Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 12-07 PreMERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PRE-COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1999 The Pre-Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 7, 1999, by Mayor Robert Corrie. MEMBERS PRESENT: BOB CORRIE, KEITH BIRD, CHARLIE ROUNTREE OTHERS PRESENT: GARY SMITH, SHARI STILES, BILL GORDON, BILL GIGRAY, KEN BOWERS, WILL BERG, TAMMY deWEERD, CHERIE McCANDLESS Corrie: I’m going to open the Pre-Council meeting, but we don’t have a quorum, so the following will be a discussion only. Olen: -- five from Canyon County, Nampa, Caldwell, the County of Canyon and then two rural highway districts, and then Clair Bowman and I from Ada Planning Association at that time represented Ada County governments, and Terry Little from Ada County Highway District. At the request of the City of Boise, an eleventh member was added at our last meeting to represent the City of Boise. We’re the Committee that’s basically been working with a consultant and advising the Idaho Transportation Department on this study. There’s two significant things in this I’d like to cover before I turn it over to Dave. First of all, in order to do this kind of analysis, we need a travel forecast model that was regional in nature. For the last 20 years, Ada County has had one, but we really haven’t had the ability to look at Canyon County and the dynamics of traffic between the two, particularly if we had the capacity in a (inaudible). Through the funding available for the study, we did do an origin/destination survey around a year ago and now have a regional model that we’re using as an analytical tool for this. It’s also going to be a valuable tool for a lot of other studies and analyses that we’ll be doing, and it’s certainly going to benefit the City of Meridian. The second point I want to bring up is we, early on, adopted the goal in Ada County of 25 percent of all trips by alternative modes. When we did the origin/destination survey a year ago, we came up with about 18.8 percent of all the trips were other than driving along, so the goal would bump that another third to 25 percent. Had we not made that assumption for that six percent increase in alternative transportation, we estimate that we’d have to find another equivalent of a six-lane arterial east-west between Ada and Canyon County just to handle the demands. So the traffic assumption is really in here, and if it weren’t, there’d be a lot more (inaudible) needed in the (inaudible). With that, I’d like to turn it over to Dave Butzier and have him go through this with you. We are certainly looking forward to your questions and answers. Butzier: On the – first of all, thank you for the opportunity to be here, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The cover shows the boundaries of the study area. If you’ll look carefully, I know it’s a small scale, but it really goes from Issac’s Canyon (sic) interchange on the east end to the other side of Caldwell or what’s referred to Exit 24 where Highway 44 ties into the Interstate there. It’s 32 miles in length, there’s 16 existing interchanges, and we’re looking at several new locations to be determined. I want to walk through the sheets that are in here and kind of give you some background. This first sheet which we call the Travel Demand Map, what we did was took the traffic analysis zones as a part of the overall model and grouped major activities there. The City of Meridian was used as one major activity center; Nampa, Caldwell and Eagle as well, and then we took an area around the mall, downtown Boise, and the airport and Micron. So there’s eight, essentially, major activity areas that we combine traffic analysis zones to look at how many trips are going to be occurring between those major zones. So if you look at Meridian, for instances, Meridian to Nampa in the future, in 2020, the model was saying there’s going to be 12,346 trips in one day, and that’s what this line shows here. The number means the number of trips being made between Meridian and Nampa in the future. If you go the other way to downtown Boise from Meridian, there’s 12,391. It’s essentially the same, but it gives us an idea about where the trips are going to be made and where we need to account for them. Another example would be this top line that has 560 next to it shows the number of trips from Caldwell to Eagle. One of the things we use this to determine is, again, as I said, where the major trips are going to be. This tells us from Caldwell to Eagle, there’s not a whole lot of trips going to be done in the future or made in the future. The Highway 44 isn’t probably a major component to handling the trips in the Treasure Valley between Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian and Boise. It may be a major component for the Middleton and some of the stuff along Highway 44, but it’s not going to be a major corridor for relieving the Interstate. The next one, deficiencies map, Capacity Deficiencies Map, what we did was I put into the network all the projects that are funded on the various programs in the next five years; ITDs, five-year program, ACHD’s program for additional capacity or projects that actually have money earmarked for in a particular year, and then ran the model with the 2020 land use. If you look where there’s blue lines, we’re showing the capacity, the level of service in the future would be what we call a level of service “C.” Green would be “D.” Orange would be “E” and red “F.” Levels of service are graded from “A” to “F.” “A” would be great, “F” is not good; just like in school. “A” would be there’s almost no traffic out there and you’ve got very little – very few other vehicles to worry about or getting in your way; “B” they’re starting to get a little bit of traffic, but not a whole lot of conflict; “C” you’ve got to be careful, you’ve got to watch over your shoulder; the lower down we get, of course, “F” if there’s just the slightest incident along the freeway, for instance, a flat tire or anything and it comes to a stop (inaudible) parking lot. So you can see the more red we have, the less that’s going to be good. That kind of tells us where some of the problems are. There’s a lot of red. A lot of orange, unfortunately. So that’s some of the things we’re trying to address. Rountree: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Dave, in addressing or identifying level of service “F,” is that an instantaneous level of service “F” or is it – did you pick a duration that the facility would operate at “F,” say, 15 minutes during rush hour or for three hours a day, or – Butzier: We looked at peak hours. Rountree: Peak hours, okay. Butzier: Good question. I don’t know how long the peak hours are going to be in the future. We didn’t look at that detail. Other larger communities kind of laugh when we talk about peak-hour, rush-hour traffic around here because we really don’t have a peak hour – yeah. We have a peak period, but it’s really not quite an hour. Most major cities have peak hours of three or four and some more than that, unfortunately. After we identified the capacity deficiencies and the travel demand map, we looked at – we call it a series of five strategies. This isn’t in your packet, but let me go through that real quickly. Strategy One we did all the improvements on arterial system, nothing to the Interstate, no additional capacity to the Interstate, not even new access points all the way to Strategy Five where we do everything on the Interstate, no additional capacity to the arterial corridor system. What we found was neither one, neither extreme worked. We needed to be somewhere in the middle where we did some improvements on the Interstate as well as some of the parallel arterial corridors. We heard that a lot from the public. We’ve got sounding boards in both Ada County and Canyon County as well as we had a series of open houses in May and again just last month, and we’re hearing that a lot that people think we need to do more than just develop the Interstate because if something happens out there, they want an alternative. The next formats we labeled Alternative AA through DD; AA, BB, CC and DD. There was a step between those strategies and these that we called Alternative A, B, C and D. Each of those we looked at widening the Interstate and providing additional access, cross another parallel corridor, too, and found we still didn’t have enough capacity, so we go to these what we’re now calling AA, BB, CC and DD which have several different parallel corridors. Let me just walk through AA for you real quick. It’s got widening on the Interstate, and, in this case, four lanes from the Y-Interchange to Eagle Road; three lanes from Eagle Road Interchange on out to Middleton Road; five lanes on US 20-26 from Caldwell all the way into Boise; five lanes on Ustick from Caldwell Boulevard all the way to Curtis Road; five lanes on Franklin from essentially Garrity or CanAda Road out by the Idaho Center on through Meridian into tying into the five-lane section in Franklin down by Five Mile as well as Overland Road; a five lane section south of the Interstate and Victory Road. In this case, Victory Road from I-84 out to Meridian Road with new interchanges at Ten Mile, at McDermott Road and at Middleton Road. That’s what the circles represent. If you turn over to BB, it’s very similar to AA. There’s a few minor changes. The major change actually happens in Canyon County. This one has an interchange at Karcher Road instead of Middleton Road. It’s also got the same interchanges at Ten Mile and McDermott that AA had. The other slight variation is Five Mile Road between Franklin and Overland would be five lanes in this alternative. Victory Road stops at Eagle Road where as in AA it went on out to Meridian Road. Then if we move on to CC, it’s very similar to AA and BB. The exceptions are there’s an interchange at Ustick Road over south of Caldwell, just south of the airport there. There’s no McDermott interchange, no McDermott Road Interchange. There’s still a Ten Mile Interchange. Those are the basic differences. The other one, in this case, Franklin Road doesn’t go as a five-lane roadway past Ten Mile. Previously it did. It went to Garrity. Then DD, we’ve got – the biggest difference – it’s the one that varies the most from the other three. It’s got a loop around Nampa. As we went out to the public, we heard a lot from folks concerned about a lot of agricultural traffic coming from southern Canyon County particularly headed to the beet factory, but other locations. They currently all have to drive right through downtown Nampa, and so we’ve been talking a lot about a loop road around Nampa to take some of that traffic out of downtown. On the west, it would be Middleton Road with an interchange at I-84. This one has Ustick Interchange as well. Just a mile-and-a-half further west. Going up and down to Deer Flat Road on the southern part of the loop and then using Star Road and Robinson Road on the east side of that loop with an interchange at Star Road or Robinson. The previous AA and BB had those, had the interchange at McDermott, and the pros and cons to those two, McDermott is actually half way between Ten Mile and Garrity, so it provides good spacing on the Interstate, the Robinson ties into Star Road which goes across the river and gives good access to the Idaho Center. So there’s pros and cons to both. We’re looking at which one really makes the most sense. The only major difference on this DD is a Five Mile Interchange. The previous three did not have Five Mile Interchange (inaudible). What we did was we ran capacity analyses on these four alternatives, and actually for the open house two weeks ago, 17th and 18th, these other alternatives we presented to the public. We got some input and the last two sheets show the results of that input. I’d like to go through, move onto. The first, this sheet that’s normal size, 8 ½ by 11 is a matrix summarizing the two alternatives we’re looking at right now. We’ve pared it down to what we’re calling CC-1 and-2 and DD-1 and –2. Let’s look at the map real quick and then I’ll come back to that matrix in a minute. CC-1 and –2, the only difference between –1 and –2 is there’s no Ustick Interchange on CC-2 and there’s a Ustick Interchange on –1. It’s the same thing with the next one is DD-1 and –2. There’s no Ustick Interchange on alternative 2. So there’s only slight variations between the two. We’re basically (inaudible) DD and a CC. Do you follow that? So if we look at CC-1 first, it’s showing, and you have to look at the matrix as well, but the interstate shows five lanes in each direction from the Y to Eagle Road; four lanes in each direction from Eagle Road to Ten Mile; three lanes in each direction from Ten Mile on out to Ustick Road; five lanes on Ustick Road coming on into Eagle Road; 20-26 is showing with this green that’s showing is a four-lane expressway from the Interchange there at Caldwell to Ten Mile Road and then going to six-lane expressway from Ten Mile on into Garden City at Glenwood and then a seven-lane arterial from Glenwood on into 1-84. Franklin Road in this alternative goes as a five-lane from CanAda all the way into town. The gap there again in Meridian is because it’s already five lanes. We wouldn’t have to do anything more to it, but the purple on either side shows it needs to be widened. If we – it’s got a Ten Mile Interchange in this case. We’ve got that loop road concept around Nampa using McDermott on the east with an Interchange of I-84, Middleton on the west, but it does not have an Interchange in this version. The Interchanges are at Karcher and Ustick. Again, Ustick is in or out depending on whether you’re talking about 1 or 2. So, let’s flip over to DD real quick and I’ll go through the differences between the two. It’s still got the loop road around Nampa, but in this case, eastern loop road is Robinson Road and Star with the Interchange there, again, instead of McDermott. On the west side, Middleton Road is still the loop road, but the Interchange is at Middleton instead of Karcher. There’s still a Ten Mile Interchange. This one still has the Five Mile Interchange in it that we had in the previous DD. The Interstate is the same five lanes in both directions from the Y to Eagle Road, four lanes from Eagle Road to Garrity Interchange in this one; previously, CC we stopped it at Ten Mile. So we’re taking four lanes in each direction all the way to Garrity and then three lanes from there on to Ustick and Franklin Road stops as a five-lane roadway at Ten Mile in this case where it went on out to Garrity in the previous one. We have Victory Road showing as a five-lane roadway in this case all the way to Robinson. On the previous one it stops at McDermott which is the eastern edge of that loop road in Nampa or around Nampa. I think those are the highlights. Ten Mile is showing as a five-lane from 20-26 down to Victory Road, I think, in both cases. Yes. With the connection to Highway 16 across the river coming up Ten Mile. That matrix that I skipped over in text form gives you a summary, the black lettering shows a common element between the alternatives. We’ve got red print means there’s some difference between the two alternatives, so if you look at the I-84 lines there, again, it’s Ten Mile – ten lanes, five lanes in each direction from Y to Eagle common to both. Eight lanes from Eagle Road to Ten Mile, again, common to both, but then it goes on DD the eight lanes or four lanes in each direction goes on out to Garrity where it goes six lanes on CC and so forth all the way through and it gives you kind of a summary, and hopefully you can follow along and see the differences. I think with that we’ll entertain any questions, comments and thoughts you have on all of this. Corrie: You’re increasing the capacity of the lanes. Is that going to solve our transportation problems by adding more lanes or do we need to go more rapid transit? It seems like in other areas, the more roads you build, the more cars that was on it. Butzier: We think the answer is both. We need additional lanes, but we also need some form of alternative transportation. I neglected to mention, the orange line that’s in the middle of both maps, CC-1 and DD-1, is along the (inaudible) corridor symbolizing the 25 percent that Erv talked about using alternative modes. That’s going to be – take quite a bit to get us from the 18.8 to the 25 percent. We don’t know what form that’s going to be, whether it’s an express/busway or light rail (inaudible) or what, but it’s – or HOV, High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, on the Interstate, but it’s that 25 percent. Again, Erv mentioned if we didn’t take that incremental change from the 18.8 that we’re at to the 25 percent, we’d need additional six lanes somewhere in this area. We took a screenline just west of Eagle Road and added up all the trips that (inaudible) make that (inaudible) and just at change would take another six lanes to be able to accommodate the difference between the 18.8 and the 25 percent. So, I guess that’s a long answer to we need both. Bird: I think Mr. Gigray had a question to ask. Corrie: Bill. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, with your permission and the Council, one of the questions that I had was what does the corridor study at this point, is this a preliminary graph? Is this something that you are requesting that cities have reviewed by their Public Works Departments, P & Z and maybe their Commissions and the City Council make recommendations on positions or what is the envision of the process at this point? Butzier: The extent to which you want to look at it, we’d welcome as much input as you’d want to give us. We are – we just came from Garden City, and frankly, they don’t much like the option of seven lanes down through Garden City. They’re very concerned about that. It’s an option to the info we got. The previous, if you look at all the AA, the double-lettered ones, Ustick was a five-lane roadway on into town, and that was a concern of the neighborhoods in there, and so we’re in the process of testing what it does in terms of pushing traffic to the Chinden corridor, and we told Garden City that we’d take another look and develop an option that is a little more friendly to their community. So if there’s anything you see that causes you folks concern, we’d like to know about it. Gigray: The point of the question, and I know I represent a highway district, too, that I must disclose that, but it seems to me, you know, I think would be important from the City’s standpoint from administration is this: If you are still funded to continue this study, and if the study is looking for some kind of uniform, at least recognition throughout the Valley, it seems to me that it would be important for the various communities affected thereby to get some input, and that means I would think the City in this instance would need comment from Public Works Department, probably a comment from its Planning and Zoning Administrators and Department as well as a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and a report to the City Council because the City Council being the governing body would be the one to decide what the position of the City would be. That process takes some time. I can see this could affect a number of things. It could affect utility infrastructure, it can affect potential zoning and Comprehensive Plan considerations of the City because of the time you start putting in major roads like that, that’s really going to affect land values and land use. Also, access needs of various communities are hugely affected by this, and it would seem that, and I don’t know how far you were funded or if your mission is just to do this and you’re done. Butzier: The ultimate mission is for each of the agencies in the Treasure Valley to adopt it including Meridian, Boise, Garden City, Nampa, Caldwell. So whatever you folks are comfortable or need to do in order to be comfortable in adopting, that’s what needs to happen. : (inaudible) Public Works Director and your Planning Director to review this with them, see if they have any comments. This is going to go to the community, my organization’s board, on the 20th of this month for all of the elected officials to actually get an in-depth presentation so you can hear what others are saying as well. It’s going to the public at the end of January for public comment. Following that we’ll likely send it to the Idaho Transportation Board. They’re the sponsor of this. If they don’t like it, it won’t go any further anyway. After that, we’re going to send it out for your formal adoption. That process can take up to six months and would be up to each individual entity to, you know, whatever procedure you’d like. So there’s plenty of opportunities for getting Meridian and the other cities to give us their comments, and ultimately, you’re going to be asked to adopt it. Before you can adopt it, you have to be comfortable with what’s in there. Rountree: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have three questions. Are any of the improvements on any of the corridors including an HOV facility? Butzier: The HOV is part of that 25 percent whether – we don’t know for sure what’s going to end up on the Interstate. If it’s an additional lane over what we’re planning, then it’d be another lane. Rountree: It’d be an additional lane? Butzier: Yeah. Rountree: On any of that widening of the existing grid other than the Interstate, was there any assumptions made at the time of access control or are we looking at access control that exists there or are we looking at our control access? Butzier: There’s really several answers to that. 20-26, for instance, where it’s fairly rural, particularly west of Ten Mile, that would be access control, probably strongly controlled access. For instance, Ustick where there’s already some access, it would not be as strong of control, but we hope to do better than what Fairview Avenue has done in the past, for instance, or Chinden Boulevard in Garden City. There’d be some control, but, again, the level of the facility would depend. Rountree: So that’s certainly going to take some coordination for local entities and – Butzier: Absolutely. Rountree: -- for the land use side of it. Last comment or question: It seems that this is already started to be somewhat of a divisive process. Our sister city to the west doesn’t seem to be particular pleased with much about this. I mean to the east. Yeah. To the east. Right. It seems to me that we’re all in this together. If in fact they don’t climb aboard on this particular corridor study and some of the results that may please the western folks, has there been any thought to how to get over that hurdle? Butzier: We’re still trying to figure that out, Charlie. We don’t know for sure and welcome any thoughts you might have at this point. Rountree: Yeah. I wish I had an answer for you. It seems to me that’s probably the key issue right now is that if we’ve got a major holdup, your efforts are going to be in vain. Butzier: Right. Rountree: And I see from the looks of this in terms of Meridian’s position, certainly some of our main corridors will be wider than they are now, but that’s not inconsistent, I don’t think, with what we’ve been anticipating anyway with major sectionline facilities. Looking at five-lane roadways, north-south as well as east and west. Butzier: That’s what we’re hoping is that it would be consistent, and that was the plan. We do, and I’ve neglected to mention, we do show in brown, and it’s hard to see, Locust Grove and Linder across the freeway as well based on your task force input and – is it in your Comp Plan too? Rountree: Not at this point. Butzier: Okay. Rountree: That’s all I have, Mr. Mayor. Corrie: I was just wondering how – on the five-lane, you have Ustick, that was one of the things that Boise was really hot about. Then you get five lanes up to Eagle Road, and then it goes down to nothing as far as they’re concerned. What do you do with all that traffic that’s dumping on Ustick to Eagle Road? Butzier: The – as an off-shoot of the Bench Valley or kind of a compromise that came out of the Bench Valley study that most of you, I think, are familiar with, the agreement was the connections off the Bench that came out of that study would be done as a three-lane facilities, all of them built and then come back and look at what needs to be done. Boise City’s contention was Ustick is part of that, and so we – the previous versions, the AA, BB, CC and DD had Ustick as a five-lane all the way into Curtis Road where it’s just opened up. Their position was not – the agreement was we’d do all these other connections and then we’ll look at what needs to happen out here. That’s why we’ve shown these alternatives backing off on Ustick. Eagle Road is going to be a major facility shown as an expressway. It’s going to take a lot of traffic. We’ve also – Ten Mile has a five-lane all the way up to 20-26 is previously, I think, in those versions we stopped it at Ustick. Now it’s shown as five lanes to 20-26 to help disburse some of that traffic that wouldn’t be able to go on on Ustick. I think we also, McDermott or Robinson, depending on where the Interchange, we took it up to Ustick Road to help again spread it out. But the Ustick itself would be addressed after all the other connections that came out of the Bench Valley study were done to see what needs to be done there. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Butzier: Thank you, again, very much for your time and record any other comments you have. Corrie: Thank you. Rountree: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Could you leave some extra copies of these – we have a couple Councilmen that aren’t here and we’ve got two new Councilmen in the audience, so if you’ve got – (inaudible discussion amongst Council members) Corrie: Charlie, I’m going to take off, so – (inaudible) quorum, and so – Rountree: Do we have – (inaudible discussion amongst Council members) Corrie: All right, well, I guess we’ll wait for – Gigray: Do you want me to just report on this Agenda Items that I have some information about in preparation for the City Council meeting? Rountree: I’m going to take over control here and Mayor has to leave, so if you would. 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: Gigray: I just thought I’d provide, Mr. President and member of the Council and soon-to-be members of the Council, on the Consent Agenda, obviously as our practice has been, you’ll want to move to take anything off there that you want to take off, and I would note that you probably received some memos from our office regarding that we’re waiting for relinquishments on the Whitestone Development, that’s Item K, and Gary has advised me this evening, and he has the needed relinquishments so that action can take place. We were going to append those to the Findings on that vacation, and then I’ll hold if you’re taking notes until you nod to go to the next one. Item L, this has to do with Findings concerning a conditional use permit that are related to Item Z. Is there a problem? (microphone problems) Smith: Could I make a comment on that Whitestone? Is it okay? Could I make a comment on that Whitestone vacation? Rountree: Please do. Smith: The vacation of the easements actually refers to Whitestone Estates No. 2 Subdivision. It’s being done as part of the Whitestone Estates No. 3 Sub, but the easements themselves belong to what was recorded as Whitestone Estates No. 2; specifically the utility easements on Lot 4, Block 7 and Lot 7 Block 5 of Whitestone Estates No. 2. (inaudible) Rountree: Is that it, Gary? Smith: Yes. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. 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 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: Gigray: Mr. President, Item L, I believe, is a conditional use permit that involves the annexation and zoning which is in Item Z, and it is my recommendation of the Council that you not take action on Item L, in fact, that you table it so that your action can be complete in the passage of the annexation ordinance and Item Z is completed, then once that has been published, the ordinance of annexation, you’d be in a position to take action on Item L. Bird: So in other words, table Item L? Gigray: My recommendation would be to table Item L. The Clerk may have further information. Rountree: Will. Berg: Yes, Mr. President. Just to add to Mr. Gigray, Item Z on the Consent Agenda which we had gotten is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for annexation and zoning which should probably be in front of that, but we got them and we didn’t get them in place in the right order. He is correct with that assumption of tabling, but just so you know, there is an order for that annexation to come first. Rountree: Mr. Berg, what Item is that? What would be the timing on the publishing of that so we would know the date certain to table? Until January? Berg: Was there a Development Agreement for the Overland Mini-Storage? Which means we need to approve the Findings of the annexation before I can attach that to the Development Agreement to send to the applicant, property owner. I guess that’s who signs the Development Agreement: property owner. Rountree: Which Findings? Berg: Item Z. Rountree: So approve Item Z and then how long do we have to table – Berg: I will attach that to the Development Agreement and send it out – Rountree: It has to be published? Berg: No. That’s the Development Agreement. When a Development Agreement is signed, then I bring it to the City Council for their approval and have the Ordinance right behind it. Does that make sense? Rountree: So then we can act on the conditional use permit? That’ll be in January. Gigray: That would sound correct, Mr. President, and the Clerk is correct. Your procedure would be don’t pass the annexation and zoning until you know the Development Agreement is signed because it’s a condition. Bird: Need to pull L and Z, both. Gigray: Well, Item Z, I think you can do the Findings. Bird: Annexation? Gigray: That’s as far as it can go, I think. Rountree: Go ahead, Mr. Gigray. 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: 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: 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: 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: Gigray: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to report on for your information on Item No. O. I prepared two Development Agreements. The reason for that is that particular application included two parcels. It was a parcel A that’s 80-some acres and a parcel B that’s about 1.5 acres. They have different owners, the two parcels. So I have prepared two Development Agreements in conjunction with the purported action there. I just wanted to note that, that you, of course, make the final decisions when you pass things. There should be a routing slip on it explaining it. I would point out in Items Q and R, I have an explanation letter with both of those that were sent out in that there were some changes and corrections that the Council ordered as a result of those particular Findings, and I felt as a result of those changes, there were some minor other changes that needed to be made. The letter that accompanies those Findings explains what it was. I just wanted to point that out to you. In Item S, an Order of Decision, there’s a reference in 1.2 of the Order of that final plat. Order of Decision which references, I believe, the placement of that pathway, and I included in that in a provision in there and in accordance with the requirements of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, that that’s incorrect. I might point that out, and Shari might take a peek at that as we go through just to see that we’ve done that correctly, but that’s how I understood the action of the City Council at the last meeting. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to point out those Items on the Consent Agenda. Rountree: I appreciate it. Gary, do you have any comments on those Findings? 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: Smith: Yes. I had a couple things, Mr. President. In the Consent on Item J. Rountree: Okay. Smith: Request for vacation of two 10-foot wide public utility easements by W.H. Moore Company; the body of the Findings addresses the two 10-foot easements. The title of the Order only addresses Lots 5 and 6. Lots 6, 7 and 8 should also be included of Block 1. There were two locations of the easements. One was along the lot line common to 5 and 6, the other easement was along a lot line common to Lots 6, 7 and 8. Rountree: Do you have that, Mr. Berg? (inaudible) have to make a motion? Okay. Bird: Yeah. Rountree: Anything else, Gary? Smith: I think that was – that’s all the comments I had on the Consent. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Shari. Stiles: I only made it to Item S. Rountree: You only made it to S? Well, the whole alphabet’s there. What’s the matter? 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: Stiles: I didn’t – I just had a couple of things. On the Overland Mini-Storage, Item M, page 4. There was just an extra – under Item 2, it mentions – has the adopted Planning and Zoning Administrator and City Engineer recommendations as follows, and then there’s nothing under it. That’s just – needs to be taken out because it’s repeated. Rountree: Item 2? Delete it? Stiles: Pardon me? It has the conditions of approval are as follows to wit, and then the next two lines need to be deleted because those are repeated later. 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: Stiles: On Item N, Page 18, it references a site plan. On the very last line, it says City of Meridian, City Clerk’s Office on August 25th, 1995. That should be ’99. On Page 24, Item 2.32 and 2.33, those should be 48 feet instead of 43 feet. Item 2.35, there’s a typo in the second line that should read “of” instead of zero, one. Rountree: What Item was that, again? Stiles: 2.35. Bird: Thanks, Shari. Stiles: I can’t quite recall if your motion was – you know, you changed those buildings to two-story, the ones adjacent to the Robbersons on Cobblestone Village. Those apartments – that apartment complex, you’ve made those two-story buildings. Were you letting them replace those units they lost there in other buildings, or was it going to reduce it down to 92 units? I don’t recall. Rountree: My recollection would be that would have reduced the number of units, not in compensation for. Stiles: Okay. So then I believe we would need to change the approval that it’s for the conditional use is granted for 92 units. Rountree: Okay. Stiles: And Page 6 of 8 of the Order of Conditional Approval, Item 2.30, the reference to August 25th, 1995 should be changed to 1999; also 2.32 and 2.33, the 43 feet should be changed to 48 feet. Then the – let’s see. 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: Stiles: Item Q, just wanted a clarification from legal counsel, it’s the application was for single-family residential to commercial, but I didn’t know if as a clean-up item, maybe need to change that footer that the Decision of Order is amending the Comprehensive Plan from single-family to mixed/planned use development. It appears to be okay in the text, I just – Rountree: Okay. Stiles: And that’s all I had. 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: Rountree: How about the comment on Item 6 from Mr. Gigray about the pathway being reviewed, accepted by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District? Gigray: “S.” Rountree: Excuse me, S. Bird: Which one? Oh. “S.” Gigray: It’s probably 1.2 of the Order. I have so many files, Mr. President, I’m pulling them all out here, but that’s – Stiles: I was wondering where the five-foot – we didn’t ask for a five-foot pedestrian pathway to there, did we? Gigray: I’m just going off of the notes that I took. There was a reference – Stiles: The comment that was made at the meeting was that we wanted to make sure that they had five-foot pedestrian pathways wherever they went because they’ve constructed the huge mailbox structures right in the middle of the sidewalk, and we wanted them to flare out those sidewalks so they had a minimum walking path of five feet. But it didn’t involve the – *** End of Side 1 *** Stiles: -- that’ll probably just remain dirt. I doubt Nampa Meridian is going to permit any mention of a pedestrian pathway along that. It’ll just be there. Bird: That was Item 36 (inaudible). Rountree: Is that clear? Anything else, Shari? Mr. Gordon. Gordon: Yes, sir. Rountree: Anything as it relates to Items C, D on the Consent Agenda? Gordon: (inaudible) Rountree: Okay. Mr. Clerk, anything as it relates to Item E on compensation policies, practices and resolution? Aren’t you on that Committee? Mr. Smith? Is it – Item E? It’s okay? Okay. Since we haven’t called the meeting to order at this point in time, we’ll take just a brief few moments to get organized so we can now that we have a quorum. We weren’t sure we were going to have a meeting tonight, so we’ll get back here at about 7:35, and I’ll open the meeting. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: _________________________________ ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: ________________________________WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK