2010 02-02Meridian City Council Meeting February 2, 2010
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday,
February 2, 2010, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, President Charlie Rountree,
Brad Hoaglun, and David Zaremba.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Bill Parsons, Steve Siddoway, Scott
Colaianni, Bill Johnson, Clint Dolsby, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and start tonight's meeting. I'd first like to welcome
all of you here with us tonight. Thank you for joining us. For the record it is, Tuesday,
February 2nd. It is 7:00 o'clock. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance & Flag Ceremony by Boy Scout Troop #419
Bridgetower LDS Ward
De Weerd: Well, we are all here I think. Okay. Item 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If
you will all rise we will be led tonight by Troop 419.
Holman: Madam Mayor, I'm sorry, we are also doing a flag ceremony.
De Weerd: Yes.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Heath Fagan with Ten Mile Christian
Church
De Weerd: Well, I'd like to thank the Troop 419 for leading us in the pledge. That was
very well done. I hope you earned some great badges for that, too. Item No. 3 is our
community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Keith Fagan with the Ten Mile
Christian Church. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an
opportunity for a moment of reflection. Thank you for joining us.
Fagan: Heavenly Father God, just thank you for the great nation that we live in, as well
as this -- the City of Meridian, the leadership here. I just pray that you would be with us
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 2 of 64
and with the leadership and the people of Meridian in this next year as decisions are
made I just ask that you would be there with us and guide us through it all. Amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda.
De Weerd: This is your first time here, so I would like to present you with a City of
Meridian pin and thank you for leading us. Item No. 4 is the adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Couple of things to add in this agenda. Under the Consent Agenda, No. 5-E,
the resolution number is 10-710, and also under Actign Items 8-D, the -- the Southridge
Subdivision, there is a request to continue to 2/23. February 23rd. So, with that, Madam
Mayor, I move adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as changed. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. January 19, 2010 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes
B. January 26, 2010 City Council Meeting Minutes
C. Acceptance Agreement with Joyce Green for Display of
Artwork in Initial Point Gallery
D. Professional Service Agreement Between the Idaho
Information Consortium (Access Idaho) and the City of
Meridian for Debit Card and Credit Card Processing Services
for the Development Services Division
E. Resolution No. 10-710: Amending the Text of the Meridian
Design Manual to Edit Clerical Errors and Add Text Defining
the "Downtown Core" and Clarifying Compliance with Unified
Development Code (UDC) Standards for Meridian Design
Manual Text Amendment
De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 3 of 64
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Under the Consent Agenda, 5-E as mentioned earlier, that resolution number
is 10-710. And with that, Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda
with the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is
no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Department Reports
A. Planning Department: Hayden Hill Subdivision (Ada County)
Review & Approval County Subdivision in Meridian Area of
Impact
De Weerd: Item 6 under Department Reports, we will start with the Planning
Department.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, our area of city impact agreement
with Ada County states that if there is a subdivision that goes on within the area of city
impact that's not going to receive our services, that they need to get the approval of City
Council. So, that is what is before you tonight. This is a two lot county subdivision and
the applicant is seeking City Council approval. It is a large lot subdivision. It's just west
of Ten Mile, as you can see on this, and north of Lamont Road, so it's east of Nova at
Lane. So, it's kind of in the middle of that mile section there. It is in the area on the
south side of the freeway that has a lot of terrain and you will notice the -- on the next
aerial you can notice the Ridenbaugh as it snakes through that topography there. The
proposed project is in an area of large parcel ownership that are -- that are likely to
remain as such for the foreseeable future. They are not readily serviceable and not
likely to have city services available, thus reducing the likelihood of the re-subdivision of
the properties. The Title 9 agreement also requires the installation of dry utility lines to
accommodate future re-subdivision or a waiver by the Council. Development Services
has reviewed that application and does not foresee the need to install dry lines at this
time. The applicant has met with the fire department and they have agreed to an
emergency turnaround design for the private road. Staff is recommending approval of
this. If Council is so inclined they should direct staff to write a letter to the Ada County
Development Services stating Council's decision. With that I will answer any questions
or Kent Brown is here to answer questions on behalf of the applicant.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 4 of 64
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Kent, do you have any comment? Okay. Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we direct staff to prepare a letter to Ada County stating the
Council's concurrence with the requested application.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay. Madam Clerk?
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-B, our Planning Department again. Bill, is this yours?
Canning: Madam Mayor, if you could move onto the next agenda item, I'll see where
Mr. Hood is.
C. Public Works Department: Water Quality Update
De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-C under Public Works.
Dees: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We are here -- we have two of us.
Rick Clinton is with me tonight. We are going to talk a little bit about water quality in
reference to something you heard last -- last Council meeting. So, I'll let Rick take off
and he's going to tell you about the water quality in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Clinton: I just, basically, felt really inclined to come here and kind set the record straight
on the fact that we do serve the public clean safe water. We have got 20 employees
that are licensed to -- to insure that we meet water quality standards, we have
maintained state water quality standards for nearly a decade. We produce the CCR
that we send out to about 30,000 plus households to insure that all of our customers,
even those in the rural areas adjacent to the city, get notified of the fact that our water is
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 5 of 64
safe to drink and informs them to some extent of what constituents may be in the water.
We have produced over three billion gallons of water in the last year and all if it has
been safe to drink. We have implemented a significant flushing program over the last
few years, which I believe actually Mayor de Weerd has even acknowledged that our
water quality has improved substantially in her -- the rate of her phone calls has
dropped off significantly as a result of that.
De Weerd: And I thank you.
Clinton: Thank you. We have state of the art well construction and we have had since
about 1996. Our flushing program -- one of the things that I have been striving for
probably about three years to -- to change the -- I guess the -- the opinions of the
community and the Mayor and Council and our Public Works staff. There is still that --
that element of thought that we only flush in the spring for our spring flush and, in
reality, we flush year around every week as needed. If we know that there is a problem
area we go out and we take care of it, we pro-actively flush in a number of areas to
make sure that that water never gets to that point where you receive the phone calls
and we get the brown water complaints. So, we have gained a lot of ground in that
area. We have one of the best cross-connection control programs in the state of Idaho.
It's been acknowledged as such by IDEA. We have an extensive sampling collection
program. Excuse me. We collected over 1,900 samples that went to the lab in the last
year to verify -- partially to meet standards, but also just to insure that the water is safe
to drink. Those samples are collected from well sites from homes in different pressure
zones, different times of the month, some are on three year rotations or more. In
addition to that, we have collected over another thousand samples that our own staff
has collected that are chlorine residual samples and our staff has teamed that there is a
very close correlation between the chlorine residuals that we maintain in our system and
the amount of sedimentation that -- that settles out as a result of the chlorine oxidizing
and the manganese that is dissolved in our water. Probably about three years ago we
reached out to DEQ, asked them to -- if we could sit down with them semi-annually and
just have kind of a networking session, an informal networking session, and we have --
we have continued to do that and that works very well. And I think one of the things that
I would -- that come across my mind when there was a question about the integrity of
our system is that DEQ is always there to reinforce that we are meeting standards and if
there is a question in one of your minds or if there is a question in one of the customer's
minds, they are always able to contact -- and DEQ is receptive to them contacting them
to -- to insure that the water is safe to drink.
De Weerd: Thank you, Rick. I don't think that the quality of the city's water as a whole
was questioned, it was more someone was at the end of a line that was -- was not
continued on through. So, we know if that line gets continued that in and of itself has a
correction automatic to it. The statement last week was more in concern of someone
that was kind at a dead end that wasn't necessarily a water line that should dead end at
this point.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 6 of 64
Clinton: Okay. And, hopefully, in this process we can -- we can help to get the word out
that we do have a good customer quality program and if someone will call us and let us
know, we will send someone out and we will flush the line. We follow up with a phone
call back to them within a couple days just to make sure that they are satisfied. We
have got office staff that that's one of the tasks they do is they just -- they phone them
back just to make sure that we have achieved what we are trying to achieve. And,
again if -- if someone will let us know that they have a problem we will do our best to
take care of it.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, did you have any questions?
Bird: No. Madam Mayor, I just appreciate Rich and them for bringing this forward --
Rick for bringing this forward, because what was stated publicly last week I felt needed
to be answered, because I knew we had a first class system and didn't have them kind
of problems, but when you're questioned publicly I felt we needed to respond to it.
Clinton: And I concur with that.
Bird: And thank you very much, Rick, for doing it.
Clinton: You bet.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? We appreciate you been here tonight
and thank you for the -- and I hope you extend to your employees -- our employees that
we appreciate the work they do. I know they have been very busy in all functions of
your department and we appreciate the positive face they put on our community.
Rich: Good. And I will share that with them again. I have frequently. As a matter of
fact, (have -- in staff meetings Ihave -- I have carried your message from our
superintendents meeting back to them and praised them for a job well done, so --
De Weerd: Well -- and we just -- a couple of weeks ago got the benchmarking report
and we can see what the quality levels are with what you are paying attention to and all
of that work is acknowledged and, actually, we just got a comment card today that,
again, was a very glowing report on your employees. So, thank you, Rick, and thank
you, Rich, for being here.
Dees: Thank you very much.
Clinton: Thank you.
B. Planning Department: Eagle Road Medians Discussion
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We will back up to 6-B. Caleb. Thank you for being
here.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 7 of 64
Hood: I apologize. I'm not used to -- to being up so early in the evening, but I do
apologize. With our pavement rehab projects coming in the next couple of years, ITD
intends to install some center medians in Eagle Road. The medians would be six
inches high and ten inches wide, painted yellow, and they anticipate to do it concurrent,
like I said, with their pavement rehab projects. There is, actually, two phases of that
project -- of the Eagle Road pavement rehab. The first phase goes from Franklin up to
Fairview and, then, the second phase -- and that would be in 2010. And the second
phase, then, goes from Fairview up to State Street -- or State Highway 44 in 2011.
What you see on the screen there isn't relative to what the medians look like, but just a
sampling of different types of medians. Here is across-section of the median they
intend to use. Atypical cross-section. I won't dwell on that too much. You can see that
they will be yellow painted lines on the sides of the medians as well. I can come back to
this, too, if you'd like. But these are still at least in ITD's mind an interim improvement.
They do not have the full funding -- or the funding required for the full landscape
medians at this time, but they did want to install these curbing's with their pavement
rehab project to reduce the dangerous turning movements and improve public safety on
Eagle Road. ITD staff did mention that they -- they haven't forgotten about the Eagle
Road comdor study and the full landscape medians that are in that, they simply just
don't have the funds to do that today. So, again, this is asemi-interim improvement. I
also am compelled to tell you that ITD is not required to get the city's consent to do this,
they plan on moving forward with this, but they did want to be a good -- a good neighbor
and inform us that this is going on and if we do have comments they certainly will -- will
listen to them, but they do intend to use their police powers and install these medians.
So, I don't think they would turn a deaf ear if we do have some comments for them, but
-- but I did want to point that out, too, that it's not a yea or nay type thing, they do intend
on going forward. But if you do have any specific comments or feedback you want,
that's why I'm here this evening is to relay those to ITD. I have already shared the plans
with the fire and police department as well and I have some comments back and maybe
I'll just share those real quickly. Will Stoy, one of our traffic division officers, thinks it's a
good idea and a long time coming. The only intersection not mentioned is Eagle -River
Valley and I haven't heard from ITD staff about what's in front of Center Cal, what you
will see, and I will take you on a little tour of this two mile -- or six mile stretch. They
don't have any plans with pavement rehab to do anything in front of Center Cal. I'm not
quite sure what the plan is there, if it's all on Center Cal or if there is a backup plan or
what's going on there. So, I will follow up with any information I find there. Excuse me.
But, again, to follow up with Stoy's comments. The only intersection I'll mention is Eagle
- River Valley. There is a lot of school traffic exiting onto Eagle Road that ITD needs to
think about how to handle and it may already be planned, it's just not mentioned below.
And, then, from Deputy Chief Silva, says I have reviewed the proposed median project
with Scott Colaianni, Fire Captain Scott Kiesel, and Deputy Chief Niemeyer, it appears
that the project will help limit potential traffic accidents and -- that occur during left turn
movements and as a result we support the medians as proposed in the interest of
providing for the safety of the motoring public on Eagle Road. So, I haven't heard from
every police officer that this was sent to, but the ones that have responded seem to be
favorable and, again, the deputy fire chief has responded to and think it's a good idea.
So, real quickly -- and this was in the staff memo, but I do have some visuals, too, that
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 8 of 64
-- that go along with the locations of the medians, so I'm going to just quickly take you
on an aerial tour, again, of Eagle Road through Meridian anyway. So, we are starting at
Franklin Road and we are going to be heading north. So, this is right in front of RC
Willey. I want to pause here for just a minute. One of the questions that came up this
last week -- and it came up, actually, when Eagle Road corridor was being studied early
2000 to mid 2000s, and it's still being talked about. It's some gateway signage or
entryway signage into Meridian. So, that may be something relative to this. I know this
is a pretty busy intersection. I don't know if that's something that maybe the city wants
to explore with this project. Certainly wouldn't be in this nice, lush, landscape median,
but maybe something in this area -- and maybe something in this area -- and maybe I'll
move to the next slide or two as well. You can see there is quite a distance in this area
where you could potentially put a sign where traffic won't be allowed to go, so it would
have to be curved off or something, so somebody doesn't run into that sign. But you
can see, essentially, the striping for the staffing for the dual lefts heading eastbound on
Franklin here, won't change too much and my asterisk kind of got shot off there, but -- or
cut off there, but some signage is there, so maybe -- I don't know if that's something you
want to -- you want to just chew on and maybe at the end of this presentation we can
talk about some more. There may be another location up near Eagle-Ustick, too, where
there may be an opportunity to put some signage there. As you're coming in Meridian
from the north, heading south. So, maybe move ahead here a little bit. So, again, the --
there aren't really any driveways there that would be restricted to left turning movements
today -- this isn't going very quickly. There we go. Lanark is the next intersection.
There is a break between the medians shown here in yellow and the previous one I
showed at the intersection at Franklin. Both sides of Lanark, then, would be restricted
to right-in, right-out and left-ins only. See if I can get the pointer -- so, someone could
come in the break here and, then, turn left into Lanark this way. You can see the
medians are offset a little bit here with the diagonal connecting the median and, then,
somebody, again, could come in here and turn left into Lanark eastbound.
De Weerd: So, now, Caleb, the -- with the center medians, how they had originally
designed in the corridor study, they had I think u-turn spots. So, these people on
Lanark they will be connecting through that illegal connection to Franklin probably more
so than ever before, because they won't be able to turn right out. Are they giving
notification to these industrial areas that they will no longer have those turn
movements?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when I talked to Dave Jones about this
he informed me, similar to the comments from us, they intend on using their police
powers moving forward with this. I do not know what type of notification they have
given, but I did not get the impression -- I can tell you they are not having any public
hearings on this. I don't know what other type of notification they may be giving to
property owners along this corridor, they aren't required to have any and that's their --
that's what he told me was, again, no public hearing, we are doing this kind of as a
courtesy thing. I don't know if we are extending that courtesy, then, to the private
business owners that are along this corridor.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 9 of 64
Canning: Madam Mayor, it may not affect Lanark as much as it does Commercial,
because Lanark just gets you out to Franklin, which they can get onto Eagle and get
onto Franklin almost as easily. It would be the Commercial one I would be worried
about them cutting through at the end of Mr. Morrow's property that may be of more
concern.
Hood: And moved onto that one, because that one actually is a full access and not
restricted by the medians. So, that one will remain a full access intersection and isn't
restricted to the right-in, right-out, left-in or no left outs I guess I should say.
Rountree: Caleb -- excuse me. If you would back up, I have a concern with that
configuration, particularly on the southbound move from --from that left turn to the west
on Lanark up to Franklin, there is a lot of real estate that's -- that's open asphalt and it
seems to me that there is going to be a tendency, as there is now, for drivers headed
southbound to stray over into that and a little overeager into those left-hand turn bays
without some kind of protection or some kind of an island from some point just south of
where this intersection is, all the way back to where they are going to have storage onto
Franklin. I can see some real conflicts with the left-hand turning movements, either on
Franklin or back onto Lanark.
Hood: And if I follow that -- Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, if I follow you,
somebody here that wants to turn eastbound onto Franklin, they may dive in here --
Rountree: Yes.
Hood: -- getting into the turn lane to turn.
Rountree: Yes.
Hood: I can certainly pass that on. I don't know, you know, if ITD has any other plans
or has thought about --obviously, these aren't their construction drawings --
Rountree: That's good.
Hood: -- they are starting to just mark it up -- mark up some things and start thinking
about that, but I can certainly pass that on. You know, you do have that -- and I see it
stack up, I mean --
Rountree: It stacks up quite a bit.
Hood: Yeah. For sure. So, I can pass that concern along and at that break in there,
there has got to be something they can design in to make it better than what's on these
-- these Google Earth maps. So, I will definitely -- and, Madam Mayor, also back to
your comment about the private property owners. I will follow up with Mr. Jones, too,
and Kevin Sablan at ITD district three to see if they do have any other public outreach
that they are going forth with before these projects happen.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 10 of 64
De Weerd: Well, yeah, Caleb, I'm not so concerned about the -- on the east side, it's
that west side and the impromptu local road that has been cut through there that is not
necessarily a road and that traffic will now probably be a little bit heavier in a place
landed on Franklin that isn't supposed to be there necessarily.
Hood: Madam Mayor, Ithink -- I have seen people do that, too. And my map cuts off,
but it's -- you know, the back side coming up to Franklin this back -- this back way most
of those people I think are trying to either head across -- across Eagle Road and
continue into Boise on Franklin or they may be even heading northbound on Eagle
Road, which I don't know too many people that try to turn left out of here today. I mean
that's just pretty crazy to try to make this movement anyway. So, I think those people
that are using that are already probably the ones making this movement and, again, you
can do the rest of the movements here anyway, you can turn right out if you're heading
southbound on Eagle Road. I'll ask them to look into that, too, and voice that concern. I
don't know what they can do and I know ACHD has been notified, too, about that make
shift roadway cut-through up to Franklin on the back side there, I don't know what's
happening with that, but --
De Weerd: I'm not advocating for getting rid of it, because it is nice, but you will
increase the traffic on it.
Hoaglun: Caleb, then, if someone wants to go northbound on Eagle Road coming out
of Lanark, so they turn right, they will go up to Franklin, do the u-turn there in the type
left turn and swing around and come out, is that the plan for that, then, with these
medians?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, if someone was able to cross those lanes
of traffic to make a u-turn at Franklin, yes, I mean I think that's what you would advise
them to do. Whether they can get over those three lanes in a short amount of time to
make the U, but, yeah, at the major intersections -- they wouldn't be able to do that
probably in this break here, but it would be at a signalized intersection.
Hoaglun: So, same for when you're at Pine Street, if you wanted to swing around and
do an access somewhere, you just do the u-turn there and come back and --
Hood: Right. Pine will be designed the same way. They stopped short with those
medians, about 25 feet from the actual stop bar, so it gives you a little bit extra radius to
kind of make that turn so you're not running over these curbs as you're trying to make
the u-turn and they will design that in a little bit, too, as a bulb out on the opposite corner
as you make your turn around, I think that's part of the plan, they will extend that striping
out a little bit further, so that people can make those turns. But, yeah, the major
intersections. So, Franklin, Pine -- not sure with Fairview with that free right, if there is
going to be enough room there to do that or not. But, essentially, yeah, that's where
you would make those u-turns.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 11 of 64
Hoaglun: Thank you.
Hood: I'm going to continue on quickly. I mentioned Commercial. You can see that
there is a raised median beginning just before you get to Jacksons and I think Jacksons
is on this other one and, then, we are at Pine. So, today there aren't any access points
anyways that are full access that are heavily traffic'd anyways at Jacksons. There is a
right-in, right-out. Moving to the other side, then, you can see the pond in front of Blue
Cross, kind of the typical -- we saw at Franklin Road. Presidential. So, Presidential is
also restricted, then, to right-in, right-out, left-in. With Blue Cross not having an access
onto Eagle Road in this area, you don't have that same left-in movement here, but
people, again, turning into the Goodwood and Presidential, the banks and all that, they
would have alert-in, but no left-out of here. And I think that's where a lot of the
accidents occur is Crossroads and people trying to turn left out of here. So, that one is
restricted and, then, similar with Florence -- and this is my trying to make sense of what
was going on with some of these arrows, so I apologize. But it's the same -- essentially
the same of what we have looked at some of the other intersections where most of
these cars make the left -- the left-in, it just restricts that left tuming out. So, no left-out.
Again, this is a Florence. I believe this one continues all the way to Fairview as a
continuous, so in the Red Robin, entrance would be restricted to right-in, right-out and
same with the other ones on the opposite side. So, now we are Fairview -- we are
jumping up -- as I mentioned, we have that next kind of three-quarters of a mile there is
nothing shown in front of Center Cal's property, at least that wasn't -- those plans
weren't shared with me. But Leslie Drive will remain a full access as well. So, those --
those people will be able to tum full movements of that driveway. So, here is Five
Guys, Norco site. Obviously, the aerial is outdated, but all those will, then, tum into
right-in, right-outs. And, then, up to Ustick Road. And now we are in front of
Walgreens. Kohl's. Lowe's. Again, pretty typical for what's going on here. These are
already restricted with the pork chops or center -- I have seen people tum left-out and
left-in in, but -- so, this will -- this will kind of enforce that behavior. People should be --
motorists should be doing already.
Rountree: Caleb?
Hood: Uh-huh.
Rountree: On that particular one -- first off, the photo's kind of neat, it demonstrates
exactly what we said in the letter we recently wrote ITD, because that car in that
intersection is not intended to do what that little island is supposed to do. They are
going to make alert-hand tum in that right-hand tum only situation. But I would suggest
that instead of moving that median back to the west, to keep it on there, because I think
there is -- what's going on now is people are coming down that center median from as
far back as you can get and taking a run at that no left-hand tum move and they are,
actually, tuming in at that intersection where that vehicle is right by the island. So, I
think they need to rethink that and not even encourage people to be in that center
median at that location. So, there is --
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 12 of 64
Hood: I wasn't quite following --
Rountree: Move that further --
De Weerd: North.
Rountree: -- north.
Hood: Just continue this alignment further to the north?
Rountree: Yeah.
Hood: Okay. So, this kind of ends the City of Meridian's jurisdiction. Real quickly,
though, I just wanted to go through kind of the rest of the corridor. So, there is the
Albertson's complex and that one will be full, but, then, they restrict, again, up to the
McMillan intersection with the center median and, then, the Target -- same with Target.
I believe this one is a full access to median, kind of -- it stops in a weird stop, so I don't
know how accurate that is, but I believe that one's still full access and, then, the other
one would be restricted to right-in, right-out. Same with the gas station entrance, a
right-in, right-out. And, then, the last one I wanted to show you, just to kind of finish off
the north side of Chinden. I did want to also mention that they are taking medians --
center medians back in Chinden as part of this project, back to the first couple of, you
know, quarter mile or so in each direction on Chinden. So, most of those access points
will be restricted to right-in, right-out again starting at the intersection and, then, back to
the east and west along Chinden. So, again, it's not our -- it's Boise city, but just
thought I'd share that with you, that those accesses will be also restricted. So, are there
any other comments? I have -- I have three here. If there are anymore that I can relate
to ITD I certainly will. Any comments on the signage? Is that something we should
explore now or maybe in the future or not at all?
De Weerd: I think, Caleb, the original signage that was being contemplated would not
fit well on those curbs, so we probably should look at some kind of signage, but not
what was anticipated once the medians do go in. I guess just as we state in the letter
some of the comments that were included tonight, I would like to maybe reiterate our
interest and -- that ITD at least continue to keep that corridor study and plan, not shelf it,
but keep it active in seeking funding options and that kind of thing. Also, there is a
concern once you cut the pavement, we are going to have weeds growing up along that
lovely curbing that they are going to put in. So, I would like to see a commitment to a
maintenance plan a little bit better than what they have done on the islands that grow
weeds about four feet tall. I guess we could send code enforcement after them, but just
-- we'd like to see it maintained. If you can't tell, I'm not thrilled with the look that will be
going there, but, certainly, I think we will be spending less of our manpower resources
out in that area. Any other comments from Council? Okay.
Hood: Thank you.
Meridian Ciry Council
February 2, 2010
Page 13 of 64
Item 7: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent
Agenda.
Item 8: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: PP 09-002 Five Twelve by Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints Located at west side of Stoddard
Road, approximately'/a mile south of Overland Road Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 buildable lots and 1 common
lot on approximately 12.91 acres in an existing R-8 zoning
district
De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8 under Action Items. Public hearing PP 09-002.
I'll open this public hearing with staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This subject property
before you tonight is located on the west side of Stoddard Road, midway between
Overland Road and Victory Road. This property came before you in 2005 as the Bear
Creek West Subdivision. That plat has since expired and so the applicant is coming
before you this evening to propose a new preliminary plat that has two buildable lots
and one common lot. You can see the property surrounding this -- the proposed plat is
primarily residential. The majority of it is R-4, R-8 and, then, you have some county
parcels to the north and the south. Here is the preliminary plat that the applicant is
proposing. At some future date they are proposing to construct an LDS church on the
property. That CUP and design review approval has gone before Planning and Zoning
and is currently in the process and has been -- has been approved for that use. Access
for this preliminary plat, again, is from future Kodiak Road. That has to be constructed
and the applicant's aware of that. And also they are proposing access to Stoddard
Road. One thing that I do want to mention to Council is once when Commission heard
this application we did not have ACHD's comments and so Planning and Zoning
Commission was hesitant to recommend -- make a recommendation to move the
application forward. Since that hearing date staff has received draft comments from
ACRD and they are in agreement with the access points as proposed before you
tonight. Here is the landscaping plan that staff evaluated. Again, you can see the
future church site. This is really to show you what the center median would look like
constructed in Kodiak Road and also the landscape buffer along the future Kodiak Drive
and South Stoddard Road. Testifying at the public hearing was Jill Larsen. No one else
commented on the application. Staff did not receive any written testimony on the
application since the P&Z hearing. There are no outstanding for Commission -- or,
excuse me, for Council. With that I'd stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 14 of 64
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Bill, the application is two buildable lots and if you go back to the previous
slide -- the scale's so small it's really hard to read, but I'm assuming that the area
identified as phase one is one lot and phase two is the second lot?
Parsons: Councilman Rountree, that is correct. Basically, the applicant's take 12.91
acres, carved out approximately five acres for the future church site, even when they go
to -- they are in the process of~submitting a final plat and they propose this to do a one
lot final plat when it comes in. And the other acres is to just remain vacant until a future
preliminary plat.
Rountree: It would be a single lot subdivision.
Parsons: Yeah. That is correct.
Rountree: Okay.
Hoaglun: Bill, we can go to the next slide. Slide six. I just had a question on the
landscaping. It looks like they are going to be doing landscaping in front of their vacant
lot as well when they do phase one, is that the plan?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun that is correct. The applicant is
proposing a 20 foot landscape buffer along the west and southern boundary. It's not
required by the ordinance. One -- in the CUP application that Planning and Zoning
acted on, staff conditioned the project that they construct those landscape buffers as
proposed.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Is the applicant here? Good
evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Larsen: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. My name is Jill Larsen, I'm
with Lowland, Johanson, Zimmerman Architecture. We are located at 400 South Main
Street, Payette, Idaho. 83661.
De Weerd: Thank you. Do you have any comments?
Larsen: I am just here in favor and we agree with all the terms and conditions per the
City of Meridian and ACRD. If you have any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 15 of 64
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Staff has indicated that upon submittal this will be a one lot subdivision, as
opposed to two that was in the application; is that correct?
Larsen: Yes, sir.
Rountree: Okay.
Larsen: Excuse me. The property owner plans on replatting the rest of the property, so
it will all be formed into one preliminary plat in the future.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Thank you.
Larsen: Thank you.
Canning: Mayor, could I follow up on that comment just a little bit for Councilman
Rountree?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Canning: The property -- the owner that will -- the person that will retain ownership of
the second lot still owns the other property to the west and staff did ask for a revised
sketch of how the preliminary plat would layout for a subdivision in that area, so we
have made sure that -- that it can continue as a residential use and match up with the
property to the west. I think that's what Councilman Rountree was trying to get to.
Rountree: You answered my concern. Thank you.
Canning: Okay.
Larsen: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Council, I see no further testimony. Any further
questions for staff? If not, I'd entertain a motion to close.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I move that we close the public hearing on preliminary plat 09-002.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 16 of 64
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-A. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I would move approval of preliminary plat number 09-002.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve this item. If there is no
discussion --
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Did the maker of the motion intend in his motion that what was stated here
this evening that it would be a one lot subdivision and that as staff has indicated, it is
going to be consistent with development to the west?
Hoaglun: I'd be happy to do that Councilman Rountree. So, in my motion to approve
would also add to that the staff comments that there be -- it would be a one lot
subdivision and that they would incorporate the subdivision to the west as part of their --
is that preliminary plat? I think so. I would include that in my motion.
Bird: Second approves.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. If there is no further discussion, Madam Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun; yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Public Hearing: AP 10-001 Pet Care Clinic by BRS Architects
Located at 1151 E. Fairview Request for City Council Review to
waive the two Unified Development Code standards approved
with the Pet Care Clinic Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC
09-056); 1) the construction of the 20 x 20 feet wide driveway
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 17 of 64
on the western boundary and 2) the construction of the
multiuse pathway along Fairview Avenue
De Weerd: Item 8-B is public hearing AP 10-001. I will open this public hearing with
staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Before you tonight is an
application for City Council review. The subject property is located on the south side of
Fairview Avenue, located between -- or just west of North Stonehenge Way and just
south of future Jericho Way. What has happened on this property is the applicant came
before staff and was seeking extension of the site and so staff met with the applicant for
several months and informed them of some of the issues that -- regarding the property.
After we met with the applicant on several occasions it was deemed that we could issue
the certificate of zoning compliance and design review and the applicant could proceed
to building permit. Upon some of those meetings the applicant felt that some of the
UDC standards that we have in our ordinance were premature at this time due to the
fact that we didn't know when Jericho -- they didn't know when Jericho Road would be
extended through to the property to the west of this site and, then, also future plans for
Fairview Avenue. So, the applicant is before you tonight to ask for a waiver for two
requests. The first is the 20-by-20 foot driveway on the western boundary and you can
see this is the approved site plan before you. They have it hatched out -- if you can see
my arrow there. So, that's one request. The other request is for the multi-use pathway
along Fairview Avenue. I would point out that we did meet with the parks director,
because the applicant had erected a new sign on the property, not knowing -- and staff
had not realized that they were coming in with a remodel, so we issued that sign permit
and they constructed and erected a new sign and, then, they came in after the fact for
the CZC and now the construction of that pathway impedes with their signage. And so
the applicant wishes to -- they are not really opposed to installing these improvements,
they just want to do them at the time that the roadway comes in -- those future roadway
improvements are done. Staff is recommending that -- again, we approved the CZC
with those improvements -- we have required cross-access for the -- that driveway to
the west. The applicant was also given the option to provide cross-connection to the
property to the east and they went with the stub street on the west. So, really, one of
the outstanding issues before you is if Council -- if these two requests are met or
Council upholds that and waives those requirements, staff has concerns with trying --
how to track those improvements and get those improvements at a future date.
Typically, we ask those requirements when a person comes in with a development
application and due to the fact that this site is more than likely will be developed to its
capacity, the applicant will more than likely not have to come in for future development
applications. So, staff is concerned that if this pathway isn't constructed and the cross-
access is not in place, there may not be another opportunity to require that. I believe
the applicant has stated in their application their reasons for waivers of those
requirements. I have not received any comments -- written comments from anyone else
in the public and with that I'd stand for any questions Council may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this time?
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 18 of 64
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I have a question on that cross-access. If we were to grant that and this goes
through, the road goes in, what -- what hammer, if you will, do we have on -- on this
property owner to go ahead at that future date to put in that cross-access? I mean how
do you insure compliance at a future date?
Parsons: Councilman Hoaglun, that's the issue before you tonight. I mean certainly the
property to the west would have to come in and annex and develop in the city. At that
point we could require them to construct a driveway, the roadway, and provide cross-
access to them. But if this property owner doesn't construct this driveway now, we
won't have a mechanism in the future to get that and that's why we are before you
tonight, because this gentleman needs to construct that, so that we can insure that
when the property owner to the west requests annexation and constructs that portion of
Jericho, that these two property owners are working together and that connection does
happen.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions at this point? Okay. Is the applicant here?
Would you like to come forward? Any comments? If you will, please, state your name
and address for the record.
Stom: Okay. My name is Scott Stom with BRS Architects. 1010 South Allante place,
Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. 83709.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stom: I'm representing the owner today to discuss the waiver of these two items. The
first item as mentioned was the cross-access agreement. Excuse me. The cross-
access to the west. Currently the owner is underway with his attorney to document out
a cross-access agreement, but he's just not in agreement with the actual construction of
the cross-access drive. We -- our first and foremost, we just don't think that this is any
real benefit to the community, you know, not having any select timeline for when that
road will be constructed, so it's an indeterminate amount of time when that road will be
constructed and it could leave that paved area, you know, useless for an undetermined
period of time. So, in doing so and adding the cross -- the drive, we are virtually
eliminating, you know, shrubs and some of the landscape planter, you know, so we are
teaming some of the pleasantries that could occur in the meantime until this road is
actually added. Speaking on behalf of the pathway to the north, again -- again, this is a
requirement that is not going to serve an immediate purpose for the time being until
future development catches up with this. I mean the site to the east is county property
and there is really no way, based on the building's proximity to the north property line at
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 19 of 64
Fairview of getting that path -- pathway to continue through and, then, again, to the west
it really doesn't make sense -- there is really no link for that walkway to continue to the
west, because there is no road there at the current time. And with regards to the
pathway, too, the owner feels it a bit unjust that he has to just -- this was approved
about six months ago back in July of 2009 and right now it's in about the prime location
to where that pathway would go through. So, it's -- there is really no feasible option
around not having to relocate the sign. So, what we are asking -- one of the waiver
items is asking that we would be allowed to construct that pathway at a later time and
not have to do it now. Part of it is, of course, the cost to have to relocate the sign. This
is a cost that could otherwise go to his two story remodel in addition to his existing
facility to improve as good it can be. So, with that one of the other items I would, as you
consider waiving these items -- or waiving these two conditions is when the road is
constructed -- when that drive is constructed to the west and that road is added and we
provide cross-access, inevitably the owners parking lot is going to have to be
reconfigured, because where it is now and with the current parking configuration, we are
going to lose about two parking spaces and that will take us about one parking space
short of what's allowed by the Meridian ordinance. So, inevitably, the parking will have
to be reconfigured and we had done a study on that future parking lot and it's a lot better
option for us and so what we are asking you to consider is if at that time where we
provide cross-access and that future Jericho Road is added, we would redo -- redesign
the site, which would kick us into having to submit it to the planning department again
for CZC approval and at that time maybe we could address that ten foot wide path
requirement to the north. So, with that I will just leave it open to questions or comment
that you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Parsons: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Parsons: Sony to interject. I just have to -- I just want to elaborate a little bit on the
pathway if I can back down. If you remember the applicant -- this property -- just a
couple parcels over was known as Instant Equity Auto and they came in and did a few
appeals before you and they were trying to get CZC approval for that site and we
required that they enter into a DA and at the time that they came before you they were
proposing a five foot sidewalk along Fairview and, then, recently they have just
recorded their DA with you and you acted on that and I was able convince the applicant
to add to their DA provision to construct a ten foot multi-use pathway per our ordinance.
So, they are willing to upgrade and put that pathway in, too. So, essentially, we will
have a ten foot pathway for that -- for that parcel -- granted it's not connected with this
property yet at the time, but the plan is for that pathway to go along that southern edge
of Fairview Avenue and, then, go southward down North Stonehenge way and, then,
run along Jackson Creek or Settlers Canal there. So, at some point we are going to get
that connectivity. I understand it is -- we don't know if and when, but I mean that's what
it's planned for.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 20 of 64
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, question for Scott. What is the cost to relocate the sign? Do
you know off the top of your head what that cost would run?
Stow: At this time -- sure.
De Weerd: If you can, please, state your name and address for the record.
Larkin: My name is Phil Larkin. I'm at 1151 East Fairview. I'm one of the partners in
Winvi Properties, which owns the facility.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Larkin.
Larkin: I checked with the sign company and one of the alternatives we had was to
reverse our sign. Currently it sticks out from its post towards Fairview Street. We
talked about reversing the sign, which would allow a four foot walkway in front of the
sign and not impede progress with it and I think the cost of that was about 475 dollars
that they got back to me. Unfortunately, if you look at the screen that's currently up,
there is nowhere else to put a sign, because I have three conflicting govemmental or
semi-govemmental units all claiming to have jurisdiction over this piece of property.
The City of Meridian, the Meridian Irrigation District, and ACRD. In order to put a sign I
would have to move it back to my building, which kind of negates the purpose of having
a frontage sign out there. And one thing on that sign I'd like to address. I felt it was kind
of inferred that we snuck this sign in last July and that's not the case. The sign that we
had up there previously had been there for 15 years with the previous owner. We
changed our logo. We changed our website. We chose to have our new logo put out
on our sign and change the sign at that point. We had no idea that we were going to do
an expansion at that point in time. That started last October when I first contacted our
builder with that. So, the sign -- could we move it? Yeah, we can move it back, but we
might as well just take the sign down and not use it at that point in time. And, honestly,
one of the problems that's been with the property for years is it sits back from the road,
you can't see it. The building to the east of it sits somewhere in the neighborhood of 20
feet off Fairview and if you're coming from the east you don't see our property until
you're already past it. If you're coming from the west, it's been six feet with high weeds,
since we bought the property four years ago. Now, I'd also like to address the cross-
access. It was stated that we turned down the cross-access to our east and to the east
of this is county property. The guy that has a building there, he would have to move his
building in order for us to have access there and I don't think he's going to be willing to
do it. And as far as buying that piece of property, if the Volkswagen junkyard sitting
behind it -- it's probably not something that would -- anyone would want to loan money
on at this point in time, put it that way. What we have done is we have taken a
business, we improved it, we want to add more square footage to it. We want to go up
with it and put a second floor on it and utilize the ten feet to the west that we bought to
increase just our reception area. It's not that we don't have parking that's adequate,
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 21 of 64
because we only see five to six clients at a time. It's just that in order for us to treat and
take care of animals we need more space inside and I look at my area I'm in right now
and to my east I have an old building that sits on the road with a junkyard behind it. To
my west I have got a bam sitting there that's half tom down that I look into every day.
And, then, the last thing I'd like to address is the sidewalk. If you go east of us and
head down Stonehenge it's a four foot sidewalk. If you go west of us there is not a
sidewalk for four blocks right now. The gentleman that owns the land next to us wants
to put a self storage unit back in there and I don't think that meets zoning requirement
right now, so I don't know what he's going to do with it. But for four years I have had
nothing but weeds there. And forme to put in a ten foot sidewalk I have to get rid of my
sign and I lose parking, I lose green space, and, unfortunately, the sidewalk goes right
over the top of a Meridian ditch that they have got buried, too. So, I have got all these
different competing things and ails I want to do is improve my property. I don't know
anything that would be a detriment to the City of Meridian. You know, I'll even live with
putting a bicycle rack out in front of it, although very few of my clients are going to show
up on a bicycle with a pet. But I'll find somewhere to put one out there if that's a
requirement. But these other things don't do anything to improve my property and I
don't think do anything to improve Fairview and what people are going to see as they
are driving down Fairview. I think that's all I have.
Stom: One further comment that I have regarding the cross-access drive that I didn't
mention, it's -- there is really no feasible way to engineer that drive without having, you
know, elevation data of the future road that's -- at about the center point of that drive
there is about a two foot difference in the grade from the pet care clinic property down to
the newly purchased parcel that the owner just purchased, it's about a two foot grade
difference, there is some grading challenges and some unknowns to create -- you know,
create some problems as far as how to engineer this to tie into the future road.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, question for Scott. Earlier you had mentioned in your
testimony something about the owner talking to a lawyer to -- to work out some
agreement that -- what are you suggesting there, if I might follow up on that -- that
comment?
Stom: Yeah. As part of what was required for the CZC conditions was the cross-
access agreement, so we were underway getting that agreement documented up with
his attorney and so that would be submitted to the city as part of our conditions -- to
meet our conditions, but we are just here today to avoid having to construct it now, it's
something we'd rather do -- we are not opposed to it, we are -- it's just the timing --
matter of timing. We'd rather do it when the road happens, to not just leave an unused
section of paving out there for when ever amount of time.
Hoaglun: Follow up, Madam Mayor. Scott, you're talking about putting something into
on legally binding document that says at a future point when the road goes in you will be
putting in this -- this access point?
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 22 of 64
Larkin: I think the main thrust of that was when Fairview -- whether ACHD expands
Fairview was when they were worried about our access onto Fairview and what I asked
my attorney to draw up was an agreement that I would at that point in time give up my
access to Fairview and accept access off of Jericho and I -- the reason we did that is
how this was drawn, we literally have to go in and rip this pavement out that we already
put in in order to reconfigure our parking lot at that point in time and make it an east-
west parking lot, instead of a north-south parking lot.
Hoaglun: Mr. Larkin -- if I might follow up, Madam Mayor. And, Phil, if --did ACHD give
you an indication when they -- when they expand Fairview is the timing with -- with -- is
that Jericho? Will that be in or going in? Did they give you any indication of the timing
of that?
Larkin: The tie in this Jericho will --Jericho will only go in when the developer that owns
that empty lot back behind there decides to develop it. Our understanding is they are
going to require them to put Jericho through to the Stonehenge development behind
that. So, until he does something we are sitting there with a piece of pavement and I'm
also faced with the City of Meridian wants green space and our green space is going to
be taken up with concrete and it doesn't seem like it's a very rational thing to be doing at
this point as a businessman.
Stom: I'd like to say one thing. As far as what ACHD indicated to me -- the expansion
of Fairview to an extra lane was in their five year plan, but they didn't indicate anything
regarding the --that future local road per Phil's comments.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I don't know who to ask this question to, Madam Mayor, but I see Christie's
in the back, maybe she can help. What -- what's the anticipated requirement for the
expansion of Fairview from your frontage or are you already within a setback that would
provide for that expansion?
Stom: We are within -- the future right of way for Fairview when they expand it would be
120 feet. So, it would be 60 feet from the center line of Fairview to our property. They
advised us not to -- we couldn't construct a walk within 60 -- or, excuse me, 53 feet
away from the center line, because from 53 feet the walk would start towards the
property and, then, north of the 53 foot line there would be a five foot planter strip and,
then, curb and gutter. So, the north -- that 53 foot line is exactly the north face of our
walk as you see it on the plan.
Rountree: If you'd point that out, that -- at best the scale I have is fuzzy. So, if you can
show me the sidewalk. And I can see the curb return line. So, that would be -- that
would be the edge of right of way?
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 23 of 64
Stom: The future right of way line actually is at 60 feet --
Holman: Sir, if you want to hit one of the colored buttons on the top of that screen, like
the red or the green, then, it will allow you to color on it and point out the spot that you
want to.
Stom: Okay. Okay. So, the 60 foot right of way line is right here -- is it coming in?
Rountree: Well, the pointer just moved away from a line, so --
Stom: So, if I try to guide you verbally here. If you look at the -- the side where we
would have the signage, this would be the east side where we have the current access,
the south edge of that walk is about exactly where the future 60 foot right of way line --
De Weerd: So, do you have a diagram with you? Is that what you have? Will you pull
the Elmo out and --
Bird: Put it in the Elmo.
Rountree: We have got technology, we just got to figure out how to use it.
De Weerd: In theory it will be easier than trying to walk us through it.
Stom: Okay. Okay. So, the 60 foot right of way line is right where my pen is pointing.
Hoaglun: Scott, can you point out real quick -- that's your sign up there above your pen
and Phil had talked about that was kind of swiveled, it's not a -- the sign is not centered,
but it sticks out like a flag almost?
Stom: Yeah. What you see is the -- I'll hatch in -- the bold is where it continues down to
the foundation and, then, on the south side here it cantilevers beyond the foundation
support by 14 inches and, then, from foundation support to the north it cantilevers --
looks like four foot ten.
Hoaglun: Okay. That gives me a good idea. Thank you. And the pathway, if you could
show that -- do you have the boundaries? I see center line of Settlers, South Side
Canal. So, was that going to be equal distance on either side of the center line or
where is the pathway -- do you have any idea where that was to go?
Stom: The pathway itself?
Hoaglun: Yes.
Stom: It's shown on here. That's one side.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 24 of 64
Stom: And that's the other side of the existing drive. And Planning Department, talking
to the Parks Department, gave us leniency to go to a seven foot walkway at this side,
but with that requirement -- or with that leniency it doesn't -- it will not give us any
additional options to relocate the sign or provide apath -- alternative route around the
sign either, because there is really no effective solution.
De Weerd: So, staff, have you been out there and is there no other alternative to that?
I understand the constraints that the applicant's talking about, but is there -- this is an
important connecting piece, too, to that pathway system, so is there any other option
here?
Canning: Madam Mayor, I'm not sure that the sign couldn't be within an easement. Did
they -- Meridian Irrigation District say that there was no monument sign allowed within
that second easement? I'm song. I shouldn't be addressing the applicant. Madam
Mayor, I think there may be an opportunity to move it back. We have worked with the
applicant as much as we can. It's a very small site. They are proposing a fair amount
of development on a small site that has a lot of constraints, as the owner mentioned.
They have got two irrigation easements on the site, as well as -- well, they have got two
large irrigation -- irrigation easements on the site that do constrain it quite a bit. They
have limited frontage and it's a tricky site. We have tried to work with them for many
times, many meetings. We were unable to come up with a compromise solution and
that's why we are here tonight, unfortunately.
Larkin: Could I address the irrigation easements? Kind of a sore spot with me.
De Weerd: Just -- just so you know, we are not the irrigation district.
Larkin: Right. I understand that. But -- and maybe it's not the City of Meridian's fault
either, but it wasn't until I paid for a civil engineer to find their irrigation canal that they
even knew it was on my property. So, they assume it was to the property to the east
until we had the imgation -- until we had the civil engineer come out and find it and,
then, we found out we literally put our sign almost through their pipe underground. We
are very happy we didn't do that, because I would have been pumping concrete for six
months trying to fill that up with water flowing underneath. But to move our sign at this
point in time, there is no -- there is no where else where we can move it that it's not
going to cause just as much problem as what we are faced with and, unfortunately, we
were given permits on this six months ago when we just wanted to put the sign in, so -- I
know the zoning laws have changed and that you have to go along with them, but it
seems like kind of an undue pressure to put on me at this point after I have already paid
for it one time to have to completely come up with some different kind of sign that's not
going to be there.
De Weerd: Well, I don't know if necessarily it's -- it's because of a change, but some of
the things are updated because of the order of things and as properties are improved
those are some of the trigger points and, you know, I know you had mentioned that the
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 25 of 64
two properties on either side of you -- we know that they will not always look that way
and we know that at some point -- because Fairview is a very important corridor, that
that will be developed and we have to look forward -- be forward we thinking to look at
future connections and make sure that the decisions that we make today are not going
to impede progress in the future and I'm sure your professional could tell you that as
well. So, we are not trying to just throw obstacles in your way, it is for -- for the look
towards the future and making sure that we are not creating barriers for down the road
either. It is a balancing act.
Larkin: I'm not insinuating you're creating barriers, I'm saying that it's changing too fast
for someone who wants to improve their property, that I'm -- I'm faced with changes and
planning -- I think it was they told us that if we didn't get it approved by some time
around the first of January, the zoning was going to change again on the sign and as a
business owner when we make these expenditures, my whole intent is to improve this
property. To do nothing else. The sign was to improve the property. We went from a
comical old veterinarian holding a cartoon bird to something that's updated. So, it's not
our intent to do anything other than make the whole facility look better. And, hopefully,
us making ours look better encourages the neighbors to do the same, because right
now we are sitting in a -- we are sitting in a very desolate part of Fairview and I think we
are the only area that right now between Eagle Road and Main Street that's
undeveloped and we are right in the middle of it.
De Weerd: And I don't disagree with you.
Larkin: That's all we want to do is make it look better and, honestly, make a profit doing
it, too. That's what we are in there for. And as far as location, it couldn't be better for
us.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: A question for both the applicant and staff. Did you explore at all the
pathway going behind this building down future Jericho extension? I know it's
landscaped and there is a berm there, but that it -- I mean we are talking about a future
concept -- conceptually could it be five foot on their side of the right of way line or -- and
five foot on the other side or -- I don't care how good we plan, how good we measure,
how good the survey work is out in the field, I can guarantee you when they go to
modify Fairview, whatever they put in there is going to get tom up. Sorry, Christie, I had
to say that. Oh, she left. Okay.
De Weerd: Shoot.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Council President, I think where we are picking up the multi-
use pathway is from the Jackson Drain here, which was installed and, then, it would
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 26 of 64
come up Stonehenge Way -- if and when this came through you could bring it up that
way and behind and connect with Jericho and possible get it out that way.
Rountree: Looking at this in the future I don't see that there is -- and, first off, I really
appreciate what you gentlemen are going to do, because we need something to happen
in that part of town to get people going started cleaning it up. So, I want to make this
work. I appreciate the effort you put into it. And to me if landscaping is something we
want on Fairview, I'd rather see the landscaping going in on a relatively permanent
basis than having a pathway in there still and leaving enough room for these folks to be
able to do business. I mean it's -- it's a tough site. I applaud you trying to do something
with it.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, I have a question for our legal counsel. Bill, is there a legal
mechanism -- I see Jericho when that goes in -- that's a benefit to the applicant to have
that access point and the changes on Fairview may likely require that. But at the same
time everyone is waiting for that applicant to the west -- or not applicant, the property
owner to do something with their property and we really don't know when that will
happen. Is there a legal mechanism that we can put into place that says when that
happens the property owner will do this? Is that -- is that doable in some form or
fashion?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Hoaglun, I guess the
problem is -- and that's what planning staff has identified -- is -- I mean even if we were
to have an agreement with this property owner to create that access at some point in
the future, having to track that, having to do that, and, then, also there is no mechanism
for any remedy to the city. This may not be the property owner at that point in the future
when that occurs. So, even if this is recorded against the property, we don't have a
mechanism currently. With a development agreement you have the means to -- to de-
annex the property, not allow future building permits, not allow future sign permits, not
allow future expansion -- I think the concern here has been from planning is that there
really isn't any other reason for this property to come back. I mean once the expansion
is completed, there is nothing, really, else the city can hold over their head. The
agreement with ACRD is really granting consent to limit their on access in one location
and take their access in another. That's a lot different, because, basically, based upon
that they are just going to cut their access off and the road's going to go right over the
top of their driveway and they are only going to be able to get access somewhere else.
ACHD can do that anyway. They can either do it by agreement or they can do it by
condemnation. But we don't have any means -- if, for example, in the future the other
property connects before the -- Fairview is widened, there would be no means for us to
penalize or hold them accountable for creating this cross-access. What you have is
you'd have the next property owner come in saying there is nowhere for me to access
this property and they are not obligated to build anything -- or they don't want to build
anything, so, therefore, I shouldn't have to build anything, so that whole cross-
connection idea that we have supported along Fairview -- you probably recall we had
that lengthy discussion with the Instant Equity Auto about across-connection. That's
going to go away. We don't have a means, unfortunately, because there is no
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 27 of 64
development agreement that's -- that's warranted in this circumstance. So, there is no
mechanism for us to, then, hold the next property owner or this property accountable to
follow through.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: If I might address that. It seems to me the issue on Fairview is ultimately
trying to control access and minimize access. So, if Fairview is ever approved, the
intent is to eliminate the Fairview access and take advantage of the Jericho access
point. It seems to me that whether it's through a DA or whatever, the real agreement is
not with the city and not with the city to see that it happens, the real agreement is
between the property owner, the applicant, and ACHD, and if they could work out some
kind of legal document that ACHD could track, that at such time they needed -- they
wanted that access to go away, because they are going to expand Fairview, then, the
access would be provided off of Jericho, the property owner would give you the
stubbing onto Jericho and ACRD would build at least enough of Jericho to give them
access if Jericho had not been put in at that point in time. So, they still have access. I
mean even though ACHD can condemn to take that access, if that's the only access
that property has, they are going to buy the whole property. So, they would be willing to
enter into that knowing they have got swilling -- in this case not really seller, but
negotiator for that access point to agree that at such time as that one goes away, this
one comes to pass.
Nary: And, Councilman Rountree, I would agree with everything you have stated, as
long as ACHD's practice and policy doesn't change and that it actually comes into play
when Fairview actually gets widened.
Rountree: Right.
Nary: If the -- if the cross-connection is desired prior to Fairview becoming widened,
there won't be anyplace to do it. If ACRD currently has a very similar policy and
practice like the city, that they don't really recognize what is sometimes referred to by
some folks as deeded access or preexisting access or something else, so if that policy
and practice doesn't change, you're right, at some point when they make a
determination that no more access to Fairview they will be fine, but as we have seen
with other road agencies, that doesn't always hold forever. So, I think that's, really,
planning's intent was just to make sure that cross occurs today when we have the
means to actually required it, when, really, all we are talking about is asphalt. I mean
we are really not talking about -- 20 by 20 worth of asphalt in one portion of this property
and that way there is an ability to connect. But I would agree with you, if the other
pieces fall into place or the Council's comfortable that if it doesn't, the connection's
either going to get done by necessity or it's not going to get done, because it's not
deemed appropriate or necessary by those two adjacent property owners. If you're
comfortable with that, that's certainly fine, too.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 28 of 64
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Larkin: Could I address that point specifically?
De Weerd: Yes. Please.
Larkin: First of all, Fairview -- the traffic down it is horrendous at times. The average
age of our clientele is somewhere around 60. Getting off and onto Fairview is horrible
for them. If we had a street intersection at Jericho, which could direct traffic, it would
save all the near misses that take place with Jericho, with Stonehenge, with My
Kindness Insurance, and everything else out there. I would gladly take my access off
Jericho. And the second point is it adds -- the way -- can we put this on with our -- by
redoing our parking lot with access off of Jericho we actually gain parking stalls by doing
it. That makes sense to me as a business owner that I have more parking, because I
can attract more clientele into the clinic that way. Having a nice greenbelt across the
front of it, instead of a driveway is nice. There is -- I don't have a problem with that and
we already have -- my attorney has already drawn up the letters saying that I will accept
a cross-access and give up my access to Fairview. I'm perfectly willing to do that. If I'm
going to spend a million dollars on a building, I'm sure not going to fight something over
25,000 dollars worth of asphalt.
De Weerd: Okay.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, regarding options for the pathway
itself, this site is a tough one and it's got a lot of constraints on it and as I met with
planning and we talked about that, that was, frankly, the reason why I said in this case,
given the constraints, I can live with that short section of seven foot pathway as
substandard, because going -- requiring the full ten foot would force not only the
relocation of the sign, but also, then, losing an additional parking space. I don't believe
that there is a good option to move it to the south side of the property behind the
building, the constraints there are actually tougher, than, out along the road. So, I
believe it's in the right place. The pathway needs to be along the south side of Fairview.
It's a question of timing and we don't know when Fairview will be widened. It's
presumably quite a ways off at this point. The surrounding properties are under
developed and I would expect -- you know -- well, there is certainly at least a possibility
that they will redevelop at some point and continue the connectivity. As the stated
disconnectivity that exists in the system today is quite true, but as you know we try and
get the pieces as we can, as development comes. So, it would be -- it's my
recommendation to -- to live with the substandard seven foot piece, get the pathway
along Fairview today, so that it can connect if and when adjacent properties redevelop.
The alternative is to say, you know, we are going to not require the pathway
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 29 of 64
development along Fairview until Fairview is reconstructed. So, I think that's -- that's
the alternative. But I think the location needs to be along Fairview.
De Weerd: Council, any further questions for the applicant or for staff? This is still a
public hearing, so we will invite you back up if there is any public testimony. Otherwise,
we would ask for your closing remarks at that time.
Larkin: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there any member of the public who
would like to provide testimony? Council, any further information needed from staff
before we ask if there is any closing remarks from the applicant? Staff, anything
further? Okay. Applicant, any further remarks? Okay. Yes. Please state your name
one more time for the record.
Stom: Name is Scott Stom. BRS Architects. One point I wanted to make sure it wasn't
misunderstood the last time I said it, but the fact that if the cross-access was provided at
some point in the future, when that future local road is added, that would inevitably
require the reconfiguring of his site, his parking, as you saw on that future outlook for
what his parking configuration would look like. That would necessitate going in to get
CZC approval again and at that point -- at that point we would ask maybe that you
reconsider, you know, allowing us to prevent -- you know, prevent constructing that
pathway to the north at that time, but maybe readdressing it at that future time of that
future CZC submittal with the reconfiguring of the parking lot.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Scott, you would be agreeable to not putting that pathway in at this time and just
letting -- making nice landscaping along Fairview there, I take it?
Stom: Yes.
Bird: I could see that being an advantage right now.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: The last thing to the staff. Do you have any problems with -- I mean that's such a
short part of the pathway and we have no idea when anything else is going to go in
along there. And I think it -- to me it looked a lot nicer driving down Fairview and having
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 30 of 64
a nice landscape there, instead of a piece of asphalt for 60 feet or so. People aren't
going to use it -- be able to use it anyway. What do you think?
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Bird, if the adjacent
properties don't redevelop I totally concur, I'd rather see landscaping there also. What
I'd hate to see, though, is to get the adjacent connectivity and, then, be missing this
piece and have it not come -- or not be able to get it, because there is not the access
out to Jericho yet and the reconfiguration of that parking lot happening, so --
Bird: Madam Mayor, follow up? But, Steve, if they come in for the cross -- once that
entry from Fairview goes away and they have got to come up with across-access,
another entrance, because they are putting too much into this business just to let it sit.
At that point when they redesign it, that's when I would say we put the pathway in. But
why have a pathway there that people can only walk 60 feet on or whatever the width of
that is. I can't -- my eyes aren't good enough to --
Siddoway: One of the problems -- I mean there is no sidewalk out there today, so a
sidewalk -- if a sidewalk were required on adjacent properties, then, it wouldn't be
connected. We don't know when Fairview is going to redevelop or when they are going
to lose that access to Fairview. I -- you know, if it were on a five year horizon, then, I
don't know that I'd have very many concerns, but thinking that it could be 20 years,
that's when I have concerns, because we could really need that access before 20 years
from now.
Bird: Follow up, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Steve, sidewalks along the south side of Fairview, if I'm thinking right, they got
along the little strip mall there between -- between the road -- or between their people to
the east and to the junkyard, they got a sidewalk along there. The north side has got
sidewalk along most of it across the street. But I can't think of any sidewalk, then, until
you get down to where that gold and little thing is where that Mongolian Barbecue and
them places and Idaho Pizza is and I'm sure Idaho Pizza even has a sidewalk in front of
it. So, I don't think we are doing anything that's -- and I don't see a lot of traffic on
Fairview walking. On that side particularly. I hope not for safety reasons. So, I think
with the cross-access and stuff -- and I believe this -- these people are good enough
businessmen, they are not going to put all this money into this and, then, just -- when.
that closes off, don't kid yourself, they are going to have an access and at that point we
can -- they can put that pathway in themselves and, hopefully, the people to the west
will be doing it and the east will be doing it, too, and, then, we can have something that
goes somewhere.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, I agree there is not a lot of existing sidewalk along the south
side. There is existing sidewalk along the south side once you get on the other side of
Stonehenge here.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 31 of 64
Bird: Just that one development.
Siddoway: Right. So, it's more related to what future redevelopment that was adjacent
to this might -- sorry. That might be required to do and connect to or is it all going to
wait until Fairview widening happens? We are just west of this working on the File Mile
Creek path connections down to Fairview and we are working on the designs now for
the south side. That is intended to connect into Fairview and, then, the on-street -- this
on-street connection would tie into that and, then, follow over to this Jackson Drain
connection. So, it's part of the overall system. The timing is what's tough. Like I say, if
we knew Fairview was going to redevelop in five years and we could get the -- the
sidewalks put in with -- with a road widening project that -- I would say let's go that
route. But in my mind the adjacent property are likely to redevelop before Fairview gets
widened and we are more likely to get the connectivity that way.
Bird: I have another follow up. You know, we are going over and connect to the
drainage there, passed the J&J Automotive is I think where we are going to -- back
there is where the drainage comes, if I remember right. Well, it's, actually, got a field of
weeds there between it and the drainage. Why -- like Councilman Rountree said, why
would the pathway not be nice to go down to the north -- or the south end of this
property and go across there and not be up around the traffic?
Canning: Council Member Bird, I'll address that. Mr. Siddoway is leaving blood drops
all over the computer over here, so -- passion about his pathway. But the problem we
see with -- so, currently -- I couldn't follow your conversation exactly, but let me point out
where the pathway wants to go right now. It stops --
Bird: According to this right here.
Canning: Right. It's already -- it would come up and, then, come across is how it's
currently depicted. If we were to come up Stonehenge and come through the back
portion of this, the constraint we see is that there is dense vegetation here, there is a
change in topography -- you can see the topo lines going down to the end of the
property. And, then, the building is pretty much set at the back edge of that -- of that
line. So, unfortunately, it doesn't look like that's really an option.
Bird: Okay.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, question for Anna. The applicant talked about -- I see -- the
lynch pin being we will call it South Jericho Way. To me that's the lynch pin. If that
property develops, then, there is going to be connectivity. I mean that's -- because if we
have the applicant widen the sidewalks, Fairview doesn't widen or even if it does and
there is no connection, there is still no thoroughfare -- there is no sidewalk pathway
continuing on. So, the development of South Jericho is key to that whole thing. If we
require through ACHD or however we can do that -- I -- let me ask the question this
way: If South Jericho is developed is the CZC required for them to change --
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 32 of 64
reconfigure their parking lot and do we have authority over what they do, their access
point, their sign and everything else if they come back for a CZC?
Canning: If they choose to submit a CZC we can apply our standards at that time. I am
not aware of ACHD taking away the one and only access point to a property. So, I am
not sure that ACHD would require that their access go away in the future. I think that
the applicant would prefer -- especially if there is a light there -- to take that access off of
Jericho. But I'm not sure ACHD would ever shut down their one and only access. So, I
just don't know that side and, unfortunately, our ACHD representative has left. So,
perhaps it would be helpful if I talk about possible future scenarios. One is somehow
ACRD closes this access, the applicant comes in with a CZC to gain new access to
presumably a Jericho Way that's there, then, we could get the pathway. The other
scenario might be that this piece of property comes in -- it's had a fair amount of
interest. It's -- it's a little tricky, because you got to build a road through it, but it has had
a fair amount of interest over the last six years. It's just nothing's come through. So, if
this property were to come in we would get this portion of the roadway. A lot of the
people that look at this property are interested in this R-1 piece also and, then, we have
already got the pathway coming in with Instant Equity and, then, we have Brood
Awakenings, which somebody needs to absorb that one of these days, but we have got
a lot of tricky parcels here, so -- but there is a fair amount of likelihood that this R-5
piece will develop. There has been a fair amount of activity over the years, it's just
nothing's quite panned out. So, what would the third scenario be would that nothing
happens out here. So, that's the other one. And, then, you would have that little bit of
pathway there until you got to -- past Lithia, because I think the -- Lithia doesn't have a
sidewalk either, so -- perhaps that didn't help. I was just trying to organize the future
scenarios we have talked about tonight, but I think there are three of them.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Could I throw out a -- maybe a fourth. This piece of property that's to the
west and we have talked about Jericho and providing access to this piece of property in
question. Could the applicant in the future on the adjacent parcel that -- where Jericho
we are presuming would be extended, come in and say, well, I want that to be a grand
entrance, private drive, into a very upscale, high dollar, high density, some kind of
residential that we have never seen before. To me that takes -- that creates a problem
where I was trying to do something with ACHD, which would require across-access
agreement on their part with the adjacent property and getting back into the same
discussion about, well, that takes away from my intent, that doesn't allow me to do what
I want to do. I want a gated or guarded or -- who knows what.
Canning: Shall I hold up on allowing gates, sir?
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 33 of 64
Rountree: No. No. I will do that. But that's just something that just came to mind. I
mean I thought I had a way to work out tracking this with ACRD, but that's apotential --
rather remote, but it's still there.
Canning: Just to perhaps add to the rather remote possibility, there is a public street
stub at the south end of this piece of property, so they would have a stub coming into it
that way.
Rountree: I guess that doesn't really get us to the property we are talking about, but we
have been throwing a lot of discussion about Jericho and that's --
Canning: The Comprehensive Plan designation is commercial on this property. The R-
15 designation was from amulti-family development that originally requested the
annexation, so the Comp Plan designation is for commercial.
Rountree: So --okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just to throw my two cents in. The access issue to me I think will resolve
itself at some point, either by action of ACHD or action of the neighbors.
Bird: I agree.
Zaremba: And I agree with the applicant that a reconfiguration at that time would
probably be more in their favor than leaving it the way it is. The issue that I struggle
with is the pathway and it's always the case where everywhere in the city where we
want the multi-use pathway to connect it's going to be done a few feet at a time. A
piece here, a piece there. If we don't do it, then, when the guy next door comes in he
says, well, the guy next to me didn't have to do it five years ago, why do I have to do it.
And we say, well, there might be an agreement that the other guy will go back and fix it.
You know, there is no way to really bring that across and it's just -- my feeling is if -- if
we don't at least do the pathway part of this and even if we agree that part of it will be
seven feet instead of ten feet just to get around the sign, we open up a can of worms all
over the city where we are trying to get people to do 50 feet of this pathway at a time
and we always get pushed back on that and we will never get the pathways we need if
we don't do them 50 feet at a time and it seems unfortunate, because they don't all
connect at the moment, but my feeling is I -- I could let the access happen all by itself,
but I would like to see the pathway required.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 34 of 64
Bird: Councilman Zaremba, then, we would depend upon ACRD when they close off
that access to make sure the pathway got married up between the two that we are
putting in -- we are requiring in right now.
Zaremba: And they have been cooperative, I believe. ACHD understands our pathway
desire. It actually enhances their roadway if -- if we have a facility that allows alternate
public movement. So, they have been supportive of our pathway system.
Bird: I'm partial to detached sidewalks along Fairview myself.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess maybe just to echo what
Councilman Zaremba is saying, we have had a number of these types of pathways. I
know you all know that. It would be very I guess concerning to then -- if you want to
change your -- your perspective on these and not require these to be done at the time
they are requested and be done at a later time, then, we probably need to analyze that,
because we have done this a number of times where we have required this to be done
now, not in the future, not when it connects to something else, because, again, the
desire is to have them connect eventually, but that's the opportunity now. If you don't
want to have it done now, then, you're going to have to at least be able to create a
mechanism that if the property owner doesn't do it, the city's going to have to be able to
do it and the concerns always going to be is the cost of doing that. You're going to want
an access, you're going to want an easement, and you're going to probably want some
money put into trust to be able to do this at some other point in the future. From a
financial standpoint I don't know if the property owner -- it's of any particular value to
them, but my concem would be is we have done this in a number of other instances for
other pathways all over the city and if we -- I think Council Member Zaremba is correct,
if you decide now that this one maybe doesn't fit at the time you will probably hear that
over and over and over again from folks that until it connects to somebody else they
don't need to do it. And that may be difficult to ever get those paths to connect. Again, I
think the issue on the access to the -- the cross-access again, you can require that they
dedicate an easement, they dedicate an access in the future. I think the problems we
are going to address in the future is if -- if Fairview isn't closed off yet -- and I think Mrs.
Canning is correct, I would be very hesitant to think that ACHD is going to take away an
access if there is no access already constructed for them. If they want to close that
Fairview access off and there is nothing there for them to connect to, they likely won't,
because, otherwise, they are going to have to purchase that access across that other
property and they are not really probably likely to do that. Just a concem.
Hoaglun: And, Madam Mayor, that goes into my thinking if -- if that access isn't taken
away because there is no access developed to the west, then, why are we requiring an
easement of an access -- across-access to something that's not there. And that's the
difficulty of it, because if it goes in, then, there is a benefit to the property owner.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 35 of 64
Nary: Because right now if this intermediate piece -- this pink piece on the -- on the
drawing, comes in without a requirement of the cross-access and the access is
constructed, what you will likely hear in front of you is we don't need to build it either
until it's going to connect all the way to Jericho, so there will be no cross-access on
either side and, then, once Jericho gets connected, they are only going to connect to
the west, not cross the way through. No one's going to have the tools to enforce them
to require that. So, then, the Fairview access won't go away, because there is no
access for these folks.
De Weerd: Complicated. If you will just state your name again for the record.
Larkin: Phil Larkin with Winvi Properties.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Larkin: We are not against having a sidewalk across the front of the property. It's the
size of the sidewalk and four to six feet we feel fits the need of what there is and once
you head east, turn down Stonehenge, it's a four foot sidewalk. It's part of the walking
path. It seems to me we are more in uniform with what's going on than here we are the
ten foot piece of it when the rest of it's four feet out there.
De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification. If there no further public testimony desired?
Okay. If there is nothing further I would entertain a motion to close.
Bird: Madam Mayor? I move we close the public hearing on AP 10-001.
Hoaglun: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just some things that whom ever makes the motion ought to consider is that
-- I'm okay with -- with the reduced standard for the -- the pathway. Would still like to
see the option to relocate it to the south explored a little further. I know it's difficult on
paper and it's probably difficult -- more when you go out and look at it, but maybe allow
for that reconsideration. I think the easement for the access to the west should be
shown on the -- the plat. I don't believe that that pavement and/or access needs to be
built at this time. I think the DA probably needs to have in it a statement -- some way or
another that would reflect that that access is on the plat and that access will be built by
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 36 of 64
the property owner at the time that access can be provided to a future extended Jericho
or adjacent property to the west is developed. And how one would track that is yet to be
resolved.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I need to clarify. This is only a certificate of zoning
compliance. There is no plat, nor is there a development agreement.
Rountree: Then you have --
Canning: We can place those statements on the CZC, but that's --
Rountree: Put it on the CZC, but it could be shown on the -- on the plan that attached to
the CZC. It could be on this document I have in front of me. The site plan.
Canning: Yes, sir.
Rountree: That would be included in the findings as well. It could also require that it be
submitted to ACHD's right of way for their consideration as they advance and ultimately
design and implement Fairview expansion. Those are my thoughts of things that need
to be included.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Councilman Rountree, I --
De Weerd: You need to pull your speaker closer to you, please.
Bird: I can't hear Charlie when he gets that close. I agree with Councilman Rountree. I
think there is a way we can get an easement or something on the cross through and at
what time. I just can't believe that this business isn't going to make sure they have
some access when they lose one off of Fairview and as far as a pathway up there, I can
go with a reduced size. I think we can put the cross-access easement in the findings
and if I'm correct I believe findings are law on that property; am I right, Bill?
Nary: No.
Bird: They are not?
Nary: No. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Bird, if you're
wanting something that's going to be recorded against the property, then, we would
need an easement -- not in the findings, but we would have to negotiate an easement
with them as a condition of your approval of this appeal and, additionally, if you want a
-- at least a memorial, an agreement with this property owner that whatever point in the
future that they need to construct the cross-access and the pathway, we can create an
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 37 of 64
agreement that can be recorded. The problem is going to be coming up with what
conditions the city can, then, withhold or enforce if the -- and, again, I don't think it's this
property owner that's the issue. This property owner, after sitting here for an hour,
probably will get it done. That's not a problem. I think it's the next property owner that's
going to say I read all your minutes and I don't know what you want me to do, but I don't
have to do it. So, we can create an agreement that we can, then, record against the
property, which is probably your safest bet for the future that a different property owner
could at least understand what was required and when it was required to be done.
Bird: We -- refresh my memory on that auto deal that come in. How did we record their
cross-access?
Nary: We required them to do a development agreement, because it had never gotten
done when it was the podiatry center, but it was required on the property. This one's
already annexed, so that's not --
Bird: It's taken care of. And the property owner has no problem with putting in the
pathway -- the reduced pathway and I -- I agree with that. If -- I can't -- I can't think of
anytime that -- that ACHD has closed off an entry when it was the only entry in the
years I have sat on here. So, I don't know what we do about -- my one question is the
cross-access and I'd like to hear some other ideas.
Nary: What the property owners could do, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council --
and, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to just jump in there, but to follow on your line of thought,
Mr. Bird, is if we are going to create an agreement, the property owner could agree to
liquidate his damages if they don't construct it and liquidated damages can be based
upon three bids for the property or whatever. Some mechanism or formula that could
be done, so that if the property owner recognizes that if they don't construct it they are
going to pay to construct it. Now, I hope I'm not here to enforce it, but that may be the
only mechanism to have an agreement so that there is some penalty for not doing it and
some way the city could recoup damages if it doesn't get done and, then, at least they
are not going to be required to post the amount today to get it done, because it might be
ten years from now or it might be five years from now. That's something if you want to
put in an agreement we could certainly try that. I don't know if that will be successful,
but that's the only thing I can think of at the moment to enforce it in the future.
Bird: And, Madam Mayor, I agree with you, Bill, that these owners I'd have no problem,
but what if they decide to sell this property a year from now, how many times have we
got hit if it's not -- that's why I want to see it on something that -- I don't think you can put
it on a title, but -- it's too bad you can't. Can you put it on a title?
Nary: Yeah. We will record it against the property.
Bird: Okay. That would be my preference right there. That would be my preference
right there. Just so that a new owner sees it. He can't come in six months later and
say, well, I didn't know anything about it and we have had how many do that?
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 38 of 64
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun;.
Hoaglun: Just to weigh in on this. I, too, was thinking of a sidewalk out front that wasn't
ten foot for partial and seven foot, and maybe if we just go with the six foot across the
front and call it good and it's the beginning for everybody and who knows when the rest
of the parcels get developed, but it's there and we have a pathway and it's the
beginning. And, then, if there is a way we can do some sort of agreement against the
property -- the only down side is I don't know if we can do that tonight. I'm in my mind,
as I'm listening to counsel here and trying to figure out what's the best thing to do and
how to do it and maybe it's just a matter of our legal counsel and the owner
representatives and the owner sitting down together and coming back next week
saying, okay, here is the mechanism we will agree to -- well, if they don't agree here is
their proposal and here is our counsel's proposal and say, okay, counsel, what do you
want to do on this to nail this down. I don't know if that's a good way to do it or not, but I
don't know if we can construct this tonight or not. If we can, I'm all for it. But I do want
to nail something down that does give us some sort of leverage in the future on that --
on that cross-access.
Nary: Madam Mayor? Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member
Hoaglun, I think what I would suggest that is if it's the Council's mind set that what you
would do is you would be granting an approval of the appeal of these two -- these two
issues -- one was for the -- the -- I guess delay of the construction of the 20-by-20 foot
wide driveway and cross-access to the west, as well as a delay of the construction of
the multi-use pathway. Require that they enter into an agreement with the city to
construct those at a point in time in the future with the conditions that whatever you feel
is necessary to trigger that requirement, we will, then, negotiate with the properly owner
and their counsel to get this agreement before we bring the final order back to you. So,
essentially, if we can't reach an agreement, then, we will bring the issue back in front of
you for either clarification or something else, but, hopefully, we don't get there. But we
can -- we can, then, move forward from tonight with that direction, we will prepare an
order for the findings that you're -- that you're wanting, but also one of those conditions
is this agreement. So, you won't get it for final approval until the agreement is -- either
been negotiated or if it isn't, then, you will hear it again.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: That would be my preference. I hate to agree with an attorney all the time, but
that would be my preference, counsel. If somebody can figure out how to make the
motion.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 39 of 64
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I like that as well, with the exception of the multi-use pathway not being
delayed, just being reduced in width.
Nary: Okay.
Zaremba: My assumption was we were talking about the pathway happening anyhow.
Bird: Yeah.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna --Anna.
Canning: To add to Mr. Nary's comments, the code directs me to take an action on your
decision. If you could delay me reissuing the CZC until the order is approved, that
would be helpful, so --
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, did you have something?
Bird: No. That's fine.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba:
Zaremba: I will give it a try.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: I move that we approve the appeal AP 10-001, under the following
conditions: That the multi-use pathway be constructed to a reduced width of -- was it
seven feet that would fit by the sign? Six. To a reduced width of six feet to be
constructed -- the word immediately isn't correct, but if for compliance of the issuance of
the CZC 09-056 -- no. I'm song. That's the CZC they already have. So, anyhow,
issuance of a new one, the pathway would need to be there.
Canning: We will issue the old one.
Zaremba: Oh. You reissue the old one? Okay. So, it would refer to CZC 09-056. So,
to repeat that part of it, a six foot multi-use pathway would be constructed. On the
subject of constructing the 20-by-20 foot driveway, the applicant will enter into an
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 40 of 64
agreement and work together with the city attorney and Planning and Zoning to craft
that agreement that would require and record that that driveway be constructed at some
future date, triggered either by development of the property to the west or by the
widening of Fairview, which threatens their access to Fairview and as a third point,
direct the director of Planning and Zoning to withhold the reissuance of the CZC until
that agreement has been recorded.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Good job. Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Everyone's
clear? Okay. Madam Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-C is continued from January 12th on MFP 09-003.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, since we are going from a really hard one to an easy one --
oh, wait, this isn't an easy one. Could we have a five minute recess? Could we do
that?
De Weerd: A five minute recess.
(Recess from 9:16 to 9:24.)
C. Continued from January 12, 2010 MFP 09-003 Bienville Square
Subdivision by Idaho Mutual Trust Located at the West Side of
Eagle Road and South of Ustick Road: Request to Modify the
Six Foot Decorative Masonry Wall Along the Western
Boundary Approved with the Final Plat Landscaping Plan for
Bienville Square Subdivision
De Weerd: Okay. I'm going to go ahead and call this back to order and, for the record,
we are considering 8-C and we will put this over to staff.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. If you recall this item
was continued from the January 12th, 2010, hearing. Council gave some directions to
the applicant that they should contact their irrigation district to see what they could do
with enclosing the gap in the wall. Also work with the three affected property owners
that they haven't had agreements with and also to determine how they were going to
treat the back side of the wall. Staff has been in contact with the applicant. To our
knowledge those agreements are not in place. Draft agreements have been sent out to
those affected property owners. It looks like they are all here in attendance tonight.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 41 of 64
The applicant has also provided Council with an update as far as their status report of
what's been going on behind the scenes the last couple weeks. Again, if you recall
staffs recommendation was staff could approve the wall as is, provided that they added
a capstone -- decorative cap to the entire wall. I think the applicant was under the
impression it was for only a portion of the wall, but staffs recommendation was for a
decorative capstone for the entire length of the wall. So, in your cheat sheet tonight I
have provided some options for you, if you so choose, to move on the application. If
Council so chooses, too, if you aren't satisfied that the applicant has made the
necessary steps where you can hear this item, we can also continue that for another
month and give them more time to get all their X's and O's in place. One other thing I
failed to mention at the last hearing is staff -- or the city is still currently holding surety
on the property in the amount of roughly 330,000 dollars -- not all of that. A lot of the
improvements are done on the subdivision -- actually, all of them are done, with the
exception of this wall. It is constructed, so there is that roughly 37,000 dollars left for
fencing that if you so choose you could authorize staff or the city to cash that in and
come up with some kind of treatment to that wall. Again, the applicant's here. I don't
have much else to add and with that I'd stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this time?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment? Good evening.
Buuck: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Tom Buuck, Idaho Mutual Trust.
Address is 12594 West Explorer Drive, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Buuck: Thanks for the opportunity to provide this update. We have had numerous
conversations with the three remaining neighbors, who take exception to the esthetic
design of the wall. We have put forth efforts to satisfactorily address their concerns.
The two issues that we have -- or the two options that we have on the table for the
neighbors are to decorate their side of the wall. One would be hand troweled cement in
a textured finish. Another would be a spray cement overlay on their side of the wall. A
third option would be an acid stain and it does -- that acid stain does provide some
texturing to it as part of the application. And, then, the fourth one is another hand
troweled feature. It's not acement -- it's -- it's not a pure cement, but it's a -- a sand
based mixed with an adhesive to it. So, we are trying to satisfy their desire to have
something in their backyard that looks pleasant to them. One difficulty that we have is
there are three of them and in meetings they are together and so we are faced with
trying to satisfy three people and yet they are individual property owners and they have
their own property rights and they have to sign for their own properties. So, in an effort
to address perhaps an individuality amongst those three owners, as a second
alternative to us doing anything for the wall, we are offering to each of the property
owners 3,000 dollars and they can do what they want. They can build their own cedar
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 42 of 64
fence so they don't have to look at the wall. With 3,000 dollars they could purchase 60
plants that are 50 dollars apiece and effectively shelter their entire view of the wall or
they can put a down payment on a Harley. So, that is what -- that is our feedback to the
Council on our efforts to try to have a remedy and try to be good neighbors in this
situation. As it relates to the four foot setback, we are -- we are going to be cleaning it,
compacting it, doing the fill dirt and installing perma bark. And we are going to do that
for all of them. As it relates to the -- to the staffs recommendation on the capstone in --
in our counsel's review of the development agreement, we don't agree that it specifically
spells out a capstone. There is a top cap to the wall right now. It is not just a bare top,
there is cap to it. We also would present to the Council that the capstone's purpose is
esthetic and we are addressing the esthetics with the neighbors via these overlays that
we are willing to do or through the allowance, so that they don't have to look at it. As it
relates to the gap in the wall, that is an irrigation easement and also through our
counsel we are advised that we don't have the authority to override the irrigation
easement that's recorded, that upon our counsel's review of that document that it
prohibits a structure across there and so we respectfully ask that, Madam Mayor and
Members of the Council, to set that issue aside. I have nothing further.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Other than the cash offer, the four suggestion
treatment to the neighbor's side of the wall, do you have
would require the least ongoing and future maintenance?
Buuck: The acid stain.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
s you made about doing a
an opinion which of those
Bird: If they put up a fence on the outside of the -- the four foot -- I know you say you're
going to put bark in there, but there is still maintenance there. You're not always going
to be there. Is your homeowners association going to take care of that?
Buuck: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? So, I guess I have a question on
the fence. Or the gate. What are you proposing for the gate, then? You need have a
gate there. You can't build a permanent structure, so what is your recommendation?
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 43 of 64
Buuck: Our recommendation is that if the three neighbors can present with us a written
authorization from the irrigation district that the easement -- or the water association,
that would allow us to put a gate across there and not be responsible for it, we would be
happy to comply with that.
De Weerd: Okay. So, your that attorney is advising you that you don't need to put a
gate there?
Buuck: Correct. And -- yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, to follow up -- and Tom. But if they gave you this letter and
said we have permission to put up a gate, you would put up a gate?
Buuck: Yes.
Hoaglun: And is it back to agreeing on what type of gate where we were before or --
Buuck: Yeah. Yeah. We -- we would offer to put up a cedar swinging gate and we --
whether we lock it or not is -- we are open to it.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Who put in the watering box there? Was that put in by your development?
Buuck: I have to -- no.
Bird: Or put in by the Settlers or whoever --
Buuck: Yeah. Don't know. It was there once we acquired it.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Buuck: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony?
Tomczak: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Ray Tomczak. I live at 1502
North Leslie Drive in Meridian, Idaho. A couple of points. I'm going to address the first
one -- is the wall there. My understanding on previous meetings when they developed
that -- that wall was supposed to be continuous all the way across there. The one
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 44 of 64
reason it wasn't finished is that when they put the ditch in there, the piping, they had a
problem with that manhole cover, with it leaking, and with Bob Unger, when I talked to
him about that, he said, well, once they get that fixed, after the water is finished, they
would go ahead and finish the wall. We have the right to give them the authorization to
finish that wall there through the Amond Lateral easement, the user agreement. So, all
we have to do is have Vem go ahead and we will draft it up and have him sign it. That
would take care of the issue of the wall. We would like to see it concrete block all the
way finished across, not only for security, but also for esthetics also. The second thing
is the use -- or the four foot, that is part of my property and it's their property, but it butts
up to mine. We are just looking for a landscaping allowance to do something with it to
make it look good. Just to be able to put another perma bark on there, that means I'm
going to have to put my money into it to fix something that wasn't -- I shouldn't have to
fix. The wall cap. That's totally up to the Mayor and the Council Members to decide
what you want to do with that. That's just amasonry -- smoothed over just to -- for a fix.
That is not a -- really what you consider a permanent masonry cap. Really, that's all we
want is the wall taken care of, an esthetic finish on there, some landscaping, and that
hole taken care of. Done issue. That's all we want.
De Weerd: Okay. Questions from Council? Mr. Bird?
Bird: You have talked to Mr. Amond and it's all -- he will sign this agreement to allow
the wall to be put there?
Tomczak: No, sir, I didn't. I talked with Steve -- or Sam Chambers and Sam Chambers
said it wouldn't be an issue. He says the -- they are concerned about us not being able
to -- if there is a problem with it, that you got an 18 pipe underneath there and so a pipe
under a wall it's not really an issue.
Bird: No.
Tomczak: It's something easy to take care of and it's done right there, should be no
issues with it at all.
De Weerd: Okay.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Ray, the treatments that they are proposing -- is that something you find
acceptable?
Tomczak: I haven't seen them all, Councilman. I -- they were just talking to us about
them. They told us they would come out and show us a couple applications on one to
see how we liked it. The stain, that doesn't do anything for me on it. So, I would like to
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 45 of 64
see some sort of coating on there if it's possible. But, like I said, we are just -- we are
just trying to simplify this as much as possible so we can get over this.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further, Council? Thank you.
Tomczak: Thank you.
Grant: Madam Mayor, Councilman, my name is Steve Grant. I reside at 1534 Leslie
Way and one of the property owners that butts up next to the wall. I don't know if -- the
-- the owners presented us with a licensing agreement. I read it. I sent a copy of it with
my comments back to them, as well as -- I don't know if you've had access to those
comments or not, but in the event that you don't, I will just give you a synopsis of what I
was thinking with regard to them. It covers four different areas. The landscaping, the
top cap, the wall surface, and the gap in the wall. With regard to the landscaping, what
they would propose is fine. We talked about letting them give us an allowance for labor
and materials, so that we can -- so I can do it on my own time frame in conjunction with
some other things I have planned. And so they have verbally agreed to providing us an
allowance for labor and materials and so I think we have resolved that issue. The top
cap, it was not my -- I was unclear when I came to this meeting as to what you were
requiring on that top cap and it appears that -- that if planning folks are recommending
that they finish that, my -- the owners have offered to give us an allowance and that's
my preference. I'd just as soon -- there is lots of ways -- if you spill something on your
carpet, you can tear the carpet out or you can put a rug over it and so my preference --
it would be to take their cash offer and, then, landscape, so that you can't -- you know,
we can break up the monotony of a concrete wall or do whatever. But I mean that's my
preference. And that's certainly not reflective of my neighbors, what they might want.
And so I guess that covers the two things, the top cap and the wall surface and, then,
the gap I believe that - I mean that's -- that's kind of Mr. Feely's issue, because it's on
his property, it's not on mine, and whatever you decide there. But it does seem
reasonable to close that gap. I don't think anybody ever anticipated that that gap would
remain and it was always on our understanding that it would be a concrete wall, but,
again, that's I guess for you to decide or -- between you and Mr. Feely or -- and the
owners. So, those are my comments and if there are any questions I'll entertain them.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Feely: Good evening, Mayor and City Councilmen. My name is Scott Feely, residing at
1470 North Leslie Way. And, again, to reiterate, I'm the owner of the property parcel
which butts up to the gap and this is what I'm asking the Council and Mayor -- for your
help with. Number one, Idaho Mutual Trust has done their job and they have been
trying to work with us, but I feel as if I'm the small guy playing in a really big pond here
with them, because the first offer that they made to me was to fix the hole. That was the
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 46 of 64
only thing that they addressed and as Mr. Parsons had mentioned, we were talking
about the gap, meeting with the irrigation district and also the decoration, in the first
offer there was nothing on the decoration side to me. Then, the second offer was, well,
we will pay you 3,000 dollars to go ahead and landscape back there, instead of putting
a top coat, which I appreciate the offer, but, then, they weren't going to do anything with
the hole, they were actually asking me to pay 3,000 dollars to build my own fence on
their property. At least that's my interpretation of it. Then, thirdly, which was tonight,
was to make this the decorative wall and, then, be able to put the perma bark and all of
that. And so what I'm asking you to help my family with, from a safety standpoint, is I
need some type of a governing body to help guide them in making this wall correct,
because it is the interpretation that this wall was to be continuous and now I have got
this big 20 foot hole in the back of our yard, which, again, raises up. I mean you could
almost walk right into my backyard, even though I've got a six foot high fence back
there, because of the way that it was originally constructed. And so from my standpoint
I am willing to work with them, I just feel as if, you know, they start throwing attorney
terminology towards me and I feel just a little bit uneasy with that and that's what I'm
coming to you for. I -- it's not my responsibility, I'm not a developer, I'm a homeowner.
And so I hope they do the best thing for us. So, that's where I'll leave it tonight.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think I can tell you the reason they probably didn't finish that wall off is they -- I'd
have to talk to an engineer and I'll get the owner when he comes back up here -- or the
representative of the owner. Have you -- have you dug down at the edges of those to
see how the foundations and the footings are for that wall?
Feely: I saw them being put in, actually.
Bird: And they are -- they go down -- they probably can't go across the ditch with them,
there is nothing other than that the to hold it up and that two foot -- they could put
something down there and do it. I can't -- I can't understand their reasonings why they
went 20 feet for an 18 inch culvert -- or pipe, whatever you want to call it and they left a
20 foot opening. I don't understand it. I'll ask the owner when he has his rebuttal.
Feely: I mean when we were there watching it be put in, the foundation where the
piping was coming in from the previous developer, was leaking considerably. So, I don't
know if that had anything to do with it or not.
Bird: And you want it closed up.
Feely: Yes.
Bird: And preferably in block.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 47 of 64
Feely: And the mention of the cedar fence -- I mean here -- here is the City of Meridian,
you have got this nice cinder block wall on their side of the property, it looks really nice
and you come into a cedar fence, it's just a lot of variation, in my opinion. But, again,
that's just my opinion. And so to see it continue across, that's all I'm asking for. At least
with the hole. But, then, it just seems like I'm being treated differently, because I have
got the hole, so now there is more cost associated with my property, but they want to
treat all three of us the same. It's just a little confusing to me. I haven't even brought up
other considerations with the perma bark. I have got the canal actually on my side -- as
you look at the upper right-hand side slide where that fence is, that's, actually, my
property. Yeah. Correct. The canal is -- actually, it's an open canal, which is not tiled
on my property that goes all the way along that and it does go in and out, but if they
were to raise and put the dirt on there like they are suggesting that they are going to, if
they raise that dirt up eight to ten inches to get to the -- six feet high, that perma bark
could potentially run into the canal -- now, me as a homeowner I have got to maintain
that for the water users and so there has been no consideration as far as what
preventative measures are going to be taken for this perma bark. I would be very willing
to entertain the cash offer that they were talking about for the landscaping. I don't know
if perma bark on my property is the best thing for that area. So, that's where I stand.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Is that -- is that your fence there?
Feely: Yes.
Bird: The cedar fence?
Feely: Yes. Yeah. It is the -- the fence that you are --
Bird: Well -- and it's going to go away or --
Feely: -- looking that parallels -- it parallels -- the cinder block fence is my fence. And,
then, the perpendicular fence, that perpendicular fence is actually my property border
with the fourth neighbor -- I forgot Gary's last name. So -- yeah. And the canal actually
runs -- it stops --from an imgation standpoint the canal does stop right on the other side
of that fence, because Gary's the only one a Morrisette is the last user on that side --
the north side of the --
Bird: From where that entry is into the wall there, where is the hole in the opening in the
wall?
Feely: It's right next -- you can answer this, probably, Mr. Parsons, but I think he took
that picture where the hole was.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 48 of 64
Parsons: Yeah. Councilman Bird, that's correct, I -- I walked inside the gap right there
and shot that so you could see what that landscaping looked like between the two
properties. So, it's probably five or six feet from the edge of that photo is where that gap
is.
Bird: Back.
Parsons: Yes.
Bird: To the center of the deal. Okay.
Parsons: So, roughly -- I know it's hard to see on this aerial, but you can see here is
where the common lot is and here is -- oh, his property, I believe, is this one here. The
opening is somewhere in here.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council?
Feely: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further testimony? I would ask the applicant to make
concluding remarks.
Buuck: Yeah. I wanted to provide some --
De Weerd: If you will just state your name again for the record.
Buuck: Tom Buuck. Idaho Mutual Trust.
Slaughter: And Ben Slaughter, Idaho Mutual Trust.
Buuck: So, I just want to remind Madam Mayor and Members of the Council that this
four -- oops, I just touched it. The four foot -- that four foot strip is -- is our property and
the development agreement called out that on our four strip we are supposed to
compact that and put gravel and we have agreed to upgrade that to perma bark, which
is just a more decorative gravel and it's our property. We are willing to let the neighbors
use that property unconditionally. So, we are -- and I just want to make sure everybody
understands that. As far as the esthetics of the wall, we all know we are here because
we didn't build the wall and we are stuck with the wall just like they are and we are trying
our best to make it esthetically pleasing to them. So, that's why we have offered up
these overlays or the acid stain so it's more esthetically pleasing to them and -- or,
alternatively, give them cash and they can do whatever they want on their side to make
it pleasing to their own individual eyes. As it relates to the -- to the gap, again, we didn't
leave it there, we need to deal with it. The way we read the recorded instruments
through our counsel is that it states that a structure can't be built across it. The reason
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 49 of 64
why it's 20 feet is because the easement is 20 feet. It's not an 18 inch easement. If it
was, I would assume that's what -- they would have made the wall closer. But it is what
it is. If they can get authorization, authorizing us to construct across that and releasing
us of all liability and -- well, a future liability, if anything, if it -- because if it collapses
down and it shuts off their canal and the water starts spilling out, we just -- I just don't
want any responsibility for that. So, if they can produce a document as such, we are
willing to work with filling in that gap.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You're willing to let them use the four foot unconditionally. If you're willing to do
that, seeing how your homeowner association is going to take it over sooner or later and
we don't want any problems later, are you willing to deed that four foot by the width of
their property to each one of the owners?
Buuck: That's -- that's an excellent suggestion. The reason why that has not been an
open discussion is because the wall is still on our property and we do still have to
maintain the wall and we have to get behind there is something happens ten years from
now or 20 years from now. So, that's why deeding it over to them has not been an
option, because we still have to get back there.
Bird: Couldn't -- could you not deed it over to them and they give you a maintenance
easement? I don't know. I'm just -- I'm asking
Buuck: Well, the other problem with that is -- as you see in this picture here -- I'm going
to hit it. The top -- the top right where --
Bird: Yeah.
Buuck: -- this fence is, they have built that on our property. Now, we are not fussing
over it and we don't care. But that -- that little strip of fence, that's -- should go tear that
down. Now, when we have to go back and maintain that wall, we are going to have to
knock that down. Perhaps. But, see, if they own it, now I'm destroying their property.
So, each one of them could tie into that wall if we deed the property over to them. So,
that's why it's important that we own it, but we give them quiet enjoyment of it.
Bird: Okay. Now -- now let's go to the 20 foot opening. You say it's got a 20 foot
easement for Settlers or whoever runs through there and they -- you can't -- I know you
can't build a permanent structure over it. I would question -- and this -- maybe Mr. Nary
can help me on this -- the legality of it. Or unless one of you two are lawyers, too, but I
don't see a fence like that as being considered a permanent structure. I look at a
permanent structure as something that is built to -- you know, to be a house or a shed
or something like that, as a permanent structure. I might be wrong. It wouldn't be the
first time, but, you know, I don't think that -- yeah.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 50 of 64
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Bird, what the
agreement says -- and I guess maybe that's something that the Council needs to hear,
rather than what the testimony was, because I think it differs some from the testimony.
The restricted use of the easement premises -- it says the owners use of and the
activities of the easement may not reasonably interfere with the lateral association's use
of the easement. Specifically, but without limitation, the owner shall not excavate or
cause or permit the placement, installation, or construction of structures or other
improvements within the easement without the lateral associations prior consent. So,
that's what -- what Mr. Tomczak was saying is all they need is consent. This isn't -- this
isn't maybe as complicated as they are wanting it to sound. They need consent to be
able to construct a gate in that location. If they can get permission for the gate, they
can construct a gate there. What it does say, though -- and that's, I guess, where I
guess they differ from the testimony that's been given, the owner agrees that the lateral
association will not be liable for any damages to any structures or improvements that
may be placed or installed within the easement resulting from the lateral association's
exercise of its rights in respect to the easements or the facility. So, if the wall falls over,
they can't waive that responsibility. If it isn't maintained, if the wall causes damage,
then, their property has the damage, so a although I think the testimony was in
consideration of putting a gate they wanted a waiver of any responsibilities, they can't
have that. They -- all they need is a permission from the lateral association, which Mr.
Tomczak said he can easily acquire. I guess why that hasn't been done in the last three
weeks I don't know, but that might be really where the turning point is in getting that
permission and, then, getting a gate installed. It doesn't sound like it's that
insurmountable a problem, but it is not reasonable for the owner to request some sort of
waiver for putting in a gate, because they have already contemplated that in this
agreement. So, I don't think that's necessary.
Bird: Madam Mayor, can lask --
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Bill, you're saying they can't put a wall over that, it has to be gate?
Nary: It doesn't say what -- it says they have to have permission. So, what Imight --
Bird: That's what I'm saying. They have to have permission.
Nary: Yeah. They could put a wall if they have permission. They could put a wall.
Bird: And I take it from these owners -- and I don't blame them, I'd want the wall there,
too. I wouldn't want a gate. And it can be done. You've only got 18 inches -- say 24
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 51 of 64
inches a deal, you can go down there in that area for two foot by two foot and pour a
concrete box that that -- that will carry the weight of that block wall across there and you
read exactly what can be done, but I wish they would have brought in a signed
agreement from Vem.
Slaughter: Madam Mayor? If I may address Mr. Nary.
De Weerd: Just state your name, please.
Slaughter: Ben Slaughter for Idaho Mutual Trust. Mr. Nary, could you, please, read
back the portion of the easement agreement which states that -- which addresses the
liability issue that you were discussing?
Nary: It says the owner agrees that the lateral association will not be liable for any
damages to any structures or improvement that may be placed or installed within the
easement resulting from the lateral association's exercise of its rights.
Slaughter: So, when -- and I am an attorney and I would take issue with your -- with the
way that you're interpreting that document. If the lateral association determines to
exercise its rights in making certain changes, then, we can't take -- we can't take liability
for just any sort of -- any sort of action that the district takes -- or the association takes.
We -- if we request to put something up, then -- that we don't want and we don't think --
when we are not sure it's engineered properly and is safe to put across there, then, how
can we -- how can we be liable for that when the 20 foot gap was left there for a reason
and that's because the -- that easement specifically says we can't put anything over
there and, then, for somebody to come in -- the city to come in and force us to put
something over that and, then, say that we are liable for it, when the water users
association told us we couldn't put anything over there, that seems counter-intuitive and
unfair.
Nary: But the water association has to grant permission. Once they have granted
permission you can put a gate there or a wall there and you're still responsible if you
build a wall in that space and the wall falls over, because it's not constructed properly,
that is your responsibility. So, they are not giving you permission and, then, waiving all
the rights you're taking on their own liability, they are saying they have a right to access
if they grant you permission to it. You're still responsible for what you construct there.
Slaughter: We don't want to be responsible for their canal, though.
Nary: Well, I guess that's a decision for the Council, not for you.
Slaughter: And that's my question. If they specifically tell us we -- in a recorded
instrument that was negotiated between the water users association and the prior
developer that we can't put anything over that easement and now we are being forced
to put something over that.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 52 of 64
Nary: It doesn't say you can't put anything there. It says you need their permission.
Once they grant you permission you can construct what was -- what's permitted. They
are only saying you're responsible for what you construct.
Slaughter: Why do we need permission to do that?
Nary: Because the Council can direct you to do it. That's why.
Slaughter: To get permission to put a wall up that is going to increase our liability?
Nary: Yes.
Canning: To add to that, that's what the previous approvals for this project promised the
Council is that you would put up a concrete wall. It didn't say any -- it didn't mention any
gap for the easement. The original approval.
Slaughter: So, they --
Bird: That's right.
Nary: So, the Council can require you to comply with the agreement that exists on this
property, if that's the Council's interpretation of what was required. It doesn't matter that
you're the subsequent owner.
Slaughter: And, then, just for argument sake, let's assume that the water users
association does not grant us permission to put up that wall, what then?
Nary: Then you won't have to. They won't be able to require you to do something that
isn't going to be allowed by the people who have access. They have already discussed
that.
Hoaglun: And, Madam Mayor, just to add into that, I don't see it any different than any
other portion of the wall, that you will have to maintain the wall just like you do any other
portion and if they give you that permission, then, it's just like any other segment of the
wall.
Buuck: Yeah. I think maintaining the wall we are agreeable to. It's -- it's taking on the
liability of their canal once we construct something across it. So, I think a gate would be
preferable, it would -- it would reduce the event or chance of something happening to
the canal.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 53 of 64
Bird: Let me throw out something else and -- first I want to ask Bill -- in the findings --
the original findings did we specify which way the wall was to be, whether the decorative
was to be looking inside or outside like normally is?
Nary: In your original findings what your direction was was to comply with the
comments and testimony that has been in front of you. None of it was about the
decoration facing inside this project, it was all based on the testimony of the neighbors
on what was facing them.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
Nary: And I guess to clarify one other point that -- that the property owner keeps
making, it doesn't appear that you're constructing something over their water delivery
system, you're constructing it over the access to their water delivery system. You're not
building it on top of them, you're building the access -- you're building a gate to their
access. That's why they have an easement there. It isn't necessarily just because
there is a pipe there, it's the access to it so they can clean it, so they can make sure
there is no obstructions in it, so they have a way to get into it and that's what it appears.
It doesn't appear that it's just -- that you're building on top of the delivery portion, it's the
access to the delivery.
Buuck: So, isn't there -- isn't there a cover right there in that?
Canning: There is a manhole there that they will need to --
Nary: To the west of that. It's not in the 20 foot gap.
Canning: I think the testimony we heard at your last hearing, Madam Mayor, Members
of the Council, was that the manhole probably did line up with the -- if you were to
connect the two ends of the fence -- or the wall. Excuse me. That it did line up with
that, but --and that was from Mr. Feely from the audience that stated that that's true.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Who can answer this? How far -- how far is it piped east and west of that wall?
Nary: You have to come up here, sir.
Feely: My name is Scott Feely. As far as east of the wall, it goes all the way to Eagle
Road. The piping to the weir that's up there to our water rights and, then, to the west, it
will go -- it goes all the way to Vem Amond's property and, then, he --
Bird: It's all piped.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 54 of 64
Feely: And that's almost to his property and fields goes almost to Meridian Road is the
next road.
Bird: Yeah. It does. No. Locust Grove. It goes to Locust Grove.
Feely: Locust Grove. Yes.
Bird: Yeah. It -- I know where the --
De Weerd: Boy, Dean, are you tracking all these different people that are talking? This
is Ray Tomczak.
Tomczak: Thank you very much.
Bird: And I understand they put the -- the manhole cover there, because they were --
they have a 90 or something there or what is the reason for having the manhole cover
there?
Tomczak: The reason -- the reason they put it there in line with the wall is they put it in
backwards and so I talked with Sam Chambers across -- you don't want to know who --
Bird: Yeah, we do. I really do.
Tomczak: It was put in backwards and that would come from Sam Chambers, which is
a neighbor across the street. I had requested he be here tonight, he couldn't be here.
But, you know, it was leaking when they built it. They went ahead and changed it and
put it around and, then, they set it back down in there again, so --
Bird: If you was -- if we -- if they were to pour a two foot by two foot by two or three foot
deep -- however far down they have to go down to get to solid, so they can build over it,
and, then, had the manhole cover -- where is the other clean out?
Tomczak: There is really -- down the line on the east side probably another -- whatever
their -- 50 feet, 100 feet down. And so the -- the only way would be throw it over the
manhole cover or you could put a course of block abating the other course, so it would
just stick out and put two columns in. I had talked with IMT, Idaho Mutual Trust, on that
and so there is a way of doing it to making it look good without moving that -- that
manhole cover. And it would still free up if we had to get in there. It's not -- your
analogy of digging the hole and the pillars and everything else, it was quite correct. And
we did talk to Idaho Mutual Trust on this at some length.
Bird: And I feel sorry for Idaho Mutual Trust, because they are getting in here and
getting into a can of worms that it wasn't done right for you guys and I wished you would
have come in earlier and went up to Anna and said, hey, I don't think they are doing it
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 55 of 64
right. But too late to say anything about that now. I just want to rectify it and I don't
think you want to a gate there. You want a closure; right?
Feely: Correct.
Bird: And I don't blame you. And I don't know how we can -- I don't know why we have
to have a clean out right there.
Tomczak: There is another -- as far as --
De Weerd: Okay. I need one person testifying, you know, so -- it's very unusual that I
four people standing at this podium. It's kind of driving me a little nuts, but I'm okay with
it. Who would we -- let's choose one of you and maybe the other ones go sit down.
Thank you.
Feely: I don't know if it's -- Scott Feely again.
De Weerd: Thank you, Scott.
Feely: I do not know the cleanouts versus what is correct and not, but I do have within
seven feet of that clean out hole there is actually another culvert that sits on my
property, which I don't know if that could act as a cleanout as well. Again, I'm not a
developer, but that is actually where it diverts. So, from the weir up the front it comes all
the way to this cleanout, which is in line with the fence, then, from there it actually jogs
maybe at a 45 degree angle to my property line, about ten feet, and I have got another
cement culvert as big as this counter out here and I don't know if you can -- and it
diverts it north and south for the properties that use it and I don't know if that could be a
cleanout -- again, I'm not an engineer, I'm not a developer, but that could be an option
as well. But I think that's more of the association's determination than my own. Did that
answer your question?
Bird: It very -- yes, very much and I appreciate it and Ijust -- I just wanted to emphasize
that you do want it closed, you don't want a gate there.
Feely: Correct.
Bird: And I understand that and I feel for you guys, too. You got in on a can of
worms --
De Weerd: Thank you, Scott.
Bird: -- that -- but I -- you know, Ijust -- I really -- I really feel sorry for these neighbors.
I mean they didn't get what they come in here -- they come in here and testified when
this went down originally. I mean I -- all but Brad and David and Charlie -- the Mayor
and I was all sitting here, so -- you know, I -- and I feel for you guys. I know it's tough
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 56 of 64
out there, but I don't know how you can put a wall up -- a block wall and have 20 feet
open and expect it to be right.
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor. Tom, question for you. I'm thinking -- it appears to me the
top cap's not necessary. The neighbors don't seem to be clamoring for it. It's an added
expense. I think -- but at the same time I look at the opening -- if you can do a jog and
put in -- if you get the letter -- that's a key point -- that if they say go ahead and you can
build this wall over this easement -- and I think that's key -- and it may -- it's maintained
like all the other portions of the wall, you could probably do a jog -- I know that might be
a little more expensive, but over that manhole cover, because to deal with that, unless --
unless you guys can work out a deal that it's removed and they access it from the
opening from Mr. Feely's property or what have you, but -- is that something you guys
can work with?
Buuck: Yeah. Yeah. I mean I would -- I would phrase it that we would be willing to
work with Mr. Feely on what satisfies him and what satisfies the water district.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would just clarify that that's a separate subject than whatever treatment
would go on their side of the wall or if he chooses to take the cash. This does not relate
to that subject.
Buuck: If the Council so directs us, we would understand. That's not what our
preference would be.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant, Council? Any further
statements?
Slaughter: Mayor de Weerd, if you would allow just in closing, just so I can kind of
frame in my mind what we are talking about.
De Weerd: Yes.
Slaughter: So, it sounds like a capstone is not necessarily a necessity for our -- for our
plat modification request. The gap -- it looks like we are going to be asked to get
permission and to finish it. The four foot strip -- you're okay with us going forward with
our plans as presented by Mr. Buuck as far as the backfill, put in the perma bark or give
a cash allowance to the neighbors for that same amount of what we would have spent
on the backfill and the perma bark. And, then, as far as the decorative aspect of the
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 57 of 64
wall, we are talking about some sort of application between the options that we have
given to the neighbors and they can choose that or a cash allowance that we -- that Mr.
Buuck addressed earlier. I'm just -- I'm assuming those are the issues that are
remaining from what I have heard tonight.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor. The one -- one item that I might want to ask a little further
and that's Mr. Feely with his ditch putting the perma bark -- I think you might need to
work with him a little more in finding an option that's acceptable, so there is not things
going into the -- into the ditch on -- on his side.
De Weerd: They did say -- or give them the price and they could do whatever.
Hoaglun: Or do whatever. Yeah. That might be the option.
De Weerd: Is that what you said?
Slaughter: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else?
Buuck: Well, yeah, I guess. You know, from our perspective if we could get our --
hopefully we can get our approval and you can work up a motion that conditions this. If
not, if you could at least approve the five COs that we have and direct us to get this
done for another meeting. So, however you want to handle that.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? You will hear what they decide when they make
their motion. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, I would entertain a motion to close,
unless you have further questions.
Bird: I'm pretty clear.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close MFP 09-003, public hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-C. All
those in favor say aye.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 58 of 64
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if the record would reflect that I was not present at the
previous hearing and was not able to offer comment that I would have offered and that
needed to be offered and I will stand down.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Rountree. So, three in favor and one abstain.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Fellow councilmen, I -- I would like to solve the thing tonight, but without having
the written permission of Vem Amond, which he evidently is the Settlers representative,
I guess, that has to do it -- are we going to have to -- and I have no problem with putting
-- stating a motion a certain way that -- that the applicant will be held responsible to do it
right. I'd like to -- and I know they would like to see it solved, the land owners, plus the
applicant would like to see it solved tonight, they don't want to have to come back and
hear the same old questions and the same old testimony. So, I'll put that out. I'd like to
see -- I'd like to see us get it cleared tonight.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, is there a way that they can make the motion contingent on that
and give direction to staff on how to deal with it if there is no letter presented?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what I would suggest is you make your
motion on what your -- what you would like and Ithink --Ithink Mr. Slaughter was able
to express I think what your direction would be. Capstone. The permission to finish the
wall. The four foot strip. The treatment on the wall or the decorative portions of it and
what your direction is on that. Ithink the issue that, obviously, is the most significant to
the developer here is the certificates of occupancy. So, I don't know how long it will
take. We could probably get all of this done and put into an order by your meeting on
the 23rd and if the -- if the permission from the users association is present, we can,
then, move forward with it on the 23rd. If we don't have the permission from the users
association, you can either delay the -- your order, but you can still grant --Ithink at
your prior meeting you discussed whether you would grant at least a single CO for their
Parade of Homes -- home that was being built and retain the others to get this done.
Again, I don't know the -- I don't know how difficult it will be if Mr. Amond -- generally he
isn't that difficult to work with, I don't know that it will be that troubling. I don't know in
the next three weeks if that will be a problem, but we can certainly have an order put
together by the 23rd for your approval and, then, we will know whether or not
permission's been done, whether it's still in process, and, then, you can -- again, if you
need to grant the COs, so that they can get forward with at least their parade homes, so
that doesn't get delayed, so they can use that, that might be able to solve that. Now,
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 59 of 64
again, you may have to ask them if that's going to work. But that was his immediate
way to hold something over getting this done and at least in this fairly short time frame.
De Weerd: Council, would you like to reopen the public hearing so we can get a
response from the applicant on that?
Bird: The -- if that is -- that is your prerogative, then, I would certainly go along with it.
De Weerd: Okay. I can't reopen.
Bird: Yes, you can. You --
De Weerd: I can reopen it?
Bird: Sure.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: I'll move that we reopen the public hearing on MFP 09-003.
Zaremba: Second. And I would note for the record that nobody that was here when we
closed has left the room.
De Weerd: Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Charlie still abstains. Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN.
Buuck: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have --
De Weerd: Tom, if you will just restate your name.
Buuck: Tom Buuck, Idaho Mutual Trust. Thank you. We have five homes under
construction. Four of them will be complete next week. The Parade of Homes will be
complete in approximately three weeks. There is a total of 51 residential lots. These
five homes are ten percent of our development. We plan on building 20 to 25 homes
this year. It's imperative that we do get the five COs and we are very highly motivated
to get the other 46 lots freed up for future. So, it would not hinder our motivation at all if
you grant us the five COs and, conversely, it would cause us some negative harm if we
don't get all five right now.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 60 of 64
Bird: With your permission, I'd like to ask -- I guess Mr. Feely to come up, I want to ask
him a question. In passing this --
Feely: Scott Feely.
Bird: In passing this order I feel that you guys are water users from the wall down. I
think it's up to you to go to Vem and get this permission and get it to our staff. Is that --
do you guys have any problem with that?
Feely: No. Not at all.
Bird: And we need to get it done within a week.
Feely: Depending on what other people's schedules are, I mean I will do whatever I can
to get it signed, yes.
Bird: And --
Feely: I mean I don't know if -- Vem could be on vacation this week, so I can't commit
to you or Sam could be on vacation --
Bird: I went by Monday -- went by his house Monday from Hobby Lobby and he was
out in the yard, so I don't think he's --
Feely: Fabulous.
Bird: I don't think he's on vacation.
Rountree: Small town.
Bird: It's still a small town. We still know one another. So, anyway, we put that burden
on you.
Feely: Yes.
Bird: And we are -- and we will put the other burden on them.
Feely: Correct.
Bird: Okay.
Buuck: And from my perspective, if I could just voice for IMT's sake, I think the five COs
would be in our best interest as neighbors to say, yes, go ahead with that, that you
could grant that to them, so that they could get those sold, because, again, that's going
to affect our --our values as well. We don't want that to go away. We don't want a third
developer here.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 61 of 64
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Anymore?
De Weerd: No. Okay. I can just officially close public testimony, can't I? Okay. It's
done. I would entertain a motion, please.
Bird: I will try. I move that we approve the final plat modification with these stipulations:
The three affected homeowners will be responsible to getting the permission, if
possible, from the water representative and if that is -- if that is given, the applicant,
then, will be responsible of putting awall -- the same as is standing now in the 20 foot
area with -- and also that they will -- the applicant will put a texture or a finish on the wall
side facing the landowners, their neighbors, to the satisfaction of them. They will
landscape the four with perma bark -- four foot with perma bark or -- or give -- offer the
cash -- the 3,000 dollar cash, I believe it was -- no. Wall treatment or the cash. Okay.
Wall treatment or the cash. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Or the perma bark or the cost.
Bird: And that they are to -- to get this done -- we will -- we will allow the five existing
COs to be given at this point and no more until this has been solved.
Hoaglun: I will second that and will clarify the motion.
Bird: That's what we got them for, to clarify a motion.
Hoaglun: Make sure I understand. But I will second that motion.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Do you need clarity?
Hoaglun: Did -- I missed out as I was writing about the top cap, of not requiring the --
Bird: The top cap is not required.
Hoaglun: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: And, Madam Mayor, do we need to include anything about hearing the
results on the 23rd?
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 62 of 64
Bird: They will come back with the results the 23rd.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, and makers of the motion, you
discussed greatly on the wall. If the user association will only allow a gate, are you
going to require, then, a gate, rather than come back and argue about whether they
want to put a gate in. So, is your motion to a wall and if there is no permission for the
wall, then, it would remain open or if it's not a wall that's allowed, but a gate is allowed,
they will construct a gate?
Bird: I would -- the motion maker would -- if the water master will not allow a solid wall
across it, I would -- I would want a wrought iron, heavy duty gate, across that 20 foot by
six foot. That's a pretty good opening.
De Weerd: Not a see through one.
Bird: Uh?
De Weerd: Not a see through one. A solid --
Bird: No. Enclosed wrought iron.
Hoaglun: And --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I don't know if we are in the discussion portion, but --
De Weerd: You are.
Zaremba: Would the gate have to be the whole 20 feet? Is there any reason why they
couldn't do --
De Weerd: They can narrow the gap.
Zaremba: -- wall and the gate would only be like five feet or six feet wide in the middle
of it right over the pipe?
Bird: That's -- that's what I had stated at the hearing before is we could go to a six foot
we have two three foot sections.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 63 of 64
Zaremba: We are not talking about a 20 foot gate.
Bird: They can -- I think the motion maker would say that if we can't put the solid wall
across, Mr. Freely and the Idaho Mutual Trust will work out a -- will work out a way and
if it is not wall, it will be wrought iron.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? I want to get a clarification from the maker of the motion.
It's my understanding that the finishes on the wall would be limited to the four options
that they --they had laid out?
Bird: Most certainly.
Hoaglun: Okay. Wanted to be sure.
De Weerd: Or the cash.
Hoaglun: Or the cash.
Bird: Yeah. Or the cash.
Zaremba: So, five options.
Hoaglun: Yeah. There would be five options total. Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Are we clear now? No further questions? Madam Clerk, will you,
please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, abstain; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN.
D. MFP 09-004 Southridge Subdivision No. 1 by Linder 109, LLC,
Meridian Library District and Joint School District No. 2
Located at Southwest Corner of West Overland Road and
South Linder Road Request for Modification to the Street
Sections Shown on the Final Plat to Include the Addition of
Detached Sidewalks Along Spanish Sun and Spanish Fork
Streets; and Modification to the Roadway Improvements Along
the South Boundary of Phase 1 to Reduce the Amount of
Asphalt and Concrete Curb
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Okay. Item 8-D was requested to
continue.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move we continue Item D, MFP 09-004 to our regularly
scheduled meeting of February 23rd.
Meridian City Council
February 2, 2010
Page 64 of 64
Hoaglun: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: I would entertain a --
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: Move we adjourn.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor? All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:29 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
.-.--~
MAYOR T \\`D~,~f E~,~~~~~,'
.~ C~' ,q
d~Tf E5~
~~~LJ E~ . HOL
G~,~ ~~o~
~,,%~ •~ C®~.~..~~/ e®P, ,:
oZ ~ a3 ~ d20 l o
DATE APPROVED
CLERK