HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 12-07MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1999
The regular City Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:37 p.m. on Tuesday, December 7, 1999, by President Charlie Rountree.
MEMBERS PRESENT: CHARLIE ROUNTREE, KEITH BIRD, GLENN BENTLEY (MAYOR CORRIE ARRIVED AT 9:28 P.M.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: RON ANDERSON.
OTHERS PRESENT: GARY SMITH, SHARI STILES, BILL GORDON, BILL GIGRAY, KEN BOWERS, BRAD WATSON, WILL BERG
ITEM A. APPROVE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 16, 1999 MEETING:
ITEM B. APPROVE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1999 SPECIAL MEETING:
ITEM C. REQUEST FOR BEER, WINE, LIQUOR LICENSE FOR MERLYN SCHMECKPEPER:
ITEM D. REQUEST FOR BEER, WINE, LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER FOR PAISANO’S BY SCHMECKPEPER/GOODWIN:
ITEM E. COMPENSATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES RESOLUTION:
ITEM F. LAND LEASE WITH VANCE JANICEK:
ITEM G. AGREEMENT FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF CITY ATTORNEY, THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES AND FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS:
ITEM H. TABLED 11/16/99: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED/PLANNED USE BY IDAHO BASEBALL ACADEMY
– NORTHWEST CORNER OF AMITY AND MERIDIAN ROAD:
ITEM I. TABLED 11/3/99: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINI STORAGE FACILITY CONSISTING OF NINE BUILDINGS AND ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING/OFFICE
BY ED BEWS – WEST OF TEN MILE AND NORTH OF USTICK ROAD:
ITEM J. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONSLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF TWO 10-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENTS BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY, LOTS 5 AND 6 OF BLOCK 1, MERIDIAN BUSINESS PARK:
ITEM K. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON LOTS 5, 6, 12 AND 13 OF BLOCK 7 BY WHITESTONE DEVELOPMENT, LLC:
ITEM L. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION MINI-STORAGE ON LOT 2 OF PROPOSED OVERLAND MINI-STORAGE SUBDIVISION BY OVERLAND
MINI-STORAGE, LLC – 1230 E. OVERLAND ROAD:
ITEM M. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OVERLAND MINI-STORAGE SUBDIVISION BY OVERLAND MINI-STORAGE, LLC – 1230 E. OVERLAND ROAD:
ITEM N. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 96-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX (PROPOSED COBBLESTONE VILLAGE) BY STAMAS CORPORATION/IONIC ENTERPRISES,
INC. – SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE & FRANKLIN:
ITEM O. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF PARCEL “A” FROM RT TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND PARCEL “B” FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TO LIMITED OFFICE BY WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC – SOUTH OF EAST FRANKLIN ROAD AND EAST OF SOUTH LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
ITEM P. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A THREE-BUILDING RETAIL COMPLEX OF APPROXIMATELY 50,000 SQUARE FEET ON VACANT 5.5 ACRE SITE
IN A C-G ZONE BY NORCO – NORTH OF FAIRVIEW BETWEEN EAGLE ROAD AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
ITEM Q. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BY QUEENLAND ACRES, INC., TO CHANGE LAND USE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL FOR
THE SOUTH SIDE OF
OVERLAND ROAD, ¼ MILE WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD, WESTWARD TO STODDARD ROAD:
ITEM R. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BY BILL CLARK/CLARK DEVELOPMENT (TERRACE LAWN MEMORIAL)TO CHANGE LAND USE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED RESIDENTIAL – 4000 BLOCK OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE BETWEEN EAGLE ROAD AND CLOVERDALE ROAD:
ITEM S. ORDER OF DECISION: REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT OF PACKARD SUB NO. 3 BY WIRT EDMONDS AND CRAIG GROVES – WEST AND NORTH OF FAIRVIEW AND EAGLE ROADS:
ITEM T. ORDER OF DECISION OF DENIAL: APPEAL OF FENCE VARIANCE COMMITTEE DECISION BY CHARLOTTE NOLAN AND ROBERT SMITH:
ITEM U. REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE 11/17/98 APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR ASHFORD GREENS NO. 4 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION – PORTION OF THE WEST ½ OF THE WEST ½ OF SECTION 3,
T.3N., R.1W:
ITEM V. ENGINEERING AGREEMENT – “NO NAME SEWER TRUNK”:
ITEM W. ENGINEERING AGREEMENT – FIVE MILE CREEK RELIEF SEWER PROJECT:
ITEM X. ENGINEERING AGREEMENT – 1999 WWTP TRUNK SEWER EXTENSION PROJECT:
ITEM Y. ENGINEERING AGREEMENT – 1998 SEWER MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS:
ITEM Z. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 7.25 ACRES FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH ACREAGE TO COMMERCIAL LOTS AND MINI-STORAGE FACILITY BY OVERLAND
MINI-STORAGE, LLC: APPROVED
Rountree: City Council meeting for the City of Meridian in order at 7:37. City Clerk, would you do roll-call. Welcome this evening. We have quite an agenda before us, but we hope
to do away with about a page and a half of it in short order here. Bear with me. I’m substituting for the Mayor who is going to be gone
for a white this evening, I don’t know how long. I’m the City Council President, Charlie Rountree. The first items on the agenda this evening is the Consent Agenda. Any discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I have none.
Rountree: I’ll entertain a motion on the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. President. On the Consent Agenda, I move that Item L be tabled until the 21st, I believe, December 21st.
Rountree: January 4th.
Bird: Okay. To January 4th. On the rest of it, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda with the Staff’s comments from our Pre-Council meeting recorded, and that we have voice vote
because we have some contracts involved here.
Rountree: You all done? Do I hear a second?
Bentley: Second.
Rountree: It’s been moved and seconded that we approve the Consent Agenda with tabling of Item L and including the Staff comments on the Items as discussed in the Pre-Council briefing.
Voice vote; Councilman Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Rountree: Councilman Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Rountree: Councilman Rountree; aye. All in favor. The Consent Agenda is passed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 1. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING AND CONSIDERING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS TECHNICAL AND CLERICAL TEXTUAL CHANGES TO
THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES AND WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW FEE FOR COPIES OF THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $25.00 AND RECODIFICATION OF NEW CODE BOOK FOR THE CITY OF MERIDIAN:
Rountree: First Item on the Regular Agenda is a continued public hearing for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Planning and Zoning Commission’s consideration of various technical
and clerical textual changes to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Any discussion?
Bird: Give us time to find it, will you?
Rountree: It’s on the second page.
Bird: This is only Consent Agenda here.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Rountree: I’ll open up the public hearing on a review and consideration of Planning and Zoning Commission’s Subdivision Ordinance change in the new recodification and new Code Book.
Staff, any comments?
Stiles: No.
Rountree: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. President, members of the Council, I simply comment that this went through the Planning and Zoning process and the public hearing process because of the fact that my concern
that there was a – we increased a fee for, I believe, is it the Comprehensive Plan packet, $25, and there were various little technical changes in the Zoning Ordinance besides a recodification
of it to splitting of the titles of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance to Titles 11 and 12 where now they are only in Title 11. Since that was in a sense, a change to
the zoning Ordinance, we felt it was proper to have a public hearing and go through the process as required by the Land Use Planning Act. This is really part and parcel of the adoption
of the new City Code which is on the agenda this evening. But it’s not substantive. It’s not like it’s changing zones or designations of zones or conditions of zones. It’s not that
kind of change.
Rountree: Any questions of Mr. Gigray?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Anybody from the public wish to testify on this particular item? Seeing none I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bentley: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: Been moved and seconded to close the public hearing; all those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Rountree: Recommendations?
Gigray: Mr. President, point of information for the President and Council members. You don’t really need to do anything on this public hearing. It’s just to meet the requirements
of the Land Use Planning Act. The action that you will take on this will be when you adopt Item No. 2.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gigray. Item 1 will be deferred until Item 2.
ITEM 2. CONTINUED 11/16/99: ORDINANCE NO.__________ REVISING, CODIFYING AND COMPILING THE GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN:
Rountree: Item 2 is a continuation from our last meeting, November 16th, Ordinance revising and codifying and compiling the general Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Any questions
of Mr. Gigray on this particular item?
Bentley: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Staff, do you have any input on this particular item? What would the Ordinance No. be, Mr. Clerk? 849. Mr. Clerk, if you’d read the proposed Ordinance by Title.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Ordinance No. 849: An Ordinance for revising, codifying and compiling the general Ordinances of the City of Meridian providing for the adoption of
the City, excuse me, for the Meridian City Code as prepared by Sterling Codifiers, Inc., and providing for a method of procural codification and providing for an effectiveness of existing
City Ordinances and providing that certain types of Ordinances shall not be included in the City Code and declaring it unlawful to change or amend by additions or deletions any part
or portions of the Code to cause the law of the City to be misrepresented thereby and providing an effective date.
Rountree: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anybody in the public wish to testify on this particular Ordinance? Seeing none, motion to close the hearing.
Bentley: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Rountree: We need a motion to take action on this particular Ordinance for whatever your pleasure is.
Bird: Ask if anybody wants to read it in their entirety.
Rountree: Oh. Yeah. Novice mayor tonight. Is there anybody out there that would really like to hear this in its entirety? Thank you.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor. Mr. President.
Rountree: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we adopt the Ordinance No. 849 with a suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: Been moved and seconded to adopt Ordinance No. 849 with suspension of rules. All those in favor. No. Roll-call; Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Rountree: Mr. Rountree; aye.
ITEM 3. CONTINUED 11/16/99: RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTING BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE:
Rountree: Item No. 3, I’ll open the public hearing on Ordinance adopting building permit fee schedule. Mr. Smith, any comments? Mr. Gigray?
Gigray: Mr. President, members of the Council, this basically adopts the same fee structure that you have now. I believe there are just a few changes of categories, and that’s why
this is on here, and also as part of your action in Item No. 2, the 1997 Building Code is now a part of the City’s Building Code which is
now updated, and that’s why we needed to bring these fees current with the 1997 Building Code. That’s why it is before you. It’s to my knowledge this has been – I know it has been
approved by the Building Inspector and by Public Works.
Rountree: This is a public hearing. Anybody from the public wish to testify? Mr. Clerk, would you read this by Title and give us an Ordinance No?
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a question for the attorney, if I may. I have a Resolution No. on my page. Does this need to be Ordinance or Resolution?
Gigray: I believe it’s a Resolution. Isn’t it a Resolution for adoption, the fees? I think that’s right. I don’t know. Is it noted –
Rountree: It’s noticed as an Ordinance.
Berg: It’s noticed as an Ordinance, but I have a Resolution ready.
Gigray: Yeah. That’s what it should be.
Berg: Okay. Thank you.
Rountree: So there’s no need for reading of the Resolution by Title. Resolution No. is – again, to get us back on track, is there anyone wishing to testify on this Resolution for building
fee schedule, Nos. 273? Seeing none, did I close the hearing?
Bird: So moved.
Bentley: Second.
Rountree: Been moved and seconded to close the hearing.
Bird: Mr. President.
Rountree: All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Rountree: Okay.
Bird: Mr. President, I move that we pass Resolution No. 273 adopting the building permit schedule.
Bentley: Second.
Rountree: It’s been moved and seconded to approve Resolution 273. Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Rountree: Mr. Rountree; aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 4. CONTINUED 11/16/99: ORDINANCE NO. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Rountree: Open the public hearing on Ordinance for the appointment of Planning and Zoning Administrator.
Gigray: Mr. President.
Rountree: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. President, members of the Council, this particular agenda item, I believe, is consideration of an Ordinance, and I might report to the Council that this has been prepared
now that the new Code is in place, we have, as you know, been trying to search it for potential corrections to meet current practice in the City as it will come about in the next year
for appointments of various City officers and Department Heads, I was requested to prepare an amendment as I had pointed out, I think, in former workshops that there was some omissions
in the section as to some of the appointments, so as you can see, this proposed Ordinance would delete the reference to the City Public Works Superintendent which is no longer an appointed
position, and would add a Planning and Zoning Administrator which is provided for actually in another part of the Code under the Zoning Title, but this makes sure that these are all
together under the administrative section of the Code, adds the Public Works Director, Parks and Recreation Director and Human Resources Director. And – Am I looking at the wrong Item?
Rountree: No. That’s the correct Item. Anything else, Mr. Gigray?
Gigray: There’s a deletion of “and assistants” which was a part of the Fire Department, and as my understanding in speaking with the Mayor that that’s no longer a practice, so that’s
why that’s stricken. I would also mention as an ancillary, in my report, I would report on at least, and these are drafts not for your consideration tonight, but for your information,
and we still need input from the
various affected departments, proposed draft for the creation and Ordinance of Public Works Department and a Human Resources Department as well as the designation of Director and Director
responsibilities and duties which would be a follow-up to this, but that will require comment from those affected departments and wouldn’t be for action this evening. Would be a follow-up
to this in the next couple of three meetings.
Rountree: Thank you. Shari, do you have a comment? Gary? Chief? This is a public hearing. Ordinance on the amendment of No. 850 to provide changes in recognition and location of
Planning and Zoning Administrator, Public Works Director, et cetera. Anybody from the public wish to testify? Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you read this by Title?
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Ordinance No. 850: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Section 1, Chapter 8 of Title 1, Meridian City Code by providing in addition for the
appointment by the Mayor of the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Public Works Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Human Resource Director and deleting appointment of the Public
Works Superintendent and reference to the assistants.
Rountree: Anyone wishing to have this read in its entirety? Seeing none and no desire to testify, accept a motion to close public hearing.
Bentley: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: Been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Rountree: Hearing’s closed. What’s your desire?
Bird: Question, Mr. President. On this Title reading, mine don’t say anything about public – Human Resources. It was read that way on the record, wasn’t it?
Berg: Yes, Mr. President.
Rountree: Mr. Berg.
Berg: Down below, it is added in the body –
Bird: I realize that, but it isn’t in Title on my copy I’ve got.
Berg: I guess I inserted it in as a typo that needed to be included in the Title.
Rountree: Answer your question?
Gigray: We can resubmit the (inaudible) –
Bird: I don’t like it, but –
Gigray: -- the Clerk’s correct.
Bird: I don’t like – I mean, I realize it says down below, but not in the Title of the Ordinance.
Rountree: It’s been read in the record. Any other questions? Discussion? Recommendation?
Bentley: Mr. President.
Rountree: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we approve the Ordinance No. 850 with the amended Title and the corrections in the body with suspension of rules.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Rountree: It’s been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 850; appointment of Planning and Zoning Administrator, Item No. 4 with suspension of rules; Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Rountree: Mr. Rountree; aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 5. CONTINUED 11/16/99: ORDINANCE NO. SANITARY SERVICE SYSTEM:
Rountree: Next Item on the agenda is public hearing for Sanitary Services Ordinance. I’ll open the public hearing. Mr. Smith, do you have any comments?
Smith: No, I don’t.
Rountree: Okay. Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. President, members of the Council, I would simply report this is the work of the SWAAC Committee which the Council appointed. President Rountree served on that Committee.
The Committee met throughout the past year in working out the details because it was my recommendation at the time that we were approached last year by Sanitary Services to engage in
a new franchise and a revision of the agreement that our existing Ordinance concerning solid waste services needed to be updated and so that Committee worked very diligently and this
is the net product of that, and this has been held because this was drafted so it would amend the Meridian City Code which you just passed.
Rountree: Any questions for Mr. Gigray?
Bentley: None.
Rountree: This is a public hearing. Anybody wish to testify on Ordinance 851 related to Sanitary Services? Mr. Clerk, would you read this Ordinance by Title? It’s a long one.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Ordinance No. 851: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian relating to Sanitary Service System, repealing Chapter 3, Title 7 of the Meridian City Code;
providing for a new Chapter 1, Title 5 of the Meridian City Code to be known as “Sanity Service System”; providing for definitions, establishing a responsible authority for the enforcement
of the provisions of the Chapter; providing for compulsory use solid waste collection; providing for solid waste collection, transportation and disposal without a franchise; providing
that it is unlawful to accumulate solid waste and declaring it to be a public nuisance; providing for regulation of waste resulting from construction activities and compost piles; prohibiting
open burning and dumping of solid waste; providing for the regulation of the loading of containers; providing that it is unlawful for customers to deposit prohibited wastes not in compliance
with the ordinance; defining and making the theft of collecting services unlawful; providing that it is a violation of the Ordinance for persons to discard solid waste in specified locations
such as streets, alleys, vacant lots, et cetera; providing for the regulation of the storage of scrap tires; providing for special handling of solid waste materials, prescribing collection
frequency; providing for a Board of Adjustment and its authority to prescribe rules and regulations and to adjust rates; providing for the regulation of commercial, residential and multi-family
premises service; requiring a site plan for commercial or multi-family new construction or remodels; providing for collection fees and a method of collection and disposition of fees;
providing for a right-of-entry to premises for inspection; providing for franchisee licensing; contracting and bonding of all services pertaining to sanitary collection and disposal
of solid waste; and providing for an effective date
Bentley: Could you repeat that?
Rountree: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. President, members of the Council, probably to Councilman Bird’s annoyance, I apologize for the – we submitted to the Clerk a memo on November 30th as I was proofing these
for City Council meeting, I noticed that the draft that he had prior to that date referenced as was read Chapter 1, Title 4 being repealed and unfortunately, that’s the old code. The
new code is Chapter 1, Title 4 and the Clerk’s office should have, and I can give him my copy, if you want, the reference to Chapter 1, Title 4, it’s in – the second line at the top
of the Title, and it’s Section 1 on Page 2 of the Ordinance, it says, Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the Meridian City Code being the same as hereby repealed. That’s – and then you’re re-enacting
that same Chapter in Section 2.
Rountree: If you’d provide that to the City Clerk, it would be appreciated. Anybody out there wish to hear the entire Ordinance in its –
Bentley: It’s only just that.
Rountree: Seeing no interest in that, no one wishing to testify, move for –
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: -- closing the hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Bentley: Second.
Rountree: Been moved and seconded to close the hearing on Ordinance 851, Sanitary Services. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Rountree: Hearing’s closed. Discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Bentley: None.
Rountree: Recommendation?
Bentley: Mr. President.
Rountree: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 851 for the Sanitary Service System with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: Been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 851, Sanitary Service System, with suspension of rules; Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Rountree: Mr. Rountree; aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 6. CONTINUED 11/16/99: ORDINANCE NO. 852 TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION AND CONNECTION OF SEWER SERVICE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS:
Rountree: Item No. 6, the Ordinance 852 if it passes to provide for the extension and connection of sewer service outside the city limits. It is a public hearing. Mr. Smith, comment?
Mr. Gigray.
Smith: Mr. President, Council members, I guess I have a real comment for this particular Ordinance other than the information that was published in the Statesman this morning concerning
Boise City’s attitudes toward extension of sewer lines into the unincorporated areas, and I think maybe that’s a point of interest that we need to watch.
Rountree: Thank you. Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. President, members of the Council, as you recall, this Ordinance, I believe we’ve discussed before at workshops that the Council’s had. This is to provide a process by
which the City facilitates extension and connection of its sewer system and water system outside of the city limits to provide a methodology where developers pay for the over-sizing
of the need for putting in new lines to serve new areas, and then they can – the City is authorized to enter into late-comer fees with those developers so they can recoup some of those
costs not associated directly with their development, but also avoid the need to have to put in two or three lines to the same area, and it also eliminates from your presence code provision
the double hook-up fee which is provided at this particular time so that we can bring the provisions of the ordinance more in light with the engineering and the cost studies which are
associated with our regular fees, but provide the assurance that City funds for the proprietary funds for water
and sewer are not used for the extension and enlargement of the sewer and water system for these types of projects. I believe that the Public Works Department and Gary have approved
this Ordinance, and we’ve felt that we have one project that has pushed this along, and we have – it’s been our recommendation to the Mayor and City Council that this would set a policy
that the City would have – should establish a policy with dealing with these kinds of requirements, and that’s what this Ordinance is designed to do.
Rountree: Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone wish to testify on Ordinance No. 852, provide for the extension and connection of sewer service and water service outside the city
limits? Mr. Clerk, would you read the proposed Ordinance 852 by Title only?
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Ordinance No. 852: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian repealing Section 16, Chapter 1 of Title 9, Meridian City Code and amending Chapter 1 of Title
9 and the addition thereto of a new Section 16 to provide for the extension and connection of water service outside the city limits and repealing Sub-section A, Section 26, Chapter 4
of Title 9, Meridian City Code and amending Section 26, Chapter 4, Title 9, Meridian City Code, by the addition thereto of a new subsection A to provide for the extension and connection
of sewer service outside the city limits and providing an effective date.
Rountree: Anyone in the audience wish to have the entire Ordinance read? Seeing that and no desire for testimony, I would accept a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Bentley: Second.
Rountree: Been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Ordinance 852; all those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Rountree: Discussion, recommendation?
Bird: I have none.
Bentley: I have none.
Bird: Mr. President.
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we pass Ordinance 852 for the extension and connection of sewer service outside the city limits with suspension of rules.
Bentley: Second.
Rountree: It’s been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 852 with suspension of rules; Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Rountree: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Rountree: Mr. Rountree; aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 7. ORDINANCE NO. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES / FRANCHISE:
ITEM 8. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO PERFORM SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES:
Rountree: Item 7. Public hearing I’ll open for Ordinance 853, solid waste collection services. Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. President, members of the Council, I believe you’ve had handed to you a packet regarded Agenda Item No. 8, and I believe that this Item is covered in that particular packet.
There’s a letter from me to the Mayor and Council dated December 2nd regarding a series of steps associated with this particular matter, and what this is is an Ordinance as it’s required
by Idaho Code in the granting of a franchise that it be done by Ordinance and so that’s what this is designed to do with sanitary services. This is also in conjunction with the development
of the agreement, the franchise agreement to perform solid waste collection and disposal services. I would report to the Council, and I believe Mr. Sedlicek (sic) is here in Council
chambers, that we have negotiated with his company and his attorney, Mr. Mark Freeman, we have drafted provisions of the agreement. They have commented on that agreement. We’ve run
drafts back and forth, made various corrections and at this point in time, I think that these are both in a position where myself as part of the staff of the City as well as I understand
their position is to recommend this for passage by the City Council. In order for us to meet statutory requirements, I would recommend that the Council could receive this as a report
this evening, that the Council should then introduce the Ordinance granting the franchise, you could even have a first reading, but then direct the City Clerk to publish the Ordinance,
and it has to be published at least once, and that publication must be 30 days prior to the passage of the
Ordinance, so then the second reading, and then maybe the motion to suspend the rule would then occur in January to allow enough time for the publication.
Rountree: Any questions for Mr. Gigray? Gary, did you have any comments that you wanted to make? This is a public hearing. Anybody from the audience wish to testify? Mr. Clerk,
if you would read the proposed Ordinance 853 by Title.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Ordinance No. 853: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian, Idaho, relating to the granting of a franchise for solid waste collection and disposal; providing
for a title definition setting forth the authority of the City Council to grant a franchise and license; setting a term of granting a franchise ordinance for a solid waste collection
and disposal to the Sanitary Service, Inc., an Idaho Corporation; and setting a term commencing September 9, 1999, and extending to at least September 30, 2010; providing for a seven-year
advance notice of termination; providing for an acceptance; providing for specific conditions; providing for general conditions; providing for indemnity; providing for comprehensive
liability and property insurance; providing for limitation on franchise; providing for assignment of franchise; providing for default by SSI; providing for effective invalidity; providing
for savings clause; and providing for all ordinances and resolutions in conflict are repealed and rescinded; and providing for effective date.
Rountree: Anyone wish the Ordinance be read in its entirety? Seeing none, I’d accept a motion to close the public hearing. Seven is the Ordinance. Eight is the franchise agreement.
Gigray: (inaudible) assume signatures in the meantime.
Rountree: Still have a public hearing open and waiting for a motion to close.
Bentley: Mr. President.
Rountree: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move to close the public hearing.
Rountree: It’s been moved to close the public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: It’s been seconded to close the public hearing; all those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Rountree: Mr. Bird. Express your confusion.
Bird: Express it, you’ve got that right. Okay. We’re passing the solid waste collection ordinance, right? We’re introducing it.
Rountree: We introduced the Ordinance for franchise. Yes. That’s number 8.
Bird: That’s number 8. Number 7 is –
Rountree: (inaudible)
Bird: Is the Ordinance – for the solid waste collection services.
Rountree: No. I think your packets are misnumbered.
Bird: If my packet’s misnumbered, so is his stupid thing. Well, you’re probably right.
Rountree: Item 8 looks like this.
Bird: Get your revised one out. The one we got today.
Rountree: And it’s dated December 6th and received December 6th. Cover letter from Mr. Gigray to the City Clerk. That’s Item 8.
Bird: Item 8 is to introduce Ordinance of a franchise agreement to provide solid waste collection services. Number 7 is Ordinance No. – solid waste collection services, and this is
new, revised agenda of 12/6. Now, if there’s another one out, please give it to Glenn and I.
Rountree: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Hopefully I can explain. There’s only two Items for consideration. You’ve already passed, earlier, on the Ordinance that cleaned up and modernized your solid waste Ordinance.
Now the consideration has to do with who you grant the franchise to to provide the service, and that’s done with two actions; one action is the granting of that franchise by Ordinance,
and that’s why you have an Ordinance for your consideration, which requires prior publication before it’s passed, and it’s what needs to be introduced first, and then voted on finally
at a later date after the 30-day publication, and then there is also an agreement to provide the services which would be entered into with Sanitary Services in conjunction with your
passage of that Ordinance in January.
Rountree: So that’s the one we’ve numbered 853, the action on Ordinance 853 is to approve its publication; correct?
Gigray: Introduce it and approve it for publication by the Clerk with 30-days notice, and then set it for final action on the agenda with the Clerk’s advice about when that should be.
That’s the franchise ordinance.
Bird: The one – number – I mean, I hate to be stupid, but I am. What is this other ordinance, this number 6? What is it even doing here, then?
Gigray: Well –
Bird: That’s a solid waste collection services.
Gigray: Correct. It’s not a franchise, thought. It doesn’t make –
Bird: No, no. That’s what I mean. What’s it even on the agenda?
Gigray: Because it –
Bird: When do we enact on it?
Gigray: Because – you already have.
Bird: When?
Gigray: In Item 6.
Bird: We did not pass this ordinance. No, we didn’t. Six was for the sewer.
Rountree: Six is the sewer and the water.
Bird: It doesn’t have a thing to do with solid waste.
Rountree: Five has to do with the solid waste, and that’s the City Solid Waste Ordinance; doesn’t have anything to do with the Franchise Agreement. It’s the Ordinance as it relates
to how we’re going to deal with solid waste disposal. Hasn’t anything to do with a vendor –
Bird: What number is this one is what I’m trying to find out.
Rountree: That is 851.
Bird: Oh my god.
Bentley: They lost me, too.
Rountree: And 852 was the sewer and water.
Bentley: And seven and eight are the same thing.
Bird: No. Eight is the Franchise.
Bentley: Uh-huh.
Rountree: Then seven and eight are together, in effect, what you’re going to do with 853, the solid waste collection services ordinance is to introduce it and authorize its publications.
Bird: Yeah. Okay.
Rountree: That’s what was read. Page 53.
Bentley: It should have been done as one item.
Bird: Yeah. It should have been done as one item.
Rountree: I can’t disagree. Seven and eight are essentially one item. Still confused?
Bird: No. I’m (inaudible) down now.
Rountree: Are you even enough to –
Bird: Make a motion?
Rountree: -- make a motion?
Bird: Yeah. I think so.
Bentley: Motion to adjourn?
Rountree: Do I have a second?
Bird: Okay. I move that we enact upon Ordinance 853 for the publication and of Ordinance 853 and then enact upon it on January 4, 2000.
Bentley: Second.
Rountree: It’s been moved and seconded to introduce and publish Ordinance 853 for solid waste collection services.
Bird: That’s not going to work. It’s going to have to be the 18th. Change that to January 18th, 2000.
Rountree: To be published back on the Council agenda, January 18th.
Bentley: Second.
Rountree: It’s been moved and seconded. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Rountree: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Rountree: Mr. Rountree; aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Rountree: Item 8 is done as part of Item 7. Okay.
ITEM 9. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 150.79 ACRES OF LAND FOR R-4 ZONING BY BEAR CREEK, LLC – EAST OF STODDARD ROAD & SOUTH OF OVERLAND:
ITEM 10. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED BEAR CREEK SUBDIVISION OF 326 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOTS BY BEAR CREEK, LLC – EAST OF STODDARD ROAD & SOUTH
OF OVERLAND:
Rountree: Item No. 9, continued public hearing for the request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres of land for R-4 zoning by Bear Creek, LLC, east of Stoddard Road and south
of Overland. Staff, I’ll open the public hearing.
Bird: Mr. President, could we combine 9 and 10, get it all taken care of at one time? They’re both regarding the same.
Rountree: Is that acceptable to the applicant? Do the plat and the annexation together? Okay. I’ll also open the public hearing for Item No. 10 which concerns the preliminary plat
for the same proposed annexation project. Staff?
Stiles: Mr. President, Council members, this is the property next to Elk Run Subdivision. It goes from south of Overland Road clear to Victory. There are some significant issues related
to the sewer, and I don’t know if Gary wants to address those or have Bruce address those issues. It’s not that we’re against the project, it’s the fact that one of the few growth management
tools we have available to us is the sewer, and with the introduction of this proposal, we’ve already had requests for other annexations of subdivisions all the way to Linder Road.
We’re being hit on the north side with the No-Name Trunk Sewer that Council has put a priority on. With the boring of the sewer under the freeway near Overland and Eagle, that area
is going to explode. Becky’s here to make her case tonight, but Staff is recommending denial of the project.
Rountree: Mr. Smith, any comments?
Smith: Thank you, Mr. President, Council members. For quite some time, the City Council has had the informal policy concerning pumping of sewage from one drainage area to another.
This particular development would be served at some future time, or this parcel of ground would be served at some future time, by the extension of what is known as the Black Cat Sewer
Trunk. The proposal that’s being placed before us is to gather the sewage from this development and pump it into the Ten Mile Drain sewer. In order to facilitate the Ten Mile Drain
sewer accepting this flow, there’s a necessity to parallel pipe a length of the existing sewer from approximately in Crestwood Subdivision from approximately Ten Mile Drain north on
Linder Road to the railroad tracks. This is 326 lots, I believe, as proposed. Your Assistant City Engineer, Brad Watson, has done a significant amount of work as far as analysis is
concerned, hydraulic analysis, on the Ten Mile Trunk Sewer. The impact that this system will have on it, the ability of the trunk line to continue to serve development on the Ten Mile
Drain that could be served by gravity. I think at this point, Mr. President, I’d like Brad to get into the hydraulics of the project, proposed project, its impact on the Ten Mile Drain.
Rountree: Okay.
Watson: Mr. President, Council members, there’s been a lot of analysis on this, and I’m going to compress it to a very small bit of data, so if you have any questions that aren’t readily
apparent to you that seem readily apparent to me, please stop. Doing the hydromodel that J-U-B provided to us earlier this summer, we’ve estimated –
*** End of Side 1 ***
approximately 1100 remaining units that can go into the Ten Mile Trunk. This Bear Creek proposal, as Gary mentioned, proposes to parallel about a half-mile of line in the Crestwood
Estates area. That’s where the bottleneck is in the whole Ten Mile Trunk. That’s where the 1100 remaining units of capacity are controlled is in that area. If they parallel that particular
line, they will increase the number of ERUs that can go into that trunk. From anywhere from 1200 to approximately 1700 additional units depending on the size of the line that they install.
Anything more than that, we’re just not going to get out of it because we’ll be chasing the bottleneck all the way to the plant after that. That’s the – those are the basic numbers.
If there’s any other questions, I’d be happy to answer them.
Rountree: Brad, you indicated that it would add 1200 to 1700 additional units or the capacity would be 1200 to 1700. So we’re looking at now we’re bottlenecked at 1100. It could be
2800?
Watson: Councilman Rountree, that’s correct. There’s 1100 existing with the parallel line. It would, the extra, the total number of ERUs that could be added from today would be from
basically 2200 to 2700 plus or minus.
Rountree: Thank you. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Gary.
Smith: Mr. President, Council members, I’d like to make one other comment. As Shari stated in the beginning of her presentation, we’re being delluded with requests for development
of property in all areas of the city. Right now, we’re in the process of designing about three miles of sewer trunk line between Ustick and McMillan from the Wastewater Plant east to
Locust Grove, open up three square miles of development area. The extension of the sewer and water line under the interstate and near Eagle Road will open up a significant amount of
land for development at that intersection. We’re also looking at extension of the south slew sewer line to the east under Eagle Road that will serve property in that area. So you can
see that everywhere we’re being asked to look at development. The developments other than in this southwest area would be served by gravity sewer. The gravity sewer lines are going
to take awhile to build for the most part, and at the same time, the Wastewater Treatment Plant is being expanded and continues to expand and has been expanding for the past four years
or more to provide the increased capacity. When you start pumping sewage, that happens fairly quickly. How far you pump it is dependent upon the diameter of the pressure line and the
size of the pump. You can impact an existing drainage system. You can impact an existing wastewater plant in a fairly short period of time. Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you. Is the applicant here?
Bowcutt: I have a lot of props tonight.
Rountree: Give us your name and address.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland, Boise. I’m representing the applicant in this matter this evening. These drawings are kind of large. This is the Bear
Creek Estates project. Just to give you some history, Elk Run Subdivision adjoins the east boundary. The city limits run along this Kennedy Lateral. Water and sewer are in Caulderwood.
The property comes down to Victory Road and then abuts Stoddard a half mile line which is designated for a future collector. The Harden Drain traverses through this property. It’s
approximately 150.79 total acres. We’re proposing 326 single-family homes. The average lot size for this project range from smallest lot, approximately 9200 all the way up to 35,758
square feet. What we’ve intended here is to provide three types of lot sizes all going up from 9200. This will
provide larger lot development which the City has asked repeatedly when they’ve seen projects at this standard 8,000 square foot. The proposed density in here is 2.16 dwelling units
per acre. Mr. Johnson, when he brought this to us, gave us the opportunity to design a project that has extremely low density. He gave us the latitude to come in and propose a park
site. That park site’s 18.62 acres. That would be donated to the City. He agreed that he would pipe the Harden Drain, install the easterly parking lot, provide sprinklers and seed
the park with some type of seed that the Parks Department dictates under their standards. We did have multiple meetings with the Parks Department on this project. We got their input
on the configuration, the location of it. It would be a community park, as was mentioned in the article in the Statesman this week, on the south side of the freeway. We don’t have
any parks, and this would function as a regional or community park. He was really excited about it, and we’re excited too. We submitted this project knowing that it was an uphill battle.
But I’d like to lay out the facts of the configuration of this parcel based on your sewer planning maps. This is the Black Cat drainage area you see in blue. As you can well see,
it’s an extremely large area. None of that trunk exists. Why doesn’t any of that trunk exist? Well, probably because all of this area has gone into another trunk. This is Ashford
Greens, Turnberry, part of Dakota Ridge, and this development here. English Gardens came in the other day. That’s in the Black Cat Trunk area also. It was approved with a special
assessment of $1500 per lot, but it was allowed to have a lift station for a very small project with no amenities. So none of this Black Cat Trunk has been built. Here we are in pink,
and this particular project is split. As you can see, the Ten Mile Trunk Line service area is over here to the east, and here's the Black Cat; traverses it here and here. It doesn’t
look like much when you look at a map this size. I think that’s like one inch equals 2,000 feet, but when you look at it at a larger scale, that constitutes 17.7 acres. That’s 12 percent.
So 12 percent of this property lies within the Ten Mile Trunk service area. The rest of the property is on the fringe. What you see in orange here delineates that. This property’s
on the fringe. In like the City of Boise under their jurisdiction, there are a lot of properties that lie within a fringe of a service area or a drainage area as Staff calls it. I
had multiple conversations with two of the City Engineers at Boise City, and I said what happens when you have a property that is split by a particular drainage area or lies within a
fringe. They indicated to me whichever trunk line gets there first would service the property. My question to them was what if it took a lift station. They stated, then, a lift station
would have to be constructed, obviously, at the developer’s expense. They have utilized lift stations in many jurisdictions, Boise in particular, because it allows them to provide service
and collect those hook-up fees when the City’s not putting out any expense for the trunk lines. To think that you’re going to gravity everything within the Meridian Area of Impact is
just not practical. It can’t happen. Not unless you had trunk lines that were 35 feet deep. We’ve looked at some trunk extension in particular areas, the Nine Mile in particular,
where the trunk line, if extended according to the plan, would be 28 feet deep. The cost to construct that, the cost of long-term maintenance of that, according to other cities, that’s
just not preferable. So what I’m trying to tell you is other jurisdictions have used
this to build their coffers up. These lift stations are not considered permanent. They’re considered temporary. The lift of the lift station, it may be there five years. It may be
there ten years. It varies. But the cost here would be going by the project. We suggested in our letter, prior to English Gardens coming before you, that a special assessment should
be allocated on this, or assessed on this Black Cat drainage area. The letter we submitted with our application, we stated that we would like to see at least a $1,000 special assessment
in addition to the 1700-and-some-odd dollar hook-up fee. Your staff came back with some analysis and said $1500 would be more appropriate. We said great. We accept that. $1500.
The issue then came up about the capacity. The capacity of the Ten Mile Trunk is not what it was intended to be. As is today, the Ten Mile Trunk cannot service what is delineated here
in orange. The Ten Mile Trunk can’t service all of this area. There’s a bottleneck at Crestwood Estates up at Franklin and Linder. That bottleneck is approximately 2800 linear feet.
So we went to your staff, and we said, well, what if we went in and we corrected that bottleneck? What’s causing that bottleneck? Well, it’s a 15-inch line, and I brought some handouts
to kind of demonstrate to you what that looks like. As you can see by the drawing, that’s Crestwood Estates. That section of line you see there is where you’ve got an 18-inch trunk
line going into a 15-inch. That constructs the flow. That decreases over the capacity. So your capacity for the Ten Mile Trunk is already compromised at this point in time. So we
said, okay, how about we come in and we replace that 2800 feet of line. Estimated cost would be about $75 a linear foot, so approximately $210,000 would have to be used to go in and
replace that line. If we replaced that line, your own staff said, well, that would double the capacity of the Ten Mile Trunk. So one of my points is we’re not utilizing the capacity
that’s there. I’m not taking capacity away from a parcel that’s in that drainage area today based on what the capacity of the line is now. I’m going in and we’re improving the capacity
and creating our own capacity plus a substantial amount above and beyond what is needed for this project. Staff indicates that the Black Cat line will cost about 8.6 million dollars.
If you allocate special assessments of $1500 and start creating that fund for that Black Cat construction, then that at some point in time is going to start taking shape. We’ve got
to start somewhere, and that was one of the statements that the Planning and Zoning Commission said: We have to start somewhere. Someplace collecting these funds. Now, I’m not asking
you to change your priorities or your focus. I understand fully that your focus, at this point in time, is on the north area in that McMillan, Ten Mile vicinity. However, for someone
to think that all of the growth is going to go there, we’ve got a lot of planning ahead, a lot of transportation planning because you can’t go and plop six or ten thousand homes in that
north area and have those people get around. This particular property is within about 1 ½ to 1 ¾ miles from the existing fire station. So it’s close to a fire station, it adjoins the
city limits, it has access to the interchange at the Meridian Road interchange, and it’s got sewer and it’s got water. I think those are important points. That’s what makes this property
unique. You already have eight lift stations in this city right now. Staff indicated in their analysis that those circumstances came about due to a critical reason.
Well, I don’t necessarily agree that it was critical reasons, but there were definitely reasons in why those lift stations were accepted. One of the reasons that we bring before you
is the park site. We feel that this will add to this community. We’re not just coming in with another cookie-cutter subdivision with 3 or 3.5 dwelling units per acre. We’re coming
in with an amenity that will benefit the community. We’re coming in and we’re adding capacity to a line that’s currently compromised. The community’s been begging for parks. Council’s
asked for larger lots. Look at some alternatives other than the standard R-4s. That’s what we’d done. We’ve worked very, very hard on this project to bring this before you. We think
that we have a valid reason. I would challenge any other development to come in and match the low density and this type of park donation. One of the reasons that we have the ability
to do this is the location. If I can gravity sewer out the front door of a project, the price of the land is such that the development cannot bear the burden of making a donation of
this size, and that’s a fact. That’s why we see so many projects that come in and they’re pretty much built up with lots with a few minor pocket parks. Nothing that has anything of
this size. We feel that that is a valid reason. We also feel that it’s not precedence setting because of the reasons I’ve given you tonight. One of the things that was brought up,
well, if you take out the park, what’s your density? The density, if I remove the park area, is 2.47. So it’s still far below what you typically see. We’ve got private common area
in addition to the park which is about 9.56 acres. The Elk Run development that’s next door, to kind of give you an example, their density is 3.3 dwelling units per acre. Their lots
start at about 6500 square feet because there’s a portion of it that’s R-8 and then they go on up from there into the second phase, probably averaging maybe 8500 square feet, maybe push
9,000. So our lots are definitely consistent and compatible with what’s proposed or what’s existing next door to us. I know the staff has painted a pretty grim picture, and I understand
what their concern is. They’re worried that this opens up a Pandora’s box. But I’m not the first lift station to come through the door, I won’t be the last. Those other projects had
some valid reasons, according to the staff, and we feel that we do too. That’s what one can base this determination on. We spent a lot of money to get here. My clients spent over
$30,000 just so we could get to this point to have you take a look at this project. I hope that you’re looking at this with an open mind because the facts, we believe, speak for themselves
that this is a creative plan, we’ve done a really good job trying to solve the problems that Staff has brought before us. Your staff can’t find anything technically wrong with the project.
They don’t oppose the density, the design; the issue is this lift station. In our opinion, we don’t see how the City can lose with a project like this. Most communities would really
be ecstatic. We’re put in a give-and-take situation here. Yes, we’re asking for something from you, but we’re also giving something back. It’s not that often that I get to get up
here and give something back that serves more than just one particular neighborhood. With that $1500, in addition to that, I just figured $1700 hook-up fees, this project will generate
$554,200. That would include the special assessment and your standard hook-up fees. Excuse me. No. $880,200. I’m sorry. $554,200 in hook-up fees, $326,000 – or – yeah. Special
assessment, $880,200.
Rountree: Do you want to start over?
Bowcutt: I’m getting tired and I’m getting cotton mouth. Sorry. I think that’s all that I’ll say at this point in time. Would like to reserve some rebuttal. Last – oh. One thing
I did forget to mention is we did agree, we did write a letter to the Staff concerning the maintenance of the lift station. We stated that we will bear all costs for maintenance of
that lift station for the first year. Thereafter, the Association would pay. The way City of Boise looks at lift stations is they have what they call an O and M surcharge of $3.11
per household per month, and that’s the monies they utilize for operation and maintenance of these facilities. According to Boise, it takes one to two visits per week, approximately
two hours per week or 104 hours a year. That was one of the main concerns that your staff has had that these take up employee time, that they’re labor intensive. According to some
of the other cities, telemetry and other modern things that can be placed on the lift station, it cuts down on the maintenance and also it – Gary brought up the fact the peek flows.
There’s going to be a lift station on the Black Cat Trunk anyway. It can’t flow back to the plant to the east without a lift station. So even when the Black Cat comes, that’ll be
flowing through a lift station. The second thing is the Black Cat Trunk will come in and intercept the Ten Mile when it is constructed and take some of the Ten Mile away. So eventually,
even though I’m going into the Ten Mile, we’ll end up getting rerouted, technically, in theory, into the Black Cat Trunk. So I’d like you to keep that in mind. Thanks.
Rountree: Any questions for Ms. Bowcutt?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: This is a public hearing. Could I get a show of hands of number of people who want to testify? Okay. Please, please. This is a public hearing. Thank you. I’ll just point
and choose given the raise of hands, so, ma’am, if you would –
Yerrington: Thank you. Mr. President and members of the City Council, my name is Carolyn Yerrington, my address is 8830 Morning Mist, Boise, Idaho, and I have property on the west
side of Stoddard Road. I hope you take into consideration and staff comments regarding this project. They have taken the time to research the issues, and I think it’s important to
note that each Planning and Zoning Meeting, staff recommendation was to deny this project. It was brought up by the applicant that it was okay to do this project because it is on the
fringe of an existing sewer trunk line. If this is approved, will this extend the fringe line to the other side of this project in which this same developer has already purchase 40
acres? At the Planning and Zoning meetings, it was mentioned that it would not be setting a precedence by building a sewer lift station to pump into a trunk line that was not designed
for this area; however, many times there was reference to prior lift stations in Meridian. Even though not
setting a legal precedence, I believe people would then refer to this project for future approval. I think that this area will eventually be developed and annexed into Meridian, but
it shouldn’t be done until it can be connected to the Black Cat trunk line which is a drainage system it should utilize. Traffic is already bad at Meridian, Kuna and Overland Roads
and also at Victory, especially at rush hour times. How can this project not affect the existing traffic? It should not be approved until major improvements can be made to these two
intersections. I think this project creates more problems that it solves, and I strongly oppose it. Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you. Yes.
Atkins: I’m Joan Atkins, my address is 400 West Victory Road. I’d like to show you where that is on this map up here. (walked away from microphone) The engineering firm keeps talking
about the consistency of the development with the neighbors. Well, the only consistency I see with the neighbors is this small percentage up here, but I sure don’t see a consistency
– sorry, my voice carries pretty well – consistency with the rest of the neighbors, and you know what? There are some other neighbors around besides just this group up here. I’ve sat
through a very interesting process of the Planning and Zoning meetings, and my heart goes out to the people that are in public office in this community right now because you’re overwhelmed
by the amount of projects and requests and things that are coming across your desks as well as the City and the people that are there. There has been a structure put in place, a study
put in place that’s supposedly been done in a thoughtful way to create a structure for decisions to be made in, and I think the staff has reviewed that structure and tried to make recommendations
consistent with that so there isn’t a hodge-podge of decisions being made that just – a patchwork rather than made with an overall plan. It’s my understanding the overall plan is still
under consideration, and, hopefully, decisions will be made in that format. I grew up on a farm in Idaho. I didn’t move out here to move to 326 people. I’m a libertarian at heart,
thought, and I never get anybody to vote for, but I understand private property rights. Certainly is the right of this developer to build this property and to purchase this property.
I certainly wasn’t naturally able to do that, but it is his right to buy that property and develop it. You know, I worked for (inaudible) Development Company in the 80s, and the last
time I checked, there were 43,000 square feet in an acre, and I’m still amazed by this process that a 9,000 square foot lot ends up at 2.6 density. Never could quite figure out how
that worked. Frankly, there’s a lot of those. If you’ll actually look closely at that plat, the only reason that you get larger lot sizes on this plat is because you have such a small
frontage on the road that then creates this huge triangle, you end up with a few 20,000 square foot lots. Most of them are not anywhere near that size, so again, the map of this process
eludes me. Someday I’d like to be educated on how a whole lot of 9,000, 10,000 square-foot lots end up being 2.6 density. Again, last I checked, 43,000 square feet in an acre. So
maybe it changed since the 80s until now. The other thing is I own a residential real – residential interior design firm. I drive subdivisions in this valley for a living. I see
a lot of them. I see a lot of them done poorly. I see
a few of them done well. I’ve been, again, interested – this is packed as tight and just as close together as humanly possible. This is certainly the highest density that this property
is able to absorb. They’re having – it just has to do with configuration of this site is why some of the lots have gotten larger. Anywhere there is a straight road that you could pack
those lots in just as tightly as you could, it’s been done. If you look at the property all around it, there isn’t anything else that looks like that except Elk Run. I have no question
in my mind that this property is built beside us that it will negatively, substantially negatively affect the value of our property. And we’re not an old farm house that’s been there
for 70 years, the City’s preparing – the County’s preparing to tear down because for some reason they requested a road to go through our property; don’t plan on that happening, and don’t
know why that was requested, but there’s no question that this property at the value of these homes, and how they’re going to absorb it again, I was in real estate development, I have
no idea how that’s going to work, once all these costs get loaded, how they’re going to actually, competitively price these lots once all these freebe – all these things get thrown in
that they’re going to pay for. They have to cheapen the homes. I’m in residential real estate. I understand what’s going to happen. The homes will have to be cheapened for this to
be competitive. It’s the only way to make it happen if you keep giving all these things. At the prior meetings, again, I guess I’m missing details. They were requesting a credit for
the donation of the park. I don’t know where that negotiation has gone, and I don’t know its status, but it’s something that needs to be brought up again. In my book, a donation is
not something you then request a credit for against your fees. They also requested for a credit against the cost of the extension of the parallel extension against the assessment fees
on the special assessment fees on – don’t know where that negotiation again. That money is coming in, but they’re requesting for it to come back out. I don’t know how the City benefits
from that. I know the sewer is the overriding issue, and as we went through the P & Z hearings and talked to the staff, I think everyone, and I’m sorry to say this, but believed all
along the sewer was such a big problem, that the other issues regarding this development didn’t get a huge amount of time because everybody felt the sewer was such a big problem. This
is the accident report from the Sheriff’s Department from Meridian and Victory from ’95 to ’99. I can tell you how many Fs are on here, which are fatalities. Someone’s got to look
at the traffic of that intersection. I’m sorry. You want to add that many trips to it, please give up some help and look at the traffic. The poor guy that was sent out to do the study
ended up in an accident at Meridian Road and Amity. The poor guy trying to do the study on whether we ought to have a traffic light ended up in an accident. So I’m hoping, now I know
which side he’s on, but we really do need some help out there. I welcome any of you to be in my car with me at 20 minutes to eight in the morning, try to make a left turn onto Meridian
Road from Victory. Try to make a right turn onto Stoddard at the same time. I’m sorry, but I welcome you not have your throat up in your – your heart up in your throat every single
trip. So please give us some help. That was impressive, wasn’t it? But I can’t fold it back together. This wonderful park that’s being donated, unless I’m reading the wrong things
in the paper, I’d like someone to explain to me
where the funding is going to come from to do anything other than spread grass on it. This isn’t going to be this great addition to the city, at least from what I’ve been reading, they’ve
got significant budget constraints on getting this park built. We are requesting that does happen, that is a needed park site, but that is not within the discretions (inaudible) deeded
to the City. It’s a deed-restricted site. But somebody explain to me when this wonderful site is actually going to come to fruition. We have playground equipment, very, very large
pond that’s 20 feet deep on our property. We’re going to become the park. So there’s a lot of other issues that haven’t been addressed just because I think the sewer is such a big
issue. I really do. Please, Heavens, I hope the sewer kills the project. I’m sorry, but I do. But, please, I would request that the other issues get as much careful consideration
as the sewer’s been given, and, frankly, at this point, I don’t think they have. Thank you. Appreciate your time.
Rountree: There was a gentleman up front here that –
Critell: Gentlemen, my name is Wilfred A. Critell. I believe my dad and I and my mom sent you a letter which I hope you received. I’ll show you where we live. Our property is right
here (inaudible – walked away from the microphone) – Can I stand right here and talk?
Rountree: You can use the microphone.
Critell: Couple of things. I don’t want to keep going on top. Number one, the park development up here, if you want to see what it looks like, take a drive out Five Mile Road. There’s
some property that was donated by a developer. Boise City just recently took it over from Ada County, and when I was living over there, they told us that maybe within ten years we’ll
do something with it. We don’t have the time or the finances. Henceforth, this is going to be seeded. That’s all you’re getting. You’re not getting any equipment, you’re not getting
anything else unless they haven’t told us about that yet. In addition to traffic, I get to exit up here every morning. This is not the only bad intersection. This one up here is bad
too, and you’ve got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven extra people trying to fill into this. Traffic is going to be a definite impact on this area. I’ve got to save something
for somebody else. This is the Ridenbaugh Canal. I don’t know if any of you have ever swam it. I used to 30 years ago. Fast-moving current. Stay out of it. We’ve all been warmed,
but we all did it. This is going to remain open. Notice the lots all bordering this. I assume this is annexed into the city that as soon as the first child drowns in this canal, the
City will be informed. Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you. Gentleman in the back that wanted to testify? No? Anyone else that wants to testify? Last call. Okay. Becky, you wanted to have some time at the end?
Bowcutt: On the issue of traffic, a traffic study was done on this project. It was submitted to Ada County Highway District. We met with Ada County Highway District when we just had
a hand sketch to get their input on the configuration of this development. We have a street connection, the Caulderwood street. Caulderwood Street is a designated collector with a
41-foot back-to-back, five-foot sidewalks both sides. The way we connected to it was in the T-fashion so that we could try to distribute our traffic into multiple directions. We did
not want a convenient thru-fare onto Caulderwood even though it is a collector without front-end housing. That leads out to Highway 69. In ACHD’s review, they have asked us to go up
to the intersection of Overland Road and Stoddard and go in and construct a turn lane. That map doesn’t go far enough north. So we’ll come in here, here’s Stoddard and Overland. So
we’ll go in there and we’ll have a turn lane right there so you can have a left-hand turn. That would be an off-site improvement that this project would bear. On Stoddard Road, we
would have to install sidewalk, five-foot sidewalk all along Stoddard on the east side only. According to the Highway District and the traffic study, we will need to put center turn
lanes on Stoddard because at some point in time, Stoddard is going to be a full-fledged collector. We also intersect down here at Victory, and then Victory wraps in to Highway 69.
Based on the traffic analysis, it was determined by the traffic engineer and the Highway District the capacity does exist in this area for this project. Considering the potential density
of this project, if it were developed at its highest – you know, highest use, the traffic would be far greater than what’s proposed here. I think we’re at 3260 vehicle trips per day.
Of that about 105 would be generated by the park. The question arose on the park: What’s the timeline? The park is in the first phase. This is going to be probably a six- to seven-phase
project. People don’t recognize that. All they see is a lot of lots on the picture, and they feel oh, my word, we’re going to have 326 new neighbors simultaneously. It does not happen.
This is a six-, probably a six-year project at least, given current market conditions. Obviously, if the market were to change, then that would either be accelerated or would slow
down. But if the park is within our first phase as delineated on the preliminary plat that we submitted to your staff. We’ve provided landscaping all along Stoddard Road. 30 feet.
We’ve also laid our landscaping so we don’t end up with just a straight corridor. We’ve gone in and proposed parking islands within our cul-de-sacs that are landscaped also to provide
additional parking whereas when one finds restricted parking in the cul-de-sac areas. We’ve got this little intermittent pocket park here. We’ve tried really hard to come in and make
our lots deeper along this area. We realize our neighbors include others and not just Elk Run. We came in and tried to keep a minimum of about 136 feet and ranging all the way up to
152 feet of depth in these lots. These lots are ranging next to this property here, ranging between 100 and 98 feet wide. Obviously, we can't come in and match five-acre lots for five-acre
lots, but we have really tried to transition what we’re proposing. The other issue is the Ridenbaugh Canal. The Ridenbaugh Canal would obviously be fenced. It would require fencing
on both sides according to the City Ordinance. The Ridenbaugh Canal traverses through many subdivisions that we have done. We have always treated the same six-foot, nonclimbable, nonburnable
fencing.
The issue was brought up as far as impact fee credits. Well, we put in our application, and in our meetings with your Parks Director, we discussed that we would like to see some park
impact fee credits. That is typically a mechanism that is used to help facilitate the parks. You don’t give back everything that you’ve obviously donated. We’re putting out a lot.
The piping of the drain, building one parking lot, going in and installing sprinklers. Obviously, it’d have to work off of our pump station which would be under Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District’s jurisdiction, and then going in and seeding it. And the donation of the land. That’s a lot of dollars. A lot of dollars, and, yes, we have asked for park impact fee credits.
But that’s not any different than the parks that have been built over by the YMCA next to Andrus Elementary. The developer did the same thing. So they say, well, gee, so how long
is it going to be until there’s play equipment? I can’t answer that. We’re providing the land. We’re going in and putting in some basic things that are requirements so we’ve got instant
green. Just because there’s no play equipment doesn’t mean it can’t be used. We need soccer fields. We need Optimist Football fields. There’s a lot of needs out there. Ball diamonds
are the other thing. Big complaint in the community all summer long was there just aren’t enough places for the kids to have these types of extracurricular activities. There are people
that I work with that were driving their kids clear across to southeast Boise when they lived over in Meridian for some of these games. So we do need to provide some areas for these
types of activities. That’s what we’re doing. As far as the monies for the special assessment, we want to pay the $1500 per lot. The $1500 per lot at 326 is $489,000. The only thing
we ask is that because we are creating some or additional capacity in the Ten Mile that we be eligible at some point in time in the future for some late-comer reimbursement on that trunk
line just for that money spent. That’s it. That’s all we’re asking. We can only do so much. We’re giving – we’re kind of at the limit as far as what we can afford to give. As I
stated before, this project is what it is because of its location, and you do need to consider the neatness of the project. We’ve got a good project. I think we can – we’ve offered
solutions to all the problems. I do think that Staff became alarmed, but I doubt if they were any more alarmed than when Vienna Woods came about. I heard the rumblings about that
when that happened. They said, well, that’s to protect our eastern boundary from Boise. So there was a reason. This is going to provide a good-quality, low-density development plus
a city park. We think we’ve got a reason here too. Do you have any questions?
Bird: None.
Rountree: Glenn?
Bentley: None.
Rountree: Becky, it was pointed out by that individual that testified that the developer has purchased additional land in this vicinity – vicinity I think was the word. Is that then
going to create an additional demand for utilization of or
development, expansion in this area potentially expanding the pumping facility potentially utilizing capacity that’s going to be increased with the parallel sewer lines? Is it going
to just create this snowballing effect in this area?
Bowcutt: The land, I believe, the developer did purchase some land further west, but it’s in agricultural use, and it’s – my understanding is it’s tied up (inaudible). Greg may be
able to answer that. Is this our first step? To my knowledge, no. This is what we’re looking at here. Greg may be able to answer that.
Johnson: I’m Greg Johnson. I reside at 2433 CanAda Road in Melba. I did purchase the, actually, the LLC that owns this subdivision –
*** End of Side 2 ***
Rountree: Okay.
Johnson: We have purchased 40 acres directly across from the city park. It is currently operated as a dairy. It’s a small dairy. We felt it important to control that piece of property.
We’re proposing 326 new homes in this neighborhood over a period of six years, and we need to control when that dairy goes away, and we did purchase that. It is currently leased to
Mr. Curtis Peck (sic) who operates that dairy. He has come to us and asked to expand that facility, and we’re not allowing him to expand the facility. He’s a young dairy farmer, he’s
getting started in it. Two years, maybe three years he’s going to outgrow its capacity, and he’ll have to go out by Parma or Melba or somewhere and purchase ground and build a permanent
dairy facility for himself. It’s tough to transition these neighborhoods, but a dairy and development don’t mix, and so we felt it came on the market about the same time we had optioned
this property, and so we purchased it so we could control what happened there. Someday in the future, yes, we are going to want to develop that ground, and we’ll try and buy other ground
in that neighborhood, but we understand that it’s probably going to take the Black Cat Trunk to develop that ground. We’d like to get started on it now with these fees for trunk assessments.
Hopefully it will start growing from the other end and then five or six years from now, we can come in with another proposal that’ll eventually get Black Cat Trunk on this side of the
freeway and serve this area. Any further questions?
Rountree: Any questions?
Johnson: Thank you.
Bowcutt: One thing I did want to mention or I failed to mention earlier; the plant is being increased in its capacity. My understanding is you can handle 4 million gallons per day.
The new upgrade that’s going to take place will bring that up to 8 million gallons per day. We’ve estimated with this development, based on 3 ½ bedrooms, we will generate 275 gallons
per day per home. That equates to
89,650 gallons per day or 1.12 percent of your plant’s capacity. So I just want the Council to know that we do not believe the impact on the plant by this project is even a drop in
the bucket.
Rountree: Thank you. Anyone wish to testify? Is it something new? You promise? Okay. Come on up.
Atkins: Joan Atkins, 400 West Victory Road. The one thing that hasn’t – I don’t think the project’s been submitted because the church – we’ve been approached by the people (inaudible).
Everybody around us is very busy. That’s owned by the Valley Church of the Nazarene. They have told us the back of that’s all soccer fields. That the church is up against the northeast
corner, and that whole back side of that property is all soccer fields. So we’re going to be really busy on Saturday afternoons, and that need is going to be met through the church
facility over here. I don’t know what’s going on, but I don’t think that plan that’s been presented to us for that property has ever been brought up at the hearings. So I just wanted
to let you know. Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you. Anyone else? Questions of staff?
Bird: I’d like to hear the Staff’s rebuttal or if they got any different views.
Smith: Mr. President, Council members, I don’t think that the picture that Becky has painted is in error in terms of what they’re proposing to do. The costs on the system, those have
all been researched, and I don’t think there are any errors there. I see that – what I see happening is that this is the beginning of development in this area. If this project goes
forward, I think plans might just as well be laid to locate this lift station somewhere down west of Linder on Overland Road and just make plans to accommodate all the vacant properties
within that area because we’ve been approached by other land owners, particularly the southwest corner of the intersection of Stoddard and Overland Road, interested in developing. Queenland
Acre Properties, the east side of Stoddard Road, is in for a Comp Plan change right now, and a portion of it, a very small portion of that property can sewer into Overland Road. That
property’s going to need sewer. It’s just the beginning of development in this area, and I appreciate the comments that Mrs. Yerrington and Mrs. Atkins had to make particularly concerning
the traffic. I agree with them that that has been an issue that has not been very strongly addressed. There is a tremendous amount of traffic on Kuna Meridian Road and on Overland
Road in the mornings and in the evenings. Particularly in the darkness of the winter months, those intersections are treacherous. Caulderwood will become one. If we go forward with
the approval of this project, I think $1500 assessment per lot should be paid up-front, lump sum to the City of Meridian, not on a per building permit basis. I don’t believe there should
be any credit given for the $210,000 for parallel piping. Our – your staff comments are not in favor of this project, and our policy, the City’s policy has been, with a few exceptions
as Becky mentioned, pretty tough on pumping on one drainage area
into another without a real good reason. The northeast part of this town was being protected from the advents of Boise City by allowing the pumping of the sewage from Vienna Woods into
the south slew. The construction of the No-Name Trunk will allow that pumping to be placed in the No-Name Trunk. Ultimately, the north slew will have to be built before that pump can
go away. I believe with only one exception, we have lift station that’s not going to go away, and it’s an old one, serves a very small number of homes. I think that’s all I have. Thank
you
Rountree: Thank you. Any other questions? I’ll entertain a motion to close the hearing.
Bird: I move we close the public hearing.
Bentley: I second it.
Rountree: It’s been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on this Bear Creek, LLC annexation and preliminary plat for 326 single-family dwelling lots. Discussion and recommendations
-- (inaudible) Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law (inaudible).
Bird: Got the annexation and zoning first and then the preliminary plat.
Rountree: This is the hard part.
(Mayor Corrie rejoins meeting at 9:28 p.m.)
Rountree: Do you want to take over or do you want to hold off?
Corrie: Hold off.
Bird: Mr. President.
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Just a comment. This is a nice, a very, very nice development. I think the 18 acres of park would be very, very nice. Of course, the traffic. The traffic’s – of course, Meridian’s
probably still be back with 1500 people if we had our infrastructure in before we developed, or all cities would be the same way. The sewer issue is a real sore spot. We’ve sat around,
to be truthfully, I believe the City and let ourselves get way behind in the sewer deal. We were trying to catch up now which I hope within the next two years we do get caught up.
I can’t jeopardize the people that are already naturally flowing into the sewer system, but bring in a pump. I know we did that at Vienna Woods, but I think it’s a very, very nice development,
but I don’t know if we’re ready to accept it with our infrastructure that I think we need to get going as a City Council and as a City
getting that going in the right way and getting caught up before we’re going to want to – still want to go, we better get, as a City, better get ourselves in line and get going after
it. We ask the developers to pay a lot of money and fees up-front, and we put it in the bank. That’s all I got to say.
Rountree: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I pretty much would have to agree with Keith. I, too, if from my four years here, I’ve pushed pretty hard to get the sewer program going to where we can have some orderly
growth and protect the infrastructure that we’re trying to create. I’m with Keith. I’m really thrilled to see somebody come forward and really willing to donate 18 acres of park land,
sprinkle it, get it under way. I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree with Keith also, I can’t go with this project just because of the sewer problems we’ve got. I wish I could say
yes to it because I’d love to see it go.
Rountree: Do you want to put that in the form of a motion for Findings of Facts and recommendation?
Bentley: Well, only after I hear what you have to say.
Bird: (inaudible)
Corrie: You’re not skating.
Bird: You’re not skating out.
Rountree: I figured that was the case. We have two issues, one, annexation and zoning and the other preliminary plat. At some point in time in the not-too-distant future, this piece
of property will more than likely be residential. It will more than likely be R-4. I don’t disagree with that, and I think it’s consistent with our Comp Plan. It is not consistent,
thought, to the extent of what City’s usual practice has been as it relates to sewage and drainage basins and pumping of sewer. Water is not an issue. Police and fire, no more issue
here than they are anyplace else. Sewer is a definite issue. I applaud the applicant for willing to accept an additional fee per lot, an assessment, if you will, that would be banked
toward a trunk line extension at some point in time in the future (inaudible) Black Cat drainage. Unfortunately, I wish this were on the other end of that line than where it is at mid-end
of the line. I have a hard time going against the staff’s recommendations even with severe conditions. I think there’s some ways maybe to make this work, and I believe Gary may have
touched on one in terms of maybe we need to look at a sub-basin analysis in this area jointly with the City as well as this applicant and some potential future applicants that have apparently
approached the City and see if there isn’t a better approach on an interim basis to handle the sewer situation. Having said that, I’m not in the position to flatly deny this application
for annexation. I would like to see it deferred possibly for
yet another round of analysis with the City and the developer and any other developer in the area that might participate to take a look at what we can do on a sub-basin basis as it relates
to the appropriate spot for temporary pumping station in this area that may accommodate what we all know is coming: the request for development. Maybe we’ll do it for a length of time
and generate fees of sufficient quantity to at least get us started on the Black Cat trunk line. I have really no comments as it relates to the preliminary plat. I think it’s as far
as R-4 subdivision developments that have been presented to the City, it appears to be a quality subdivision. The lots are larger than what are required in an R-4 subdivision by some
1200 to several tens of thousands of square feet. It does provide some amenities for the Homeowners Association to utilize and take care of, and it does provide the City with the amenity
of a city park; albeit, there is going to be some responsibility on the part of the City to make it entirely usable. So having said that, you know where I stand. I don’t – I hate to
stop this thing right now because I think there’s some issues that we need to explore with the developer, but if we can’t go there with them, then possibly keep this process open so
we can at least go to the end if it – my recommendation would be to deny the annexation, but my first preference would be to keep it open and pursue that. You guys get to make a motion.
Bird: I’d like to comment some more. Charlie, I agree with you 100 percent on that. I don’t want to see it die, but in the same token, our staff is adamant about not pumping into
that. They don’t want a pump station. I think I, too, think it’s a very, very good development. I hope that it gets us off our whatever and gets this City in gear to start developing
stuff; get our trunk lines out there and do stuff like this so that we don’t have to tell people this. I don’t know how you would – if you don’t deny it, how you continue it. I mean,
we can keep continuing it, but I guess, what do you do? I mean, I’d like to see the thing worked out too so it could work.
Rountree: Well, I guess my preference would be at least continue it to the point where that could be explored with the applicant and brought back and presented in a public hearing form.
Bird: I have no problem with that.
Rountree: And then at that time, condition it to a point of acceptability or reach a point where after the public hearing it’s denied.
Bird: I would have no problem with all of that.
Rountree: (inaudible) any suggestions from the city attorney procedurewise.
Gigray: Mr. President, members of the Council, if you choose to keep this matter open, and you choose to entertain the idea of additional evidence, in order for you to decide whether
or not you would accept this project subject to terms and
conditions which would come out of that, then what you would need to do then, I guess, would be my opinion, would be to re-open the public hearing and then move to continue it and then
I would recommend that you ask the applicant whether or not they would be willing to waive any provisions in our ordinance that proscribe that you make a decision within a certain period
of time. I’m not saying that that’s a problem at this point, but it ought to be cleared because we do have some issues relative to our subdivision ordinance particularly, and then I
would recommend a procedure that you might request that the matter be continued to a time certain with a subsequent staff report based on whatever negotiations came out of this, the
developer would have an opportunity, of course, to address that, and you’d probably ought to, since this matter is contested, request that report be provided to the public so that they
would have an opportunity to address any issues that might come out of that as well. I don’t know how Staff and the developer, given the workload, and you may want to ask the Public
Works Director, what kind of a reasonable timeframe there would be to discuss some of these so that you could decide if you choose this action of when to set it for.
Rountree: Thank you, Bill.
Bentley: Mr. President.
Rountree: Glenn.
Bentley: Follow-up question for the attorney. If we continue this, does the changing of the Council have any bearing on this?
Gigray: Could have a big bearing on it because you have such a limited number here, and with you going off and Mr. Rountree going off, then we’ve got a quorum problem.
Rountree: Actually, we’re leaving. We’re not going off.
Gigray: Excuse me. Leaving off. I’m sorry. So that would limit your ability, and that’s a good point to bring up. Because it’d have to be an old business item the first meeting
in January. (inaudible)
Rountree: Any recommendation by way of motion? Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don’t have anything. I know we’re out of public hearing and everything, but I liked Bill’s idea of going back to public hearing and delaying it for two weeks to see if we can
work something out that would be – I mean, we have to have it done before January 4th because of you two guys.
Bentley: Don’t blame us.
Rountree: It’s not my fault.
Bird: Well, we got one –
Rountree: If you wish to make that a motion –
Bird: I would make a motion that we re-open the public hearing on Items 9 and 10 which is the request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres of land for R-4 zoning by Bear Creek,
LLC and the request for preliminary plat for the same acreage. I would like to ask the developer if they have anything against tabling this for a couple of weeks and seeing if we can
work something out.
Rountree: Got a motion; don’t have a second.
Bentley: Second.
Rountree: Okay. Moved and seconded to re-open the public hearing on Items 9 and 10. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Rountree: The public hearing is re-opened. Do I have another motion?
Bird: I would move that we continue until December 21, 1999, the public hearings for Items 9 and 10 on the agenda, see if we can, between staff and developer, can work something out
that would be acceptable to getting this project taken care of.
Rountree: What was the date again?
Bird: The 21st.
Rountree: Do I have a second?
Bentley: It’s been moved and seconded to continue the public hearing until December 21st to have the developer and staff coordinate a potential solution. All those in favor of the
motion? Discussion.
Bentley: Question for Mr. Gigray. Do we need to talk to the developer now? Whether they’re interested in even going any farther than this?
Gigray: Mr. President and Councilman Bentley, members of the Council, if you’re just continuing it to the next meeting, this is the first public hearing that I’m aware of that you’ve
had where you’ve received the testimony. I don’t have many concerns on a two-week delay. I was thinking if more time for discussion than whatever, then we might run into a problem.
But with a two-week delay, I don’t see that as a problem. I think you’ll want to make it very clear to all that are
here that everyone is invited back and they’ll all have an opportunity to address the issues that are brought up that are new at that public hearing whether they’re for this project
or against it.
Rountree: Okay. Anymore discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Okay. Again, it’s been moved to continue the public hearing until December 21st. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Rountree: Motion’s been passed. Any other questions?
Bentley: Just another motion.
Rountree: Need Glenn’s favorite motion.
Bentley: I move that we take a ten-minute break.
Bird: I second it.
Rountree: Moved and seconded to take a ten-minute break. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
(MEETING RECONVENES AT 10:00 P.M.)
ITEM 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW NEW CONSTRUCTION SITE TO MATCH EXISTING AND AS TYPICAL IN THIS AREA AND SUBDIVISION BY DAROL FORSYTHE/SEVEN
GATES PROPERTIES – LOTS 8, 9, 10, BLOCK 1, LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION:
ITEM 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR SEVEN GATES INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION BY SEVEN GATES PROPERTIES, LLC, - NORTH OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD WHERE LOTS 8, 9, AND
10 OF LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK NOW EXIST:
Corrie: All right. We’re back on the air. It’s 10:00. Open the public hearing on 11 and 12. If there’s no objections from the applicant, is the applicant here tonight? Is there
any objection to opening them both together? Rather have them separate? One is going to be a variance. I see that on No. 11. In 12 is
preliminary. We’ll have to take care of the variance and then come back for preliminary plat before we can do that, but we can do them all at once if you like. Okay. Then I’ll open
the public hearing for Item No. 11 and 12 at this time if it’s agreeable with Council.
Bird: It’s agreeable.
Rountree: It’s fine with me.
Corrie: Okay. So, Shari, if you will – while we’re waiting, Charlie, thank you for conducting the meeting. I was –
Rountree: Did you raise a lot of money?
Corrie: Yeah. We got $400,000 so far. That’s the Salvation Army had the telethon, and they wanted $300,000 and we were at $400,000 when I left. I think they’re going to be able to
(inaudible) go with it. Thank you, Charlie.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, Item 11 is a request for a variance of the landscaping requirements. The old ordinance section was 11-2-414D2, Items A and C under that provision which
require a minimum of one three-inch caliper tree for every 1500 square feet of asphalt. As part of their preliminary plat, they have three buildings, they have three lots, they’re requesting
to increase the lots to four to allow construction of another building. They’re severely under-landscaped out there. The plans that were approved as part of the building permit were
never constructed. They do have some landscaping. Our comments regarding the variance of the landscaping requirement are in with your plat comments. They would be on the recommendation
to the City Council for the plat, it would be on Page 3, Item 1.7. Staff could support some reduction in the landscaping, but not what they have requested. They’re proposing a total
of 34 trees for four lots which is not acceptable. We have asked for ten-foot wide landscaped area around the south, east and west boundaries of the subdivision, and in that – by that
method, they can accommodate 68 of the 77 trees they would be required. The entire site is building and asphalt. Majority of the landscaping they do have now is in the right-of-way.
They have indicated that they think they meet what the rest of that subdivision has installed as far as landscaping, but we have found no evidence that any of the lots in that subdivision
are deficient to this point. We would ask as part of the variance if it is approved that our comments stated at 1.7 on Page 3 for the plat be incorporated as part of that variance allowance.
There are currently three buildings. I don’t have the exact lot lines where they would be. Their parking is also severely limited as far as driveways and parking on site. There’s
a serious problem with on-street parking in this area. This eventually is planned to go through, would go through the Elixir (sic) property and onto Eagle Road. We do have a letter
in the
file from Walt Morrow. He was opposed to it. That is, as far as I know, the only opposition from owners within the subdivision. He owns the property right here, and he has met the
requirements of the zoning ordinance. I hope that you have a copy of that letter in your packets as dated November 8, and he wanted to make sure that was included in the record. Their
proposal is to make the four lots or they would have a building here, a building here, a building here, and propose a new building on this lot. That’s all I have.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Did I hear you correctly, Shari? You’ve looked at the development in this particular subdivision at this point in time and they are consistent with our landscaping ordinance
requirements?
Stiles: Yes.
Rountree: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Since this is a public hearing, I’d invite the applicant to speak first.
Henkley: First, and I have (inaudible) these are the plans for the (inaudible) –
Corrie: Okay. I need you to get your name on the record first.
Henkley: My name’s Robert Henkley. I live at 1036 Taffy Drive in Nampa. I’m with a surveying and engineering company (inaudible) working for the client. If you want to open those
up. Basically what it shows is what my preliminary plat shows is the landscaping is built (inaudible) plans. It does have a disclaimer down in the corner, but those were the approved
plans, and that is what was built out there. They built the buildings across the lot lines. What we’re trying to do, basically, is move the lot lines to reflect where the buildings
are and build the future proposed building up in the corner there as shown on those plans. This is a terrible copy. I have the blue-line if you wanted to pass that around. It’s a
little better copy. You can see the amount of landscaping doesn’t go around the perimeter or anything.
Corrie: So you’re proposing 34 trees on the four lots?
Henkley: Yeah. If you have a copy, we brought copies in, you should in your packet, I would imagine, have a copy of the preliminary plat, full-size there that you can see with the
landscaping pretty much matches what’s on those plans
there (inaudible) built. Also maybe like to bring to your attention, the parking which except for a small area behind Building 1 on the new Lot 4 would meet requirements; however, if
we take off a ten-foot strip around the edge, we wouldn’t be able to possibly meet parking requirements. We’d lose too much square footage. It’s all currently asphalted. All we’d
have to do is do a little re-striping back there. We’d have to remove a lot of asphalt, fences.
Bird: Are the first three buildings up?
Henkley: The first three buildings have been in existence since, I believe, about ’94. (inaudible) I’ve also brought some pictures, if you like, because City – what the landscaping
does look like in actuality, and kind of what some of the neighboring ones do. (inaudible) I don’t know if you have any other questions for me.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone else in the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay. If you’ll give us your name and spell your last name, please.
Downing: Sure. My name is Bill Downing, D-O-W-N-I-N-G, I’m with Reinco Construction. Just a couple little quick things. The point of the landscaping not meeting those original drawings
was – there were some changes, but it was because of the Fire Department needed access and visibility to get in. I can – I have it on the original (inaudible - walked away from microphone)
It’s not much but (inaudible) Second point I was going to make is just the street parking. Did you get those pictures of the street scenes? These are just street scenes of that subdivision.
(inaudible) Currently in the second building, it’s shared by a mechanic, repair shop and a moving company. The new building that’s proposed will be occupied by the mechanic shop and
the moving company will take over the entire building for no. 2 there which gives them all the parking behind that building. In the pictures, you’ll see it’s a moving truck that’s parked
out in front of this facility. It usually is. But that’s not just true of the Forsythe’s property, either. If you’re looking at on-street parking, you’ll see across the street, neighbor
there, that has three or four cars out there every day. It’ll actually improve the parking if they get approval of the variance and (inaudible). I think that was all I got. I just
wanted to get that out.
Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony tonight on Items 11 or 12? Okay. Hearing none, any questions from the Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item 11 and 12.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we close the public hearing on Items 11 and 12.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 11 and 12. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Okay. Discussion. I guess we need to take the variance first.
Bird: Are we going to do Findings?
Corrie: We’ll have to do Findings, yeah, for the variance. We’ll need to find out what the Findings are going to be.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have a question, I guess, for Shari. It’s more of a procedural or application – this variance request, is it for the entire four lots or just what would be a new lot if
the plat were approved.
Stiles: it would be the entire four lots.
Rountree: Thank you. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree. I think this is a case where we’ve got one or more chefs in the kitchen, and we need at least at one point in time because the plat that was before us certainly
did indicate that the Fire Marshal did instruct the previous owners as it related to the building permit to remove some landscaping for fire-site reasons. Good bad or indifferent, I
can’t see why we can deny a variance in that particular –
*** End of Side 3 ***
aspect. It seems to me I would like to see the intent of landscaping and our ordinance be met if we further subdivide this piece of property and any new development out there be in
compliance with our ordinances. I don’t know how you would structure that. I guess it would be structured in the Findings that a variance would be granted for the existing development,
but then any new development would have to comply with existing ordinance. Looks to me like we're a party to them not being consistent with our landscape ordinance.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: My question would have to be by 1.7 of Page 3 of the preliminary plat, Shari has stated that it is severely deficient, the entire site. I understand what Councilman Rountree’s
saying about the Fire Department requesting the trees at a certain area being removed. I don’t have a problem with reducing the requirements for that amount, but if the entire project
is deficient, then I do have a problem with that. I think the projects should meet the requirements that was originally put on it with the exception of what was asked to be removed.
I’d like to – Shari’s got her hand up.
Stiles: Mr. President, Mayor and Council, I didn’t realize this new plan was submitted on December 1st. The comments were prepared prior to this plan being submitted. I can’t tell
what these symbols are. If they were three-inch caliper trees or if some of them were conifers. Those are six- to eight-foot trees, and they are proposing this part of their variance.
I think it’s a reasonable compromise is to accept what they have presented as part of their variance.
Rountree: We need to re-open the public hearing and then find out (inaudible) close the public hearing on the plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I would move we re-open the public hearing to hear from the applicant as it relates to the proposed subdivision plat that we have before us.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to re-open the public hearing that we had – to ask some questions of the applicant. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Okay. Motion is approved. Re-open the public hearing.
Henkley: My name is Robert Henkley, I live at 1036 Taffy Drive in Nampa, Idaho. Questions?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor. We have before us this that has –
Henkley: I brought a –
Rountree: -- a lot of symbols on it. I guess our question is what do these various symbols, as it relates to landscaping, mean? They quantify the trees, but they don’t tell us what
kind of trees they are.
Henkley: I believe that’s in the notes. This wasn’t anything to basically we had as a requirement to send you six copies of the preliminary plat. It may have been intended to read
any changes in the preliminary plat, but we didn’t want to be denied this hearing because we didn’t bring the six copies. It’s the same as was submitted months ago. Didn’t mean to
confuse you, Shari.
Stiles: I don’t see anything in the notes that says what they are.
Henkley: If I could look at one, I could find it for you.
Bird: This one. The symbol says right there, three-inch caliper trees. Yeah. On this one here.
Bentley: That’s the old one, though.
Bird: This is the original.
Rountree: I guess if (inaudible) testify to that effect --
Henkley: I believe (inaudible) site plan.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: My question to the applicant then, is that the symbols on this plan dated December 1st, receipt December 1st by the City of Meridian indicates that those would be three-inch
caliper trees.
Henkley: Correct.
Rountree: Correct? Okay. That’s all I need to know.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Henkley: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I think that answers (inaudible)
Henkley: I believe on the site plan for Lot 1 pretty much answered that. And if I could maybe make a comment, I don’t know if this is either here or there, but perhaps we could, you
know, if you put a restriction for Lot 1, the new – basically the new Lot – creating where the new building goes to be fully landscaped. I don’t know if that would be acceptable to
you or not. It’s a thought. The rest of it’s kind of asphalted and fenced to the – as is.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: I got a question for Gary. I’ve got a letter here from one of the owners of a building across the street. He’s questioning utilities, capabilities of the utilities that we got
out there regarding fire mains and domestic water flows. Is there any problem with that, Gary?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Bird, I don’t know exactly what Walt’s concern is. If there’s low service or low pressure, I haven’t been advised of that. I don’t know.
This line and commercial core will be connected to the one that’s being installed by Elixir to the east so it’ll loop in the near future.
Bird: Okay.
: (inaudible)
Corrie: Okay. Let’s let him finish.
Smith: That’s all I have.
Bird: Okay. Thanks, Gary.
Corrie: If you want to come up here, it’s still a public hearing.
Henkley: My name’s Robert Henkley again. Same address. During P & Z, I can’t recall your assistant – the Assistant City Engineer’s name. He was here earlier. We discussed the water
flows, and they aren’t real high in that area. I believe they’re bringing – going to connect to Eagle Road here shortly. Water and that many trees with city water probably wouldn’t
help the water pressure.
They neglected to put pressure irrigation in that original subdivision when it was built. We don’t have the option of watering with irrigation.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Bentley: Question for Shari.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Shari, would the new understanding of the symbols on the map, your comments on the landscape?
Stiles: It shows – for the record, we didn’t have this until December 1st. It wasn’t submitted, at least as any part of my files. For some reason it’s dated 5/24/99. I don’t believe
that was the date it was probably done. We’ve got a different date on the plat. But they do show 66 trees on this plan. It is adjacent to the railroad tracks which is going to be
hopefully a multiple-use pathway at some point. It would help a lot toward the appearance of the backs of those buildings and the vast sea of asphalt to have the landscaping along the
entire border there. I could support the variance provided the minimum of the 66 trees is provided and that those trees be three-inch caliper or if they are some type of conifer tree,
they be a six- to eight-foot minimum height.
Bird: Shari, what’s the date on those plans you’re looking after?
Stiles: It shows a date of 5/24/99.
Bird: Okay. Thank you. Is that the site or the preliminary plat plan?
Stiles: It’s shown as a preliminary plat of Seven Gates Industrial Subdivision including proposed parking and landscaping layout.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
Bentley: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. We’ll try it once more.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we close the public hearing.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 11 and 12. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we have city attorney prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order as it relates to their request for variance and that part of the conditions
included in the variance indicate that a variance would be seen with a favorable recommendation provided that the landscaping on this particular site is consistent with the 5/24/99 preliminary
plat that was received by the City of Meridian on 12/1/99 and that the tree size and/or caliper identified on this plan be either six- to eight-foot conifers or three-inch caliper deciduous
trees or a combination of both.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bentley, the motion as stated in the record. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Mr. Attorney, if you will take care of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on that. We need to come back then and do the preliminary plat after the variance; is that
correct, Mr. Gigray? Can we do that – Findings –
Gigray: I think you can proceed with the Findings on the preliminary plat subject to the adoption of the Findings on the variance because all I’m going to do is draft them and send
them back to the – so you would act on those after you did the variance anyway.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: This is the preliminary plat?
Gigray: Right, but I imagine that’s because this is like a short plat (inaudible), but you still won’t have final action on it until you adopt it.
Corrie: The variance? Okay.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we have the city attorney prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decisions of Order for the preliminary plat for the Seven Gates Property to include
staff comments and the adoption of the variance as conditions of the ultimate approval of the preliminary plat.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision of Order with the adjustments on the landscaping to be included with the staff
comments. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPOSED WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R-T TO R-4 BY WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY,
LLC – SOUTH ½ OF THE NW ¼ SECTION 17 T3N R1E:
Corrie: Item 13 is a public hearing. This is a request for conditional use permit for 283-lot planned development for proposed Woodbridge Subdivision on 80.83 acres from R-T to R-4
by Woodbridge Community, LLC, south half of the northwest quarter section, 17T, 3N, R1E. At this time, I’ll open the public hearing on Item No. 13 and hear from Staff first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, you have a significant amount of information on this project. I hope you’ve had a chance to go through it. We have met with the applicant and their
attorney several times, and it’s come down to basically just a couple of issues. This property is what was formerly known as the Griffin property, the 80 acres. It’s south of Green
Hill, west of Magic View Subdivision. Cobblestone Village was approved up in this location here tonight. They are proposing to annex it or they have – you’ve approved the annexation
of this parcel to an L-O, and they’re proposing a planned development with a maximum of 283 lots. They’re proposing reductions on a number of the Ordinance requirements as part of the
planned development, but they have proposed open space, common areas throughout the project with pathways. One thing that will need to be determined once the platting proceeds with
this project, the approval
tonight is not the approval of a plat. It’s just the conditional use permit. They’re proposing stub street or a street connection through to Magic View. It’s not known at this time
whether this will be the final location. They’ll be working on that as they get an engineer to prepare their plans. I believe Ada County Highway District supported more in this area,
and Staff also supported that area, but they have committed to having that in operation prior to issuance of the 200th building permit, then that would go through to Magic View and eventually
could be able to access the signal at the Chevron and St. Luke’s area. The main issue that we have just had to agree to disagree on is this street here, Ada County Highway District
– I think I have – there’s three different proposals presented for the connection through to Green Hills Estates. This is an existing 50-foot right-of-way in Green Hill Estates. It’s
never been developed, but the right-of-way is still in tact. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation was that 18 feet of grasscrete be constructed with a five-foot
meandering pathway to connect the two subdivisions and that the ballards would be installed, and this would only be intended as an emergency access. Ada County Highway District, I believe
this is still their final plan? Oh. I believe this was the staff recommendation for Ada County Highway District, and I guess Mr. O’Niell’s shaking his head, but he can clarify that.
This is what they presented and gave to us in the packet most recently, and it says ACHD, so I assume that’s what it was. This is O’Niell Enterprise’s recommendation. They’re proposing
a 12-foot asphalt pathway with four-foot, I put five-foot there because that’s our sidewalk requirement, pathway requirement. They’re proposing four-foot grasscrete on either side of
12-foot asphalt pathway. In their, in what they presented, you see a – on Page 2 of what they’ve just submitted this week under the conditions of approval, it seems to be a combination
of what they were proposing and what P & Z has proposed. One issue that we had was some of the wording they had there was that they were willing to go ahead and dedicate the 50-foot
right-of-way so the possibility would exist. They’re showing it as 50-foot right-of-way. So the possibility would exist at some point to make it a public road, but they had put in
their conditions that it would be made permanent when ACHD, the City of Meridian, the developer and the residents of Green Hill Estates agree it should become permanent access. I don’t
know about you, but I don’t believe that would happen in our lifetimes to get those four into these together and agree on that. There’s the interneighborhood connectivity is very important.
I don’t – well, here’s a better plan. This is the existing public right-of-way that hasn’t been constructed. There’s also an existing public right-of-way at this location that I imagine
we’re going to come up with the same problem there. They’re not going to want that to continue through. The problem comes with only one access here that – the problems that exist here
that when Franklin Road is reconstructed to the five lanes or seven lanes or however many lanes they’re going to end up with there, it’s going to be virtually impossible for the residents
of Green Hill to get out. They can go through and get eventually to Eagle Road through this location, but I believe the policies of Ada County Highway District and our policies are
to provide for that interconnectivity. Staff certainly supports the leaving of this as emergency access only for as long as possible, but I think they’re going to find
that in the not-too-distant future, they’re really going to wish that they had that. Particularly when also the Locust Grove if we ever get the overpass there and they reconstruct Locust
Grove Road, that’s going to be at least another avenue for them to exit this site. It’s also important for our emergency access, although the Fire Department is satisfied with the emergency
access only. That was the one point of disagreement. It is a nice project. We certainly could have had someone else come in and pick up that property and end up with a much less desirable
result. They’ve got lots of open space. They’ve got the Five Mile Creek coming through that they will develop as a common area. You have a clubhouse, swimming pool, all these other
pathways and open areas. They have the smaller lots that would be on this portion and then gradually go to the larger lots. These would be the more ideal lots that they have as far
as the size and the views that are available because of the topography of the site. They have committed to leaving these as type – what they call Type D lots, I believe, that is at
least a minimum of 8,000 square feet. Neighborhood roads, they would all – you had that in your packets. All the street sections they have there. They have some very pleasing elevations
for some of the proposed housing within the subdivision. They’re allowing for some varied setbacks, side-entry garages. This is the section of Locust Grove Road that they’re proposing.
Our ordinance states that when they are adjacent to a roadway such as Locust Grove, that the minimum 20-foot planting strip be provided beyond required right-of-way. They’re proposing
to build this street section, and I am told by Ada County Highway District that this does meet their requirements for a five-lane roadway even though all of this portion would be in
the right-of-way, they would allow through license agreement for this to be landscaped. This would be an eight-foot wide meandering asphalt pathway, and we have discussed with the applicant
that we would like to review what types of plantings they have in there as far as this streetscape. They are proposing an additional ten feet beyond the required right-of-way, but with
the end result of what they’re proposing would be very nice section. The only caveat would be Staff would ask that any development at least on the east side of Locust Grove Road be
required to match this same construction and have the same kind of – even the eight-foot wide pathway with asphalt, at least, so it’s consistent so we don’t just have a quarter mile
that look like that. This is section that shows in more detail how that will look once it’s completed. They’re showing the two thru-lanes, the turn lane, bike lane, and then they would
have the planting strip and then pathway. So it is a nice view there. Other than that, we have met for a long time. They have put a lot of work into it. They have answered virtually
all of our questions and have been very responsive to any time we’ve asked to additional information, we will be working out some details as part of the preliminary plat, but Staff supports
the project and would recommend approval and asks for your decision on the Weatherby connection. If you have any questions.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, just for purposes of the record, there have been some different transmittals from our office with regard to the recommendation of the Planning
and Zoning Commission, and I just want to point out for the record that the official transmission is the one received by the Clerk’s Office dated received December 6, 1999, which I think
you have in your packets. I believe it has front sheet from the Clerk’s office, and you’ll see received 12/6/99. It’ll reference this particular – Excuse me. Yeah. It’s right here.
It has handwritten on it, updated corrected, replace old set in packet, and you’ll see a received stamp for recommendation to Council December 6, 1999. That’s the correct one.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I just got this tonight, so I didn’t get a chance to look at it. I’m not sure that this is entirely consistent with what the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended. It does include some of the comments of Staff. On Page 3, Item 1.1, even though Brad did include some language about the 25 percent and the 75 percent, it’s impossible
for us to – that PD section has been interpreted in so many different ways that it’s really hard for us to quantify what it even means. We’re having Carla Olsen re-do our Planned Development
Ordinance. That is in the works now. We would like that 1.1 to be stricken. I’m not sure that Planning and Zoning Commission was in agreement with that. Then on 1.2, that’s what
we were discussing about the Weatherby Stub. That was Planning and Zoning’s recommendation. I’m not sure that they were recommending the 20-foot wide planting strip to be required.
I’m sorry. I don’t have this revised copy. If you’re referring to this – I am looking at this, it says updated, corrected, replace old set in packet. But this that I just got, apparently,
does anyone have this? This was faxed Ed Miller from – Bill. But this is what I picked up in my packet tonight at 6:00.
Bird: Is that for O or for –
Rountree: It’s this one. It’s just got the wrong cover sheet on it.
Bird: That’s the one you told me wasn’t right.
Rountree: Oh. This has got another cover sheet on it, I think. Yeah. That’s right. That’s –
Bird: The one that we received, this one right here?
Gigray: Yeah. It’s the one that – it has a cover sheet on it, and this is where we’re getting confused which is – this is the Clerk’s office has had a number of transmittals, so it’s
not their problem. It’s just so we get the record clear here. I
have in front of me that’s in my packet the document that’s a routing slip from the Clerk’s office dated December 7th that says Woodbridge Communities, LLC, but it references Item No.
O for the Consent Agenda and actually, this has attached to it the recommendations that we’ve identified of the – to the City Council from the Planning and Zoning Commission on this
particular matter which is the plan – the conditional use permit, case no. CUP-99-037. It consists of 12 pages. It has a received stamp on it of the City Clerk’s office of December
6, 1999. Right here.
Corrie: I got it now. It was in my – as O.
Stiles: Excuse me, Mayor. Does – the 12 pages, does that include the transmittal sheet? I only have 11 pages in what was transmitted to Mr. Miller.
Gigray: It’s a recommendation to the City Council from the Planning and Zoning Commission consisting of 12 pages, 1 through 12.
Stiles: There’s no page 12 in – I’m looking at the bottom. Are you looking at the top?
Gigray: I’m looking at the footers.
Stiles: Yeah. It only has 11 pages.
Gigray: I can show you mine.
Stiles: I’ve got several of them now.
Gigray: We can’t be getting stuff on the 7th, 6th and 7th and –
Stiles: I’d like to make sure we’re still all looking at the same thing.
Bentley: I hear you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue this public hearing until the 12th or until the 21st of December, 1999, so that everything can get – we can all be looking at the same stuff that – in
this items on Tuesday, the day of the meeting, it makes it kind of hard to read and look through and get us on the same page.
Bentley: I second that.
Corrie: Since this is still a public hearing, we haven’t closed the public hearing yet. Counselor, I think the motion at this point is probably going to be out of order until we can
get the public hearing – am I correct?
Gigray: You can continue the public hearing and receive the testimony that’s hear if you don’t feel like you’ve got enough information. Councilman’s made a motion – it was seconded
and I guess you would have to deal with that motion.
Corrie: We can still take the testimony. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion to continue the public hearing on Item 13?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, (inaudible)
Corrie: Testimony and then we can do it?
Bentley: I’ll withdraw the second.
Bird: I’ll withdraw.
Corrie: Okay. We’ll still continue the public hearing and have the applicant at this point –
Pete O'Niell: Good evening. My name is Pete O'Niell. I’m President of O’Niell Enterprises. We’re the managing member of Woodbridge, LLC. I’ll introduce my son Derek who’s Vice President
of Development, Scott Beecham, Development Assistant, and Ed Miller who’s talking with Shari at the moment. I’d introduce the rest of our team in terms of planners and engineers, but
don’t need to do that, that’s all part of the record. I would like to just point out that here’s a list of meetings we’ve had with the City of Meridian. It started 18 months ago with
the first meeting and started in earnest a year ago, nine months ago with a number of meetings. Since that time, it was submitted in September to Planning and Zoning. Heard the application
on October 12, and it was really the 12 and 13. I think that was the meeting that ended close to 3:00 a.m. in the morning, and they wisely deferred a decision until November 9th at
which point in time the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval with specific conditions of approval, recommended to the Council that they approve with specific
conditions. On the 16th of November, the City Council met to hear the annexation and zoning part of the application which you did at that time. The next day on the 17th of November,
we were in front of the Ada County Highway District which unanimously approved the plan including the use of the connection to Green Hill Estates as an emergency vehicle/pedestrian access
only within a 50-foot right-of-way. So there was the option to do more than that at some point in time. The minutes from the Highway District are available. Should be distributed
to you. I think just to try to clarify a little bit of the confusion that just took place: If I understand what Mr. Gigray mentioned as the official transmittal from Planning and Zoning
Commission that was dated the 7th is essentially
correct. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved it subject to the conditions that were put forth with some modifications to one condition which is Condition 7C, and there’s a slight
error in the transmission because we didn’t see this until today either. It is not consistent with the minutes of that meeting. I think it’s a clerical issue as opposed to anything
more. This, I think, technically is being submitted to you, and correct me if I’m wrong, counselor, is being submitted as the recommendation of Planning and Zoning. What Planning and
Zoning Commission also mentioned is because Shari was concerned that there was a 30-some-odd conditions that she wasn’t comfortable without reviewing them further as written, they should
go forward. So we met on the 22nd of November with representative of Mr. Gigray’s office and Shari, and worked through each of those 31 conditions. They were attached to the packet
that we sent out to you last Friday as Appendix 5A, and it was the redline version of what Mr. Gigray handed out today. They’re a little out of sequence. What Mr. Gigray handed out
essentially came first, these were the revisions to that that were agreed to on a long transmittal letter, here’s what we agreed to and here’s what we haven’t, and then as of – Shari
was gone for a period of time, so she didn’t have a chance to review the redlined additions until yesterday, so there was a meeting yesterday afternoon, and subsequently, I believe she’s
going to had this out today, subsequently, there’s further revisions to five of those conditions which are revisions of clarification, and I believe those are part of the records. If
not, I believe they should be. Why don’t we submit these. These were available for your review. So if you take the ones in Appendix A with these additions, that is what the staff
and ourselves have agreed to (inaudible) except the wording in Condition 7C. Having heard Shari’s report, I’m not altogether sure we even have a disagreement on that. So I think she
covered it verbally quite well of what it is we’re proposing. I don’t know if that sheds any light on this or not. I mean, just this passing comment, we have always made it a practice
to submit a book just for the very reason you all witnessed. The sections one, two, three and four – this is the exact information that was presented and gone over at Planning and Zoning
Commission. You’re looking at the same information that they did. The Appendix is things that have happened subsequently to that or concurrently with that, so we put them separately
so there’s no legal question of which came first and so on. That’s – we try to go to all this trouble to get it out so the – if one has a chance to read it all, it hopefully clarifies
the issue. There was another – there’s two other transmittals that were either put in your boxes that you may have gotten. It may have been put in and taken back that were just dead
wrong that were done last week in Shari’s absence and I believe Mr. Gigray’s absence. They tried to get something out and it was just not correct. I believe that’s been pulled and
corrected. I guess where we go from here – as I mentioned, the only issue I believe that we would presumably take exception with the Staff’s report and what you’ve seen now in writing
is that Condition 7C, and that really has to do with the use and configuration of the connection to Green Hill Estates to the north. So I guess at this point in time I would just again
point out that Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval. The neighbors, and the reason it lasted until three in the morning, A, we didn’t start until eight, but there
was a substantial testimony of strongly opposed. They strongly opposed the full-time connection to Green Hill Estates. They were very much supportive of the project with that as an
emergency vehicle and pedestrian connection. ACHD approved it. Their policy is similar to the City’s. The liked the connectivity to all the neighboring deals, but given the particular
conditions of this, they accepted and approved the emergency vehicle only and pedestrian only access to the north of Green Hill Estates. As a practical matter, the staff is in agreement
with what it is we’d like to do. Rather than take a lot of your time, I do want to come back and to put in prospective with the site plan the issues surrounding the connection to Green
Hill Estates just so we can make sure there isn’t any confusion on that. Before I do that, I guess I would follow your lead as to what level of detail you’d like us to present the project.
We’ve put it in the package for you. We’ve got overheads of all of those things. We can give you a detailed presentation. We can give you an overview. We can just do none of the
above and – other than to frame the Green Hill Estate connection issue. I’d look to your Council on how you want to proceed from here. We can – we gave you a little bit of an overview.
Last time we could refresh that and not go into a whole lot of detail if that’s your pleasure, but given the hour, I don’t want to give you a presentation that you’re not interested
in hearing.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: (inaudible) overview of your proposal – I think we know what you’re proposing. What you’re recommending is it relates to (inaudible) access and –those highlights that you
feel may be of issue, and then you’ll have an opportunity (inaudible) rebut anything that comes up (inaudible).
Corrie: Okay. Anything – Council comments?
Bird: I have none.
Pete O'Niell: So you’d like a brief overview?
Corrie: I’ve got a couple of questions, too. I’m not – I don’t have the same thing that you’ve given us in the booklet form. (inaudible) modifications (inaudible) 7th, but go ahead
and I’ll see if we can work this out here.
Pete O'Niell: Okay. Again, as we’ve – we’ll just go through a few –
*** End of Side 4 ***
Pete O'Niell: -- of this community is a variety of housing types and price points. It isn’t a homogeneous subdivision of all similar sizes of houses and all similarly priced houses.
We arranged them in neighborhoods that are human scale and
are typically loop roads so that there is not thru-traffic in your neighborhood. Then we try to separate those neighborhoods with open spaces in between so that not every home site
is – we try to get a 50/50 balance between home sites that have fences on three sides and some that open up onto open space. We used to try to get everything onto open space and found
that there are a number of people that like a totally fenced in yard. We tried to get some half-and-half. We like the open feeling. I think another major characteristic of this project
as in others is there is a hierarchy of streets. Woodbridge Drive is a full 37-foot of pavement with no parking allowed, and it serves as just a residential collector to get to the
little neighborhood streets. The section that’s included shows a setback meandering sidewalk on one side and heavily landscaped to 72-foot right-of-way. We would have a license agreement
with ACHD to maintain heavy landscaping. Very similar to what’s going down through Surprise Valley, not dissimilar to what goes down through River Run. Then as you get into the neighborhood
streets, they’re 29-foot section sidewalks on both sides, but again, they don’t go anywhere other than serve that neighborhood. They don’t have to be expandable in the future. I think
Shari did a good job in explaining the proposal for Locust Grove. I think another characteristic would be the active community center which Shari touched on. There’s roughly four acres
of open space there and play fields, swimming pool, small clubhouse and parking for the use of the residents. Again, we put open space into different categories. Some of it is the
usable space there at the recreation center. There are some pocket parks in some of the neighborhoods that just soften the entry to the neighborhoods and gives the kids a place to romp
around locally, then there’s the separations between the neighborhoods. There’s also that heavily landscaped area along Locust Grove. There are some environmentally sensitive issues
on the property; there is some delineated wetland which runs down through here. They need to be enhanced. It’s pretty trampled at this point in time, so that’s a little wider section
that we’ll try to retain the or regain the wetland character down through there. Then you have Five Mile Creek which is really the distinguishing feature to this community. There’s
quite a bit of elevation difference from the top there down to Five Mile Creek. It, again, is pretty trashed with the cattle operation over years. We’ve had good success in enhancing
those and rehabilitating them, so there’s roughly a four-acre strip right through the middle of the project, 2/3 through the project that will go along the Five Mile Creek. There’s
also a pathway that goes through there. Talking about pathways, we find that the number one attribute that most residents like in our communities is the pathway system. More so than
tennis courts or swimming pools or something. They like to be able to get out, walk around, not being on the streets. We’ve got pathways all over the place here. You can get from
neighborhood to neighborhood without going out to the main road by cutting through little paths in the open space. All of the pathways lead to the Rec Center sooner or later, and then
we’ve got the pathway on Five Mile Creek. Now, the Five Mile Creek pathway is designed that if, as and when the City of Meridian is able to – in your Comprehensive Plan there’s a major
statement in terms of Five Mile Creek being connected publicly, so if that ever connects to anything, that pathway is designed
to connect and continue on beyond the borders of this property and can be made into a public amenity. What have I forgotten here? Oh. There was some concerns by some of the neighbors
in terms of neighborhood fencing. I think we will provide good-neighbor fencing wherever we interface a neighboring community. Good-neighbor meaning it looks good on both sides; there’s
not a good and bad side to that. I commented on the interface with the Meridian City parks and pathway system. The Locust Grove Street section (inaudible) irrigation system. We do
have water and water rights. We’ve worked with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and will provide pressurized irrigation to all of the landscaping. We will also deliver the irrigation
water to all of the downstream users; either in surface, ditches or some other means that is satisfactory to the irrigation users in the district. We’re willing to commit to not exceeding
the 283 home sites that we’re suggesting even though the zoning would mathematically calculate to more. Shari touched on the fact that as the CU or PUD, in order to make this all work,
we have some variances and terms of square footage of lot sizes, frontages of lots, setbacks and they’re all laid out in a chart that is in the material and gone over in great detail
with staff and Planning and Zoning. Those are the trade-offs. We found that customers like it, we like it, do some different sized housing, lots, setbacks in turn for the open space
and the pathway system and the recreation amenities. With that, as a very quick overview, is there anything else we missed? The whole issue, then, becomes – not the whole issue, but
the issues that seem to have (inaudible) the most concern with the neighbors and staff here at Meridian and at ACHD for that matter, is this whole Green Hill Estates access. But to
put that in prospective, the primary access to the project is off of Locust Grove Road, and you can see the way that it’s drawn there. It’s kind of a very loose rendering of a pretty
substantial entry, and that is, according to traffic study, where how many? What percentage? 90 plus percent of the traffic will enter there. High percentage. As you know, thanks
to the work of Mayor Corrie and others, hopefully Locust Grove Road is going to improved with an overpass and carry some traffic sooner than later. Which moves the problem down to Franklin,
and we’re all aware of that, and hopefully we can be part of the solution to that issue. So when we started looking, okay, that’s how you get in. How do you have a second way in and
out of the property? The easy thing for us to do would have been to use the existing 50-foot dedicated right-of-way on Green Hill (inaudible) going into Autumn Way and just run the
street out there and say we’re done. I mean, here’s how you get in, here’s how you get out, and we’re done. We did meet with the Green Hill neighbors and the neighbors all around us.
It was very -–we didn't need a lesson in politics or anything else to understand that would not be a popular suggestion with the neighbors in Green Hill Estates. So we started looking
at – we had been looking at the connection to the east to Magic View Subdivision. It became clear that really the way the traffic ought to flow is from West Locust Grove Road, and if
there’s a second way out, it ought to be headed east and connect up with Magic View at a signalized intersection on Eagle Road. Now there’s two schools of thought on that. One is that
it should be a direct connection and just siphon a lot of traffic through. The other school of thought is that it’s somewhat of an indirect
connection. You can get there, but you’re not substituting for the major highways like Franklin and whatnot that are designed, and should be designed, to carry the traffic and not siphon
off traffic through the project. We opt, obviously, for the secuitous (sic) route. Planning and Zoning supported that. The Highway District supported it. So the only issue to the
east, and we’ve agreed on when that has to be identified, and when it has to be built is does it come out the southeastern corner and make a hard turn to the south – to the east and
connect up with an existing cul-de-sac, platted cul-de-sac, or do we go out somewhere else? Everyone has a different opinion on where that ought to be. Our opinion is, we’ll put it
anywhere. I think it’s really a function how that Magic View area develops. If it doesn’t develop by the time we need to put it through, we’ve got to figure a way to get it out. So
that is our view of where the secondary access goes. Then you get to Green Hill Estates and I think a full-time access through there at this time of – full-time vehicular – is a belt
and suspenders. Traffic studies say you don’t need it. You can carry all the traffic back out to Locust Grove Road and work its way through Magic View onto Eagle Road, and you really
don’t need a third full-time access to Green Hill Estates; on the other hand, there is an existing 50-foot right-of-way. We said we would match it up with a 50-foot right-of-way, but
strongly you’re urged, and our plan revolves around that being an emergency vehicle access, both of the benefit of the residents of Green Hill Estates in case their roads get tied up,
there is another way for emergency vehicles to access Green Hill through Woodbridge and vice-versa. We want to – and it be a pedestrian connection so kids and neighbors can walk and
play with their neighbors without having to get out on the busy streets and go around. So we want to make very clear the different issue. The issue, I think, is the use of the connection
to Green Hill which is emergency vehicle and pedestrian-only within a dedicated 50-foot right-of-way that could be changed as needed in the future. Second issue is the design and the
timing of it. Everybody has a different view of the design, and I think we changed wording and the conditions (inaudible) – design acceptable to the Fire Department, acceptable to the
Highway District, acceptable to Meridian and acceptable to ourselves and the Green Hill people. I think the intention is to make it soft from a visual standpoint and a pedestrian standpoint,
but to make it functional from Fire Department standpoint and emergency vehicle standpoint that you don’t have to be a rogue scholar to figure out how to get through it. It’s pretty
straight path to get equipment and trucks through. Whether that’s a gate or breakaway ballard or whatever, we’ll work that out with the technical folks. We’ve done it both ways. So
those are the issues. I think the wording is correct as it relates to the uses, emergency vehicle and pedestrian. I think there’s an error in the transmittal today which one could
get confused – the level of development and just when it happens. We’ve committed that by the 100th occupancy permit that that emergency access is functional. You can get to it, you
can get a truck through it, you can respond to emergencies. Then between that and the development of Phase II, that’s how that would function. When we develop Phase II and the loop
road around there, that will be finished in its permanent condition with the hard surface and the landscaping to go in as we do the rest of the project. Is that stated properly? So
that’s the – as
quick as I can make it, and I guess I’d rather take your valuable time answering the questions rather than trying to guess what it is you might want to hear.
Corrie: Questions? Okay.
Pete O'Niell: I guess I would having listened to Mr. Bird’s motion, and I certainly understand it if I was in your position and got thrown that much stuff in that confusing manner,
I’d say, wait a minute. You get organized, and we’ll talk about it later. I’m not sure you have to do that. I think – I’d like to see act on this – we’ve been very responsive. We’ve
gotten drafts out. I think other than this presentation tonight, I think it is pretty clear the steps that have gone through and really is not that much – there is no debate in terms
of – as long as you confirm that this is an emergency pedestrian connection and not a thru-vehicle connection. I think the redline drafts work with one minor edit. It would be our,
obviously, our want to go ahead and act on this.
Corrie: Okay. No questions of Council, we’ll see what somebody else has to say.
Pete O'Niell: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. It’s a public hearing. Is there any other for the project at this point? Okay.
Rockrohr: My name’s Dick Rockrohr. I live at 2715 Autumn Way.
Corrie: Okay. Spell your last name.
Rockrohr: R-O-C-K-R-O-H-R. I guess I’m representing the Homeowners Association tonight. Usually there’s a roomful of my neighbors in these things, but we kind of thought it was all
done as far as we were concerned after going through Planning and Zoning and having them vote unanimously that they wanted it to be a soft-access with ballards like we discussed. Then
going to ACHD and have them vote unanimously also that the secondary access should come out and go to the east into Magic View and then access the light on Eagle Road across from St.
Luke’s. So the neighbors were all happy, and then we heard that Staff is going to (inaudible) their demand that it be a regular access through there, so I guess I was the only one who
got mobilized and got down here. The homeowners in Green Hills are supportive of a project like this rather than something that wouldn’t be near as attractive. We like the open space,
but we realize that development’s going to happen. The access as proposed which gives the option for the right-of-way if in some time in the future in that we really need it, but still
reserves the quality of our neighborhood as a quiet cul-de-sac type neighborhood opposed to one-acre lots and half-acre lots that this is how we’d like to see it and so far, everybody’s
agreed with us except for Staff, it appears. So thanks a lot.
Corrie: Any questions from Council?
Bentley: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
Meecham: My name’s Brian Meecham, I live at 2159 Autumn Way, and I’m one of the neighbors that showed up. I live just east of the Weatherby Drive stub, so I’m the property that butts
up against it. Mr. Fender, who’s been here on many meetings, he lives just to the west of stub road and he has asked that I represent his views on this stub street. He was not able
to attend. Kim Knowlton, who is the Chairman of our committee that deals with this, we formed a committee in our subdivision to deal with – work with the Woodbridge Development, and
she was unable to attend tonight and wanted you to know she’s very interested. I’m a member of that committee, so I represent the Committee and their views on tonight. One of the things
that I’d like to say is we have worked well with the developer. They’ve been very open to and have given us good suggestions. When we first started out in this process, we were saying
we didn’t want anything coming through that road. We were basically saying let’s keep this subdivision separate. They worked with us, counseled with us that maybe we ought to be a
little bit more free with what we want, and we accepted an emergency vehicular access and pathway approach. The only surprise tonight is this is the first time I’ve seen the design
of the developer’s desire for what the pathway would look like, and I would have to get somemore information, but as I look at it, I don’t like what they’re proposing. I don’t think
a 12-foot asphalt pathway’s good because a car can get on that asphalt pathway pretty easily. I might have misunderstood, so I’m willing to listen, but I do like the Planning and Zoning’s
recommendation of the 18-foot grasscrete with a five-foot meandering sidewalk. Just so you know, our subdivision’s been very active in this. We went around our neighborhood and you
have, hopefully, our petitions. We had over 75 percent of our neighbors sign the petitions to say that we only wanted, if anything, emergency vehicular access. I think actually the
petition said no vehicular access, we just wanted a pathway, but we have caved and said emergency vehicular would be okay. We’ve been to two Planning and Zoning meetings, and unfortunately
I’ve been here ‘til three in the morning once and was a little disappointed when I heard you were going to maybe continue this because, again, we sat here until this hour tonight. We’ve
also been represented at Ada County, and we’ve had quite a few people at each meeting, and like my neighbor said, we kind of were hoping that you would see the same way as those two
government bodies. Just to give you a brief, try to keep it real brief, is the history of the subdivision. It’s over 20 years old. I know that you’ve had to deal with this on the
east end of our subdivision for all the development that went with McDonald’s, Chevron, and so you’re probably pretty familiar with our subdivision. You might be a little surprised
that we are
actually working with the developer here and not against the developer. Some of the concerns that we have and why we want to limit the access to our subdivision is we have few street
lights in our subdivision. At nighttime, it’s dark in our neighborhood. We have no sidewalks in the acre lots, so we have no place for our children to walk freely within the subdivision
which is a concern even today. There are no stop signs on any of our – I don’t know if you have a picture of our subdivision, but there are no stop signs except for the four exits.
So we have free-wheeling going on within our subdivision and any additional traffic would just cause more problems. In fact, as I’ve almost been hit head-on twice because of people
cutting the corner on the road. We have seen increased traffic coming from Franklin to cut through so they don’t go through the Franklin Eagle exchange. They cut through our subdivision,
and at night, I’ve watched them cut back through and go to Franklin to avoid, and there’s where I’ve almost been hit head-on as cars coming, flying by there that are on their way to
Franklin. The stub road at Weatherby has not ever been developed and has just been sitting there. I’ve enjoyed the use of it for the last two years. Another thing we have in our subdivisions,
many walkers and joggers in our neighborhood. We have the horse riding and the children. It’s just a very nice little development. What we’ve heard at the Planning and Zoning meeting
is they’ve recommended the emergency vehicular access. We understand that the first meeting, staff said no way. It’s got to be a road. Then at the second meeting, if I – I don’t want
to quote incorrectly, but I think they said emergency vehicular access could be considered. At the end of that second meeting, it was the recommendation of Planning and Zoning to put
grasscrete road and the five-foot meandering sidewalk which, you know, same thing we heard at ACHD. The fact is, one of the ACHD Commissioners said maybe we don’t even need anything.
Maybe we can just not put anything there and then they quickly said, well, they need to be good neighbors and have the access. We agree with that. We agree with the developer. We
think – we’re in favor of the development. We know we had other types of developments behind us, and we are very respectful of the work that O’Niell Enterprises has done in other developments
and look forward to a nice development in our back yard. Based on everything we’ve heard, our recommendation from our subdivision is that you also approve emergency vehicular access
only and make this sidewalk and grasscrete so that it doesn’t look like a road. Anyway, we respectfully ask that you follow those recommendations of the ACHD and the Planning and Zoning
and the developer. Thanks for your time.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else like to issue testimony? Yes, sir.
McMillan: My name is Reece McMillan. I live at 870 South Locust Grove Road. I’m not an eloquent speaker like Mr. O’Niell is. I want to get right to the point: traffic. We now have
a road coming our East Central coming down on Locust Grove, and Mr. Bird said, well, one day we’ll be (inaudible) paved. Now the City is providing us with some pretty close police protection.
We’ll have another road coming out on our road on Water Tower Lane. This road coming out of the
subdivision on this is going to throw more traffic on Locust Grove, and the only thing I can say is that I wish this thing was postponed until they get some kind of development down
on the corner of Franklin and Locust Grove; stoplights, something down there because right now we’ve got trucks coming in out of our road which we never had before, and the traffic is
more coming in. Now they’re going in Jabill, all the area up in that commercial district. Like I say, that’s all I have to say. I just wish this was postponed until we get something
done on the corner. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Fox: Alan Fox, 1840 Cadillac Drive. Mayor, Councilmen, I live at Locust View Heights Subdivision which is on the lower part of this. I would like to see if you’re going to pass it
that when you issue the permit so he can start his 80th home there, the road goes out to east because those people in here are going to use that. I have trouble getting out at 6:30
in the morning and go to work. I got traffic coming in. So you put 200 in there before you shove it out the other way, we’re going to have a bottleneck that’s going to be like – it’ll
carry it. We can run everybody through Milwaukee and Franklin, too, but nobody wants to go to it. That’s what we’ll have done there with no lights on it. So when you issue the 80th
permit, the road goes out the other way, and I’ll bet you half of those people will go out that way to hit Eagle if they’re going on the freeway and go out because it’s going to be –
it’s hard to get on Franklin in the morning. That’s all.
Corrie: Okay.
Lindley: I’m Ann Lindley, and I live at 1790 East Cadillac Drive in the Locust View Subdivision. This new subdivision would also back up to my property. I think it is well laid out.
My main concern is the traffic on Locust Grove. Locust Grove is a two-lane road, and part of it comes right off in a steep bank. Not far from where their entrance would be. This
could be a very dangerous situation. We do need to have better access onto Franklin, and I really think this should be postponed until Locust Grove, the Locust Grove situation is taken
care of. One other thing that I don’t know whether they know that Five Mile Creek occasionally, when we have a real heavy rainstorm does flood. It becomes very wide. So they maybe
need to know about this. I think that’s about all I have tonight. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony?
Lindley: I’m Mervin Lindley. Most of my concerns have been mentioned, but –
Corrie: Give us –
Lindley: -- and concerned a little bit about the high density of housing. I prefer to see it lower. As it was also brought up that there should be a second access to the subdivision.
Corrie: Okay. Give me your name and –
Lindley: Mervin Lindley.
Corrie: Address.
Lindley: 1790 East Cadillac Drive.
Corrie: So we get it on the record. Thanks.
Lindley: That’s all. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else? Okay. Which one of you want to take any questions that they might have had? I guess I’ve got a couple of questions, Pete. Are you aware of the Five Mile Drain
and the possible flooding –
Pete O'Niell: I was going to start at the bottom and work my way up. Yeah. We’ve – do that work very seriously and studied all of the data. There is a floodway and a flood plain
related to Five Mile Creek. We’ve walked one end of it from and driven from one end to the other, and there’s going to be a lot of backed up culverts from one end to the other because
there’s all kind of places that are pretty strained. The reason we’re calling it Woodbridge is we couldn’t come up with a culvert design that would really carry the presumed flood flows
if they could get through some of the other constrictions and get down there, so we actually planned to build a bridge, ultimately, that would pass the flood flows. As it relates to
the traffic on Locust Grove and the intersection at Locust Grove and Franklin, we truly want to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem. At least it seems that the way you
get things done is you kind of make the problem bad enough that there’s some momentum going to fix it. I would just as soon try to take a leadership position with the City and anyone
else who would like to join us and all of the property owners that have recently come on and will contribute to that. There’s no reason we couldn’t put some kind of LID in effect and
accelerate the improvement of that intersection. We’re going to try to sell homes there. If people can’t get to them or get from them, that’s going to be hard to do, so we’re in agreement
with the neighbors that that should be a very, very high priority, and we’ll do our pro rata share with Jabill and everybody else who is accessing onto that road, and I work with whoever
you folks would like to work with to try and accomplish that. I think we’re going to get further by being proactive with the Highway District than just saying you can’t do anything
until the road’s approved – improved, and never will get approved. Other than that, the folks from Green Hill Estates are consistent with their other representatives at other meetings
and don’t really have a need to say anymore on that.
Corrie: Okay. One other question. Somebody brought up (inaudible) that east road to Eagle Road; how soon do you want – are you planning on putting that in 80 homes or 200 homes?
Pete O'Niell: Well, the condition as written, I believe from memory, somebody can read it while I’m – is that we need to identify prior to platting anything on the east side of Five
Mile Creek, we need to identify where that’s going to be. Prior to the issuance of the 200th building permit, which would be the beginning of construction in the second phase, we actually
have to have it built and functional. And the Highway District said, you know, 250 is when it should be connected. It would be, frankly, a hardship we probably could not work at 80
or 100 to build a road all the way through to connect through some people’s pasture land that don’t want to be connected early on, so I just don’t think that’s going to work. But as
a condition reads, we have to identify prior to platting the second phase which is the east side of Five Mile Creek, and we have to have it operational by the 200th building permit.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Pete O'Niell: I – this would – for the record, that’s like counselor says, we believe that the conditions of approval that we hope that you will approve are included in Appendix A with
the addition of what was handed out to you earlier that says agreed modifications to conditions of approval December 7th, and those two combined become the recommended conditions of
approval with the one addition that in 7C, the stricken sentence that says, until the 166th certificate of occupancy issued the emergency access may be (inaudible) all-weather service,
that had been inadvertently stricken; shouldn’t have been because you could read that condition that we’d have to put the grasscrete hard surface, everything in when we connected on
the 100th house for emergency purposes, so this gap and logic, if you read that, and that shouldn’t have been stricken. But other than that, I believe those are the conditions that
everyone has agreed to.
Gigray: Point of information.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I might mention that from a procedural standpoint that I did participate on meeting with the developer’s representatives, and we used as a
base document what I think Mr. O’Niell is identifying is Appendix A, I’m looking at a document that has a reference conditions of approval, Woodbridge Planned Development, and then it’s
dated November 9, 1999, appears to be a staff report with a redlining and strikethrough which was the source document that we used at that meeting. Then, as I understand it, Mr. O’Niell’s
representatives, and I think Mr. Ed Miller’s present here, then supplied what is called this Agreed Modifications Conditions of Approval dated December 7, 1999, which references certain
conditions therein,
and I would, and the reason I point this out, I think this may help the Council focus on what conditions are being talked about, and you might want to ask Shari if that’s her understanding
of what she’s addressing, and I would also point out from a legal standpoint, my advice would be I would have some concern of what I see is Condition 31, and that’s not in these documents
I just identified. I’m talking about the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I would point out that the Development Agreement which is being – has been prepared for
signature on the part of this developer would include a provision in that that the Development Agreement would be automatically amended by the conditions of conditional Use approval,
and the circumstances of parcel A which this is, planned development residential application which is yet to come. But the way Condition 31 reads in the Planning and Zoning Commission,
it would supplant any conditions of a conditional use permit or at least, I would interpret 31 as implying that, and when you grant a conditional use permit and it has conditions in
it, that operates under one section of your code, and under the State Law in terms of how you can enforce conditional use permits, Development Agreements, the ability to enforce those
is pretty restricted issues of zoning and zoning act, and that’s why I don’t like Condition 31 in the Planning and Zoning recommendation, because other – what the conditions in Appendix
A and as modified makes reference to the fact that the PDR regulations that the Planned Development Regulations allow them certain variances if approved by Council from a subdivision
otherwise provided by the Subdivision Ordinance, and we understand that will be part of their application process. I want to make sure that there isn’t something in your Findings that
would say that you would override your Subdivision Ordinance because you won’t be. Clearly, this is a conditional use permit process which will result in if you granted a conditional
use permit which will have an order and there are ways of enforcing those permits and conditions through the conditional use process which is a different process of enforcement than
a Development Agreement.
Pete O'Niell: We 100 percent concur with the dating and whatnot as where these conditions came from. The Condition 31, as submitted by Planning and Zoning Commission has been modified
in Appendix A and further modified in the addition today to include exactly the thing that City Council pointed out that there are conditions, there are parts of your Subdivision Ordinance
and other ordinances that govern if they’re independent from any of the other things that have been agreed to. That was a change.
Gigray: I would just recommend, and I’m sorry to interrupt here, that you might allow Shari to address this so that you’re clear you’re getting her recommendation as it relates to those
documents because I think it makes it clear to follow. That is Appendix A in this (inaudible).
Stiles: Yes. It would be under Section 5, Section 5A and starting on Page 5 through Page 13, then with the additional modifications that were faxed to us today from Mr. Miller, I don’t
even have a particular problem with the 7C provided
on Page 7 that the permanent vehicular access is a decision of ACHD and the City of Meridian and not the developer and the residents of Green Hill Estates.
Corrie: You recommendation is (inaudible) developer offer that (inaudible) –
Stiles: Yes.
Rountree: The developer and the residents of Green Hill Estates.
Corrie: Okay. Questions of Staff? Further discussion? Still?
Rockrohr: Can I ask a question?
Corrie: Yeah. It’s still a public hearing. We’ll give you (inaudible).
Rockrohr: Dick Rockrohr, 2715 Autumn Way. If at the future time City of Meridian and ACHD decide to make the emergency access into a full road, will we be notified and have chance
to comment?
Corrie: Yep. But what I’m – counselor, surely would; is that correct?
Gigray: And I think, basically, that what Shari was referring to was Item 20 in their Appendix A and what, if I’m correct, Shari, please correct me if I misunderstand this; she’s saying
what she would like left in the language as otherwise required by the Ada County Highway District. I think this has to do with this road section. I may be wrong. She can correct me.
Stiles: What page are you looking at?
Pete O'Niell: Pete O'Niell again. Obviously we’d love to be able to have equal status with the City of Meridian and the Highway District, but that is not an unreasonable request.
I do think, however, as Mr. Rockrohr pointed out, would be a reasonable request if the records show and that condition clearly showed that it needed to be subject to a public hearing
on the part of the Highway District and the City of Meridian. Otherwise it could be – the neighbors could accuse someone of treachery. We don’t want that to happen.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move we close the public hearing.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made. Do I hear a second?
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: A motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Okay. Discussion, Council? We were supposed to close this meeting at 10:30, but if you’re all satisfied with where we are, then –
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we instruct city attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law incorporating Staff comments and comments from staff as amended by discussions and negotiations
with the developer as provided and submitted into evidence this evening with one specific change in our revised 12/6/99 recommendations from Planning and Zoning that Item 8C on Page
4 be amended and strike after the words “when the ACHD” strike the words “the City of Meridian, the developer and the residents of Green Hill Estates agree” and insert the word “determines”
so the sentence will read: As and when the ACHD determines it should become a secondary access (or a permanent access). I’m done.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bentley to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the testimony that was heard tonight
and to make the corrections as stated in the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 14. FINAL PLAT FOR THE LAKES AT CHERRY LANE NO. 8 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT – NW ¼, SECTION 3, T.3N., R.1W:
Corrie: Item No. 14, final plat for the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 8 by Steiner Development, northwest quarter, section 3, T3N, R1W. Comments from Staff? Shari?
*** End of Side 5 ***
Rountree: I don’t know. We lost everybody.
Bird: Let’s go, Charlie.
Rountree: Did we lose the Mayor again?
Bird: The Mayor – you’re the Mayor now for a couple of minutes. He (inaudible). Let’s get this thing going.
Rountree: Shari, go ahead and start explaining the Cherry Lane final plat to us if you have any comments.
Stiles: This is the property that is the final connection between the Lakes at Cherry Lane and Ashford Greens Subdivision. This is where the parking lot for the golf course’s clubhouse
is. This is where the clubhouse will be constructed. This was originally included as part of Ashford Greens, but the option was not picked up by Brighton, and Steiner did end up with
this piece. The preliminary plat included this portion platted, and unfortunately, the preliminary plat also included about 20 feet in some cases of the City’s golf course property.
Maybe – I don’t know if Mr. Gigray could expand on where we might be with any kind of a land transfer, but they have chosen to just leave this piece out at this time. We got the response
from the applicant dated December 6th, and we had asked in our comments that they go ahead and put this in here now and they could have that as a lot, but that they said they didn’t
want to adjust these lots at this time and that they would come in at a later time if and when that land exchange occurs that they can, I guess, have – they’ll either plat one lot or
they’ll do a re-subdivision to incorporate all the lots that might have some of the current city property in it. It’s pretty straight forward. All the lots meet R-4 requirements, meet
or exceed R-4 requirements. The Eight Mile lateral will be piped here, and it will be left open here where it goes through the golf course. Other than that, we recommend approval.
I don’t know if anybody’s even here for the applicant.
Rountree: Said she was leaving.
Stiles: Oh. Okay.
(Mayor Corrie returns to Council chambers)
Rountree: Shari got us started, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Okay.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, Shari’s explaining this to us. I think she’s kind of waiting for questions from us.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Corrie: All right. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion then on the final plat for Item No. 14.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we approve the final plat for 4.9 acres, R-4 for the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 8 subject to Staff conditions.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded to approve the final plat at Cherry Lakes No. 8, Item No. 14 with the Staff comments. Any further discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
Bentley: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 15. FINAL PLAT FOR DEE JAY SUBDIVISION BY J-U-B ENGINEERS – SOUTH STRATFORD AND EAST WATERTOWER LANE:
Corrie: Item No.15 is a final plat for Dee Jay Subdivision by J-U-B Engineers south of Stratford and east of Water Tower Lane.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, Gary Lee left. This is pretty straight-forward project. They have a road coming through here that will stub into this 20-acre parcel where the Police
Department’s apparently taking 10 acres of this site. I would like to amend one of our site-specific requirements on Page 2, Site-Specific Requirement No. 2 to delete the last sentence
of that paragraph that we won’t require a letter of credit or cash. We wanted the detailed landscape plan just so we had that on record so that we could have a consistent treatment,
landscape treatment on Stratford and didn’t have to negotiate with each lot owner as they came in. So we have agreed to delete that requirement. Other than that, it’s real straight
forward and we recommend approval.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions of Shari?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on Item No. 15.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the final plat for Dee Jay Subdivision by J-U-B Engineers, south Stratford (inaudible) Water Tower Lane with the Staff comments incorporated.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the final plat of the Dee Jay Subdivision, Item No.15 with Staff’s comments. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in
favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR APPROXIMATELY 20,000 SQUARE-FOOT CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY, CREDIT UNION, DRIVE-UP TELLER UNITS AND RELATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS BY CAPITAL EDUCATORS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION - LOTS 14, 25, 18 AND 19 IN BLOCK 2 OF HONOR PARK SUBDIVISION NO.3:
Corrie: Item No. 16 is a public hearing on request for a conditional use permit for approximately 20,000 square-foot corporate headquarters facility, credit union, drive-up teller units
and related site improvements by Capital Educators Federal Credit Union, Lots 15, 25, 18 and 19 in Block 2 of Honor Park Subdivision No. 3. At this time, I’ll open the public hearing
and Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I can’t quite recall if we got the non-Development Agreement lifted on this yet. Was that submitted? There is a non-Development Agreement, I believe,
on these two lots here on this portion of it. Nothing’s been constructed. They will request that. There’s also going to be needed a vacation of the easements that were recorded.
There’s a 10-foot wide public utilities easement centered on lot lines, and that will be accomplished prior to us accepting building permits. They have proposed on these four lots the
corporate headquarters for Capital Educators Credit Union, Federal Credit Union. Very nice-looking building. Lots of landscaping will be included, I’m sure.
Bentley: Was that a hint?
Stiles: And it’s a great project, and we’re looking forward to seeing it built. We ask that you approve it with Staff recommendations.
Corrie: Okay. This is a public hearing. I’d invite the applicant to come forward.
Simmons: Mike Simmons. My address is 1717 North 11th Street in Boise. Mr. Mayor, President Rountree, members of the Council, we’ve reviewed the Staff’s Findings and recommendations
for the project and we concur with their recommendations. I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Corrie: Questions?
Rountree: Mr. Gigray has one.
Gigray: Just a point of clarification --
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: -- take action. Just when I hear Staff comments, and we do in these packets have Staff comments in addition to the recommendations of Planning and Zoning Commission, and I
just might – hearing this witness talk about the recommendations of Planning and Zoning Commission, just hope you might ask to clarify if that’s what they’re addressing and also with
Shari or if we’re dealing with another document.
Simmons: We should probably just say conditions of approval.
Bird: Is that the Planning and Zoning, Mike, or is that the Staff comments?
Simmons: It’d be the Planning and Zoning Staff conditions of approval, yes.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. The ball’s in your court, Shari.
Stiles: I believe that the Findings that were prepared and the recommendations did incorporate our comments.
Corrie: Okay. Does that clear it up, counselor?
Gigray: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Simmons: Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony in this public hearing? Okay. Hearing none, Council, any questions of anything (inaudible)? Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to close the
public hearing.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 16. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on the request for conditional use permit.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law –
Corrie: We have them. We just have to approve the ones that are in there.
Gigray: (inaudible)
Corrie: (inaudible)
Bird: We do it again on a public hearing.
Corrie: Well, you can, but you can approve what’s there. In a public hearing, there’s no new testimony other than what we had. Am I correct that we do have to do another Findings
of Facts?
Bird: If you have –
Gigray: I just follow these; your actions, and I submit them back to you.
Corrie: Okay. All right.
Gigray: Because this is on P & Z stuff –
Bird: (inaudible)
Corrie: Yeah. Okay. My mistake. I’m sorry. Go ahead.
Bird: I don’t know (inaudible)
Corrie: No. I was thinking of something else, but you’re right.
Bird: I move that we have the attorney draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order in favor of a conditional use permit for approximately 20,000 square-foot
corporate headquarter facility for Capital Educators Federal Credit Union.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the request for conditional use permit for the Capital Educators Federal
Credit Union. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 17. 1999-2000 FISCAL YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY DISTRIBUTION:
Corrie: All right. Item 17 is 1999-2000 fiscal year capital outlay distribution. We have the – Treasurer’s not here. You have that report. Any questions?
Bentley: Yeah. I got one.
Corrie: Okay. Shoot.
Bentley: (inaudible) six pages of the same –
Corrie: Yeah. We all do. It was just – it got – I saw that and I went back and asked her, I said, do I have to distribute this for you because I’ve got six of them. She said, no,
everybody else did too.
Bentley: I just kind of wondered if everybody had one page. We had to share.
Bird: At least she gave us enough to read a couple of times before we didn’t know which one we had.
Corrie: That’s correct.
Bird: Some of us had some and some had something else.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we approve the capital expense report dated 12/02/99.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the capital expense report for 1999. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR – GARY SMITH:
1. VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDINGS @ WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT – BID AWARD:
Corrie: Okay. Department reports. Gary Smith.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council members. We had a bid opening on November 10th for construction of a vehicle storage building at the Wastewater Treatment Plant for construction
of – for storage of vehicles, and it’s actually two buildings, two covered buildings. These are pole buildings with metal siding and metal roofing, and they’re open on the north side
of the building is open, and the east side of the building is open of the L-shaped shown on the plan that’s attached to the bid. We had two bids that were received out of three contractors
that took out the bid documents for bidding. We had one responsive bid out of those two by Gafford Construction of Boise for $134,018.18. The non-responsive bidder didn’t complete
the bid form and didn’t include a bid security, so he was disqualified. So our recommendation from Public Works Department is to award the bid to Gafford Construction of Boise, Idaho,
in the amount of $134,018.18 for the construction of the two storage vehicle buildings at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the contract with Gafford Construction to construct the two vehicle storage buildings at Wastewater Treatment Plant for $134,018.18 for the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to award the bid to Gafford Construction in the amount of $134,018.18 and for the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Any further discussion?
Roll-call vote; Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR – GARY SMITH:
AUTHORITY TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS PROVIED IN § 12-3-1 B MERIDIAN CITY CODE:
Corrie: I think there was another –
Rountree: Should have been a resolution to empower him to make some decisions.
Corrie: Right.
Rountree: Do we have that?
Bird: Here. I got one.
Corrie: Authority –
Rountree: It’s 18.A.2.
Corrie: Yeah. I got it. Okay. Authority to have the Resolution Certificate of Clerk authority for determination; is that the one?
Bentley: Yep.
Corrie: Okay. What Resolution No. will that be, Mr. Clerk?
Rountree: Need a Resolution No.
Berg: 274.
Corrie: 274. Okay. Entertain a motion for Resolution No. 274.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we approve the Resolution No. 274, authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve Resolution No. 274 and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Any further discussion? None, Mr. Rountree. Roll-call vote; Mr.
Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
FIRE CHIEF – KENNY BOWERS:
WORK ORDER CHANGE FOR NEW FIRE STATION:
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council members, this is a work order change that Ron Anderson and myself and Assistant Chief Joe Silva worked on. At first, our auxiliary generator that
we had, we did not think was going to be big enough to power the administrative side of our fire station. We just concentrated on the bays where the fire trucks were at and the living
quarters. After getting all the facts from our generator, we were able to find out that we were able to power the administrative side also from our emergency generator. Emergency lighting
in the Chief’s – the Assistant Chief’s and the Fire Marshal’s offices, in the reception area we were able to have some emergency lighting. Also this is a request that if there is a
disaster in the City of Meridian or in our fire district, we do not have a place that we can turn into an instant command area that we would have
availability of a fax machine, a copy machine, phones if the phone system is down if we could plug into regular phones. Talking to Ron, by the change order here, we have worked on to
also our training room would be turned into an IC room and we’d be able to run off of our emergency generator. So if there was a disaster in the City, the Mayor, the City Council, the
Police, the Water Department, the Sewer Department could come to our fire station and use it as an instant command. Basically, that was the changes that we had worked on for this work
order change.
Corrie: And you have another one for $613 (inaudible) –
Bowers: Yeah. That’d be later.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve this change order for Beniton Construction for the changes in the electrical at the administration side and the training room for the sum of $3,459, and
I believe that takes care of Beniton’s markup bond and their supervision. Should be total.
Bowers: Yes.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird. Do I hear a second?
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion seconded by Mr. Bentley to approve the change order request in the amount of $3,459. Any further discussion?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just point this out that you would need to keep this in mind and not duplicate this effort in the police station, but if we do something in the police station it complement
this –
Bird: Beg pardon?
Rountree: It would complement this effort, not duplicate it if you do something for emergency services in the new police station.
Bird: Oh. I agree with you 100 percent.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
B. FIRE CHIEF – KENNY BOWERS
AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BOISE:
Bowers: The next item is an automatic aid agreement between the City of Boise, the City of Meridian and the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District. Basically what the deal this is,
is Boise City will come into our area out of Medicaid Agreement and help us at St. Luke’s and also the Blue Cross building at this time. I was not able to get an original draft. I’ve
tried all week, last week and this week to get an original so you guys could look at it also, but this is the draft that was sent to Bill Gigray. He has checked it out and he does not
have a problem with it. Do you guys have any comments on it?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Having heard the recent news broadcast about this particular item, I suspect it ought to have a no-whining clause in it.
Bowers: Yeah. We would surely put that on the last page.
Corrie: We never did find out what was going on, did we?
Bowers: That really hit me along side the head. I wasn’t ready for that.
Rountree: I don’t think any of us were, and I think it was uncalled for and just bad news day or something. I think we ought to explore that before we enter into this. I don’t know
when you’re going to execute it, but (inaudible) –
Bird: I agree with Charlie. I’d like to know where that come from.
Rountree: But that kind of stuff, it doesn’t do any of us any good.
Bowers: Talking with Steve Dennis and also talking with Ren Ross on the subject, there’s just too many stories that I can’t figure out where it came from either, you know. Whether
it came from somebody in our district was whining about it, and I don’t – why would they do that because we’re the ones that are getting the best part of this at this time of these agreements.
Corrie: Yeah.
Bowers: Excuse me.
Corrie: Go ahead.
Bowers: And also, we will not be responding to their area unless we are called for. The reason being, they have annexed now that big chunk of land through there, and that was north
Ada Counties, and they will start hydrant, putting hydrants and water in that area right away, they said, by United Water. We will not have to take our tanker to their – but I still
– we still need help, of course, at Blue Cross and St. Luke’s.
Rountree: It’s a good deal for all of us.
Bowers: I don’t want to turn down free help. We did get slapped in the face.
Corrie: I had a conversation with Mayor Coles, and he’s – last conversation he hasn’t been able to find out anything either. But you, we are still pursuing it. Okay. Any further
discussion on the automatic agreement Boise City and Meridian, Meridian Rural?
Rountree: do we want to see a final version –
Bird: (inaudible)
Corrie: We need a Resolution, don’t we? Is there a final – is there a Resolution? Does this take a Resolution?
Bowers: Yes. Yes, it does.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Rountree: I guess my concern on it is all we have is something that’s got “draft” on it.
Bird: Yeah. All we got is something that says “draft.”
Rountree: Is it something we’re going to want to change on their end –
Gigray: (inaudible) indicate we’ve done one at one time.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Any changes that you’re aware of?
Bowers: No.
Corrie: Well, it’s up to Council whether they want to see the regular full draft or –
Bird: There was no changes, Kenny, to the one we got in?
Gigray: Point of information.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, if I could ask Chief Bowers, are we just kind of waiting for final approval from Boise? Because as I remember, we kind of decided, and
you ran it by the Rural, and we were all copasthetic about what needed to be done, and then we were kind of getting some changes from Boise, and that was where I thought we kind of left
it.
Bowers: This was the final draft from Boise, and this is what they will approve of.
Gigray: You could go ahead and authorize it tonight as long as the final draft looks like this, you’re okay. We’ll have to work with the Clerk’s office, but he has this draft, so he
can look – we can verify that with the Mayor if you’re ready to go.
Corrie: Okay. Then I’ll –
Bird: Resolution No. What’s the Resolution?
Berg: 275.
Corrie: 275. Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve Resolution No. 275, the automatic aid agreement with the City of Boise by the Fire Department and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded to approve the Resolution No. 275 by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mr. Bentley. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
B. FIRE CHIEF – KENNY BOWERS
ADDITIONAL COST REQUEST FOR NEW FIRE STATION:
Bowers: The next item I have, the manufacturer – excuse me. Our architect and the builder got together and approved of purchasing some beams that go inside our bays of our fire station
that would cut building time by a month that if they were spliced together instead of waiting for the full beam to come. Somehow, we were left out of the loop on the project. When
the beams got here, they were somewhere between $2500 and $3000 more. They didn’t know for sure what we had approved of earlier. ZGA and the builder, I believe, argued over this point
for quite a few months. Finally, the ZGA had came to conclusion that it should be the City Council with the last word of should we do this or not. The final bill was $2,805 for the
two beams.
Bird: How much?
Bowers: $2,805.
Bird: This was above the other cost, huh?
Bowers: Yes.
Bentley: So which beams did we get?
Bowers: We got the beams that were spliced together that cut the building time by a month, they said. If we would have had a full beam, we would have had to wait another month until
they ran the raw material.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yeah. Kenny, I see this happened back on July 22nd when the bids come in from Outland Steel, we could save four to six weeks. I don’t think we’re four to six weeks ahead of
schedule out there, personally. If we’re going to finish in February which was the original schedule date, we’re a long ways from being four to six weeks ahead of schedule. When they
cost so much more, they’re asking for $613 more that was in the Change Order No. 1? Has Beniton forgot to put in their (inaudible)?
Bowers: That’s exactly right. Change Order No. 1 was when we had the big problem with Idaho Power bringing in the stuff. Beniton forgot to put in their profit of $613 into that bill
the first time around.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: My opinion on this change order is that we deny it. It seems to me that the City was left out of the loop entirely in both of these issues. We did, in good faith, approve
the first change order assuming that that was all the costs in this change order (inaudible) requested – beams, neither saved us money nor got us ahead of schedule nor was done in our
direction or our knowledge, and I don’t think that we should bear those costs. Not a lot of money, but --
Bird: I agree with you, Charlie. The thing I – Kenneth, the thing on this Change Order No. 2 breakdown, now is this – are you sure they’re not asking for another $2805? They got Change
Order 2 breakdown.
Bowers: Yes. $2805.
Bird: They’re asking for that plus the $613?
Bowers: $613 from the first change. Yeah. They’re asking $2,400 for the beams extra, then they’ve got the five percent markup, $120, Beniton supervision, $230, and then two percent
bond, $55. That adds up to $2,805.
Bird: Then did we approve this $2,805 yet?
Bowers: No, we have not.
Bird: This is what they’re asking for right now. I didn’t understand that because in your thing it says $613 and then I’m going looking here and I thought, maybe that’s been ran through
and they missed it. The only one we’ve approved is the – well, we’ve approved the $3459 tonight.
Bowers: Yes. But I had talked to Ron Anderson on this. He was not in favor of paying the whole thing either. He was wondering if the City Council and Beniton and ZGA might want to
try to pay part of it, a quarter of it, something like that, but he was not in favor of paying it all.
Bird: I think they have to – I’d like to know – I’d like to see the facts and figures on what the original beam bid was. What their costs was. What their costs on Outland Steel.
Get these beams – I’d like to see in their schedule where they’ve saved – where they’ve pushed themselves eight weeks or six weeks ahead. I don’t believe they have. I am in agreement
with Ron that I would like to sit down before I approve this. This first change order, A, they ran the paper route (inaudible) if they didn’t put it in, I don’t get a second chance.
I guarantee if it was me, they wouldn’t give me a second chance.
Bowers: The $2805 on the beam, I believe the ZGA and Beniton was still arguing back and forth of should it be put in a work order change or not or an additional charge, and that’s why
it wasn’t it on the first work order charge, change excuse me. But that’ll be fine. We can get –
Bird: Kenneth, when was our final occupancy date? Isn’t it in February?
Bowers: Middle of February we’re supposed to go through the check-off sheet.
Bird: We’re going to be ready to get occupancy?
Bowers: Now, he keeps saying that –
Bird: Now, you’re telling me that we’re going to do it the first of January?
Bowers: That’s what he’s saying now is that we’ll move in right after the first of January.
Bird: That we’ll be able to move after the first of January; everything will be complete?
Bowers: There’s a ton of work in that.
Bird: (inaudible) $100, but I don’t see him doing it.
Bowers: There’s a ton of work to do inside yet.
Bird: I agree with you.
Bowers: Other than if we were behind a month, we might not have got the trusses up quite soon enough and the roofing up to get to that point. We still might have an open-air bay, maybe.
I’m not sure. I don’t know.
Rountree: That’s the contractor’s issues, not ours. I guess I would make a motion that we deny this request for the Change Order.
Bird: I second it.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to deny the request Change Order. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
B. FIRE CHIEF – KENNY BOWERS
4. NEW FIRE WORKS ORDINANCE
Bowers: My last item is on the Fire Works Ordinance. I had passed out the new Fire Works Ordinance to you guys, then one of our strategy meetings, Charlie Rountree asked you to go
through them. There are quite a few changes if you’ve noticed. We’ve went from $10 a permit to $25 a permit now for safe and sane. That’s to do with investigational work; going to
look at the site, going and checking the booths a couple times during sales, and then going and checking the property afterwards to make sure it’s being cleaned off. Also, then, there
is $125 fee now for the permit for the displays of fireworks like at the speedway or somebody else wants to come in and do that. That’s to do with – that’s much, much more background
checks for like Will has to do to make sure that they are licensed to set them off and that they are qualified to do that. Where we picked out most of this stuff, we got Boise’s, Nampa’s,
Caldwell’s, and the State’s fire works ordinances and just kind of melted them all together so we could come up with one. I wasn’t here tonight to pass this. I just wanted to let you
guys be aware that we need to be working on this. This new ordinance will give us two sale dates now; July and then at end December. Our Ordinance now says only July is the only time
we can sell fireworks. Do you guys have some questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I guess the question is do we want it on an agenda soon? It’s probably time to be notice of a hearing. It has to be noticed –
Corrie: (inaudible)
Bowers: I didn’t know what you guys thought of that $125 if you thought that was way steep. I – we don’t know on that. It went from $10 to $125. That’s a pretty good increase.
Rountree: Kenny, I’ll tell you this. I got a friend of mine that sells these. He takes off from work for two years, and he clears $30,000.
Bowers: Oh, yes. I realize that. And we deal with him here. He does a good job for us here.
Corrie: We need to advertise (inaudible) public hearing (inaudible).
Gigray: We checked the amount. It’s based on a reasonable application of staff time. This isn’t a revenue producer. We couldn’t do that.
Bowers: Exactly. Okay. Thank you, Mayor and Council.
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
C. POLICE CHIEF – CHIEF BILL GORDON:
VEHICLE QUOTES:
Corrie: Chief Gordon.
Gordon: I wasn’t sure if you wanted me to go through the vehicle bids again. If you do, I will. We’re going to buy a Ford and a Chevy. We’re going to try a Chevy.
Rountree: Do you want to see it again?
Bird: I don’t want to see it again. That’s part of your budget.
Gordon: We’re going to try a Chevrolet. They’re back on the market (inaudible).
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
C. POLICE CHIEF – CHIEF BILL GORDON:
2. SKEMATIC DRAWING QUOTES FOR NEW POLICE STATION:
Gordon: The next step on the land or the building design is the verification of the needs assessment and the schematic design. I’ve taken the liberty to get four quotes. As you can
see they vary greatly. The hourly not to exceed really varied. The two fixed ones were still kind of high and then Lombard Conrad came in with an hourly not to exceed $10,000, but
that also includes incidental expenses. When I asked incidental expenses were, it was photocopies, travel, and he said they didn’t – they shouldn’t have to travel anywhere on this one,
but copies, things of this nature. You guys might understand a little bit more of that than I do. I was really pleased. I’ve talked to all four of these architects. I’ve gone over
all of the literature they’ve provided and Lombard Conrad not only had the lowest bid, but also had the best looking package as far as what they’ve already designed. They’ve done a
lot of jails and a lot of court facilities and some police stations. I would recommend Lombard Conrad, and the money’s in my budget.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we approve the needs assessment design schematic – for the architectural firm of Lombard Conrad Architects, hourly not to exceed $10,000.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded we give the architectural firm of Lombard Conrad Architects the work for hourly not to exceed $10,000. Any further discussion? All those in favor
of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
C. POLICE CHIEF – CHIEF BILL GORDON:
3. POLICE GRANT:
Gordon: Thank you. The universal hiring program on the cops grant, I received another letter. They’ve given me until the end of the month to aye or nay it. They also informed me
that if after we’ve gone – been awarded the grant that they will remove us from that program. If the program keeps going, then we won’t be able to get back into it, period. Not just
three years out. I don’t know how long they’re going to go with that program. I can’t stress the need for police officers. We’re not going to get them any cheaper than this. The
information that I’ve given you, the population based on the first – I think on Page 2, shows projected population through APA, and they show we don’t get to 38,000 until we hit 2005.
We’re there now. The latest figures that are in nationally show that the average police officer per 1,000 is 1.8. Average for departments our size is 1.5. We’re presently at 1.1.
By this time next year, we’ll be way below one officer per 1,000. Page 3 gives you the ratios and with the estimated population that we’re at right now, we should get 58 police officers.
We’re at 41. Page 4, the graph gives you a visual look at where we’re going right now at the present rate with the increase in the population. Up until now, we’ve stayed low, but
evenly low. We’re going to start separating more and more each time we come up with a population change. The ratio down below shows you what we should be at for the population. The
cost is on Page 5. Costs for one officer for three years, $135,500 roughly. With the grant, the costs for three years for a police officer would be $68,000. Over a period of the three-year
grant, it’s going to save the City on two officers $134,372. Page 6 kinds of gives you a breakdown of the grants we’ve already used. We’ve hired eight officers off of this cops grant.
We’ve saved the City $500,000, $600,000 already just by using that program. Page 7, I kind of threw that in there to give you some idea just how the workload has been increasing.
We have gone from 16,000 calls for service a year to 79,000 calls in the past ten years. That doesn’t show – we’re not talking major crime. We’re talking calls for service. That comes
just with the population based and the way it’s increasing. The actual reports also have gone up considerably. Here again, I’d hate to lose access to this program. We’re going to
be needing more police officers as we grow, and I don’t think we can get them any cheaper
than what they’re going to offer them to us for. My philosophy, yeah, is, and here again, we were the only department in the State of Idaho that was offered this grant, and the reason
being, I think that they’ve seen the same thing that I’ve seen: we’re the fastest growing city in Idaho and have been for the last five or six years. I understand now that we’re the
15th fastest in the United States. They see the need for police officers, and that’s why they’re keeping us in the program. With that, I’ll shut up. It’s late.
Bird: I got a question. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On their cost (inaudible), they don’t pay any part of the benefits, I was told.
Gordon: Yes, they do. They pay 75 percent of wages and benefits.
Bird: Of total.
Gordon: Yes. That’s first year.
Bird: I understood they only paid 25 percent of the taxable wage.
Gordon: No. Wages and benefits. The grant for two officers for a three-year period was not to exceed $150,000, and it doesn’t. This money came from the citizens of Meridian to the
federal government, and I think this is a good opportunity for us to bring some home.
Bird: What – have we got the WRICOPS report back yet?
Gordon: No, we don’t. They’re not going to get into officer needs.
Bird: Well, they’re going to tell us if we’re controlling –
Gordon: I asked them specifically.
Bird: -- I asked them if they was going to tell us, when they interviewed me, if they was going to tell us if we were doing a community – doing our community right policing, and they
said, yes, that would be part of the report; if we had enough officers.
Gordon: Well, not that we’ve got enough officers. Just that we’re doing what the citizens want us to do. The preliminary report said that everybody that they interviewed in the City
said or thought that Meridian was a safe place to live and the Police Department was providing the service necessary. I’m not going to say that’s a slight of hand or a magic trick,
but that’s not going to go on forever. The perception of the low crime rate is because we don’t have a high crime rate. I attribute that to the job that the guys are doing plus the
job that you folks are
doing. This is a bedroom community, and it’s a nice little town. I’d like to keep it that way.
Corrie: (inaudible)
Bird: it’s not big, though, like Boise or something.
Gordon: I’ve seen towns –
*** End of Side 6 ***
cars that they see in town here. They think they belong to us, and they don’t. Those guys are – they’re high visibility, but they don’t take care of any of the calls that we get for
service.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Another thing we need to look at is not just the two officers we’re looking at this year is the officers in the future. Know we’re going to keep growing. (inaudible) tonight
with a couple more plans to add quite a few homes. If we’re not going to keep up, we’re just going to be wasting – well, we could waste, wind up wasting a million dollars worth of
tax dollars coming back. If we’re not going to keep adding the officers as we need them, then we might as well close P & Z and tell them we’re not going to do anymore building here.
So with that, I make the motion that we go ahead and okay the grant for these two officers.
Rountree: I’ll second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the grant for the two officers. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed say no.
Bird: No.
Rountree: No.
Gordon: Thank you, gentlemen. That’s all I had.
MOTION FAILS: TWO NAYS TO ONE AYE.
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
D. MAYOR CORRIE
1. SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER
Corrie: Senior Citizen Center. The seniors have asked us if we would be interested if they approve it to take over the senior citizens center. They’ve given us some data from last
year and this year. I told them that we would probably have to look in with the Fire Marshal and all the other buildings and to give us somemore reports. I would just like to see if
the Council approves to go ahead and look at that possibility for possible – doing it in October of 2000 so they could – not feasible to do it now. We don’t have the budgeting or anything
else, but could take a look at it. I guess what my question is whether you want me to continue working with them and seeing what can be done as far as where we go, what are we doing
or whether we don’t, but just to have the information for the Council.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeings how I’m the oldest one, I’m getting the closest to the Senior Center, I would like to see us go ahead and see what can be done and helping out. They definitely need some
help, and what we can do to help them. They’re very important part of our community. They do need some help. I would certainly like to see you proceed with it.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Rountree: Well, I think it’s probably almost certainly the politically correct thing to do, but how much have we explored this in the past, and I’m not sure there’s anything we’re in
power to do.
Bird: That’s where I agree with you, Charlie –
Rountree: I guess don’t give up.
Corrie: Right now, we’re not empowered to be able to help them at all, but there’s an idea that pursuing where we can go, and if the Council wants me to proceed in this fashion to see
if we can find something.
Rountree: Sure.
Bird: Yeah. That’s what I had taken before when you spoke about it, Mayor, that there was – you know, there wasn’t anything we could jump right in and do right now, but there possible
ways that we could maybe do it.
Corrie: That’s correct, and I just ask you if you want me to continue –
Bird: You bet I do. Like I say, I’m not too far away from that baby.
Corrie: I’m closer than you are. Okay. Mr. Gigray, if you can do it in the next four minutes.
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
ATTORNEY – BILL GIGRAY:
CHERRY LANE RECREATION:
Gigray: I have – Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, for the record, Bill Gigray, City Attorney. I have a few items I’d like to go over. First of all, I have submitted to me for
review, two agreements. One – the both concern the purchase for the new site for the police station. One would be the listing agreement with Dave Williams d/b/a Diamond Properties
which would be dual listing. It provides in the agreement which I think you have in your packets that his fee would be taken from the seller as part of the purchase price. Other than
that, it looks like a fairly standard listing, but it is an exclusive listing with him for the purchase of the site. The second agreement that I’ve been asked to review has to do with
making an offer to purchase the police property for the 805, 800-and-some-odd dollars that’s reflected in the agreement. One of the recommendations that I would have is that we
have an additional contingency besides the one that’s in there that says they will provide a survey for the easement across, I believe, it’s the northern portion of that property to
connect the streets. Would be that we be able to do a due diligence review to make sure that we’re happy that there isn’t some environmental problem on that site. I think the Chief
wants to go with this. I know that you’ve had your sessions about moving with this, so I wanted to be in a position that at least we had resolutions for your consideration as to whether
or not you want to go forward with it or not.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before Bill gets – they’ll make sure that the deed of trust and everything is clear and everything within this agreement (inaudible) before we would – have a survey and everything
done on the easements, make sure everything’s going through before we’d ever put through before we’d ever purchase it.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, members of the Council, you would be – seeking a clear title, and we would have the right to object if there were problems in the title police, and
we’ve gone through that issue (inaudible) Generation Plaza additional purchase. But if there are additional conditions that you want to have in these, one of the things I think this
does point out, and, of course, this may be
all part of a procurement policy which you’ll deal with next year is possibly some basic protocols that the City, you might, adopt that would be protocols for the purchase of property
so that when we enter these kinds of agreements or make offers, we just have some automatic boiler plate conditions that go in because this one was prepared by the realtor. It wasn’t
prepared by me. It’s on a standard form offer purchase which was used by realtors and recognized by the State. The only panel that if we don’t go through with it is the forfeiture
of the $5,000 earnest money which this agreements provides. So it’s not percentage concerning the volume of the purchase that huge a problem. So that’s why it didn’t get overly exercised
about fussing with this too much. But I do think should give notice that we’d want to do some kind of environmental peek at this. I don’t know what the history of that site is. Do
you want me to keep going or do you want to deliberate on that one?
Corrie: Unless somebody objects to it, I’d say go ahead. (inaudible)
Rountree: As far as the Resolution goes?
Gigray: I think the Clerk has the Resolution.
Rountree: I would move that we adopt Resolution 276 for exclusive buyer and authorize the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Resolution 276, Mayor to sign, Clerk to attest. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
ATTORNEY – BILL GIGRAY
2. CHERRY LANE RECREATION
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the next Item I want to discuss has to do with the Cherry Lane Recreation issue, and as I believe, to bring you up to speed, you should have
in your packets, a letter addressed to each of you from me dated December 3, 1999, and accompanying that should include the letter of response from Edward Ansen who represents Independent
Bank who was in response to our letter of November 3rd outlining the various four conditions that the City would request in order to enter into agreement to provide the bank with notice
of default and notice – advance notice before any effective date of a modification of the agreement of lease with Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc. Bank
wrote back in their letter basically saying, yes, we don’t have a problem with your conditions except that we are not willing to guarantee that the funds derived from the loan would
go to the construction of improvements upon the real property which is a subject of the conditional use permit. It is also my understanding from communications with the parties that
the Cherry Lane Recreation did not have heartburn with any of the requests of the City, but I didn’t get any further communications from them about proposed agreements to effectuate
any of this, and I could see that we might be in a dead center position given the direction that was I thought I was given as a result of the workshop that we – Council workshop, I believe
it was the last meeting. I determined to at least try to fashion an agreement which was an agreement between the bank, the City and Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., that has some kind
of unusual provisions because there’s certain portions of the agreement that bind the Cherry Lane and the City and other portions that bind all three. The idea of that was primarily
take care of the issue of the bank not being willing to guarantee the use of the funds, but yet through the agreement, provide a provision where the City can demand accounting of the
use of those funds from Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., that they would have to provide that verification and if we felt they were in default, they’d have 30 days to cure that, and if
they didn’t cure it, then they’d be in default with the agreement of lease, which I’ll guarantee you would draw the attention (inaudible) the bank. Also, it provides that the initial
disclosure of the information would be at the bank. The reason for that since this involves the use of financial funds for the construction of this property, it would probably become
public records if it were here on site, we would provide in this agreement that that would have to be disclosed through the bank that we would access that information and then if we
declared default, they’d have to – the bank would have to provide us with that information. So if we had to pursue it, we had it available to pursue it. It would – the agreement provides
that Cherry Lane would agree that they would use the funds derived from the loan for the letter of credit as well as for the construction of the improvements required as the condition
of granting the conditional use permit, and then the other provisions in there that the City would provide the notice that the bank requires (inaudible) Section 4, proposed, and then
whereas there’s a provision in here in the event – to amend agreement of lease, to provide for insurance coverage. Now, I haven’t included an amount in that, and this is in Section
6 of this proposed agreement, because that agreement of lease goes for so many years in the future for us to put in a specific amount now may seem fine and good, but it could become
antiquated in the future. This is designed to provide the standard by which they’re not going to carry less insurance and is going to be required to replace the improvements that are
out there, and they can’t provide insurance that would be less than what tort claims law provides, but also it has to equal what is characteristically provided by privately managed Ada
and Canyon County, the courses of similar size, is to provide some kind of standard to agree as to the amount of insurance coverage because the existing agreement of lease doesn’t provide
that they provide insurance coverage, and now we have considerable and will have considerable improvements on there that weren’t there before. Then there’s certain provisions
here with regards to allowing the City to have the option on a foreclosure sale to purchase the bank’s interest in that so that you don’t have the situation of that going on for sale
without at least having the first shot at it. That, of course, would require the City to tender those funds just in advance of the sale date, and if it was cured prior to the sale date,
then those funds would be returned to the City. There’s about a five-day, I think, period there. Because I represent the City, I do not feel that I had any authority to disclose a
proposed agreement to the bank or to Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., without first confiding in you to determine whether or not you would instruct me to share such an agreement with them
and to pursue this or whether or not there’re provisions in this that you don’t like that you’d like changed or whether or not you’d like me to do anything. So I submit that for your
consideration, not to enter into this agreement at this point, but whether or not to authorize me to transmit it to them, see whether or not they will agree to it or not. I would say
that if we did transmit it, that would be a strong indication you would ultimately approve it, though.
Corrie: Comments?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I would move that we authorize the City Attorney to transmit the draft agreement to the subject parties for their consideration and seek their approval to enter into such
an agreement so we could move on with this particular project.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorney send these (inaudible) to the Idaho Independent Bank and Cherry Lane Rec to see what their status would be on this. Any further
discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
ATTORNEY – BILL GIGRAY
3. PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Gigray: I’ve been corrected by the City Clerk. We had two resolutions dealing with the police. One resolution dealing with the listing agreement with the realtor and another resolution
dealing with the offer to purchase, and I don’t know for purposes of the record, I would defer to the Clerk as to how he wants this clarified, because I think you only identified one
resolution number.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: To clarify, I’d move that we approve Resolution 277, the offer to purchase, authorize the Mayor to sign, the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve Resolution No. 277 to purchase the property and Mayor to sign, Clerk to attest. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
ATTORNEY – BILL GIGRAY
4. HUMAN RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
Gigray: You have in your packets, and this is just informational, a proposed draft Ordinance regarding the creation of two departments, one Department of Human Resources, the other
Department of Public Works. As I mentioned at the pre-council, although some of you weren’t here, those have been routed to those – to the department heads of those affected areas.
The idea with the Department of Public Works is to create that department because it’s not in the Code now. My recommendation is that it should be there. We should create a Department
Head. The one ordinance proposes to delete the Ordinance that’s in place, the Superintendent, which is really an employee, but we would create a division of the Department of Public
Works to deal with water and sewer as well as a division of public works to deal with municipal utility billing and we’ll report on that later, but that would be interested in your comments
about it if you have any problems with it.
ITEM 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
ATTORNEY – BILL GIGRAY
5. ROUTING TO PROCESS
My last item is this. I have felt increasingly that the process of developing Findings and submitting those to the Council has gotten to be an issue of they – and I don’t have any problem
with staff, it’s developers calling up, talking to my staff, talking to me about how they’re going to say, they interpret what the
decision of the P & Z Commission or in my instance what the City Council is and how these should be worded. Because these are quasi-judicial matters and because you close a public hearing,
in my view, the only proper thing that I can do, of course, is to route those to the Staff for corrections with regards to how they see what action was taken, to correct me, because
in some places, the Planning and Zoning Department actually does them. I don’t have any problem with that (inaudible) Public Works. But I am having a problem with the developers.
I don’t want to be rude. What I propose to do, and if you have an objection to this, I just need a read on it. But I propose in my routing slip, when I route to the Clerk, and I think
this is also designed to take off some pressure from the Clerk’s office, and hopefully other staff, is I will put this note on the end of our letter. This is Findings you’ve directed
me to prepare, because I can tell you on one of the items we had, I had one of the people walk up to me saying he was going to help me straighten out your motion. I just want to keep
this process clean. You know we know what we’ve been through with some of these cases. I would propose language to the effect: Please note that the public hearings are now closed
on this matter, and enclosed Findings have been prepared at the direction of the City Council for its consideration alone because this is a quasi-judicial matter to which due process
and open meeting law apply, there should be no discussions regarding these Findings by Council members, the Mayor or any member of the City Staff other than in a public meeting. Findings
shall not become final until the Council takes action thereon. The City Attorney’s Office will not consult with any affected party regarding the content of these Findings. I can tell
you, I really, all year, have not had much of a problem with this, but it seems like now it gets to be more and more of a debate in some of these developers. It gets a little bit intrusive.
I have no problem dealing with Gary and Shari, and I appreciate their review and comment, but I get a little nervous when I have developers say, well, I was there at that hearing, and
this is what they intended. You know as well as I do, your motions in some regards have to be a little bit vague. You don’t have time to go through every single item. We have to call
a shot, we send it to you, you see something – and I'll put comments in there if I think I’m doing something that I’m not sure about. Sometimes I miss things and sometimes I make mistakes
because I can’t wait for the City Council minutes to prepare them. We have to get that started. But if you see the mistake or you see something in there, you have every right to make
any change you want to because it’s not final until you adopt it. But I get a little nervous about having a developer starting to call me. I think this was a good one because it wasn’t
that heavily contested. You learn lessons and you move on. But I’m thinking I want to do something to kind of insolate this process so it’s just – it’s in house and – we’re not in
a public hearing, and we just can’t invite that kind of debate.
Bentley: It’s (inaudible) attorney bring us the Findings.
Gigray: Actually, that’s okay, because you could look at them and decide you like those better than the ones we produce, and that’s clean. I don’t have a problem with that. But that
should be stated on the record that they’re going to
do that before they do it. They can’t come in later and do it. That’s not proper at all.
Rountree: That’d be testimony.
Gigray: Yeah. It’s adding to the record. This would be a kin to if you’re in a legal action, and the Mayor’s the Judge and I’m his Clerk, and you all have argued your case and Glenn’s
argued adequately and you – Charlie’s argued adequately and it’s submitted and then Glenn comes and talks to me about what the Findings and Decision of Orders without Charlie being present,
it’s just a real violation of due process. You know, it can happen in administrative realm. I just want some language on here that protects so that it’s on there, but I want you to
know we’re doing it and why we’re doing it so people aren’t offended. If you think it’s improper, I’d like to know.
Corrie: Anybody?
Gigray: I don’t want to be rude to the developers. We try not to be. (inaudible)
Bird: (inaudible)
Gigray: I don’t blame them. If they’ve got our ear and they can get things done, they’re doing their job.
Corrie: So you can put it on there without further adieu?
Gigray: Okay. Understand that we’re going to still talk to staff because they’ve got – I have to have their approval on things. Okay?
Corrie: Okay.
Gigray: Thank you.
Corrie: Hearing nothing else –
Bentley: Move to adjourn.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Adjourned at 1:05 a.m.
(MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:05 A.M.)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK