meridian Road and south of West Franklin Road:
Approve
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
03-020 Request for a Variance for a Time Extension for recording
of the Final Plat for Heartwood Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. — northwest corner West Franklin Road and
Northwest 10th Street: Approve
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify commercial
to include four out pads, 25,000 square foot retail and include
Phase II of office complex in C -N and R-40 zones for Devon Park
Subdivision No. 1 & 2 by Hopkins Financial Services, Inc. — 824
East Fairview Avenue: Approve
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-055 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 25,000
square foot retail building with a drive up window in a C -N zone for
Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 & 2 by Hopkins Financial Services,
Inc. — 824 East Fairview Avenue: Approve as amended
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-049 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Emissions
Testing Center in a C -C zone for Hark's Corner Emission Center
by L&J Capital Ventures, LLC — 1651 West Franklin Road:
Approve
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RT to
C -G and I -L zones for Cortabitarte Annexation by Jack
Cortabitarte — south of East Fairview Avenue, and west of North
Eagle Road: Approve
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 03-
021 Request for annexation and zoning of 114.52 acres from RUT
to R-8 (PD) and C -G zones for proposed Redfeather Estates
Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south
of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Re -notice for
p/h for redesign on 3-2-04
Meridian City Council Agenda — January 27, 2004 Page 2 of 5
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.
K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 03-
024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and
28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for
proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard
Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of
North Eagle Road: Re -notice for p/h for redesign on 3-2-04
L. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 03-
041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development for single-family residential use with reduced
setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and increased block
lengths for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by
Packard E states Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road
and east of North Eagle Road: Re -notice for p/h for redesign on
3-2-04
M. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
02-004 Request for Revocation of a Conditional Use Permit
granted by the City of Meridian for John Nesmith for Meridian
Automotive — 505 North Main Street: Approve
N. Resolution No. 04-419 Fire Truck Surplus
Equipment to Duly Organized Fire Districts for Idaho: Approve
O. Approve Pawnbrokers License for High Speed Cash and Pawn
— 2053 East Fairview Avenue #104: Approve
P. License Agreement with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District —
Black Cat Pressure Sewer Project: Approve
Q. Franklin Road Re -build Proiect — Sewer & Water Contract
Authorization: Approve
R. Eagle Road Waterline — Bore Project: Approve Design &
Easement Negotiation JUB $6,925.00
S. Headworks Expansion Project: Approve Carollo Engineers for
construction services $79.372.00
6. Department Reports:
A. Finance Department — Stacy Kilchenmann
1. Finance Report: Presented
Meridian City Council Agenda — January 27, 2004 Page 3 of 5
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.
B. Mayor's Office
Proposal / Selections of City Car for Mayor's use:
Approve purchase
7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
8. FP 03-072 Request for Final Plat approval of 45 building lots and 5 other lots
on 21.24 acres in an R-4 (PD) zone for Bridgetower Crossing No. 5 by
Primeland Development, LLP — east of North Ten Mile Road and south of
West McMillan Road: Approve
9. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request
for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C -N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates — 3680 West Ustick Road:
Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial
10. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2003: PP 03-019 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates — 3680 West Ustick Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law for Denial
11. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2003: CUP 03-034
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a 41 -lot
subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes,
minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in
a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates — 3680 West Ustick Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law for Denial
12. Public Hearing: RZ 03-011 Request for a rezone of 9.34 acres from I -L
to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood
Development, LLC — 1125 East Pine Street: Attorney to prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial
13. Public Hearing: PP 03-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 38
building lots and 17 other lots on 12.74 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for
proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development,
LLC — 1125 East Pine Street: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Denial
14. Public Hearing: CUP 03-057 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
multi -family residential subdivision requesting reduced setbacks, parking
Meridian City Council Agenda —January 27, 2004 Page 4 of 5
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.
standards, and dimensional requirements in a proposed R-15 zone for
proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development,
LLC — 1125 East Pine Street: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Denial
15. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c): No decision
Meridian City Council Agenda — January 27, 2004 Page 5 of 5
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 888-0433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council Meeting January 27 2004
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:15 P.M., on
Tuesday, January 27, 2004, Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: William Nary, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, and Shaun Wardle.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Brad Hawkins -Clark, Brad Watson, Kenny
Bowers, Bill Musser, Stacy Kilchenmann, Gary Smith, 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 City Council Regular Meeting to order. It
is, I believe, 7:15 and I'd like to welcome you all here tonight. We will start with roll call
attendance.
Item 2. Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Well, we do not have a Boy Scout troop with us tonight, so I will
lead us in the pledge. If you will all stand.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3. Community Invocation by Shawn Reagan, Pastor at Church of God
Seventh Day:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item Number 3 is a community invocation by Shawn
Reagan, Pastor at the Church of God Seventh Day. I would like to -- you know, I just
had that -- for joining us -- you already have a water tower pin, but we would like to
show our appreciation and if you have someone else who you would like to share this
with, I would like to present you with this pin.
Reagan: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you for joining us today.
Reagan: Shawn Reagan, Pastor of the Meridian Church of God Seventh Day. Madam
Mayor, Members of the Council, I thank you for the opportunity and the privilege to lead
us in prayer this evening. Let us pray. Our most kind and gracious Heavenly Father,
we come before you tonight, Lord, pausing to thank you for all that you do, Lord. Thank
you for this opportunity, this time for this meeting this evening, Lord that we live in a
country where we can take time and discuss these issues. So, Father, we just pray for
your presence, Lord, tonight, Father, that you might be here this evening, Lord, that you
might guide and direct this meeting, Father. We just pray that you would just continue
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 2 of 53
to bless the Council Members and our Mayor and our city government, Lord that you
might continue to be with them and be with their families. Father, that you might
strengthen our community, Lord, that you might be working in our community and the
plans and the agenda that they have this evening and throughout the year, that, Father,
you might bless each one of the items, Father, and each one of the decisions. Lord, we
just continue to pray for your guidance and direction in our lives and we pray for your
blessings upon this meeting tonight and we thank you and we praise you in the name of
your son Jesus Christ. Amen.
Item 4. Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you, Pastor Reagan. Okay. Item Number 4 is adoption of the
agenda. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would -- we do have some things we want to pull on the Consent Agenda, but we
can do that when we come to the Consent Agenda. I would move that we adopt the
agenda as published.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published.
Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Consent Agenda:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
03-019 Request for a Variance for an additional Time Extension for
recording of the Final Plat for Schwenkfelder Tire Subdivision
(fka Commercial Tire Subdivision) by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. —
west of South Meridian Road and south of West Franklin Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
03-020 Request for a Variance for a Time Extension for recording
of the Final Plat for Heartwood Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. — northwest corner West Franklin Road and
Northwest 10`" Street:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-049 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Emissions
Testing Center in a C -C zone for Hark's Corner Emission Center
by L&J Capital Ventures, LLC — 1651 West Franklin Road:
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 3 of 53
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RT to
C -G and I -L zones for Cortabitarte Annexation by Jack
Cortabitarte — south of East Fairview Avenue, and west of North
Eagle Road:
M. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
02-004 Request for Revocation of a Conditional Use Permit
granted by the City of Meridian for John Nesmith for Meridian
Automotive — 505 North Main Street:
N. Resolution No. 04-419 Fire Truck Surplus
Equipment to Duly Organized Fire Districts for Idaho:
O. Approve Pawnbrokers License for High Speed Cash and Pawn
— 2053 East Fairview Avenue #104:
P. License Agreement with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District —
Black Cat Pressure Sewer Project:
Q. Franklin Road Re -build Project — Sewer & Water Contract
Authorization:
R. Eagle Road Waterline — Bore Project:
S. Headworks Expansion Project:
De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda. Items J, K, and L need to be removed to the
regular agenda. Are there any further items to discuss or move?
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Brad.
Hawkins -Clark: I'm sorry, I don't know if any of the Council Members had been
informed, but we did have a request for Items A, B, and C as well. There is one change
that staff was informed of today that the Fire Department called me and agreed that
they would like a modification to one of the conditions in all three of those items.
De Weerd: Okay. These also need to be pulled to the regular agenda items A, B and
C.
Hawkins -Clark: And F, if possible. I was contacted by Mr. Tamura, who is here for
Item F, Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 4 of 53
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda with Items A, B, C, F, J, K and
L being moved to 7A, 713, 7C, 7F, 7J, 7K and 7L on the regular agenda and for the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk attest on all proper papers that are left within the Consent
Agenda, but we approve it.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent
Agenda with the removal of A, B, C, F, J, K, and L to the regular agenda. Is there
anything further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Department Reports:
A. Finance Department — Stacy Kilchenmann
1. Finance Report:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6, we will start with our Finance Department
Director, Stacy Kilchenmann, with the finance report.
Kilchenmann: Madam President, Members of the Council, I don't have any specific
items to note on this month's financial report. We are just a quarter into the year and
there are no anomalies or variances to report at this time. I would like to really urge you
to read the management discussion analysis part of the audit report. I think that's a
significant change and really summarizes the city's financial condition. We will be
putting that, now that it's been approved, it will be on our website and it's interesting, I
think, too, to compare this for us with other cities of like size, because our wealth
currently, the strength of our net assets is quite strong, so it's interesting to use this to
compare to other cities. Does anyone have any questions about the audit -- or the audit
-- the financial report for this month?
De Weerd: Council, are there any questions?
Bird: Very good again, as usual.
Rountree: I have none.
B. Mayor's Office
1. Proposal / Selections of City Car for Mayor's use:
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 5 of 53
De Weerd: No? Thank you, Stacy. They continue to get better and certainly
appreciate you and your staffs time. Thank you. Okay. Item B, 6-13, is a proposal,
selection of city car. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you should have all received a
couple of different memos in the last week. We had that discussion last week about a
vehicle for use by the Mayor. I think the Meridian Ford has also brought forth a
proposal, both for some lease returns and, actually, a fairly affordable price on a brand
new Taurus. I think they quoted a price of 14,750 for a brand new car and it was within
about 2,000 to 2,500 dollars of a I ease return, b ut it has, essentially, n o m iles o n it,
versus the others that have somewhere between 15 and 20,000 miles on their vehicles.
They have also proposed a lease type of arrangement with a fairly low interest rate,
although it appeared from our last discussion that we had the funds available to simply
purchase the vehicle outright if we wished. Is there other information that Council would
like before we have further discussion on this or are you ready to move forward?
What's your pleasure?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: What is your preference? You're the one that's got to drive it. They are all about
the same price.
De Weerd: And, Mr. Bird, they are -- I really don't have a preference. I guess the
Taurus serves both the economy side and it's good on gas mileage. The Le Sabre is a
little bit larger, if I were to travel around with other people to -- for whatever that might
be for. It's kind of like today we had our department directors meeting and, you know,
we had multiple people in the car. It doesn't matter to me.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Bird: Follow up, please?
Nary: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Bird: What is the -- what is the Le Sabre? In gas mileage, I think the Le Sabre probably
gets just as good as the Taurus does. Having one, I know that. What was the price on
the -- and we realize the 14,750 isn't the complete total price, you have got to pay all the
taxes and all that stuff on it, too. That's just the asking price same with all the other
prices.
De Weerd: The new Taurus and the Le Sabre -- the Le Sabre was 15,000 and it had
17,000 miles on it.
Bird: And this Taurus is brand new with no miles.
De Weerd: That's correct.
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 6 of 53
Bird: And is a four door.
De Weerd: Yes, it is.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess for what we are looking for -- I mean we haven't really purchased before.
My experience has been I think a Taurus is a decent size car. We are talking about a
brand new vehicle at a pretty affordable price in relation to the other lease return options
we have looked at from other dealers, including Meridian Ford. For basically a car with
no mileage on it, it seems like we are really getting more value for the vehicle to be
buying a brand new one, at least at this juncture, with what they are offering from
Meridian Ford. I guess that would be my preference. I think the Taurus would fit the
needs that we are talking about.
Bird: You want to make that into a motion?
De Weerd: Is there any further discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we move forward with the purchase of a car for the use of the
City of Meridian and assigned to the Mayor's Office, through Meridian Ford on their offer
of a Taurus for the amount 14,750 dollars.
Bird: I will second that, but one clarification. The 14,750 isn't the total price. You got
fees and stuff on top of that. Is that included in your motion?
Rountree: Yes.
Bird: Okay. I second it.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the purchase of a vehicle
for the Mayor's office with Meridian Ford. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Mr.
Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 7 of 53
Item 7. (items Moved from Consent Agenda)
A. 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:
B. 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 J LJ E nterprises, I nc. — 2 310 and 2 384
East Victory Road:
C. 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:
De Weerd: Thank you. I guess I should act more excited. Thank you. Okay. Items
from the Consent Agenda that were moved to the regular agenda A, B, and C. I will go
ahead and open discussion on these with staff comments.
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for pulling those.
The issue relates to Item Number 3 -- D-3 on Page 11. The numbers are different for
each one, but it's the same condition and there was a discrepancy between the
Meridian Fire Department, who had asked for a gate on the temporary -- on the
emergency access road and ACHD, who asked for bollards. There was a conflict
between the two agencies. Ms. Suggs, who represents the applicant, did talk with
Deputy Chief Silva today, as well as the Highway District and, of course, Chief Bowers
is here tonight if you need confirmation. What I was told is that they -- the bollards
would work as long as they are designed to Meridian Fire Department's specifications.
As you know, they have had some concerns about being able to shift these bollards
mechanically to get them to work, especially in the wintertime and other times of the
year, to really work effectively. A gate is preferable, but as long as they have the
chance to look at the design of the bollard, he's comfortable with changing this condition
under Meridian Fire Department to be consistent with the Ada County Highway District
condition that says bollards -- traffic bollards shall be required. That's the reason they
were pulled, to make sure there is not a conflict and if you're in agreement, then, that
would be Fire Department Condition Number 3, which is Item Number 3 in all three of
these items that you pulled.
De Weerd: So, Brad, are our preferences from the Fire Department inconsistent with
the requirements of ACHD, not on just this, but do they conflict with their policies?
Hawkins -Clark: We have, Madam Mayor, been finding, I think, more and more, as the
Fire Department has found, that they prefer the gates, we have been seeing this come
Merldian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 8 of 53
up, yes. We have been trying to resolve them before they get this far in the process,
but I believe that we are kind of nearing a solution that will work for bollards on both
sides. The Highway District prefers to have them open, so pedestrians can go back and
forth in these emergency access situations, rather than just completely closing them off
to pedestrian and bicycle activity.
De Weerd: So, with the gates, though, are there not opportunities for openings for
pedestrians, but still maintaining the gate width necessary for a fire truck?
Hawkins -Clark: Chief Bowers may be better able to answer that. I believe they can be
designed that way.
De Weerd: Chief? I don't need to swear you in. I will believe you.
Bowers: Okay. Madam Mayor and City Council Members, you can create a gate with
bicycle passage or walkability on each side. Our problems -- what we have been
finding with bollards is they get rusted down into the pipe in the ground and we can't pull
them out in fast fashion there. Also, they make some that break off, you come up and
hit them with your front bumper and break off. 2:00 or 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning, pitch
dark out there, we don't which bollards they are, because there is so many difference
ones. We have tried some different ones out at the schools and they have not been
working either at this time. You put a hydrant wrench on them and they lay over. We
have been trying to go with gates, because we can just come up, cut the chain, and
swing the gate open, but there you have problems with everybody wanting to come up
and cut the chain and open the gates and who takes care of that. Same thing with
bollards. People come up and remove the bollards or knock them over. It's been a real
donnybrook trying to figure out which way to do -- which way to go with these. Ada
County has got their way of doing it, it's good, and we have good ways, too, so it's really
hard to decide which way to go on it.
De Weerd: Well, I guess its a -- they are there for a safety reason a nd our safety
services need to be able to respond in emergency and not have to worry about
assuming the cost of replacing -- I guess a chain would be less expensive to replace
than a bollard. If we have inconsistent policies that don't match the safety needs of our
departments, we need to work with ACHD on that and get that resolved.
Bowers: Okay. We sure can do that.
De Weerd: I did see Bruce go and talk with Brad. Brad, did he offer any ideas?
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor, he was just asking if their staff had actually made that a
condition on the city and he did not state so, but I think -- I mean the implication being
that they certainly want to have the Fire Department have the final say in terms of this --
as the emergency services personnel. I mean certainly they are more qualified -- I
mean I guess -- but I think if you'd like to have him come up, that would probably be a
good idea. We did have, I thought, some resolution with -- you know, with the bollards,
but --
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 9 of 53
De Weerd: Okay. Yes. Council, would it be helpful to ask Mr. Mills to --
Rountree: Yes.
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chief Bowers.
Bowers: Thank you.
Mills: Bruce Mills, Ada County Highway District. Actually, I am not aware of any policy
that dictates what -- that ACHD says bollards are superior to the gate. In fact, in the
Redfeather condition our commissioners actually talked about a gate, instead of
bollards. I'm not aware of any set condition. What Brad mentioned earlier about us
wanting to have pedestrian or bicycle access is important and if that can be
accommodated, then, I don't see a problem with using the gate, because, typically, we
do like to defer to your own Fire Department for what the preference is for these
emergency accesses. I would be comfortable with either way that you wanted to go.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Any questions? Well, I see the applicant's
representative is here. Jane, do you have anything you would like to add?
Suggs: Jane Suggs, 200 Louisa Street in Boise, representing JLJ Enterprises and
Soda Springs. I was just looking for the -- to make sure that we didn't have an
inconsistent report and that was it. I mean we can do a gate or we can do bollards. I
told Joe Silva that I would actually do some research for him to see if we couldn't find
some bollards. He has a design in mind that the parks people have been making for
themselves with a padlock that has a master key and I'm looking right now at finding
something like that on the market that we could actually use, so that everybody could be
happy. The bollards are kind of an attractive way of handling that emergency thing it's
not quite as imposing as a large gate across the emergency access. Hopefully,
something we will never have to use, but we will go either way. Of course, just with the
condition saying if we do bollards, they have to be bollards that are approved by the Fire
Department before we can install them.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, we have a condition in all three of the findings.
What would you like — what action would you like to take?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: It would appear to me that, I guess, from everything we heard, is that we can pick
one or the other or -- which ever one everybody wants. I mean I understand what Ms.
Suggs is saying, I mean they may find that it isn't very attractive to put a gate across
there and if the Fire Department's willing to work with some alternatives, it sounds like
ACHD is as well. That being the case, I think what would probably be the best would be
to amend section three on all of the reports to reflect that they can put -- they can either
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 10 of 53
put a gate or bollards that are approved by Meridian Fire Department. I mean that way
it gives them the flexibility to figure out which one will work better for this project and we
don't have to make that decision for them, so —
De Weerd: A nd Kenny's s haking h is h ead o r n odding h is h ead. S haking h is h ead.
Thank you. Any further -- Mr. Wardle? Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bind.
Bird: Would the changes on items number three as Mr. Nary stated, that would work
between the Fire Department and the applicant. I would move that we approve AZ 03-
023, the annexation and zoning, Soda Springs Subdivision, also PP 03-027, the
Preliminary P lat for S oda S prings S ubdivision a nd a Iso C UP 0 3-043, t he C onditional
Use Permit for Soda Springs Subdivision, with the changes in item three as stated.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact on
Soda Springs Subdivision, AZ 03-023, PP 03-027, and CUP 03-043, with the change to
item three. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll?
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify commercial
to include four out pads, 25,000 square foot retail and include
Phase II of office complex in C -N and R-40 zones for Devon Park
Subdivision No. 1 & 2 by Hopkins Financial Services, Inc. — 824
East Fairview Avenue:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-055 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 25,000
square foot retail building with a drive up window in a C -N zone for
Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 & 2 by Hopkins Financial
Services, Inc. — 824 East Fairview Avenue:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item F that was removed from the Consent Agenda is
the CUP 03-054 for Devon Park Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2. Staff?
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This item I
actually told you the wrong item. We have two Devon Park Subdivisions, so I'm not
sure how we can handle this tonight. It was G that I -- that, actually, has the condition.
De Weerd: It's already approved.
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 11 of 53
Bird: Yes. We have already approved the CUP.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would say that you just simply
announce the error in the designation -- pull it up. I had, actually, on my own notes
pulled both of them off, because you just -- sometimes they carry forward in both. Until
those findings are signed, then, I think they are not adopted.
De Weerd: Do you need a motion stating that or is it simply a statement?
Nichols: Put a motion on the record, so that it's clear on the record that you're
rescinding your approval of Item -- it would be G under the Consent Agenda, in order to
correct that.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we -- from the Consent Agenda rescind Item G, which is the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 03-05, Devon Park
Subdivision No. 1 and 2 and put it to 7G on the Regular Agenda.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to remove -- or to rescind Item G off
the Consent Agenda, to move it to the regular. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All
ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay. We will discuss Item G.
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brad.
Bird: We also have to discuss Item F, because we have pulled it off.
De Weerd: We will need a motion on that, but let's just first discuss G and --
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Sorry for being difficult there. Item F, there are no
changes. Item G, the item that was brought to staffs attention is Number 2 on Page 4
of the findings and it states that no building permit shall be issued for the proposed
building until the Final Plat for Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 is recorded. As you may
recall, this is for a 25,000 square foot multi -tenant retail building within the Fairview
Lakes slash Devon Park project on the north side of Fairview there and there -- as
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 12 of 53
worded here, this is how the Planning and Zoning Commission approved it. However,
the applicant is concerned that the -- if they cannot pull a Building Permit until the plat is
recorded, they have a timing problem. They would prefer that it be done prior to
issuance of certificate of occupancy, rather than pulling the building permit, so that they
can begin construction of the building while the plat is being recorded through the Ada
County Surveyor's Office. Staff does not have a problem with that change. I guess I
present that to the Council for discussion, that as worded here there are no errors, but
that was a concern that the applicant noticed after the fact.
De Weerd: Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe we have done it both ways. You know, this was something that come
before us, why wasn't this brought up at the Public Hearing that we had on this? That's
the only question I have got is why, at this date, we are bringing this forward. I mean
we have done it both ways with the CO or with the building permit, and I have no
problem either way. I'm just wondering why this wasn't brought forward at the Public
Hearing, if it was a problem.
De Weerd: It sounds like the applicant didn't notice it.
Bird: It was a specification that comes -- or recommendation that come from the
Planning and Zoning.
De Weerd: Would you like to hear from the applicant? Okay. Okay. Well, I would
entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve CUP 03-054, Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2,
the Conditional Use Permit, and also the CUP 03-055, Conditional Use Permit for
Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2, with CUP 03-055, the changing on specific site
specifications Number 2 to certificate of occupancy, instead of Building Permit, the first
two -- in the second and third word of the sentence.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the findings for F and G removed
from the Consent Agenda regarding Devon Park Subdivision No. 2 with the corrections
as noted. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll?
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 13 of 53
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 03-
021 Request for annexation and zoning of 114.52 acres from RUT
to R-8 (PD) and C -G zones for proposed Redfeather Estates
Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south
of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road:
K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 03-
024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and
28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for
proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard
Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of
North Eagle Road:
L. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 03-
041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development for single-family residential use with reduced
setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and increased block
lengths for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by
Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road
and east of North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Finally, we have items J, K, and L that was removed
from the Consent Agenda for AZ 03-021, PP 03-24, and CUP 03-041, on Redfeather
Estates Subdivision No. 2. 1 will start with staff comments.
Hawkins -Clark: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we — I think this item was
discussed at your last meeting, whether or not you would entertain a reconsideration of
these three applications and the advice of legal counsel was to have this actually on an
agenda before you did so.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. Council?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess for more enlightenment, from what I have understood from the Planning
Department, as well as the applicant of Redfeather Estates, they have worked with the
neighbors to -- they believe to alleviate the concerns that were expressed at the Council
hearing on the denial. I don't think there has been any commitment to change the
decision of the Council at this juncture, all they have asked is to present their redesign
plan to us after providing notice to all the surrounding neighbors and they would also
pay for the second mailing again to all of those people. I guess what's before us is if we
want to consider that, we certainly can. What we would need to do, then, is set all three
of these matters for a date certain in the future for notice and for the decision on
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 14 of 53
whether or not we want to reconsider that denial. 1 think that's -- I think that's where we
are at this. Did I get all that right, Mr. Nichols? I think that's what we have.
De Weerd: Just to note, we also received a letter from one of the neighbors as well,
asking for reconsideration, and that served as the spokes person for that subdivision. Is
there any further discussion? Do I have a motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move that we -- that we set for hearing AZ 03-021, PP 03-024, and CUP
03-041 for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 for a date certain for presentation by
the applicant of a redesign of Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 before we consider
these Findings of Facts for denial. I don't know what the -- a date.
Rountree: March 2nd
Bird: March 2nd would be a good one.
Nary: March 2, 2004.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to move consideration for AZ 03-021,
PP 03-024, CUP 03-041, for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 to March 2, 2004.
Any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll?
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Berg, will -- or Mrs. McKay can get in touch with Mr. Berg on the mailing list
and the costs and all of those things and the process will be taken care of, so -- thank
you.
Item 8. FP 03-072 Request for Final Plat approval of 45 building lots and 5 other lots
on 21.24 acres i n a n R-4 (PD) zone f or B ridgetower Crossing No. 5 by
Primeland Development, LLP — east of North Ten Mile Road and south of
West McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 8 is FP 03-072 for Bridgetower Crossing No. 5,
request for Final Plat. We will open with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 15 of 53
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The phase that's
before you tonight is shown here. It's off of Ten Mile Road. Bell Tower Drive is their
recently newly constructed entry road. This is on the north side of Bell Tower and it's
generally this pod that's located here. Here is the Final Plat that was submitted and
staff has reviewed it with the Preliminary Plat and found it to be substantially in
conformance. We did receive a written response from Mrs. McKay, dated January 27,
and they have agreed to comply with all the conditions. The one exception was number
10, which deals with the mosquito abatement plan that was required and we had asked
for that as a part of a storm water pond that didn't have much circulation and we were
concerned about that, but that storm water pond is not located in this phase, so staff
agrees that that could be stricken. I think that's all I have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. Does the applicant have any comment? No? No
comments by the applicant. Council? Okay. Do we have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve FP 03-072, the request for Final Plat for 45 building
lots and five other lots on 21.24 acres in an R-4 PD zone for Bridgetower Crossing No.
5 by Primeland Development, LLP. To note that site specific requirements Number 10
is deleted, the mosquito abatement, and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision of Order.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve RZ 03-009. I'm sorry. FP
03-072, Bridgetower Crossing No. 5. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll?
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request
for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C -N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates — 3680 West Ustick Road:
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2003: PP 03-019 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates — 3680 West Ustick Road:
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2003: CUP 03-034
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a 41 -lot
subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes,
minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 15 of 53
a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates — 3680 West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I will open the Public Hearing for Item Number 9,
continued from December 16, 2003, on RZ 03-009, Stapleton Subdivision. I will also
open 10 and 11 for PP 03-019 and CUP 03-034. 1 will start with staff comments.
Watson: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. As you directed me to do in
mid December when this was originally continued, I worked with Carollo Engineers to
come up with a preliminary scope of services on a noise and odor study. They provided
that to me last Friday. The one thing that I can tell you is that we are looking at
probably about a three month time period to complete this study, at an estimated cost at
this point of just under 60,000 dollars. I haven't had a chance, nor has staff, to
completely go through this and sit down and talk to them about the scope, but I think we
are in the ballpark of what something like this would probably be worth and how much
time it would take. Being somewhat of a novice in this area, I have invited Carollo to
stick around from the pre -Council meeting and provide maybe a little bit more
information on what such a study would entail. If that would be your pleasure, I can
introduce him.
De Weerd: Council? Yes. Thank you, Brad
Watson: Okay. Thank you. Bill Banco from Carollo Engineers is here and he will go
through what they are proposing.
De Weerd: Because this is a Public Hearing, I will ask that you are sworn in. Is the
testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Banco: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Banco: My name is William Banco. I reside in Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Banco: Well, I'm quite impressed with the charter of issues that Mayor and Council hear
each evening and I will attempt to add to that. It's somewhat technical in nature, so I will
be brief, but, please, ask any questions that you have. The difficulty with doing an odor
and a noise investigation is that they are somewhat subjective and they deal with
human sensitivities. With odors in a wastewater treatment plant, there is a full range of
odors at different parts of the plant and it's a very complex mixture. Well, how do we
quantify something like that? Believe it or not, there is a method, a scientific method
that will quantify that. Our scope will follow this quantified method, so that we can show
you results and attempt to prove cost to benefits of various levels in alternatives. With
that, what we will do is make some assumptions. Currently, the wastewater treatment
plant has very little odor control facilities in place. We will make an assumption on, first
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 17 of 53
of all, containing and treating the most common sources of odors and those are usually
the raw sewage area, the influence, and also perhaps some of the bio solids. Then, we
will also establish another target of treating all of the odorous sources which are all of
the open top tanks and that and typical odor control at a wastewater treatment would be
to cover the tanks, contain the odors, exhaust that and, then, send it through some
alternative treatment form. To support this effort, we have used the services of a
nationally recognized sub consultant, Webster Environmental Services, to conduct an
atmospheric dispersion model and what that model will show is the predominant
direction of wind and where odors from a wastewater treatment plant -- where the area
of impact would project to. Then, we can relate that to before and after effects. This is
one example of an atmospheric dispersion model done in a northwest case. The red
you see there is the property site. The blue square in the center of the picture is the
wastewater treatment facility and those are, essentially, odor contours that generate
out. Now, the odor units are -- the analytical instrument that measures these odor units
is actually the human nose. This method uses a panel of humans and it takes a
statistical evaluation, discounting the very sensitive and the not sensitive type, so it's an
average detection level. T hen, it has a full range so t his facility here d id h ave very
stringent odor control requirements. It was a new facility being built. Odor units are
detectable at one odor unit and they can range up to about 10,000 odor units. This
shows the number of odor units and how they project. The other thing that the model
can show is the frequency that they will happen per year. There is changing
atmospheric conditions that we have here in the valley and this shows the frequency in
hours per year that the odor would be expected above a target value, whatever that
target v alue i s. T hen, I h ave a nother s lide h ere o f a n e xample. T his i s a n e astern
municipality. A gain, t he red i s t he p roperty I ine. T his s hows t he f requency t hat t he
odors were exceeding the target value before odor control and, then, in the next slide
this shows the same property line and the frequency of odor exceeding the target value.
You can see the impact not leaving the site and this is what we can use with a model to
support evaluation of different conditions and different levels of odor control. Similar
with the noise. We are going to use the services of another local specialist, Dr.
Pritchard White, a PHD mechanical engineer. He will measure ambient noise around
the facility, b oth d uring q uiet t imes a nd d uring t Imes of h igh t raffic a nd high a mbient
noise and, then, he will measure the noise under various conditions at the wastewater
treatment plant and find out the difference in what plant noises contribute to area
noises. Then, we can look at various alternatives of enclosures or mufflers or things to
reduce noise from some of the equipment at the wastewater treatment plant. Again, in
our study, we will present cost alternatives and some quantified measure of benefits.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: No. He answered mine.
De Weerd: More than answered.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 18 of 53
Nary: Yes. I think what Mr. Watson said was this was like a three month study and it
seems like -- I mean I don't know. It seems like on some of the noise and odor, I don't
know whether or not atmospheric conditions and the like in the summer are significant
enough to want to have a study that's longer than three months. I mean if it puts it -- the
three months I was assuming from now until March, April, I guess May. Somewhere in
there.
Banco: We a ssumed t hat a three-month study period i n o ur i nitial stage i s g oing to
make some assumptions on what your existing odor conditions are, what improvements
would be, and that's based on our experience and the experience of our odor consultant
as well. Sampling, like you mentioned, the most severe odor time is during the summer,
so if there were sampling that would be done, that would be done during the peek odor
period to try and capture that. Analytical sampling would be more costly. There is
some hand-held instruments that you can use to detect hydrogen sulfide as a specific
odorous compound that can be recorded. Odors are so complex that you take a bag
and you just sample the air bag and send it off to the lab, to the guy in the lab coats
and, then, they bring in their human panel and do their statistic analysis.
De Weerd: What a fun job.
Banco: So, we thought we could show you some cost to benefits using assumptions
and, then, if there is an interest in conducting further sampling to verify those
assumptions, that would be an additional cost and you could make that judgment later.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: But isn't some of this initial study going to be some on-site type of work anyway?
So, if we did the three months in June, July and August, wouldn't we be getting the
same information than if we did it now, but we would be getting it at the highest peak?
Banco: That's true. We will identify the odorous sources in our study, but it does not
involve sampling and laboratory analyses, just simplified assumptions. I can give an
example. The raw sewage coming into the treatment plant. We will make an
assumption that that is somewhere around 5,000 odor units and the human nose can
detect one odor unit and, then, we will show where that 5,000 odor units -- what
happens to it as it gets diluted and dispersed in the atmosphere and what kind of odor
units are projecting out in the surrounding area. Then, we will evaluate some covers
and treatment costs and, then, we can expect that would be reduced to about 100 odor
units after treatment and, then, we will show the off-site impact of 100 odor units.
Nary: So, bottom line, if we dummy it down for lawyers, what you're saying is that it
doesn't matter if you do it now or if you do it in July, you're going to be making some
assumptions. We are going to be looking at how the facility operates, the treatment
that's already there, what other things are going to impact the surrounding areas and
whether -- unless we wanted to do on-site testing now or later, it really doesn't make
any difference.
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 19 of 53
Banco: Correct.
Nary: Great.
De Weerd: Thanks for that dumb summary.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And you are -- in this study we are doing now for 60, we will get back a solution to
fixing it; right? If I understood you, correct.
Banco: Correct. You will get similar maps to this.
Bird: Something like that.
Banco: The area of impact and the cost of various stages of odor control and those
benefits quantified in the surrounding area.
Bird: Because this is involving quite a large area of impact for development for us and
this is something that we definitely need to get done as soon as possible, I think.
De Weerd: I guess us better understanding the odor patterns and where the highest is,
will help us determine the most appropriate use as well. Or -- and also looking at what
those correction measures would be and if you pass it on to those that want different
property uses. Brad, did you have --
Watson: Yes. Madam Mayor, if I can just briefly interject a couple of housekeeping
things. If you do want us to proceed with this study, we would need a change order to
their existing contract with -- on the facility plan and we could possibly work that out and
get it into your packets for next Tuesday's approval. Hand in hand with that is we would
also be requesting at the same time or through the finance department simultaneously a
budget line item transfer, because the facility plan budget line item is pretty well wiped
out. They haven't wiped it out yet, but it's committed on their current contract. The one
thing that I want to make sure that we understand with this study, Carollo does not
identify what land uses are appropriate at what levels, that's the city's job to determine
at what level it is. They are not going to say if you spend this much money, apartments
can go here, if you spend this much money, single family can go here.
De Weerd: Brad, I think it's understood it will show more of the pattern and where the
impacts are the highest and so some of those land use discussions can be relative to
those impacts.
Watson: Thank you. I just wanted to make that perfectly clear
De Weerd: Understood. Thank you, Brad.
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 20 of 53
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would, as one Councilman, would like to see Brad go ahead and get the scope
out to us next week on the advanced deal on Carollo, get - do a complete -- I think we
need a complete study myself for future and everything and I think this -- Carollo can
handle that real well for us.
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Brad. Any other questions from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I guess I have a basic concern where we are going here. We have already
zoned the property around the immediate area of the water treatment facility --
wastewater treatment facility to what we have taken to the public as potential
compatible uses. Let me remind the Council of some things that go on with compatible
uses. We all know that we have a rather large neighborhood in this community that
borders a golf course and any change on that golf course and/or weed that grows on
that golf course comes back to this Council as a complaint. We have parks in the city
that border neighborhoods and any change in those parks, any maintenance activity in
those parks, any use in those parks, generates complaints to the city. I can verify that
the same thing happens with Western Ada Recreation Association, that the parks in the
neighborhoods create conflict with neighbors. I can only dream what kinds of issues the
city is going to face if we were to allow residential development adjacent to the
wastewater treatment facility. I will take that to another level. We last night had an
opportunity to hear, yet again, the issues related to Ada County and their waste disposal
site, which they bought and planned for waste disposal, which the county, in turn,
allowed residential development not even next to it, but close to it. We are now faced
with the proposition of having to, one, do expensive modifications to that site in order to
expand it on a site that was proposed for expansion, look at a private provider to take
care of that, or three other options to solve the waste disposal problem for Ada County.
We heard the first part of the meeting tonight that in 20 years we are going to have to
double the capacity of the wastewater treatment facility. I can appreciate what was just
told u s i n terms of how we can q uantify the odor u nits, so it's p robably -- it m ay be
geometric, but I will just say it's arithmetic. If we double the treatment facility, then, we
now have 10,000 odor units and they can give us the isobars or where those odor units
are going to go. I can tell you, you broke the plant one time -- and they will and the
weather pattern happens to be the weather pattern that they just didn't have happen to
model and it goes across that neighborhood, we are not going to hear the end of it. I
don't live far from the treatment plant. I can guarantee you that I don't live in the air
shed, probably, from the treatment plant, but there are occasions when things just don't
happen to work just right -- and those things are not like a watch, they have problems,
you can detect the odor units in my neighborhood. I don't know that this is money well
spent, in my opinion.
Meridian City Coundl
January 27, 2004
Page 21 of 53
De Weerd: Point well taken.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I don't really disagree with anything Councilman Rountree said. I think what our
intent was -- and I guess that's really where the discussion point is today, is when we
were making this zone, this wastewater treatment plant zone around the plant, we, as a
Council, made a decision as to what we believed to be the appropriate uses for that site
and what would be not appropriate uses for that site. We based that on, basically, our
educated understanding of what was there, what was going to be there, and what had
been a point of frustration for both the Commission and the Council in the past. Mr.
Centers has rightfully asked us to consider rezoning that. I think everything you said,
Councilman Rountree, is the same concerns we have all expressed, whether or not at
the end of the day of doing this study we would still consider that rezone, I don't think
any of us have committed to that. I think you're absolutely right, I think it's troubling, but
we were trying to be fair to both Mr. Centers, as well as future applicants for projects
around that treatment plant and wanted something in which to base it on that had more
than just our best educated belief. I think -- I don't think this study may necessarily
change anyone's mind like you're saying as to what's appropriate there and that
residential may not be appropriate there. I guess for me, as just one person up here,
we were grasping at some way to base it on something more than what we had. We
didn't have a whole lot of objective study, objective types of evaluations and we were
looking for something else. Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying, 60,000
dollars is a lot of money for a study. In may be a lot of money for a study that may not
have a tremendous amount of life in it, because as we grow the treatment plant, I
guess, like you said, are we supposed to double the numbers on there or are we
supposed to use some other measure to do that? I don't know whether or not this
particular study is going to give us any of that information of how do we make this last
more than through the summer. I guess that was where we were, so I'm not sure that
any of us that h ad been u p h ere -- the reason we set this f urther into the month of
January is so we would have this exact discussion. Do we want to spend this kind of
money? Do we think we want to have something objective to base any decision on,
whether it's Mr. Centers or you any other projects I guess I'm curious to what everyone
else thinks.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I appreciate those comments. I guess I don't -- whatever we do in terms of
determining the likely land use out there, I don't want it to build expectations that that's
being done to support an application. I think any study we do we might want to look at
another approach in terms of dealing with a land use planner who might have dealt with
these kinds of issues that might be able to make a recommendation to us on
appropriate uses around this kind of facility, as opposed to an engineering study.
Meridian City Council
January27, 2004
Page 22 of 53
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would I agree with what Mr. Rountree and Mr. Nary both said and this study is
not just for one application. We took a long, hard look, spent lots of hours determining
the zoning around that plant when we did it originally. We have turned down numerous
applications, Commercial, residential, everything else within this area, so I mean what is
good for it, that area out there? What do we want? I mean -- and I think this survey or
study that we are having done can give us some kind of an answer and it's not just for
one project, as far as I'm concerned, it's for the general area out there, the whole half
mile -- half mile or whatever we got out there. That was my thinking on it.
De Weerd: Well -- and I would imagine -- and its just a real naive guess, but you can
build into your models future intakes or future odor components. If you will -- if you can
come to the microphone. We, of course, want to capture every one of your words, if
you will state your name again.
Banco: William Banco, Carollo Engineers. Having just completed the wastewater
facility plan, we did assume that we would include future treatment facilities in the
sources and the costs of odor control.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. One other comment. I'm sorry, I guess I'm guessing a little bit, but Mr.
Centers has been in front of us a couple times on this project. I don't think he thinks we
are going this to further his project along, I mean I think we are trying to figure out what
type of things we can evaluate better in the future. I think when we did get to the end of
the Comprehensive Plan with this designation, realistically, we should have done this,
then, or certainly somewhere shortly after. I think that was what we recognized in the
fall, was that it was really incumbent on the city that once we made a designated zone
that was somewhat unique, that we, then, have to be able to identify a little bit better
what we thought we could put in it, because we did it, really, in a much more general
way. I think that was the intent. I don't think we are trying to just pour money down this
rat hole, I think we are really trying to figure out what should be put there and what
should be better, so that Mr. Centers or anyone else that comes before us can try to fit
in what we want.
De Weerd: Any further discussion or comments? Well, we continued the Public
Hearings on these items for this particular discussion, so I would look to Council on how
you would like to proceed.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 23 of 53
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I'm willing to support this study, but it is right now before us and what we
have been continuing is Mr. Centers' project and I don't know in if Mr. Centers would
like us to continue to do that until we have some closure or if we wants us to make a
decision on his project. I mean it is his project and he has to keep coming, so I guess if
the Council wants, they can certainly ask him what he would like us to do, if we are
going to continue this to have a study done.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Mr. Centers. Is the testimony you provide tonight the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Centers: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Centers: Jake Centers, 2011 Locust Grove, Meridian. Yes I -- you know, it's a tough
thing, because if you spend the money, do the study, does that really get us anywhere
further along than where we are at now. You know, I don't want to cause the city to
spend 60,000 dollars and not have, really, much to show for it, so -- because it is a
mixed use, so, you know, everything is allowed, basically, but residential. If you don't
think that by having this study it's still going to -- you know, even being said, that, yes,
the study is going to show you the patterns, but they are still not the experts on whether
or not -- you know, at what level is it comfortable for someone to own a residence in.
They don't know the answer to that. You know, that's really an individual's choice when
looking at property. I don't know that it's going to get us in any better spot than we are
at now, but I would like to have a decision made on the property, because I can't just
continue to sit on it. I need to -- you know, I don't live there and I need to do something
with it and so in order for me to move forward, I'd like to have a decision. If we can
make that decision tonight, that would help me make my decision on how to proceed so
De Weerd: Okay. Questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Centers. This is
a Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to submit testimony on this
application? Okay. Council, we have an open Public Hearing. Do you have anything
that you would wish to discuss?
Rountree: Nothing further.
De Weerd: Nothing further? Any staff comments? Okay. I will go ahead and close this
Public Hearing on Items 9, 10, and 11.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 24 of 53
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearings on RZ 03-009, for Stapleton Subdivision and
also PP 03-019, the Preliminary Plat for Stapleton Subdivision, and also CUP 03-034,
the Conditional Use Permit for Stapleton Subdivision.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor of closing nine, 10 and
eleven all say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Thank you. Do you have any further discussion on this before I would
entertain a motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think we probably are ready to make a motion on Stapleton. What I would
guess -- if we aren't going to -- we are going to deal with that issue today, I guess we
need to also make a decision separate. It doesn't have to be part of Stapleton, as to
whether or not the study is to be done or not, whether or not we do want that, but other
than that, I think that's kind of where we are at.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Have you got the motion?
Nary: Sure. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess based on all that discussion that we have had so far, moving to Item 9, 1
would more to deny RZ 03-009. The request for a rezone of 6.39 acres from C -N to an
R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates at 3680 west
Ustick Road, based upon -- and request counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order. The finding for denial to include that the
rezone request was -- what information is -- that the rezone request, basically, does not
comply with the Comprehensive Plan. That no other information is presented to give
this Council cause to amend the Comprehensive Plan at this point, no other information
as to the compatibility of residential zoning in this particular zone is appropriate and tell
me, Mr. Nichols, if you need more than that for a rezone denial.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as long as the Council recognizes it's
currently zoned I think R-1 and that its the additional residential development that would
occur through the rezone is what is contrary to the Comp Plan. The original zone that
Meridian City Council
January27, 2004
Page 25 of 53
was given to it was because there was already an existing residence on the property
and that there is a lack of objective information about at what point the potential impact
from the plant from odors and noise would affect the marketability of this project and
also negatively impact the potential future residence.
Nary: I believe that's exactly What I meant, Mr. Nichols. Thank you. I did note, though,
you did say it was zoned R-1 and the rezone request was for a C -N. Excuse me.
Nichols: Excuse me, Madam Mayor, I was mistaken.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: Wow.
Nary: So, all of mine and all of his is what I would recommend in this motion for denial.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Is that motion detailed enough, Mr. Nichols? With his nod, I will accept your
motion. Is there any further discussion? The motion is to deny RZ 03-009 as stated
with the reasons by Councilman Nary. 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. We have Items 9 and 10. 1 mean 10 and 11.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move denial of PP 03-019, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40
building lots and seven other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates and for counsel to prepare Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order for denial. Now based upon the fact
that the rezone request was denied pursuant to RZ 03-009 and the requested plat
would, then, be incompatible with the zoning as designated for the property.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny PP 03-019, for Stapleton
Subdivision. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 26 of 53
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Move the denial of CUP 03-034, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned
development of a 41 lot subdivision for Stapleton Subdivision at 3680 West Ustick
Road. For the previously stated reasons that the plat, as well as the rezone for this
property were denied and, therefore, the planned development would be incompatible
with the zoning as currently designated for this property.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to deny CUP 03-034 for Stapleton
Subdivision as stated in the motion. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Public Hearing: RZ 03-011 Request for a rezone of 9.34 acres from I -L
to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood
Development, LLC —1125 East Pine Street:
Item 13. Public Hearing: PP 03-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 38
building lots and 17 other lots on 12.74 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for
proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development,
LLC —1125 East Pine Street:
Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 03-057 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
multi -family residential subdivision requesting reduced setbacks, parking
standards, and dimensional requirements in a proposed R-15 zone for
proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development,
LLC — 1125 East Pine Street:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We have Items 12, 13 and 14. If there aren't any
objections, I will open all three, Public Hearing for RZ 03-011, PP 03-031, and CUP 03-
057 for Mayfair Commons Subdivision. We will open with staff comments.
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. On the first Item
Number 12 on the rezone request, the property that is the subject is located here on the
south side of East Pine. It is currently zoned light industrial. This has Danbury
Subdivision there on the north side, Union Pacific Railroad runs along the south, that's a
200 foot wide right of way, just to give you a little perspective on there. Santee
Business Park is the condominium project that is here towards the north end of the
project. There is an existing residence that has not been annexed on the property to
the west. East Commercial Avenue is -- does stub to the property here in the southeast
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 27 of 53
comer. That's the only stub. The primary access here on East Pine. The rezone
request is to rezone the majority of the property, 9.34 acres, to R-15. The southern
portion would remain light industrial. As you probably read in the staff report, there was
an application submitted on this property before several months ago to rezone the entire
property. It was withdrawn prior to coming to the Council at the P&Z Commission level.
The aerial photo shows the Five Mile Creek coming underneath Union Pacific Railroad
and it does impact the southwest corner of the parcel. The channel, the floodway, is
within their boundaries and, of course, the flood plain impacts quite a bit of southwest
corner there as well. Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval on
Item Number 12 to rezone 9.34 acres of the 12.74 to R-15. Here on Item Number 13,
the Preliminary Plat, north is left. We have switched directions in the universe here.
The entrance that they are proposing is here. They are proposing a private commercial
driveway access off of Pine, not a public street. The application has 38 building lots, 15
of those are for detached four-plexes, and the detached ones are shown in the larger
boxes there. You can see some of them also have these -- the dashed lot lines shown.
Those are for the attached four-plexes. The dwelling unit type is four-plexes throughout
the north portion, but there is a combination of both attached and detached buildings.
There are 100 dwelling units. I believe 60 of those are in the detached and 40 of those
are in the attached. Their open space that they are proposing is shown here in the
center and I will just go to the Landscape Plan. You can see they are showing parking
on the north and south of the common lot to access it. They are proposing a volleyball
court on the north end of that lot and some picnic shelters and space. This slide shows
their phasing plan that was submitted. They are proposing to phase the residential,
constructing the north portion, which is, as you can see, about half the dwelling units in
phase one, as well as the three industrial lots, which is the portion of the property that
would not be rezoned so, kind of a split phase there. Then, their Phase 2 is located in
the m iddle. I did want to p oint out f or the Council, at least u rider this plan -- and I
haven't had discussions with the applicant, but it does appear that they are not
proposing to construct any of the open space or amenities as a part of Phase 1, so if --
maybe Mr. Beecham could address that, that would be helpful. The Planning and
Zoning Commission did recommend approval of this item, as well as 14. The planned
development is requested because of reduced setbacks, reduced frontages, and a
number of other things that were detailed there. The slide that's on the screen now
shows basically the layout of one of the attached lots and how that building would fit on
the property. They are proposing these external stairwells that would, basically, be
within nine feet of the front property line. The building itself would be 14. They are
requesting a six-foot setback reduction for the building and a little larger for the stairwell.
Here are the elevations that they have submitted with their application that show the
buildings. Front elevation on the top and rear elevation on the bottom. Go back just a
couple of comments on the recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission as
noted in Wendy's report, there were four neighbors that came to their hearing that
provided testimony in opposition. There was a number of letters that were also
submitted that are in the record that also state their opposition and, in summary, I think
it's safe to say that the majority of people feel that the industrial nature of this area
should be retained and no residential should be allowed. The Planning and Zoning
Commission did recommend disclosure in the CC&Rs concerning the existence of the
neighboring industrial uses. They did submit draft CC&Rs that show some language in
there that would basically be disclosed to any buyer in this project that would state that
Meridian City Councll
January 27, 2004
Page 28 of 53
they have industrial uses 24-7, et cetera, around the property and that would have to be
part of their title on these properties. The Preliminary Plat was revised since the
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, dated January 15, 2004, received January
16, 2004, and there are a few other clean-up items that I guess maybe at this point I
won't go into, but would like to reserve the chance to touch on some of those after the
applicant presents.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Brad. I apologize to Council. I didn't ask for direction on
the proposal for -- and we do have an open Public Hearing on other items, but we can
discuss that at the end of this or -- okay. Thank you. Okay. Any questions for staff?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Brad, could you take me back to the aerial of the site? I'm still trying to get
oriented.
De Weerd: That's Locust Grove.
Bird: That's the industrial park right there.
Rountree: So, the drain is on the western edge of the -- northwestern edge there and
up front?
De Weerd: It goes diagonal.
Rountree: It swings back around, goes across the road right --
Bird: Right in here.
Rountree: -- there or -- it goes across the road right -- right on the property line, does it
not?
Hawkins -Clark: Mr. Rountree, is your question where does the drain cross underneath
Pine Avenue? Where does it cross underneath Pine? Is that the question?
Rountree: Right on the northwest edge of that property in question. The applicant's
property.
Hawkins -Clark: No. This is the applicant's property.
Rountree: Correct.
Hawkins -Clark: And it does cross underneath Pine further west.
Rountree: Isn't there a drain right there and a residence right there? A road back
through McKegg's right there? The reason I ask, Brad -- I don't know, you guys are
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 29 of 53
going to have to deal with my history. At one point in time, this property right here came
to the city and wanted to be annexed and they wanted to build on it. It was denied. It
was denied primarily because that's in a flood -- a hundred year flood plain, not
buildable, according to city ordinances. I believe that still impacts this property, does it
not? I don't see that issue addressed anywhere in here.
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Mr. Rountree. I was just pointing out the plat. Yes, you are
correct, the Preliminary Plat shows a 90 foot wide easement that does encroach in that
northwest corner of their property and --
Rountree: And my question -- is that still an issue? I know it was a significant enough
issue for that particular property owner that they just flat gave up.
Hawkins -Clark: Well, yes, as far as the flood plain being an issue of how building
permits are reviewed and proved, certainly. As shown on the survey, the impact would
certainly be greater on that small piece to the west that you just referred to that the city
has some history with. The flood plain appears to have -- sort of taper off pretty quickly
as it goes east and shows quite a bit of contour change right there, so it --
Rountree: That just might affective the buildable space on that property.
Hawkins -Clark: The buildable space. Correct.
De Weerd: Any further questions? 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?
Beecham: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Beecham: My name is Scott Beecham, address 405 South 8t' Street in Boise. I am the
representative of Wildwood Development, the applicant on this project. The
applications before you tonight represent a tremendous amount of work done by staff,
the Planning and Zoning Commission, the neighbors, and the applicant. The resulting
proposal is for a combination of multi family and light industrial lots, as staff indicated.
This land use -- mix of land uses provides for a logical transition from the more intensive
industrial uses to the south and the east of the property, to the single family residential
uses to the north and west of this property. It also provides for a strong residential base
near the downtown core of Meridian, consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan. As staff indicated, these applications are as follows: We have got a rezone of
9.34 acres. That is everything north of -- or to left of Commercial Avenue. We have a
Conditional Use Permit request on that same property. Then, we have got the
Preliminary Plat for the entire property, the 12.74 acres. That consists of 38 building
lots and 17 other lots. I'd like to break down the buildable lots and other lots a little bit
better for your information. There are the 35 m ultiplex lots a nd that consists of two
different product types intended to give a diversity of housing choices to the residents
within the community and the City of Meridian. The attached four-plex structures will be
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 30 of 53
largely -- will be exclusively one -bedroom and studio -type apartments catering towards
a single individual or a couple, perhaps. The other -- the detached four-plex structures
would lend themselves more towards the young couple or young family. In addition, we
have got the three industrial lots on the southern portion of the property. This was a
result of the redesign of this project and that was intended to be one method of reducing
the perceived conflict between land uses. By creating these lots, we have effectively
separated ourselves an additional three to four hundred feet from the railroad right of
way and the very intensive block plant to the south of that. In addition to that, land use
and plan change, we have increased perimeter landscaping and added some sound
dampening to the structures, and I will talk about that a little bit more. Next, we have
ten garage and storage lots identified for this project. Those garages would be in
addition to the parking identified in the staff report. They would be either two -car
garages or allow for storage for the residence within the community. In terms of open
space, we have got about 30 percent open space on the project and that open space is
largely concentrated in the center of the project in approximately a two acre commons.
The remainder of that 30 percent is in -- a little bit up in the northeast corner and, then,
landscape islands. That is not counting the perimeter buffer. In addition to that open
space, we have got yard areas -- which is not typical to a multi -family development. We
have got lots, which have yard areas of 2,500 to 3,500 square feet apiece. If you add
the math on that, we have got another two acres, plus or minus, in open space. At the
end of the day on the residential portion, close to 40 percent of this site is in open
space, which we think is a great benefit to that -- to this neighborhood, as well as the
community as a whole. I'd like to address some housekeeping item. Jim Conger
passed out a folder. I wanted to just quickly go through what these items are. The first
item is the phasing plan. There was a requirement by city staff to provide that phasing
plan prior to this hearing. We did that. I wanted to put that in front of you. I'll point out
that the only change to the Preliminary Plat was this phasing plan. Where it was
updated, there was a revision date in January. The only change was the phasing plan
as requested by the city. The second item is a revised Landscape Plan with further
detail provided on the amenity package for this project. Brad indicated picnic shelters.
In our letter, we did not indicate shelters, rather, we want to do barbecue pits and picnic
tables in this common space. The third item is the draft CC&Rs and I would point out
that on the bottom of Page 15 is really the relevant information that addresses
disclosure of potential impacts and industrial and commercial neighbors. In addition,
under the fourth tab, we have provided addendums to both the rental and purchase and
sale agreements. This is to be provided with those contracts to try and get that line of
communication across the board. Where these lots are for sale, we want that to be
passed to the purchaser, as well as the end tenant. We have tried to accommodate that
through this CC&R language and these addendums. The final item in this packet is a
little more involved and these are simply -- or generally, clarification items on the
recommendation from P&Z and if I could, I'd like to go through those one by one. The
first item under the Preliminary Plat was in regards to latecomers fee. This is more of a
formatting question than — I think the intent is clear that the recommendation is to
change the language from original staff report. However, as it leads, it shows that we
need to pay that latecomer's fee prior to signature and, then, in the recommendations it
says -- let me go back here. In accordance with the prior agreement. There is a conflict
if you take both of those things, both the recommendation and the staff report. I guess
that's a question I'd just like to put in front of the Council. The second item relates to
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 31 of 53
conditions three and 16 and I think this is an important issue. Brad touched on it in
terms of the park being in Phase 2. The applicant's intent would be to bond for the
improvements by phase. That presents a question on when you have got an amenity --
a required amenity in the second phase, don't -- speaking for the applicant, he's here
tonight, he can address this. In our discussions they don't have a problem doing that.
The intent of the project is to build that amenity. However, the phasing of it and
absorption doesn't allow us to get to that amenity in a reasonable amount of time. We
try and phase that in one year increments, roughly, based on a reasonable absorption.
Having said that, we have got another project -- the same applicant has another project
in town which has absorbed quicker than expected and we may have the same case
here, in which case everything would be sped up. The point of this is that we have got
our requirement in the recommendation that we cannot have certificate -- cerlificates'of
occupancy prior to completing some of this landscape. It seems to be a belt and
suspenders approach, where we are bonding for these improvements, we would
request that this language be changed to be consistent with the general requirements,
which requires to put a letter of credit or cash surety in place. The next item is a minor
one. In Condition 11, there is reference to access roads. We do have a potential on
this project to -- need to p rovide a temporary fire access between the f irst p hase of
residential and commercial avenue. What we have done in the past on that is done an
all-weather s urface, which I t hink by m ost people's o pinion would n of b e a d ust free
material we use a standard road mix on that. We could change that language to specify
temporary would not subject to that dust free we would appreciate that. Condition
Number 12 addresses the seed versus sod. The original condition was that all
landscaped areas, common areas included, be sodded. The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation is that only the building lots be sodded and the common
area -- or exception areas be -- can be seeded. That's not a terminology that we are
familiar with or have used, would like to change that to common areas, to make sure
everybody has a consistent understanding on that. On Condition 17, again, maybe a
formatting question. It refers to the phasing plan. That has been submitted and,
therefore, should be deleted.
De Weerd: Mr. Beecham?
Beecham: Yes.
De Weerd: Of your allotted 15 minutes, there are three minutes remaining for both you
and if the applicant wanted to speak, so --
Beecham: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: I just wanted to let you know.
Beecham: I appreciate that. Actually, I'm going to jump ahead. There are a few items
on the Conditional Use Permit. They are identified again under the fifth tab there. I will
jump ahead and address the flood plain issue. The southwest portion of this site is in
the floodway and is nonbuildable per city code. The majority of this site is in the
hundred year plain and can be build on if the flood elevations are raised above that one
hundred foot standard -- one foot above the base elevation. This site, even though it's
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 32 of 53
entirely within that hundred -year flood plain, is -- ranges between six inches and a foot
below. By the time you build up the foundations, the slab -on -grade foundations, we will
be above that and can handle through standard procedures the elevation certificates.
We can be removed from that hundred -foot flood plain. I think the last thing to address
would be the opposition by the neighbors that staff referenced. Again, we have done a
tremendous amount of work. Planning and Zoning Commission heard extensive
testimony. We have modified this site plan and feel we have come before you with a
good compromise that, again, provides for that logical transition between the more
intensive uses to the south and east and the single-family neighborhoods to the north
and west. With that, I'd stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I have got a couple of questions. Mr. Beecham, one little note. I notice there
was a letter from a neighbor that was opposed to it and indicated that the address that
you used as your property address is, actually, his address. Did you clear that up?
Beecham: Yes, sir. Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, the assessor's records show this
property as 1275 East Pine. It was previously a portion of that neighbor's property and
we posted it per the assessor's records. When this -- when that issue came up, we, of
course, came to the city and got a new address. I think they assigned it based on that
telephone call from that neighbor.
Nary: Okay.
Beecham: But it was an honest mistake.
Nary: On your phasing plan, basically, if
many people -- or how many residences
your anticipation was approximately a y
right?
Beecham: That -- that is what I said.
Nary: Okay.
I saw the prior drawing -- okay. Basically, how
-- living units are in this phase one? Because
ear before you would, build Phase 2? Is that
Beecham: And that is based on some conservative numbers that -- you know, that first
phase would be a one-year absorption.
Nary: Okay. How many living units in this phase?
Beecham: I'm sorry I don't know that off the top of my head. I'll do quick math. We
have --
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 33 of 53
Hawkins -Clark: Councilman Nary, I'm sorry, I did count that. That was 56 dwelling
units.
Nary: Fifty-six dwelling units? Okay. You're talking 150, 200 people living in this thing
right here right? In this phase. Possible.
Beecham: I would say that would be a very high estimate, given the product type that
we are proposing. The majority of -- many of those units are single occupant type
studio apartments and one bedroom units.
Nary: Well, why not -- why not build -- why not build the amenity -- why not build the
amenity with his phase? I guess I didn't hear why all I heard was that you weren't going
to.
Beecham: Council Nary, when putting in the infrastructure, the logical break point was -
- you can see right at the start of the shaded area. That amenities lies south of that
break point and without curb, gutter, of all those other infrastructural improvements, we
are going to be back in there and tearing that up in phase two.
Nary: Well, I'm no engineer, but I mean you certainly could have put the two acres on
this side of the line.
Beecham: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Nary. I misunderstood your question.
Nary: Okay.
Beecham: This was the layout that made sense. We wanted to get that -- that
commons area internal to the site, further in away from Pine, so that was the layout and,
quite honestly, the phasing plan was not — when doing the site planning on this, that
was not the foremost consideration.
Nary: What p Ian, i f a ny, d o y ou h ave -- B rad, could you p ut u p that o ther o ne t hat
shows more of the -- I guess the turn -- that shows the other industrial site around it. I
guess that's good. I mean what, if any, plan do you have? This street is going to
connect, from what I saw in your other thing; right? This street is going to go through
here it's an access point. You have got Pine Avenue, access through here, but also
when this back part gets built you're going to have people cutting through here, through
this fairly busy industrial point. When Locust Grove goes through, which it's supposed
to do in the next couple of years, you have got a real straight shot access out there, so
you have got a lot of traffic that you're going to funnel through the industrial site. What
plans, if any, do you have to deal with that?
Beecham: We c ertainly d o s ee s ome o f t he t rips g enerated from t his s ite g oing o ut
through that industrial property. The concern of ACHD and I think a concern that we
shared was more cut -through traffic. By the way, city staff also shared this concern.
This cut -through traffic of people from Locust Grove, going north on Locust Grove,
cutting through on commercial and north through our project, I, quite frankly, didn't see
that. Yes, obviously, you have got a north -south street in that industrial neighborhood. I
McMan City Council
January27, 2004
Page 34 of 53
didn't see it to the extent, I should say, that the city was concerned about it and ACHD,
but what we have done is redesigned the plant to make it a more circuitous route. Now
Nary: Well, it's not circuitous for the half of the people that live in the back half of this,
they are all going to go out on Commercial right through this industrial park to go to
Locust Grove. They are not going to go -- they are not going to go out through the front,
they are going to go right there. I mean that's the quickest access point for everybody.
Beecham: Yes.
Nary: So, if I understand your answer is you don't really have any plan, you just -- you
anticipate that that's where the traffic is going to drive is through that industrial park.
Beecham: The intention is not to funnel traffic that way, Madam Mayor, Councilman
Nary. The site is designed to take primary access off of Pine. The back door on
Commercial is -- and keep in mind, again, this project has gone through a transition
over time and the land plan has changed. The back door in commercial is going to be a
logical exit point for anybody going south, that would be a logical exit point. Now,
Commercial Avenue is a 60 -foot right of way. It's a large road. It can accommodate a
certain number of trips. ACHD, quite frankly, didn't express any concern with the traffic
generated from this site, so I don't think we ignored it, it just didn't come up on the radar
as a significant issue to the highway district and, therefore, to us.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I have a follow-up question from Mr. Nary's question. Brad, if you can put up
the site plan. If I understand correctly, Mr. Beecham, this road will be a through road
here all the way to Locust Grove. Commercial will; correct?
Beecham: Yes when Locust Grove is connected.
Wardle: And a re t hese -- a nd t his i s a road through t he d evelopment itself and a re
these parking spots here? Those will exit directly into that -- and is this a parking area
as well? I guess I could see --
Beecham: Yes, sir, it is.
Wardle: Okay. Those are all parking areas that exit into the drive aisle.
Beecham: Right.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 35 of 53
Nary: Do you at this juncture, Mr. Beecham, have any plans for what these industrial
sites are going to be?
Beecham: The applicant has expressed an interest of doing a contractor yard there in
that location. Anything that happens on those lots would be required to go through the
Conditional Use Permit process, so that would that a future application to the city.
Again, that was just -- that was a proposed use and, again, I'll reiterate that those
industrial lots weren't there originally, it was -- as compromise that we adjusted the land
plan, so they are regrouping and kind of creating the plan for how that property is used.
Nary: These are the backs, then, of the buildings; is that correct? The backs of the
buildings face the street?
Beecham: Yes, sir. That's correct.
Nary: What's the buffer here? Is it 20 feet?
Beecham: The buffer there between -- and maybe this will -- this rendered Landscape
Plan will demonstrate a little bit better. The buffer along the back is -- and I might need
to ask Brad for help with what the requirement along the --
De Weerd: Mr. Beecham, can we ask that you put it on the stand, take the microphone,
so the public can also see what you're pointing out? You might move that stand a little
forward, so Council will be able to see it as well. Yes. That's good. Can you either use
the microphone or there is also a pointer on the stand.
Beecham: The landscape buffer between that -- between Commercial and the back of.
those units is -- I think as it ended up it was at ten feet and I know I went through this at
length with Wendy, but I'd ask Brad if he could maybe help remind me what that was.
At any rate, the separation between the structures and the roadway is closer to 20 feet.
I would add that, of course, perimeter fencing is required on this and so that, along with
the street trees identified on the Landscape Plan, would create an additional buffer and
is physical separation.
De Weerd: So, they have just a 10 -foot backyard?
Beecham: Again, I b elieve t hat's a requirement. And, I apologize, I don't have that
information handy. If Brad could help me on that.
Hawkins -Clark: Yes. Industrial uses are a class five and multi -family are a class two,
so you have class two next to a class five, which is 30 feet. Now, bear in mind that is if
their property lines are contiguous. The landscape ordinance specifically excludes -- I
mean if you have a public street separating your uses, then, what I just said does not
apply. All local streets have to have minimum 10 -foot wide street buffers, so we have
two different types of buffers. One is a buffer between land uses and the other is a
buffer just for street buffer and in this case, since you have commercial between the
industrial and the multi -family, the buffer between land uses doesn't apply, so we just
have the ten foot that applies, which they have shown.
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 35 of 53
De Weerd: Thank you, Brad.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I got a question for Mr. Beecham. Is the fence going to be right on the sidewalk,
the fence you're putting along there, will it be right on -- up to the top sidewalk?
Beecham: No. Councilman Bird, it will be at the back of that 10 -foot buffer space, so
there will be landscaping between the fence and the sidewalk.
Bird: Sidewalk. Okay.
Beecham: Yes, sir.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further questions? Thank you. You do have two
minutes left, if the applicant does want to say anything as well.
Beecham: I guess I would ask the Council's direction. We can handle that through any
potential rebuttal or -- and I'll ask the applicant, of course, what his interest is.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Beecham: Thank you.
De Weerd: Now, if the applicant chooses to be the spokes person to rebut, then, he is
the only person. I just wanted to make sure you understand that. The rebuttal is by one
person. If the applicant would like to be the one that does the rebuttal, that is fine.
Beecham: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay?
Beecham: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Scott. Okay. If you will raise your right hand. Is the testimony
you p rovide t onight t he it ruth, t he w hole t ruth, a nd n othing b ut t he t ruth, s o h elp y ou
God?
Finley: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Finley: Christopher G. Finley, 145 Horizon Drive, Boise, Idaho.
Meridian Clry Council
January27, 2004
Page 37 of 53
De Weerd: Thank you.
Finley: We thought a lot about this project and we think it brings a lot of necessities to
the City of Meridian. I went and listened to the -- Tom Hudson, for what you want to do
with your downtown and we thought that this project hooks up with that real nice. We
are only about eight blocks to downtown Meridian, so we thought that putting this
residential into this area helps give us the buffer zones coming in from the industrial
area to the east and to the south and adds people down to get them downtown to use
the new uses that you guys want to put down there. These are -- currently we have
Cooper Canyon right n ow, you know, we feel that t here is a great h ousing need f or
those people that are there. As a matter of fact, even one of Meridian's police officers
are one of our tenants there. We have mainly young families. We think it's a good
project. A good quality project. We feel that this one does, too, with lots of open space
and everything to it. They are very good looking buildings. We do have pictures of our
buildings and they are all stucco, they are not vinyl sided, they are not any of that kind
of stuff to them. One of the things we would like to see, too, is because these things do
generate a lot of -- if you do approve this, we do generate a lot of park fees and ACHD
fees. We'd like to see if you guys wouldn't use those fees for -- you know, if you can
make — generate those fees to go into like parks and stuff in -- towards the downtown
area and talk to ACHD to use those fees to, you know, help access our properties down
to the city and stuff like that, because it's going to generate close to 57,000 dollars in
park fees. Its also going to create about 113,000 in ACHD fees, and we'd like to see
the city use those, so you could help your downtown area.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you so much. Okay.
We will accept testimony just feel free to come forward. Is the testimony you provide
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ullman: It is.
De Weed: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Ullman: My name is Jason Ullman I'm at 925 Stonehenge in Meridian. I'm going to
speak on behalf of D&J Auto Transport, at 1433 East Commercial. We are the business
that is going to butt up directly to the southeast of this property. We are a business that
-- we operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We moved to this location about five
years ago and we came here for specifically one reason. When we -- the location we
had down in Garden City was this exact same scenario. We were a commercial
property surrounded partially by residential areas and we were called consistently,
almost on a daily basis, with people calling, complaining about the noise of our trucks
that they are going to make loading and unloading and we got served with several
lawsuits, so we had to, you know, go in and out of court. I just don't see -- I don't know -
- I'm not much of a public speaker, as you can tell.
De Weerd: Thank you. You're doing fine.
Meridlan My Council
January 27, 2004
Page 38 of 53
Ullman: At the Planning and Zoning Commission, the builder had stated that he had
checked with several of the businesses around there and that they had approved this
new design. Specifically stated that he had checked with us about that -- that we were
happier with this new design where they were leaving the back half open and leaving
that commercial, that we were happier with that and I think that's only true to the point
that it's -- I would be happy if you broke one kneecap, instead of two. I think the new
plan would probably show it as better, you know, than the original, but there is no way
that I t hink it's going to work with u s o r a ny other business a round t here. They a re
making noise at several of those businesses as well that are operating 24 hours a day,
seven days a week. I understand that they are trying to make accommodations by
putting these special considerations in, like better windows and stucco and it's going to
help keep the noise down. They are going to put a notice in with the lease about the
possible -- you know, the possibility of excess noise and I think some people have a
reasonable expectation of w hat t hat noise i s g oing to b e. In apartments, w hen they
read that, they are going to think of, you know, a loud TV, a stereo, someone
vacuuming, that works an opposite shift that they do, etcetera, et cetera. I just -- there
is no way that's going to compare to the amount decibels that our trucks are going to
create while they are loading and unloading. In short, there is just -- no matter what
kind of considerations that the developer or the builder come up with, it's just simply
going to be a matter of time before these people start calling and complaining to us and,
then, we are going to be back here with you. We are speaking from experiences. This
is exactly what we just went through when we moved out here. I would also like to point
out -- I know I'm out of time, but Councilman Nary's point about the traffic that is going
to be directly coming out Commercial right onto Locust Grove in front of us. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you very much. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De W eerd: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Is there anyone further? Is the
testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Taylor: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Taylor: My name is Larry Taylor, 851 East Antilles Court, Meridian, Idaho. Mayor,
Council, Staff, thank you for this evening's opportunity to speak. I am representing the
business owners association on the Ralston project, which is called Santee we call it the
Ralston as well, which is located due east of the property. There is 23 businesses
located -- yes. Right there. Thank you. They are located right there. The noise is
definitely going to be an issue. We have already spoken about that, so I won't go into
that anymore. Safety is my biggest concern in this project and what's going to be
established here, the proposed establishment that they are offering. We offer -- or we
have a business, Advanced Heating, which is located immediately adjacent to the
property. They got the five units right there. They do metal fabrication for their duct
work. That is located directly behind that unit and in that area. I remember as I was a
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 39 of 53
child, anything shinny or -- that I could see I grabbed. This is metal. We do make all
the opportunities of keeping it within the area, however, it doesn't take much for a small
arm to get through the fencing that is there and it would only take one injury, very --
could be even a fatal injury, to make this an extremely bad idea. The traffic, again,
Commercial Avenue, Ralston Street, is currently extremely heavy with our semi traffic
with our deliveries. They are seven -- 24-7, as you would say, and any type of an
opportunity that children or even adults will be on those streets -- and since this is
currently the only paved area right there with sidewalks, it will be one of the major areas
that people will be utilizing. In closing, it is specifically the safety of the occupants in
these areas, as well as our individual people, that is a major concern of ours. Thank
you. Any questions?
De Weerd: Thank you. Council? Thank you very much.
Nary: I'm sorry. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Tell me again -- I missed exactly where -- is your business right here?
Taylor: Yeah. I'm representing the association. All the owners.
Nary: Okay.
Taylor: The 23 owners right there.
Nary: I'm sorry. I just missed at what point you said it was. Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Is the testimony you
provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Callister: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Callister: David Callister, Eagle, Idaho.
De Weerd: Okay.
Callister: I'm negotiating to be the builder on these projects. I'm not the applicant, but
the builder, and I was the builder on this applicant's last project and, as such, I have
taken an added measure to visit with these neighbors. The ones that have spoken to
you today and additional neighbors in trying to make sure that the construction of the
project -- of the buildings that I am involved in trying to present, meets the needs of the
neighborhood and that this would be a compatible project to the neighborhood, because
it affects the clients that I'm trying to achieve. I wanted to make a couple clarifications,
just -- and I wasn't going to bring it up, but I think it's important to. The DJ Transport, I
have been under discussions with the gentleman who owns that transport and he has
Meridian City Council
January27, 2004
Page 40 of 53
been aware oft he things that we have taken into consideration or the applicant has
taken in consideration to mitigate his concerns. I was kind of surprised when testimony
came up from them here, because he's actually under discussions to acquire that lot,
which is being proposed next to it, to expand this operation. It's surprised me that he
would be so concerned about the project when he's proposing to be a participant in the
extension of it. In addition to that, the last testimony was from --
Nary: Madam Mayor? I know we are not supposed to interrupt Mr. Callister, but this
seems like rebuttal. This isn't -- this seems like rebuttal testimony, which is at the end.
So, it doesn't appear to me to be part of the Public Hearing at this juncture. You're
rebutting what someone else said. That's normally done at the end. If you want to
present what this projects about, that's what this portion is for. Otherwise, the applicant
can --
Callister: However, I feel like my testimony is important, because I intend to play a role
in the building, but however that would be presented, I'd like to do it in the proper
manner.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, could I have your opinion on this
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, even though it may look like rebuttal, I
think it's still within his three minutes testimony. However, he addresses the issues
doesn't preclude the applicant from rebutting, even though he has a potential interest in
the project. I think he still gets his three minutes.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. I'm sorry.
Callister: No. That's fine. I only want to do what's proper and appropriate. I'm
unfamiliar with the process enough that I want to make sure and I appreciate the
opportunity with that.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Callister: The only thing I wanted to reflect was that this last testimony concerning this
heating and air conditioning outfit, 1 personally have met with the owner of that outfit and
he's been on this project. A couple of things are important. One, he does not have
exterior o Aerations, o my i nterior o perations. T here i s not s hinny m etal o r o perations
outside near the fence. He parks his vehicle there only. He's in favor of the project. I
don't want you to get the impression he's not -- or opposed to it. He's not. He is in favor
of the project. The testimony you heard was from a manager who manages the entire
project, not the owner of that building. Like I say, we have met with all these folks and
we have tried to design these buildings to meet the needs and mitigate any actual
concerns. One thing I want to reflect, I wouldn't be building here if I didn't think the
market had a demand here. Frankly, these are the kinds of locations and these are
buffer projects, they are the kinds of locations we get for high-density housing. That's
what we get. We don't get the middle of the neighborhoods, we get, -- we get
businesses on one side of us and maybe residential on the other. That's the kind of
things we have. I have -- I have been a landlord for 20 years, owned, and managed my
Meddlan City Council
January27, 2004
Page 41 of 53
own operations, and a lot of my tenants live next to freeways and high noisy uses, but
that's the kinds of uses that we get for high density. One thing I wanted to point out
here, a lot of these are industrial. If you will go further to the east, the industry uses are
exterior construction yard uses. As you get here, actually, they have almost a real low
industrial use. All of these, except for the transport, and interior operations exclusively.
I think the city has actually contemplated that as they have designed that, because they
are actually a buffer towards the high-density residential use. None of these are
exterior uses or make a lot of noise.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Callister?
Callister: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony? Is he part of the
application?
Beecham: Madam Mayor, if I could -- pardon me?
De Weerd: Is he part of the application?
Beecham: Yes. I'd like to clarify. We -- obviously, noise -- sorry. Scott Beecham, 405
South 8th Street. The noise was a serious consideration of this project and the
discussions we have had in the past. The applicant has retained a noise specialist to
go out and do studies on the project. Dave is here tonight and was going to stand up
and testify. What is the appropriate process or procedure for doing that? Is that part of
the rebuttal or can he have three minutes?
De Weerd: I think, generally, it's part of the presentation of the application, within the 15
minutes, but if Council has an interest, we can extend that, so that we can hear the
expert.
Beecham: Given the testimony, I would ask permission for that, because it is, I think,
critical to the project and —
De Weerd: Thank you.
Beecham: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Aspitarde: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Aspitarde: My name is Dave Aspitarde and I live at 832 West Stafford, in Eagle, Idaho.
I h ave a report that I want to hand o ut to you. M adam M ayor, City Councilmen, a s
stated by the applicant, I was retained to go out and do a noise study in the proposed
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 42 of 53
project site. What I did is I used a meter -- I should give you a little background on
myself, too. I am a noise specialist, I work for a company called Bionics Environmental,
I have done a myriad of noise projects for ITD. I have done work for Idaho Power on
the two gas turbine systems. I have done work on some wastewater treatment plants.
And I have done expert witness work for Ada County Highway District, the noise, so --
but we went out and we did a noise study and we tried to hit the two areas of concern
and one was in the north -- south, I should say east quadrant right across from J -- is it
JLJ Enterprises? You took noise studies right there. We took a couple of
measurements and what we got, 60 feet, which was, actually, within the development
itself. I should go over and point. We did the noise study right there and we did it within
the project site, so we did it 60 feet back and we got 57 decibels. What I wrote in this
memo is I have given you guys common indoor and outdoor noise levels and so what
we got at 57 is on the high level of quiet urban daytime and, then, because that was so
quiet, we ended up going in again and you can see the pictures on the back. We,
actually, went in and almost straight directly across the street. We also at the time had
an idling truck, we got a truck and we idled that, a big semi, to get as much noise as
possible. We.also had a train that passed by and, then, we also had, I think, an airplane
that went overhead. We, actually, took one that was just directly across the street and
we got 61, which is, basically, a large business office, basically right around a
commercial area, but that was directly across the street and directly across the street
from the semi. We, then, went and --went to the other location, which was directly
behind this development right here, we went directly behind -- we, actually, have a video
that's about a minute and a half long, because we took videos. We got 52 — actually,
the first time we got 45 and, then, the second time we got -- of the first measurement we
got 55 and the second measurement we got 45 and just a'quick note, because I don't
have very much time left. You can tell how quiet it is behind that development, because
we had two jets travel overhead and when you have a 10 -decibel difference with two
jets, it means its significantly quiet. At 45 decibels, we are talking quiet suburban
nighttime. In my professional opinion, I would say that noise is not that much of an
issue.
De Weerd: Great timing. Is there anything questions? Thank you very much. Is there
any further testimony? Okay. Would the applicant like to rebut? You have five
minutes.
Beecham: Thank you. I think the issues are pretty clear here. We have met with the
neighbors, we have worked with staff, we have, you know, worked through this actually
twice with the Planning and Zoning Commission. It's a very — the noise is a very real
concern of the neighbors. Our intent is not to create a hardship for anybody, whether it
be the city or the neighbors. We are not looking to push commercial or industrial uses
out of the city. Clearly, you have to have a mix of uses. This study I think shows that
noise is a relative thing and I'm not an expert on it, but based on those results and some
discussions, a mbient in oise in this a rea is h igher than some of the created noise on
these sites and roads tend to generate a lot of that noise. I think the fact that Pine
Street and, again, in discussion with Dave, Pine Street, Franklin, and even the interstate
can be heard from this property, tells you what the effect of that is, but that all ends up
being kind of ambient urban noise. To review, we did make modifications to the plan
and, again, that's, I think, reflected in the land plan, as well as the landscaping, the
Meridian City Council
January27, 2004
Page 43 of 53
berming that was done along that side. We think that we have created a good project
here that can be a good neighbor and will fit into the community as a whole. We also
understand that traffic is a concern. It was a concern with staff and so we spent a lot of
time on that. We didn't get a lot of discussion from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, but I'm hearing it again today. One of the things that we did talk about and
would be happy to discuss again, is the potential use of bollards at that connection to
Commercial Avenue. From a smart growth standpoint, we got a lot of comments on
saying interconnections are better. That roadway is designed to handle that traffic and
let's not blame Pine Street, when the grid work or the intersections can really work in
our favor. That's why it's not reflected on the plan, but if that's the desire of the Council,
I think we would be happy to discuss that and, of course, we would need to talk to the
Fire Department and get their buy off on that, but we wouldn't count that out. In closing,
I think, you know, there -- there have been some representations made by some of the
neighbors. You know, unless somebody's here, it's hard to say what's true and what's
not. The bottom like is I think we have made a great effort to satisfy some of these
concerns. The staff is recommending approval of this project. The Planning and
Zoning Commission is recommending approval of this project by a unanimous vote and
we would ask that the Council do the same. Thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Beecham, did I understand from your earlier testimony that this marketing of
this project is really towards I guess singles and couples and it's not really a family
facility?
Beecham: Councilman Nary, the history would show that we do not -- that the applicant
has not gotten a lot of families in this type of a development and that is with a two-
bedroom project. Where we have taken a portion of these units and reduced them to a
single bedroom or studio, we expect that will even reduce the number of families further.
Nary: And did you consider — I guess the other concern I have is not just the vehicle
traffic along this road, but some foot traffic. There is a gymnastics academy right there
and I'm concerned about some foot traffic from this facility, if it does have a number of
families living in it. This facility is open about 16 hours a day and right now, because
there is no families really here, other than up here north of Pine, there is not a
tremendous amount of foot traffic down here, but this seems like much more of an
access point for foot traffic. Did you folks consider that at all?
Beecham: We -- of course we considered foot traffic. We have -- we are fortunate that
we are located adjacent to two of the city's identified pathways. One on the railroad
corridor and one on the File Mile Drain. That was really the focus. Sidewalks are
required on the streets, so we do not have off-street pathways identified, but, of course,
we do provide for sidewalks and pedestrian flow through -- to and through our
community, I suppose. I guess I would have liked to address the traffic on Commercial
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 44 of 53
again. I'm not a traffic engineer, but the traffic generated on that street doesn't lower
the level of service below an A and I'm going from memory here, but the Ada County
Highway District report I think keeps that as a level of service A. Granted, we are
connecting this through our site and whatever happens to the west of us may change
that at some point. I think it's -- you know, we are going to get further connections to the
north to Pine Street and I -- you see it -- clearly see it as a significant issue and it didn't
even come up on the radar with ACHD, so, quite honestly, again, we didn't give it a
tremendous amount of consideration.
De Weerd: Council, any further questions?
Rountree: I have none of the applicant. I have some for staff.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Beecham: Thank you.
De Weerd: Go ahead, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Brad, I have some questions that I need to help me think
this thing through. In the development of the Comp Plan, in that thoughtful process, the
City of Meridian identified a number of zones, industrial being one of them, high density
residential being another. How many acres of industrial zoning are there in the City of
Meridian?
Hawkins -Clark: Councilman Rountree, zoning, or designations for future industrial
zones?
Rountree: Zoning for future.
Hawkins -Clark: For future. Let me just check the Comprehensive Plan here. I don't
believe we have acres, but we do have a percentage. No. I stand corrected. We do.
1,142. That's 4.3 percent of the land area.
Rountree: And in creating that you did it primarily based on percentages to
accommodate the community that we wanted to be.
Hawkins -Clark: Correct.
Rountree: Is that correct? Do you have any indication of the rate in which those
identified zones are being rezoned or requested to be rezoned to something other than
industrial and are there other areas in the city, specifically residential zones that are
being requested to become industrial?
Hawkins -Clark: Right. That's good a question, Councilman Rountree. I don't. You
know, we certainly have seen the vast majority of the requests for rezone and
annexations are on properties that are designated for what that rezone is intended for,
as, you know, most of them are existing in Ada county are RUT zones. A very small
Meridian My Council
January 27, 2004
Page 45 of 53
percentage of the applications are requests to rezone from what either is designated for
future or what is existing. I would say this is the rare case.
Rountree: In your professional opinion and based on your experience in Meridian,
what's the likelihood of folks coming to the City Council and requesting R-15 or R-8 or
whatever higher density residential to become industrial and the likelihood of that being
successful?
Hawkins -Clark: The vast majority of those areas that are the high density that we have
envisioned are within our neighborhood center areas and those are mixed use that
specifically exclude industrial. The higher density residential is really targeted around
those areas that are, you know, either downtown or those neighborhood areas out on
the fringe, so --
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: A ny o ther q uestions? 0 kay. I f the C ouncil h as n o objections, I w ill g o
ahead and close the hearings on Items 12, 13 and 14.
Bird: Do you want a motion?
De Weerd: No. I think that's good enough.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearings on Items 13, 14 and 15.
Bird: No. Twelve, thirteen --
Rountree: Or 12, 13 and 14.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those
in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Is there any discussion or are you waiting for me to ask?
Bird: Waiting for you to ask and, then, demand a motion.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no discussion, I would entertain --
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meddlan Clty Council
January 27, 2004
Page 46 of 53
De Weerd: Yes. Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I will -- there are some real attractive things to what this particular project
wants to accomplish. There are things that I find very troubling. The common area in
the second phase, I just don't like. I think that's a very negative type of development
when you're not willing to provide that open space and common area for the first people
that buy in this property, but you're going to do it on the second. I mean you can design
this piece any way you want, you certain could have put the open space in the first
phase. That traffic does concern me. That -- people driving -- I don't know how heavy
of volume the roadway can certainly handle, but driving people through this industrial
park to the degree that this is going to generate just seems foolish. Using these
residences, as buffer to the northern properly north of Pine I think is shortsighted and
putting them adjacent to potentially a contractor yard or some, other type of light
industrial use I think is just fraught with problems. I really have concerns about how this
is -- I think it's a nice project, I just don't think it's in a good spot. I think that the design
and what they'd like to do and what it looks like need some work, but it's just the
location to me just doesn't fit. I don't think houses and industrial uses are very
compatible. We have addressed this in other parts of town, like the project right before
this, trying to put them adjacent to industrial things ends up with a lot of public issue. I
don't see this one really abating that problem to any degree, all they have done is make
three industrial pieces to buffer further, but with a roadway in between and nothing else,
I just think this one is really not quite what I think was intended for this area.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I think in the thoughtful process that the city went through to identify this area
as industrial. In making that part of the mix of the community, in my mind, the
importance of industrial and commercial areas in the city can't be weighed very well.
I'm not sure that there is enough compelling reason, in my mind, to change the zoning
of this site to a high density residential and the loss of the potential of an industrial site.
For that reason I'm not inclined to be in favor of this particular request.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would agree with Councilman Rountree. My -- on traffic, my worry is not so
much Locust Grove, the new Locust Grove, going through there, I have problems with
what it's going to dump out on Pine. Pine is a very very busy street right now and you're
dumping a lot more there, so -- and I believe also that we studied hard, that we felt was
an industrial area, commercial industrial area, and I can't see us having to change it
right now. I don't see enough evidence that we need to change it right now to high
residential occupancy.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 47 of 53
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I'll give my opinion and I agree with the other three councilmen. One of the
things that I take into consideration are the existing businesses and especially those
businesses that located into our community and certainly wouldn't want to adversely
affect their ability to do business within the zoning. That, along with the traffic issues, I
have serious considerations about cut -through traffic from this site to major roads -- that
will soon be major roads through our community, and so I'm inclined to agree with my
colleagues here.
De Weerd: Thank you. Well, I know I don't have a vote, but I agree with Mr. Wardle.
Business retention is a priority in the community and when they locate a business in an
obvious industrial site. With industrial on all sides, you feel a certain sense of security
that that's not going to change and we do have a commitment to our business
community and not setting them up for failure to adhere to complaints and drive them
away. I would concur with everything that's been said and appreciate keeping a look at
those kinds of things. Do I have a motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I move that we deny RZ 03-011, the request for a rezone of 9.34 acres from I -L to
R-15 zones for the proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development,
that staff prepare Findings -- or counsel prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law, Decision and Order for denial based upon the comments of the Council. As well
as the findings that the rezone request has not been shown to be compatible with the
surrounding uses of the property, that the -- and the remaining other of discussion
topics the Council has raised in regards to traffic, intensity of use, the density of this
residential on the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as the surrounding uses of the
property. If that's enough for you, Mr. Nichols? Is that adequate?
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny the request for a rezone for
RZ 03-011 for the reasons stated in the motion. Mr. Clerk, will you call role?
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: We have a very obnoxious group up here.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Merldian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 48 of 53
Nary: I would move for denial of PP 03-031, request for Preliminary Plat approval for
Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, for the fact that the rezone
requested was not approved and, therefore, the Preliminary Plat would be incompatible
with the surrounding property, as well as the zone that is currently for that application.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to deny PP 03-031 for Mayfair Commons
Subdivision for the items stated in the motion. 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: Thank you. Item 14.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I further move to deny CUP 03-057, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for
Mayfair commons subdivision based upon the previous findings of the denial of the
rezone, as well as the Preliminary Plat and the incompatibility with the zone that is
currently for that location.
Wardle: Second.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded twice to deny CUP 03-057 for Mayfair
Commons Subdivision, for the motion — or items stated in the motion. Mr. Clerk, will
you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Okay. We are at Item 15, Executive Session, per
Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c).
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Before would do that, we wanted to have a discussion about the odor study.
Meridian Clty Council
January27, 2004
Page 49 of 53
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, we do. I did it again, didn't I.
Nary: Just so these folks that are very expensive can go home soon.
De Weerd: I think they are here just because they enjoy our meeting. Okay. Council, I
would look for your direction on this, if you would like staff to bring back to you a
proposal for your agenda next week so you can vote on it.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I think before staff devotes a lot of time to the engineering approach to the
solution, that we might take a practical look at the solution with adjacent communities
and what they have done and the basis for their decisions as it relates to zoning and
land use activities around their facilities. I suspect -- you know, it's just a gut feeling that
we can probably get a pretty good sense of what other technical information we might
need in order to make a rational decision on future zoning requests around the facility.
At least at a potentially less cost, in my mind at least merits exploration before we jump
into a 60 to 80 thousand dollar study. That, you know, you're still going to have some
bugs to it or odor units or whatever you want to call them.
De Weerd: There are bugs in there.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: And one of the things that I heard about the presentation as far as the odor
study was an odor mitigation plan was included in that study. I'm -- while I think that's a
worthwhile effort for our future ventures, I think what we are looking for right now is to
make sure that the projects that we are seeing before us are compatible with that use. I
know that takes a lot more into consideration than maybe just -- just odor mitigation by
the wastewater treatment plant and so while I think that's a component, I don't think, in
my opinion, that's what the Council is asking for in its entirety. Maybe I would agree
with Mr. Rountree in thinking that we could get something a little more -- I don't know if it
needs to be more comprehensive or less comprehensive, to help us make those
decisions.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Brad, if we decided — either Brad. If we decided not to do this at this juncture,
have we lost an opportunity or is it just off our radar? Because it seems to me like we
could always do the study or a study of some sort, but I'm afraid of it just sort of getting
put on the side of the road and, then, we don't revisit it until somebody else comes back
and says how about this.
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 50 of 53
Watson: Council Member Nary, I don't think there is a lost opportunity here. The only
reason we were pushing this schedule is because of this pending application and
Council's perceived concern -- or my perception of Council's concern on getting this
done sooner, rather than later, and I think you're right and Council Member Wardle is
very right on the button. This is just an engineering component. There needs to be a
land use and I can even conceive of -- dare I say a committee or some group of
property owners that's looking at this, along with some planning and zoning members, I
think there is a lot of pieces to this puzzle and we were just offering the one that we
knew we could do quickly.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just to throw my two bits worth in for -
- particularly for Council Member Rountree and Wardle that didn't -- may not have had a
chance to review the testimony from before, but there was a considerable discussion.
There is kind of an undercurrent in Mr. Centers' testimony that the city was protecting its
property or protecting the wastewater treatment plant from the boogieman of residential
development. That's not his words, but that's my interpretation. I would just point out to
the Council that an objective study of noise and odors with all of the appropriate
documentation would help objectify what's actually out there and how that may affect
someone that applies for some type of land use. I recommend that you do it at some
point, j ust because it helps g et there. Brad Watson d id some -- called a n umber of
different communities to try to find, you know, how do you deal with this, do you have
buffer zones around your plants, and there really weren't any good answers that I recall
that anybody was able to find. There were some things in Salem, Oregon, but, again,
that was partly dependent, I think, on a noise and odor study that had been done there
and so the land use component is important, but I think what we heard from the land
use planning folks was how do you know how far is far enough away.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I will put my perspective in on this. It's a little different than the other Councilmen.
I do agree with what they have said. But I am more in line with Mr. Nichols. I think that
this is something that, you know, being involved with the Comprehensive Plan, we --
this was something t hat really p robably took u p a bout 5 0 p ercent of o ur t ime o n t he
whole Comprehensive Plan was this area around our wastewater treatment plant. I
think we are going to have to do a study before it's over with. I agree with you guys that
we can look around. You can go to Boise, their new plant down at -- at the old
Dalrymple place don't have any problems, because nobody is ever going to build
around there, they can't. Lander Street they have some problems. There are things
around there. What do we do, just make that a wildlife area out there around that half
section around there? We have turned --we have had industrial turned down. We
have commercial turned down. We have turned down housing. What are we going to
Meridian Clty Council
January 27, 2004
Page 51 of 53
put out there? And until you get that deal with Carollo, I mean that one area that when
they showed how it stayed -- except for one place, within the boundaries of their
property, that's something we can look at. I don't like spending money any better than
anybody else here, but we throw money away at these surveys all the time. I mean we
have a yearly management one that we look at every year. So, this is something that
will project at least three or four hundred acres of impact area for the City of Meridian
and I would like to have, as long as I sit on this Council, I'd like to have something to go
back on. Now, I can sit here and say, you know, I think you'd get odor at Charlie's place
or my place or somebody, but I don't know and how do we fix it? We have got -- we
need to know that, too. This survey can tell us how we fix it and at what cost, so we can
plan for it. That's my two cents worth.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. I think on the h !story of the project there was an
insinuation that the boundaries we drew were arbitrary and, you know, to get something
to substantiate that is -- and they had someone come in that gave us a market low down
of how much industrial land we had or -- and that it makes sense to make it residential.
It's just, again, something that we can back up our long-term planning and see what is
right for that area. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would just like to clarify as well that I certainly feel that this
study will be beneficial. I would just like to make sure that -- I expressed the opinion
that I don't think this is the only piece of the puzzle and so if -- in my opinion, if
something were brought to this Council and we would budget for it, then, we can move
forward, but I would like to say that there are other components.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I know we have beaten this horse I think as much as we can, but I guess I would
agree with Council Member Wardle. I mean it isn't the only piece of the puzzle, but it's a
piece that we are going to have to do at some point and, if nothing else, I mean besides
the components that we have talked about that will assist us in the future, we are going
to have to be able to assess from our own side of the ledger as a good neighbor to
whatever is built around there at some point in the future. How to abate noise and how
to deal with odor and how far this goes and we are going to need to know that at some
point anyway. To me, we are going to have to do this now or later and at least my
experience has been is it never seems to get cheaper later anyway. If we are going to
do it, then, why don't we just do it, get it done, and cover this base. We are going to
have to move to what Council Member Rountree has raised about, you know, what is
this engineering study -- how does it relate to the planning components that we still
have to address when applicants want to do things. You know, we will never get off the
dime and I think that was where we were before is that we felt that we just didn't get this
piece done and at some point we are going to need to, so --
De Weerd: Thank you. Staff, do you have anything to add to this discussion?
Rountree: What do we do?
Meridian City Council
January 27, 2004
Page 52 of 53
Watson: Madam Mayor, I would interpret my direction to be to work with Carollo on
reviewing the scope bring it back before you for approval in a week or two.
De Weerd: I think that's an excellent summation. Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: And, Brad, I would add to that, not only the engineering piece, but the land
use piece, you know.
De Weerd: Our planning department can work on that.
Rountree: So, we are done with it. I mean my comments are not meant to not deal with
the issue we need to deal with it. I think we need to deal with it in a thoughtful way, as
opposed to just jumping into the one and, then, finding out we got to do a little more and
a little more is going to be more money and, you know, what's the package going to --
what's the package going to cost and what's it going to look like.
Watson: If I may, Madam Mayor. Councilman Rountree, this particular scope won't
include the land use. These are civil engineers, not land planners, so maybe I can bring
that to you and discuss how we could wrap that into maybe some staff supported study
and have them put together —
Rountree: Perfect.
Item 15. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c):
De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. Okay. Council, Item 13 -- Item 15. I'm sorry.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho Code 67-
2345(1)(c).
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to go into Executive Session per
state code. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you.
(ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION)
Meridian City Coundl
January 27, 2004
Page 53 of 53
(RETURN FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION)
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to come out of Executive Session. All those
in favor. Do I need roll call, Will?
Berg: No.
De Weerd: All those in favor, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: For the record, let it be noted that no decisions were made in Executive
Session. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor, say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:36 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
3 123104-
DATE
23104-
DATE
SEAT,
�sr sst .�0 Fwd
WILLIAM G. BERG,