HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 12-21MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1999
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 21, 1999, by Mayor Robert Corrie.
MEMBERS PRESENT: BOB CORRIE, CHARLIE ROUNTREE, RON ANDERSON, KEITH BIRD
MEMBERS ABSENT: GLENN BENTLEY
OTHERS PRESENT: BILL GIGRAY, KEN BOWERS, GARY SMITH, SHARI STILES, BRAD WATSON, TOM KUNTZ, JANICE SMITH
Corrie: Okay. I’ll open the Meridian City Council on December 21, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. and welcome all of you here this evening. We’ll have roll-call and then we’ll have a special presentation
right after that. Okay. At this time, I’d like to have Byron Smith and Malcolm McCoy step up front here. Okay. Turn around so everybody can see you guys here. Byron Smith is on
our Planning and Zoning Commission and (inaudible) Planning and Zoning Commission for City of Meridian presented in appreciation for your contributions of your service to the City of
Meridian, Planning and Zoning Commissioner from May 1997 to July 1999 and dedication to this community is acknowledged and greatly appreciated. Presented by the City of Meridian, September
1999. Malcolm McCoy, he was the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Meridian. It is presented in appreciation for your contribution and service to the City of Meridian as
Planning and Zoning Commissioner from January of 1997 to August of 1999 and as Chairman from June 1998 to July of 1999. Your dedication and commitment to this community is acknowledged
and greatly appreciated. Presented by the City of Meridian, September 1999. If you want to say anything, you certainly can.
McCoy: I’ve enjoyed my time over there and I’m sure Byron has too (inaudible) go through (inaudible).
ITEM A. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL PRE-COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 16, 1999:
ITEM B. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 30, 1999:
ITEM C. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL PRE-COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 7, 1999:
ITEM D. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 7, 1999:
ITEM E. APPROVAL OF 2000 RENEWAL APPLICATIONS FOR BEER, WINE AND / OR LIQUOR LICENSES:
APPROVAL OF BEER AND LIQUOR LICENSES FOR JANIS OGAWA FOR THE WHITEWATER SALOON:
APPROVAL OF BEER AND WINE LICENSES FOR TODD GODFREY FOR THE IDAHO PIZZA COMPANY:
ITEM F. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BY DAROL FORSYTHE/SEVEN GATES PROPERTIES – LOTS 8, 9, 10, BLOCK 1, LAYNE INDUSTRIAL
PARK SUBDIVISION, EAST OF NOLA ROAD AND NORTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD:
ITEM G. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR SEVEN GATES INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION BY SEVEN GATES PROPERTIES, LLC, EAST OF NOLA ROAD AND NORTH
OF FRANKLIN ROAD IN LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK:
ITEM H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 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:
ITEM I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 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:
ITEM J. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN OLD TOWN TO A FINGERNAIL SALON, ELEGANT NAILS, BY
CHRISTY P. FIELDSTAD – 1026 N. MERIDIAN:
Corrie: Okay. The Consent Agenda, we have Items A through J. What is the Council’s pleasure on –
Bird: Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda with the exceptions of Item D and H.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I had one correction to Item B on the special Council meeting of November 30th. On Page 6, on the motion on the insurance, I had voted no, and the minutes reflected that
it was all ayes. I wanted to put that correction in the record.
Bird: I’ll add that to the motion.
Corrie: We have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda except Item D and H also with the correction in the minutes of the City Council meeting, the minutes for November the 30th with
the change.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote; Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Corrie: All ayes, motion’s carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 1. APPEAL OF P&Z ADMINISTRATOR’S DENIAL OF SIGN PERMIT BY MERIDIAN PUBLIC LIBRARY:
Corrie: Okay. On regular agenda, Item No. 1 is an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Administrator’s denial of a sign permit by the Meridian Public Library. The Zoning Administrator,
would you like to give us your part first and then we’ll have the library representative next?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for an electronic reader board sign at the library. Because of the fact that it is a public service sign, it would probably fit in with our new
proposed sign ordinance except for the fact that the setback is not adequate to meet what that proposed sign ordinance is. As you recall, we had another similar type of sign that was
proposed and was approved for the Idaho Independent Bank, and I told the Council at that time that any of these signs that came in, I would still refer them to the Council for an appeal.
Don’t have any particular problems with it. The proposed sign ordinance does say that if it’s public service type of sign and the proportions are in accordance with the ordinance that
they would be approved signs, and I believe that the representative from the library is here and at least the sign representative has indicated that they are willing to make some commitments
on how the sign will be operated as far as not being used as a flashing sign and also since it is adjacent to residential use that they would shut the sign off at night. They can get
up if they have any further comment on that.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Representative from the library here this evening? Give us your name.
Harold: Ron Harold. I’m with AIM Sign Company. Patty is actually the librarian, and she has agreed that we will put it on a timer so that when the library closes that we would shut
it off, shut it down for the night. She had agreed that she won’t have the big, flashy-type displays coming off of it. She wanted to use it more for informational, she was telling
me, because of some of the adult programs that she has, it’s getting too expensive to the newspaper ads and stuff like that aren’t working. This would go ahead and let them know that
February 2nd they’re having an adult program that, you know, the citizens of the community could come in and attend some of the classes and such.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yes. What hours is the library under?
Younger: The latest the library is –
Corrie: Patty, would you come up here? Thank you, Patty. Give us your name.
Younger: Patricia Younger, Meridian Library. The latest the library is open is 9:00 and we’re closed on Sunday.
Bird: That’s Monday through Saturday?
Younger: We close at 5:00 on Saturday and at 6:00 on Friday.
Corrie: Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: I had one, Mr. Mayor. I don’t know who to address it to, maybe the sign person. Talks about setback, and my copy of the plan, I guess, where the location was going to be.
It doesn’t actually show where the sign is.
Harold: It’s (inaudible) Xeroxed it off.
Anderson: Okay. So it’s kind of in the middle between the two (inaudible). So that won’t block view in and out of the parking lot?
Harold: No, sir. As you can see here, here’s (inaudible).
Bird: And it’s only five-foot.
Harold: The landscaped area. I believe the rock that they’ve currently got now is down towards the end of -- down where that area is now. We plan on taking that out of there, getting
that out of there so it doesn’t obstruct that driveway right there.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Council, any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Discussion on the appeal?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I think given what we just heard, it’s consistent with what we’ve been trying to do. I think it’s great that they’re trying to get a sign that you can see so you can find
them going down the street instead of having to go in the exit as you pass. I for one would favor –
Bird: Is that a motion?
Rountree: Yes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Is there any other witnesses out there that want to –
Corrie: It’s not a public hearing. It’s an appeal by the library board. Any other discussion? Okay. Mr. Rountree, do you want to –
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Meridian Public Library’s request for this sign as described to us this evening and provided in our application – I don’t know what the
– vacate or reverse the Planning and Zoning Administrator’s denial of the permit.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bird. Any discussion?
Bird: The hours. Is the hours in your motion?
Rountree: I indicated that as was presented to us this evening in which was the hours and no flashing and –
Corrie: Counselor, you got that all down?
Gigray: Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. What we’ll do is prepare an Order granting the appeal and remanding to the Planning and Zoning Administrator subject the those conditions.
You will need to vote on the motion, though.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 2. 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 3. 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:
Corrie: Item No. 2 and 3 are continued public hearings. With the Council’s permission, we can probably open them both up and hear testimony on both of them at the same time. Item
2 is a request for annexation and zoning, 150.79 acres of land for R-4 zoning by Bear Creek, LLC, east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland. Item 3 is a continued public hearing,
request for preliminary plat for the proposed Bear Creek Subdivision of 326 single-family dwelling lots by
Bear Creek. So with that, I’ll open the continued public hearing and invite Staff comments first. I believe that one of the things we did have to come back to Staff and talk to you.
Did they – (inaudible) done, Gary?
Smith: Yes, Mr. Mayor. They did. Mr. Mayor and Council members, Brad Watson and I met with the developers and their representatives, engineers. I don’t remember what day it was.
It was toward the end of last week, I believe. Talked about the alternatives of this development as far as sewage collection is concerned. The developers and their engineer left and
subsequently prepared a cost estimate for the alternative that we were discussing and sent that information to you in the form of a letter that was signed by Mr. Johnson. I think that
at this point the biggest concern that we have or at least that I have with the sewering of this area is not knowing for sure what’s going to happen or when it will happen if this project
is approved. The installation, as Mr. Johnson points out in his letter, the installation of a lift station on Linder Road and pressure lines north to a point of discharge would in his
opinion require some partnering with the City of Meridian in as far as cost is concerned in order to make his project viable. I guess one of the things that your staff would need is
input from you as to how much development you would like to see in this area as to how the sewering of this area should proceed or if it should proceed. Planning and Zoning had recommended
that the project be approved with a limitation that a line be drawn on Stoddard to which no development would occur west thereof until the Black Cat Trunk is extended for service. Some
of the points that were made by the developer’s engineers at the last meeting was the parallel piping of the Ten Mile Creek trunk from Ten Mile Drain north to the Union Pacific Railroad
tracks would allow some additional capacity for development in the Victory Road, Locust Grove, Eagle Road area. There will need to be some diversions made on the Nine Mile Drain into
the Ten Mile Drain for that area to continue to develop. There are a lot of unknowns as far as what’s going to happen out there or when it’s going to happen. Not only in this immediate
area, but also in the Victory Road, Eagle, Locust Grove and south. I know that there are – I talked to some developers, some developers that have interest, are interested in developing
that area, but, again, I don’t know timetables. There would be two alternatives to look at this on this project, assuming you want to move forward with it if that’s your desire. One
would be to install a lift station at the west boundary of this subdivision, pump the sewage north into the Ten Mile Drain and parallel pipe the Ten Mile Drain as the developer’s engineer
had proposed previously. With that proposal or with that accompanying and understanding that if there is additional development to the west of this parcel that’s proposed that the development
community would pick that lift station up and move it to the west. That is not unprecedented. That was done in the Golf View Subdivision area where a lift station was temporary in
spot. I think it was moved three times before it’s finally being – before the subdivisions finally being attached or connected to gravity line. I don’t know that there’s much else
I can say about the sewering of that area. It’s possible, it’s feasible, it’s – I don’t know the limitations or the constraints that would be encountered in parallel piping. I haven’t
talked to the Highway District
about that, but that’s a proposal by the developer. That would be their ball to carry. I think it comes back to the development of property is driven by the availability of sewer.
As I mentioned before, it’s pumping sewage, you can develop property almost anywhere if you want to. It’s a decision that you need to make as far as where you want to see development
take place and how much development you want to see take place. Obviously there is a limitation on the Ten Mile Drain sewer and the capacity of that sewer is going to be closely monitored
if this project goes forward and it does pump into it, and I would suspect that somewhere in the future, and I don’t know whether it’s near or far, that there will be a restriction placed
on development to the south and the east until the Black Cat trunk is constructed. As Planning and Zoning Commissioner said, this does start the trunk line fee for the Black Cat trunk
and I think that is an important point. I guess I’ll get off the sewage horse for a second and climb up on the transportation and traffic horse. I personally feel that without any
engineering studies, and I’m not a traffic engineer trained in that discipline, but I see – I just perceive problems at the intersection particularly with Highway 69. I don’t know if
you have been out there in the evening after dark or in the early morning when traffic is moving from Kuna toward the interstate, but it is treacherous, especially in the winter months
when it’s dark-dark at that time of the day. Caulderwood intersection with Highway 69, Victory Road intersection with Highway 69 are very, very difficult. As was mentioned at the last
public hearing, there have been several fatalities at Victory Road and Highway 69. Crosses are still in the ground out there. I don’t think the Highway District is paying enough attention
to this, personally. The development of the water system, we’re going to have to have a well site in this general area and because of the water park, because of this size of this development
and the fact that our nearest well is approximately a mile to the east, we’re going to have to look at the development of a water well as well. I don’t know that that would be in this
particular subdivision, but it certainly is something that we’re going to have to investigate from a hydraulic standpoint when we do put the preliminary plat into the computer model
and see what the demand requirement is. I think that the dedication of a park is a positive item for not only this subdivision but this area. The issues, though, I believe we should
try to keep them separate. I think that’s about all I have to say. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to try and answer them for you.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Corrie: Any other staff comments? Okay. Since this is a continued public hearing, we’ll hear from the applicant at this point.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland in Boise. As Gary indicated, this is a difficult decision. This project does have more complexity than most that come
before you. When we started this project, we wanted it to be one of the best subdivisions that the City of Meridian has ever seen. We wanted this to have a park, a finished park, and
that’s one reason that we showed that in our first phase because we felt that this was needed. There’s articles in the paper almost every other week talking about the necessity of parks.
We thought that with the advantages that this project provides, the low density and the park, that we could provide something that would benefit the community. Something different.
If the property is not developed at this time, and that’s obviously a decision for the Council to make, at some point in time, it will be developed. But I know for a fact that it won’t
be developed as nicely as we proposed with the low density and the park. We met with your staff as you had requested. The meeting was excellent. We discussed ideas, bounced things
off each other and looked at the alternative of a regional lift station versus a lift station to service this property. We did some analysis. The lift station would be located a half
a mile west from us on Linder. That lift station, then a pressure line would extend – would have to bore Interstate 84 and then that pressure line would run up to, passed Crestwood
Estates just short of the railroad tracks there north of Franklin, and we would intersect a Ten Mile trunk passed the bottleneck. If we can get passed the bottleneck, then that would
allow us to have a capacity between 1200 and 1500 dwelling units. That’s one option. The first option that we propose as Gary stated was to do a lift station for this development.
The reason that we felt that it warranted that was because it is split between two drainage districts. It is adjoining central services and the city limits. It is in close proximity
to the city core. Therefore, we felt that it should be considered for a lift station and that pressure line would be located on Stoddard and run north and intersect with your trunk
line there on Overland just east of Stoddard. When we came up with our numbers, it was obvious that the upgrade for the Ten Mile trunk was a necessity; it would benefit this property
but also would benefit others along the Ten Mile drainage area because we would increase that capacity by approximately 50 percent from what it is today. The upgrade, just for the record,
was $210,000, and then we estimated our lift station and pressure line to be $185,000. So that would bear – this project would bear the cost of $395,000. Our proposal before it came
before the Planning and Zoning Commission was that we be assessed a special assessment for the Black Cat Trunk for that construction. We had proposed $1000, the staff had proposed $1500,
and we had concurred with your staff if $1500 is more appropriate, then we accept that number because we want to pay our proportionate share. We’re not trying to forego our costs for
that Black Cat construction. That total is $489,000. Basically, to sewer this project, we’d be putting out $884,000. In addition to that, we’ve calculated our costs. The applicant
spoke to some contractors and got some numbers on what it would cost for the park site, for the raw ground and for the improvements. The total cost of that park would be $803,890.
There was discussion, well, gee, but you’re asking for park-impact fees. Our park-impact fees are $172,721. So the cost to the applicant and this particular project is
$631,169. We feel that this is a good project. Whichever alternative Council chooses, we’d like them to keep in mind that the project can only bear so much of the burden, but it is
a good project, and it warrants your consideration; otherwise, we wouldn’t have spent so much time and effort to get to this point. Your Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend
approval of this, and I thought that their Findings had good basis. They stated that, one, the project was an asset to the community; two, that this is the first step in creating funds
for the Black Cat trunk which eventually will be needed to take some of the overload on your other trunks that at some point in time in the very near future are going to reach their
capacity; three, that the parks in the city are needed and this is a good opportunity and a good time for us to add one more park to the south side of the freeway; four, that this is
a low-density project. The lowest density that they’ve seen come before them in a long, long time. They appreciated that fact that we tried to keep our density low and provide larger
lots; five, they stated that they didn’t believe that this was a precedent-setting decision. Their justification for that was because it lies within two drainage districts. As you
recall, we’ve got in excess of 17 acres that is within the Ten Mile drainage, and they stated the other issue is that it is on the periphery of that drainage district caught between
two areas. So I feel that I’ve said most of everything that can be said. I don’t want to repeat what was said two weeks ago. I hope that you can support it. We feel that this is
a worthy project. Thank you. JoAnne Butler would like to make a couple statements for Mr. Johnson.
Butler: Thanks Mr. Mayor, Council members. JoAnne Butler, 101 South Capital Boulevard on behalf of the applicant. Becky’s pretty much summed up everything, so just let me make a few
comments. She’s correct; it’s split between two drainages, this development. It’s located next to your present boundary. It’s next to existing water and sewer services, it’s less
than two miles from fire service. It’s what you look for when you look at property to be annexed into the city. You made that planning and policy decision to annex this decision.
When you adopted the Comprehensive Plan and when you did negotiate your area of impact boundary which includes all those areas that can be reasonably expected to be annexed into the
city in the not-so-distant future. This development honors your area of impact agreement. It’s a natural progression of the development in Meridian’s Area of Impact. It ensures public
facilities will be extended into all of your Areas of Impact. You’ve got a hard row to hoe. You said that you are going to extend services into your Area of Impact within ten years’
time. Everybody acknowledges that this amount of money that it is going to take is possibly too much for any one to bear and possibly too much for the entire city to bear under something
like the sewer bond. What we’re really talking about here as Mr. Johnson mentioned in his letter is to try to work on public private partnership in this regard. Work together in connection
with the Development Agreement, try to sort out the details of what it will take to basically kick the Black Cat trunk off the ground. What it takes to help ensure the city that it’s
going to get a fair share of fees and help from all developers, not just this developer, but all developers. We’re asking you to approve this development conditioned upon a Development
Agreement with the Development Agreement details to be worked out by your City staff, by our engineers and taking – building a Development Agreement that will be brought back to the
Council for review and hopefully approved. Some of those details do include a commitment to design the regional lift station by the developer and working with your staff on that development;
committing to pay up to $395,000 toward the regional lift station. Again, as Becky mentioned, that’s a combination of what a smaller lift station plus an upgrade to existing portions
of your system would entail. Oversize certain facilities, recapture costs that aren’t proportionate to this development and commit to pay up to $1500 per lot as an assessment earmarked
for construction of the Black Cat trunk. We understand that this $1500 per lot is really an estimate; that your staff in doing its computer modeling on the system has come up with as
a reasonable estimate to complete construction of portions of your system. We believe that during this time that you’re finishing the Development Agreement, clarifying the details of
engineering, it gives your staff the ability too, to run iterations of that modeling to clarify what truly is a reasonable assessment, again, not just for this developer, for all developers.
You’ve made great strides in the last several months in looking at water and sewer ordinances for this city, and we are asking to help you in that regard and sit down with you and try
to work with you in ways to get this particular trunk off the ground, and, again, take the lessons learned from this so that you can apply it to other developers. With that, there’s
not really much more that I can say. I think Becky’s probably there to stand for questions. I think that when, my understanding is all other issues had been resolved two weeks ago
other than the sewer issue. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. This is a continued public hearing, so is there anyone from the audience that would like to issue further testimony?
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Tris Yerrington. I live approximately ¾ of a mile west of the proposed development at 2150 West Victory Road. I’m primarily
opposed to the development because of the more than 20-fold increase in allowed zoning density that would take place if the property is rezoned. It’s currently zoned one dwelling per
five acres, and they’re going up to an R-4 zoning, so it’d be about a 20-fold increase in allowed density; moreover, I would really urge the Council and the Mayor to heed the warnings
of the Public Works Department. They’ve been on record as saying that the infrastructure is real limited: the roads, the sewers and the water system in this area. I think one of the
responsibilities of the Council is to guide development through development of infrastructure first and not to allow development to guide infrastructure development. The cart is getting
before the horse in this case. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public? Yes, ma’am.
Lotspeich: I’m Carol Lotspeich. I’m with Queenland Acres, Inc., and my address is 1032 East Cayman. I’d like to speak in favor of Bear Creek’s development.
This development is going to be a very upscale development. Meridian is strapped for parks. I thought it was really wonderful when St. Luke’s built their hospital and all those kids
got to play on the grassy area that they had made, and then they had to double their hospital and half the grassy area’s gone. It was mentioned last week that the Nazarene Church is
going to build some grassy areas that the kids could play on, but it’s my understanding that because of the legal liability, kids are not allowed to play on the church areas. So this
park, which is 28.62 acres, would give them a place3 to play. They’re going to build three parking lots which would be an asset. The City Engineer stated that there’s a water problem
on Queenland which is up there where it says R-2, C-G and C-2. There’s three wells which might help alleviate the problem. I know that the traffic is – could be a problem, but the
simple solution to that would be to put a light at Caulderwood and a light at Victory. A lot of the traffic that goes down Overland which I didn’t realize until we started this process,
are people that come from north Meridian across and down Overland to get on the freeway. If I lived in north Meridian, I would do that too. But, you know, part of it is generated across
the freeway. This is a really nice development with a park. I live in a nice development, too, but we don’t have a park. It’d give you a good tax base. I realize that there are problems
to be worked out, but it looks to me like everybody is working pretty hard to solve the problems, and I hope you approve it.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other testimony? Have any testimony on the preliminary plat that anybody wants to say on that one? Council, questions for the record?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’d like to ask Becky, what is the timeframe for developing this out? Is it five years, six years, two years? I know it depends on the economy, but what is the plans now?
Bowcutt: Mr. Mayor and Council, to answer Councilman Bird’s question, I believe we have seven phases delineated on this project. I believe that’s correct; Shari may correct me. Shari,
is it – I think it’s seven. So we usually anticipate doing a phase per year. Obviously, dependent on the market conditions. One other statement that I’d like for the record is my
understanding ACHD has a plan or plans that they’ve done years ago for the upgrade of that intersection of Highway 69 and Overland. Why they haven’t moved on those plans, I don’t know,
but when we did Interstate Center where Roaring Springs and Boondocks reside, and that’s been, what, four years ago, I think, when I did that, ACHD said, well, we’ve got a plan and we
want you to make sure you match into what we’re doing, any improvements that you make. So four years have passed, they’ve collected substantial amount of impact fees for this zone,
and I don’t know why
those dollars haven’t been used, and I think those are some hard questions that a lot of the public’s starting to ask. Where are these monies going? They need to be spent over here
in Meridian. Thank you.
Anderson: I had a question of Becky. You indicated that there was seven phases then. Which phase would be first and at what phase does the park fall in?
Bowcutt: Councilman Anderson, the first phase includes the park and it would take in that area kind of – we’d create kind of a loop around that park. So it’s kind of in the midsection
there.
Anderson: So you’d complete then, the entire park in the first phase?
Bowcutt: It’s shown in the first phase to be completed as part of the first phase. That was one of our concerns was the front-end costs of the project have to be considered on if a
bank looks at something that, you know, is too weighted on the debt side, it may not be able to make it, so we wanted to be very cautious, but I asked Mr. Johnson specifically, I said,
would you consider splitting the park and doing half of it with one phase and half of it with the other? He said absolutely not. We would want it developed with the first phase, nice
and green and sprinkled and useable.
Anderson: Would that include parking lots, too?
Bowcutt: There were three parking lots shown, I don’t think Will brought my board. Will, do you have my board? I didn’t think I would need it. There were three parking lots shown
on the site plan. The parking lots were designed based on Boise City Parks criteria on the acreage and the number of anticipated spaces that would be required. The configuration was
similar to what Boise City Parks Department requires. In our application, we stated that we would build the parking lot on the east side, pave it, complete that. The two parking lots
that adjoins Stoddard Road, we would not construct those. They’d obviously be X’d out. But we did not factor those two in because we weren’t sure what the City of Meridian’s Parks
Department would want long-term. So we didn’t want to restrict, I guess, the future development add-ons to the park.
Anderson: So you’ve allowed space for them, but you don’t plan on building them?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. This is a blow-up of the park. It’s 18.62 acres. We have some pedestrian pathways coming in. Obviously, those would have to be constructed. This is the parking
lot that we would construct. Based on input from Ada County Highway District, they said that they find that people will park along the residential streets and come in through the pedestrian
pathways if their kids are playing soccer or baseball in the rear, and sometimes it causes some
problems. So they recommended that we provide a parking lot on the far side and then show these two parking lots here and the park takes access internally off of this collector here
and here. But these would just be X’d in. Then there’s a drain that traverses this park, it’s called the Harden Drain, and we will be piping that facility. It will be piped and coming
down here just along the perimeter and then we’d pipe it just off the right-of-way or pipe it off here and then it’d exit. It is a deep drain. We thought about using it as a water amenity,
but the depth is not conducive to that. So it will require that we pipe it.
Anderson: That’s – City built those two parking lots, where would they have for retention of water off of those? Allowance for that?
Bowcutt: Off of these two parking lots?
Anderson: Yeah.
Bowcutt: What we’ve done in some other areas, Kuna area in particular, we have impervious soils because we have basalt. We have in conjunction with the City and one of the elementary
schools, we had some emergency overflow areas. When you’re dealing with an extremely large area like this, to depress it, it would only be depressed a foot for say like a hundred-year
storm event. It wouldn’t even, you know, be obvious to the eye because you’re dealing with such a large parcel. We also have some intermittent open space throughout the project that
we would use for storm drainage. These little landscaped areas that we put on the ends. We try to position these in strategic locations so that we can retain our storm drainage in
these facilities. The same holds true on the pedestrian pathways. Our ground water analysis of this property is that the ground water is not going to be a problem whatsoever. It’s
in excess of nine feet, and so that would allow us to put seepage beds underneath pedestrian pathways which is allowable by Ada County Highway District. Up here, in the northern end,
we put in a pocket park that we would also use for storm drainage retention. Storm drainage is a big issue, and it’s starting to get more and more difficult as ACHD increases their
standards. We have to retain more volumes which requires more area, and so having some type of an emergency overflow makes a big difference –
*** End of Side 1 ***
ability to overflow our predevelopment flow into that pipe where we’re piping the Harden Drain because this property, historically, drained into that. So some of that water could continue
on if treated properly.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
Corrie: Just to answer your question, Becky, about the money, we’re asking the very same hard questions to ACHD. We’re not getting quite the answer we’re expecting or want. We’re
getting what we expected, but we’re working on it. Thank you. Any other questions? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing at this point.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 2 and 3. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Discussion?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, question.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: We need Findings of Facts on both?
Bird: Yes. But they’ve got to be split out.
Corrie: For the annexation and zoning and then we need the Findings of Fact and Order and then the preliminary plat.
Bird: They have to be separate --
Corrie: Separate items.
Bird: -- motions. I want to ask the staff, the Findings of Facts and the conditions that come through the Planning and Zoning, is that the conditions and stuff that you and the developer
agreed upon or is there added ones or what?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, Council, I don’t think we agreed upon any of the conditions in particular. When we left the meeting, the developer and his representatives, engineers,
were going to investigate the lift station location on Linder Road, the feasibility of that as an alternative. I don’t recall the specifics of the Findings from P & Z, but we believe
that they were talking about just this development, location of a lift station at Stoddard, no development to the west of Stoddard and that’s all I recall.
Bird: That is – excuse me, Mayor. Can I follow up? Gary, then I take it that what you spoke in regards earlier that that is the way you and your staff want to see it
done is no regional or anything like that? Just a lift station in there, fix up the connection up at Crestmont and that area? No regional or anything like that; am I not right?
Smith: Well, Mayor and Council and Councilman Bird, that would be the, I guess, the simplest alternative to address the proposal. When you do that, though, you’re – if this is all
the development you want to see in this area, then you’re kind of limiting yourself right out of the shoot without moving things to the west, without impacting something else to the
north with a pressure line. Because there were two separate thought processes with that subregional lift station as far as discharge goes to the existing drainage, existing gravity
line. But with the unknown of how things are going to develop or if things are going to develop, to jump a lift station or move a lift station to the west as things do develop, that
has been done in the Golfview Subdivision there. In that particular area, though, we were faced with a much smaller drainage situation. The discharge line was able to maintain a diameter
for the entire development, and I don’t know what -- we’re talking about a multiple discharge line for a regional – a subregional lift station. We’re talking probably two lines, maybe
six- to eight-inch in diameter. I don’t know what the diameter of the discharge line would be for just this subdivision and a lift station serving only it, but it would probably be
one pipe. So it would compound itself as development moves – if development moves to the west. If you don’t look at it now and move toward it, it will probably be more difficult in
the future for development to move west. But if just this development is built for service right now –
Bird: Okay. That’s what I’m trying to get clear here, Gary, is what conditions – if we pass this, would the conditions of the Planning and Zoning recommended, then we are strictly
just taking care of this division. So anything – other developments that come back before us in the west and stuff, at that time, something would have – we’re not looking very far ahead
if you want to know the – in my opinion. But I don’t know how we’re going to do it without getting new conditions and stuff. I mean, I can sit here and make all kinds of conditions,
but I don’t know if that’s what the staff or the Planning and Zoning meant.
Smith: I don’t know if I could answer that. Shari probably could, Councilman Bird, but that – as I recall, those – the conditions of Planning and Zoning just addressed this subdivision,
kind of drew a line in the sand as far as development to the west and said this is it.
Bird: Okay, then your comments earlier, I took it as an approval of the deal from the staff, is the feeling of our staff right now, and it’s just this subdivision.
Smith: Well, like I said earlier, it’s the simplest of the two alternatives. But I think it’s a policy decision that the Council needs to make is to how much development you want to
see in this area. If we go – I haven’t – taking Mr. Johnson’s letter to you at face value, this project won’t support financially the installation of another
quarter of a mile – half a mile of interceptor line plus a larger lift station plus a multiple discharge line. I can probably accept that. So if you want to go that route, then when
you start talking about a partnership to do that –
Bird: This is something that could be done as the developments come in, though. At least we’re getting the Black Cat –
Smith: Yes.
Bird: -- sewer trunk line fee started --
Smith: Yes.
Bird: -- off of this one development.
Smith: Yes.
Corrie: Excuse me, Mr. Bird. We’re getting some testimony here between – we haven’t got under the public form. I would suggest that we re-open the public hearing so we can add that
comment to the public record.
Bird: I have no problem with that.
Corrie: We might have to have clarification from the applicant.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, I believe that I covered those two alternatives when I spoke earlier.
Corrie: You did. But I’m thinking that we may have something that’s going to come up from the developer.
Smith: Okay. Sure.
Bird: I have no problem with that. I just wanted clarification on the –
Corrie: Do you have anything – if you (inaudible) until we re-open it up again. Does the Council wish to open up the public hearing to hear that?
Bird: I have – I don’t care one way or the other. I just want it clarified on what kind of conditions we’re going for.
Corrie: Then we’ll open the – re-open the public hearing to hear the developer’s comment on that.
Butler: Thank you, Mayor Corrie. Just for clarification, those were the two alternatives to do a lift station that served just this development and then or the alternative was a regional.
As Mr. Johnson said in his letter, this particular
development can’t support financially a regional lift station. Clearly, the developer is willing to work with the City if that is the City’s preference. In talking – not to put words
into Gary’s mouth, but you’re telling me, I think the consensus when we met was, the regional station made a lot more sense and that we’re more than happy to work on a Development Agreement
that took into account those details knowing that we could only fund so much but willing to work with the City on some kind of public private partnership that would get that going down
the road. We’re willing to work with the City in that regard. Obviously it is the simplest thing if we could just do a lift station for this, but we’re willing to look at a regional
lift station provided the City understands that we cannot front the entire cost of that station nor would it be appropriate for one developer to front the entire cost. Just one other
clarification for Councilman Bird. The Planning and Zoning Commission when they approved this, they approved it for this property only. Correct.
Bird: That’s what I want clarified that we’re not getting something different than what you guys are planning on doing.
Butler: Correct. Staff place – your staff did conditions of approval for the project which I believe we did go on the record at the Planning and Zoning Commission stating that we are
in agreement with most everything. There was a question about being able to use some of the park as an overflow drainage in 100-year event without disrupting any of the design of the
park, and then there was the issue I think Gary had put a criteria where payment up front of the $1500 and all that, so that was one other thing we wanted to be on a phase-by-phase basis.
Bird: That’s right.
Butler: So we didn’t have to write $489,000 check to bring 40 lots online.
Bird: Yeah.
Butler: Does that help?
Bird: Yeah. That helps me.
Corrie: Okay (inaudible)
Anderson: I had a question. I’m not sure whether it’s for Becky or Gary, though. I’m confused then. Under this letter that we received today, if I understand this correctly, the
applicant is willing to contribute the $1500 lot fee which is $489,000 for Black Cat trunk line assessment and the $185,000 would be a lift station that would only accommodate this subdivision;
is that correct? And then the $210,000 would upgrade the bottleneck at Crestwood. So there is nothing concrete or firm toward any additional cost for a regional lift station; am I
reading that correct?
Bird: Up here, Becky.
Bowcutt: That is what we had agreed to when we went before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Then the issue of providing a regional lift station arose is that a viable alternative.
Should we consider servicing beyond this project. So then the letter stated that we had made the commitment for those dollars and those dollars are all we can afford to spend toward
the regional concept. Does that help? Right.
Bird: Becky, I’ve got one other question, then. In other words, if we were to go to the regional concept, the $395,000 that you’ve got allocated in here would go towards the regional;
am I not right there?
Bowcutt: Correct.
Bird: But pass this or to deny it, we’ve got the conditions is the ones at the Planning and Zoning. We have not added any other considerations –
Bowcutt: That is correct, yes, sir.
Bird: -- on that. Okay. So we’re just taking care of this one. We’re not worrying about the west. That’s what I wanted to get clarified.
Bowcutt: Right. That is originally what we had ask --
Bird: Somebody come in and say –
Bowcutt: -- asked for is because this is split between two. It is a unique situation. Also, for the record, Gary mentioned the fact that some property owners, property owner in fact
who is a developer to the west had inquired. I did contact this person. He came into my office. I did discuss with him, would you like to participate, we’re talking about something
regional above and beyond this project, would you be interested in participating financially. I was told no. We would rather sit and wait for someone else to bring the sewer. So I
did make that effort to see if we could look at something like that. That’s typically the response we hear. They want the City Council to protect their rights to develop their property,
and if somebody next door’s to develop, they want the same opportunity, but yet, they’re not willing to do their fair share. Thanks.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, just a point of information. As long as the public hearing is still open and I think you’re narrowing down the options and decisions here,
one of the things you might consider is if you went with a regional condition in this for the commitment to build some kind of regional
facility, I think this would pose budgetary issues and concerns with regards to the City’s ability to fund such. If you were going to consider doing that, I would think you might want
to consider some conditions that have provided an option that if the City chose not to fund such a project, that the optional condition would be to go with the single lift station to
serve the development to protect that budget process against a potential liability to the developer. You may want to ask Staff questions in light of that. That would be budget concerns
that I have as your legal advisor.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I – Mr. Gigray, you can tell me if I’m wrong, but I believe that if we were to go to the regional at this point now, we would have to invite a lot more people in here to a public
hearing because we’re affecting a lot more ground than this ground here; am I not correct?
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, I think you could move in that direction, but in my view, I think you would want to have some very definite information from Public Works as well
as the City Treasurer as to whether or not the City would be in a position to budget appropriate funds to build such a facility and how much it would cost. I’m not sure that you have
that information available to you at this time. At least from the evidence I heard at this hearing.
Bird: That’s right.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: All right. Then, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that we have the counselor get the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order showing in favor of the
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 Road, the conditions as set forth by Planning and Zoning.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in favor of the annexation and zoning and prepare the proper ordinances
in order of such. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Don’t want to pass up an opportunity to make a comment on a project like this and of this size. I think this is a very tough decision for me because I agree with a lot of
the public testimony that we’ve heard about infrastructure and some of the concerns of our Public Works Director. It’s obvious to me that this is just kind of a tip of the iceberg,
and this is going to open a whole can of worms, and there are going to be a lot of people that want to develop here. It’s obvious that we’re also by this action only making allowance
for this one project. So I guess at this point, I would urge Staff to try to work toward some solutions and some possible options out here and some partnership that could be developed
to make this happen because I think this area is going to develop a lot more than what we’re seeing here. I think the project is a quality project. I like the idea and I think it’s
no big secret that Meridian has a shortage of parks, so I think they’re obviously playing off that need that we have in this particular case. I guess I’ll close with those comments.
Corrie: Okay. I don’t get to vote this time, so I’ll – I think we’re – you’ve got to vote. I have some concerns here. The sewage and lift stations and I think Meridian’s growing
at a very fast clip, but I think we’ve got to be very cautious and Staff has got to work pretty close here, but since I’m not going to get to vote, I guess I won’t say anymore, but any
other comments?
Bird: I’d like to make comments if we’re going to make comments. I, too, think that this development out there is a very fine development. I hope one thing it does for the City Council
is get them off their rear ends and get some trunk fees started which we should have had started at least two years ago, so I’ll take blame for – I’ll take my 25 percent blame on that
and give the staff some direction. The two years I’ve been on here, Gary has come to us, asked us for directions, we’ve done a lot of talking, but not much doing. I don’t believe it’s
the lack of money that’s holding us. We are keeping our sewer plant up to grade, keeping it away. The way it should be, and I just hope that stuff like this will make us move forward
and be progressive.
Corrie: Any comments? Hearing none.
Rountree: I guess my observation is – I made my observations last meeting about this particular project that I thought that it was a good project for the City. Certainly there are
some issues, but probably the observation I’d make most is the comments I’m hearing – my peers on the Council make (inaudible) comments (inaudible) hard to get to given the issues that
they’re facing, we’re facing, compliment them on their comments and direction that I get that they’re going and comfortable in leaving in another week that these kinds of things will
be hard decisions for the Council in the future, but I believe that they will be well thought out and decisions made in accordance for the future of Meridian. So I thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Since we’ve heard from everybody, I’ll call for the question and have roll-call vote; Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Then we have the No. 3, the request for preliminary plat. We’ve heard the public testimony. What’s the Council’s pleasure? Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve and have Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, Decision of Order on the preliminary plat for proposed Bear Creek Subdivision of 326 single-family dwelling
lots by Bear Creek, LLC, east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland.
Anderson: Does that include staff comments?
Bird: Yes. With staff comments.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat and for the attorney to prepare the appropriate order in the confirmation (inaudible) and incorporate staff
comments. Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Roll-call vote; Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REGISTRATION FEES FOR THE NEW WINTER RECREATION CLASSES OFFERED THROUGH MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION:
Corrie: Item No. 4 is public hearing, registration fees for the new winter recreation classes offered through the Meridian Parks and Recreation. At this time, we’ll open the public
hearing and invite the staff report first. Mr. Kuntz.
Kuntz: Mayor and Council, you have before you tonight new programs with these attached that will be a part of our winter offerings. Those will be publicized in our quarterly recreation
brochure that comes out in January. There will be additional classes listed in there, but those are classes that we have offered in the past and have already gone to public hearing
and approval through the Council. So what you have before you tonight are new classes with new fees.
Corrie: Questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to enter testimony on Item No. 4, the registration fees of the new winter recreation classes?
Okay. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 4. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: When you raise the fees like that, are these new fees?
Corrie: These are new fees.
Bird: Okay. That answered my question. If no one’s going to talk, I’ll make a motion. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move – if we’re not going to have discussion, I’ll make a motion. Let’s get the thing going. I move that we pass these registration fees for the new winter recreation classes
offered through Meridian Parks and Recreation; a total of seven classes that they are offering new.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the registration fees for the new winter recreation classes offered through the Meridian Parks and Recreation. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 5. FINAL PLAT FOR TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 4 – 43 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 10.79 ACRES BY STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AT SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD WEST OF LINDER ROAD:
Corrie: Item No. 5 is a final plat for Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 4, 43 buildable lots on 10.79 acres by Stubblefield Construction Company, south of Ustick Road and west of Linder
Road. Is the developer here or the engineer? Bob, I have a question. On your comments back from when the staff’s general requirements, you left out Item No. 6 which was provide five-foot
wide sidewalks according to City Ordinance. That just a mis – okay. So you’ll – all right. That’s all I wanted to know to clear it up.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Do we have the Development Agreement with this from the original –
Stiles: Yes, we do.
Bird: We do have a Development Agreement? Okay. Thank you, Shari.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the final plat for No. 5.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve a Decision of Order on the final plat for Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 4 by Stubblefield Construction.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and seconded to approve the final plat for Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 4 by Stubblefield Construction Company. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Gigray: Point of clarification, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Just for the record, I – that motion, I assume, included the staff comments of December 15, 1999? We’ll put that in the order.
Bird: Yes. Sorry.
ITEM 6. FINAL PLAT FOR TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY TURTLE CREEK, LLC – 71 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 21.23 ACRES AT EAST OF LINDER ROAD SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD:
Corrie: Item No. 6 is a final plat for Turtle Creek Subdivision No. 2 by Turtle Creek, LLC. Staff, any comments on that one?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, nothing in addition to our staff comments.
Corrie: Thank you. Council, discussion, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion on Item No. 6, final plat for Turtle Creek Subdivision No. 2.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the final plat for Turtle Creek Sub No. 2 with staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded to approve the final plat for Turtle Creek Subdivision No. 2 with the staff comments. Further discussion? Not? All those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 7. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR THE LAKES @ CHERRY LANE NO. 8:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is an order of conditional approval for final plat for the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 8. Staff, any comments?
Stiles: No, sir.
Corrie: All right. Comments and questions from staff? Council? Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on the order of conditional approval of final plat.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the order of conditional approval of final plat for the Lakes at Cherry lane No. 8 subject to staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the order of conditional approval of final plat of the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 8 with the staff comments. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
CITY ATTORNEY – BILL GIGRAY
1. CHARLES CRANE REQUEST
Corrie: Department reports. Janice is not here. I think she handed out some of those – is she here? Oh. Okay.
Rountree: Let’s go with Bill.
Gigray: I believe the Item that is for my report here has to do with the request of Mr. Crane which concerns the proposed Findings that were made in this and his concern that those
Findings and Decision of Order includes some conditions the Ada County Highway District which were intended for purposes of being imposed only in the event it was proposed or that there
was going to be a development on these sites of which there is no proposed development. Because this has to do with an interpretation of another government entity’s recommendation and
checking with the Planning and Zoning Administrator, she agrees that an interpretation in this regard would be appropriate and in order to ensure the integrity of the process, I think
that the Council could entertain this as a motion to re-open this matter for and then to set a public hearing to receive the additional information to clarify this ambiguity and then
point and then to make a final decision which would mean that you would have to give notice and set a public hearing at a time to allow notice to be given so that this could be addressed.
Unfortunately, I just have to work based on the motions that were made at the time given the information that was provided. I think his situation presents kind of a unique one and
because we’re dealing with another government entity’s comments which were included as a condition, I think it might be appropriate if you see fit to re-open this, but this is a matter
of your decision.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions on that?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: If in fact the resolution is to re-open it, then we need to have that put on the agenda for a public hearing or is that something we can do now having not publicized it?
Gigray: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rountree, members of the Council, I think as long as you just set it for public hearing and give notice as is notice is given originally on all public
hearings, then all affected property owners will be given an opportunity to address the additional issue, and I don’t have any concern about
that. It is listed here on the agenda under my report, so I think you can proceed to take that action if you choose.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: This is a deal that we would have to get it on the first – January 1st Item because this is something that Councilman Rountree and Bentley would have to enact upon, wouldn’t it?
Or would we go with the new one? This would be a completely new public hearing?
Corrie: Well, it’d be a continued –
Bird: We just sort out – is it continued? We can’t continue because we already closed.
Corrie: So this would be a new public hearing.
Bird: This would be a new public hearing, so do we have to go back through the steps?
Gigray: We would be – I guess we wouldn’t be able to have this by the time the old Council goes off, so it’d be a new business item essentially which the new Council would be dealing
with.
Bird: Do we have to take it back through Zoning, Bill?
Gigray: No.
Bird: Okay. We can do that with a new –
Gigray: I think what the issue would be the ability of the new Council members to make this decision if they could review the record and put in the – on the record that they have reviewed
the record and if the applicant would agree and waive any objection to that occurring as a consideration of re-opening this and you could ask the applicant that if he has an objection
to that because you are set with a problem here because you’re going to have new Council members. Then you would have Councilpersons who are familiar with the record who would be able
to make a decision. I would say weighing on my views about this as a fact that I don’t remember that this was a very contentious matter for which there were property owners that there
were property owners that were highly sensitized by this application, so I think as long as the applicant’s okay with that, you can proceed with it.
Bird: So, basically, be his decision.
Gigray: And he’s here.
Bird: Yeah. I know he’s here. Basically be his decision whether we re-open and go.
Gigray: I think he wants you to.
Bird: That would be the smart thing to do. We can always call them back, can’t we –
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Gigray: Officially, while you’re still Council members, we could handle it this way and you could possibly have the new Council members, since they’re not familiar with the record,
you know, disqualify themselves from decision making and appoint the old two Council members and hearing officers in a sense which you do kind of – that’d be a real round-about way in
(inaudible) to do it. I don’t know that you’d want it come back. I think the easier thing would be just to have the applicant agree that that would happen and then just handle it –
it’s not that big of record anyway.
Corrie: It’s not that big of a –
Bird: It’s not real controversial or anything. Just a clarification. Mr. Mayor, do you want to ask him?
Corrie: Yeah. What we’re saying up here, does that meet your approval with the new Council to make the decision and have them go with another public hearing and let them make the decision?
Crane: I would prefer to get it settled this century. (inaudible)
Corrie: It isn’t going to happen. It’s going to be the year 2000. Good point, though.
Crane: If it’s a choice –
Bird: Come on up.
Crane: If it’s my choice, I would like to open the public hearing now and get these details cleared up now, but –
Corrie: Can’t open the public hearing because the people haven’t been invited to do it. So we’ll have to notice it and then it’ll take care of in probably one night.
Crane: Since this is a detail of the Development Agreement, does it have to go through the normal public hearing to correct the detail in the Development Agreement?
Bird: (inaudible)
Corrie: Probably would, would it?
Gigray: Well, the Development Agreement, though, follows the Order of Decision and the Order of Decision drives the Development Agreement, and that’s the problem you run into. Knowing
the circumstances, and, of course, knowing that you would reserve judgment on this matter, I can – I mean, this stuff is ready to go. It could be ready to go so if you make a final
decision at that time, that it wouldn’t necessarily need to be further delayed because the paperwork would be all done.
Crane: Then we can discuss it now and leave it for approval?
Gigray: No. You need to have it for public hearing.
Corrie: Do we have to do a public hearing? We can’t shorten it up anymore. We can get it all done in that one time, though, what he’s telling us. So it would have to be, what, Mr.
Clerk? It’d have to be –
Bird: Do we have enough time to do it for the 4th?
Corrie: I think it’d have to be the 18th.
Bird: If I remember right, there wasn’t much public hearing to the last one. I don’t think – Let me ask a dumb question. Is there any way we could pass it now with the conditions
of the staff and then get together and yourself and getting it straightened out? Wouldn’t have to come back to us (inaudible)
Gigray: Already taken (inaudible)
Corrie: (inaudible)
Gigray: That’s the problem you may run into there. I think Mr. Crane’s been reasonably patient, and he’s been very nice to deal with, and I think he understands the situation. I would
just say to the Council and the Mayor, and I’m sure this is his probably first shot at development, but one of the problems the developer has to do is to ensure the record is such that
he’s happy with it. I don’t know and I don’t remember that this was really clarified very well at the public hearing before you, so that’s why we’re running into this glitch and why
you took the action you did and he’s willing to address this. It’s just going to take more time.
Corrie: Two, we don’t want to have it come back and throw it back in your face again because we didn’t do it right.
Crane: There is one thing. On September 20th, Steve Siddoway wrote a letter to the Mayor and City Council. It was a staff recommendation. Could that be considered in –
Gigray: It’ll be part of the record, but the action is –
Crane: I mean, when the motion is to include staff comments, would that be a staff comment that should have been included? Can it just be an error correction on the paperwork since
it was already written out September 20th?
Bird: It wasn’t included in our Findings and Decision of Order, and in the Development Agreement. If you want to sign the Development Agreement like it states now, no problem. We
can do that tonight. I don’t think you want to do that.
Crane: No.
Bird: Now we have to start back and go through the procedure which is a lot shorter than what you originally did. I hope it didn’t cause you not to make your sale or something, but
it’s just something that got through the cracks without anybody bringing it up. But if you want to sign the Development Agreement tonight, we’ll pass as it states. We can’t change
it here without doing another public hearing.
Crane: I’m not financially able to.
Bird: I understand.
Crane: So, yeah. Whatever public hearing needs to be set, get this finished up. It will be all done in one hearing, that’d be great.
Corrie: We’ll set it for a public hearing for the 18th of January then. Okay.
Crane: Thank you very much.
Bird: We need a motion on that, don’t we?
Crane: (inaudible)
Bird: Are we all done now?
Corrie: I think so.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: (inaudible) pay Charlie’s fees, so –
Bird: No. We need a motion to make this back to a –
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we re-set public hearing for January 18, 2000, regarding the Charles Crane development and annexation agreement.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mr. Rountree to set the request for public hearing on 1/18/2000 for the Charles Crane request. Any further discussion? All those
in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
CITY TREASURER – JANICE SMITH:
Smith: Sorry. I guess you guys couldn’t find me, but I was trying to get the copy machine to work. Did everybody get their statement of revenues and expenditure report?
Bird: Which one?
Smith: Statement of revenues and expenditure report. Okay. There’s a correct – I’m going to give you –
Bird: Speak up, Janice, so we can hear you.
Smith: Maybe you didn’t have time to review it and critique it, but I found some errors, and I haven’t gotten through all of it. Working with the auditors, statements from last year,
and we got this new software, working on the accrual basis. If you’re looking at the general revenue expenditure summary, you’ll see it looks like we’re in the red. That’s because
Kathleen, she’s working on accrual, but she forgot to put the right date in. So the copy that you have there is the correct one. We’ll get that cleaned up. Just they ran it out late
this afternoon and I pulled it and said what’s this. They just didn’t have time to go back and correct it. But, you know, I am aware of it, and then if you find any other things going
through this. Mayor brought it to our attention, also, in the Enterprise account, with the what was actually budgeted and what’s on this last statement because we had the fund balance
forwarded, and we’re going to get the correction on that tomorrow. That would be in the water and sewer. So if you compared them on Page 1 of the summary of the Enterprise, it has
some fund balance in there that
we need to identify. Also, I gave you a small sheet of – just an 8 ½ by 11 – it just kind of summarizes what was approved in budget, and Council approved then the public notice for
the general -- $9,890,000 and there’s a variance of $814,342. So it’s either you don’t go into the –
*** End of Side 2 ***
as you as Mayor and Council decide. Anyway, those are my reports. I don’t know – you probably didn’t have more time than I did to go over the statements, but please give me your input
if you find anything that – as you find it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Janet, I really like this new system you’re using. At lease we can see what we’re doing. This is basically the fiscal year 98-99 that we’re going to see on the audit; am I not
right?
Smith: Yes. They’re through –
Bird: I compliment all you city employees.
Smith: The audit is done. They haven’t got their notes back to us, so when they get it done, they bring it back to me and then I go through it – see if there are any errors or corrections.
After I go through it, then we sit down with the Mayor again and then it gets -- after that’s approved, they get it typed up. So it should be January 10th. That’s the schedule. Hopefully
get better every year. We’ve got some good staff. That’s really good.
Bird: Anyway, again, I would like to compliment all of them. I hope you directors will go back and tell your employees that I, for one, am very proud of the way they have taken care
of the City’s money and done work at the same time. I appreciate it.
Smith: Thank you.
Rountree: Here, here.
Corrie: Okay. One comment and a here, here. Pretty good. Anything else, Council?
Bird: I have nothing other than we need Gary, I guess.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I did have a question. This was in our package. Is this something from you, local (inaudible) investment (inaudible). What is that?
Smith: Is that from the State Treasury Pool? Yeah. We’ve got the fire truck fund in that. So that extra money’s going in the fire truck fund. It’s – the fees are really low, really
good, and we’re trying to compare that against some of our other investments that we have also. You’ll receive –
Anderson: (inaudible) One is the fire truck fund and this one’s the state and that’s where the money’s at?
Smith: Yes. And you’ll see, too, in the future, the buffing – Buffington Mohr is the all other funds, general, Enterprise, building fund, and then we kept the treasury pool with the
fire truck fund just to give it – our auditors suggested that we put some money in the State Treasury Pool. We’re really happy with them. They’re getting us some new software too.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Janice, we also have $482 or so thousand for the fire truck fund in Buffington Mohr and McNeal.
Smith: Yes; that’s correct.
Bird: Which is pulling in 6 percent yield? Plus the $250,000 that we put in the state.
Smith: Right.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Gary.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR – GARY SMITH:
ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY AGREEMENT:
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council members. This item concerns the hiring of an environmental attorney. I think I’ll just let John Shawcroft give you a briefing on that since he’s
more up to speed on the needs here than I am.
Shawcroft: Good evening, Mayor and Council. This had come up before and we had tabled it in order to talk with – have a meeting with Mr. Dominick and Mr. Gigray and myself in an effort
to determine just what we should be doing to correct the problems with our pre-treatment ordinance. I think what came out of the meeting is that Mr. Gigray has been down this avenue
before and knows what he’s doing, but I think with the amount of work that needs to be done, we – I
would prefer to go ahead and hire Mr. Dominick and Mr. Aris (sic) in order to expedite getting this ordinance revised.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: John, is this that EPA – the clean water? Is this the EPA stuff, getting the clean water and stuff that flows into the Boise River?
Shawcroft: Yeah. In essence, what it says, what the ordinance says, the regulations from EPA that when you hit 50,000 people or five million MGD it’s your plan that you’ll be required
to have an approved EPA pre-treatment program. We have currently a pre-treatment program, and it’s getting better. It’s not currently approvable. There are some gaps in it.
Bird: I don’t think there are any questions (inaudible).
Corrie: Any other discussion? Okay. Let’s – what’s the Council’s pleasure?
Rountree: I guess I just had a question for Mr. Gigray if he had any comments or any discussion.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rountree, members of the Council, we did have a meeting. What I understand the issue here is, and I agree with John that we want to be comfortable with
the pre-treatment ordinance because that’s the ordinance that gives you the enforcement power to protect your delivery system as well as the treatment plant itself. That is critical
in order to maintain compliance with the MPDES permit that is issued to the City and also to protect that plan against some kind of events which could compromise ability to even function.
These are always complicated matters not only involving the law and federal and state regulation, but also involving engineering and biology. So one of the things that I was very happy
about as a result of our meeting with Mr. Dominick is that he had worked with the Enviromechanics PLC which is another part of this proposal, and I would say a major part of it. So
that the City is provided with the kind of technical backup that is going to be needed as we do this review because this does involve these specialties, and we want to ensure that when
this ordinance is put together for resubmission for Council to approve that we’re putting the City in the position to meet with John, as mentioned, the regulations that are going to
come down at the growth that it’s having. The one that you have in place is a 1995 ordinance. It’s certainly a good start to work from. It’s not like we’re in bad shape right now,
but John is looking for the future and trying to put us in a position so we can move forward. I certainly have no objection to what John is suggesting and welcome the assistance in
this regard.
Rountree: Thank you. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve entering into a contract with Dominick Law Offices and Environmental Mechanics, PLLC for the purposes of developing a pre-treatment ordinance, authorize
the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest.
Bird: I second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to enter into the (inaudible) contract with Dominick Law Offices and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Any discussion? I have one. Do
we need to change the address, counselor, they’ve got the address as Ten Mile Road. Do we need to put that as a city?
Gigray: I would suggest the City’s official address should be used.
Bird: Also, Mr. Mayor, when we also want to state that this is a contract from October ’99? That rates the hourly rate in there.
Corrie: Make that change; right. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Bird: We need the areas. We didn’t pass the Environmental Mechanics, PLLC, Charlie.
Rountree: I included that in my motion.
Bird: Oh. Did you? I didn’t understand that.
Corrie: Gary.
IRRIGATION PUMP STATION EASEMENT – GEMTONE SUBDIVISION:
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council members. Second Item I have is a request for an easement from the City of Meridian by the developer of the Gemtone Subdivision. A number of years
ago, this developer donated a well-site lot to us for what was ultimately drilled and called Well No. 16. Well No. 16 is situated off of –
Rountree: North Hickory.
Smith: North Hickory. Thank you. North Hickory Avenue. There’s a 60-foot wide access-way that is located on the east side of North Hickory, extends to the
east to the well-lot proper. The request by this developer is to locate a pump station for their pressurized irrigation system for the Gemtone Subdivision off to the side of our access
to Well No. 16. Well No. 16 also has an access off of – there’s a cul-de-sac that comes into it on the south side from a recent phase of Gemtone. It has two access points. This access
contains waterline that comes out to the waterline in Hickory. The location of the pump station is not going to interfere with our operation or access to the well nor is it going to
interfere with the existence of the waterline that connects the well to our distribution system. I don’t think I have any other information to give to you on this request other than
as I mentioned they did donate the well site to us when the well was drilled. If you agree to the easement agreement, I would request that you authorize Mayor Corrie to sign and City
Clerk to attest. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.
Corrie: Questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on the Public Works Director’s request on the irrigation pump station easement.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the requested irrigation pump station easement for Gemtone Subdivision, authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the irrigation pump station easement and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: (inaudible) general business, I think we have a request by one of the Councilmen, Mr. Bird.
ITEM D. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 7, 1999:
ITEM H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 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: TABLED TO JANUARY 18, 2000
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, before we – we took off Consent Agenda, two items. D and H. Didn’t do anything with them. We probably need a motion to table them.
Bird: You’re 100 percent right.
Rountree: So I just did that.
Bird: You just made a motion?
Rountree: I move we table Items D and H until the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Bird: I second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we take Items D and H and put them on the agenda for the January the 4th meeting. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move we go into an executive session by Idaho Code 16-507, I believe Section D and for Mr. Smith, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Gigray and, of course, Shari, to come on in with
us. We’ve got some discussion on a couple things that have come up.
Gigray: Real property.
Rountree: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made that we go into Executive Session according to Idaho Code 67-2345, Section, Subsection D. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARREID: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Charlie.
Bird: I move that we --
Corrie: Nope.
Bird: Oh.
Rountree: I move we come out of it.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to come out of Executive Session. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we adjourn.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK