HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 11-03MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1999
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
by Mayor Robert Corrie.
MEMBERS PRESENT: ROBERT CORRIE, CHARLIE ROUNTREE, GLENN
BENTLEY, KEITH BIRD.
MEMBERS ABSENT: RON ANDERSON.
OTHERS PRESENT: SHARI STILES, GARY SMITH, BILL GIGRAY, BILL
GORDON, KEN BOWERS, WILL BERG.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 13, 1999
B. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 19, 1999
C. PRE -COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES HELD OCTOBER 19, 1999
D. APPROVE BILLS
E. ADOPTION OF THE SECOND RESTATED AND AMENDED JOINT
POWERS AGREEMENT AND ARTICLES OF REFORMATION AND
ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF
SOUTHWEST IDAHO
Corrie: -- November the 3rd, 1999 City Council meeting. Mr. Berg, would you call
roll, please. I'd like to welcome everyone here this evening as we have Troop
83 here from the Meridian 10th Ward. Thanks, fellows, for showing up and being
here. I think this is your communications — okay. Very good. Well, let's hope we
can give you a good lesson in communications here this evening. Council, you
have the Consent Agenda, Items A, B, C, D, E, and we're going to add the Yanke
Machine Shop appeal, File 5.15.1, also to the Consent Agenda. That will be a
separate one for roll -call vote. Items A, B, C, D and E we can —
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve Consent Agenda A, B, C, D and E.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda A, B,
C, D and E. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 2
F. YANKE MACHINE SHOP -APPEAL ORDER OR REMAND
Corrie: Okay. I'll have Item F —
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we pass the Yanke Machine Shop appeal as written.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the Yanke Machine
Shop appeal. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote; Mr.
Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson is absent. Three ayes, one absent; it's approved. Thank
you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Moving to the agenda items. Before we do that, we have on Items, I
believe, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24, and that's the ones for the request for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Those have to be taken as one due to the
restrictions on the Comp Plan changes. What we — we have one Councilman
that's not here tonight. We would like to have all four here at the same time. Is
there anyone here that was here for those Comprehensive Plan Amendments?
Okay. What we will do, we will open the public hearing on each one of those,
and if you would be able to come the 16th — meeting the 16th of November for the
public hearing, we would like for you to do that. If it will be a hardship on
anybody to come back at that time, we will have the public hearing opened, and
we will take testimony on that, and then we will keep it open until the 16th which
we will do all at one time on the Amendments. So as we come up to those
points, we'll ask again if there's anybody here that has a problem with the 16th. If
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 3
they do, we'll hear your testimony and then we'll continue with the 16th. We'll do
that when we come up to it. It won't be too long, I don't think.
ITEM 1. TABLED 10/19/99: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 7.265 ACRES FOR
CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE II FROM R-8 TO R-15 BY
WILLIAM & LUCILE LEAVELL—END OF 5Th, NORTH OF
CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE AND SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW:
ITEM 2. TABLED 10/19/99: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT 16 FOUR PLEXES WITH POOL AND CLUBHOUSE
FOR USE BY PHASE I & II (PROPOSED CREEKSIDE ARBOUR
PHASE II) BY WILLIAM & LUCILE LEAVELL:
Corrie: All right. Item No. 1 of the Agenda is a tabled 10/19/99 Finding of Facts
and Conclusions of Law: Request for rezone of 7.265 acres for Creekside
Arbour Phase II from R-8 to R-15 by William and Lucile Leavell. Council, you
have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Staff, any further comments
on this one?
Stiles: No, sir.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: There seems to be quite a defugilty (sic) between what's in the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law and all this, and I think we need to table it until
11/16/99 and for the owners, their representatives and Shari and Mr. Gigray to
get together and get this worked out so we have no confusion.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Mr. Bird, would that include Item 2?
Bird: Yes, sir. We'll throw that in, too.
Bentley: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 4
Corrie: Okay. Motion's made by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mr. Bentley to table
Items 1 and Item 2 until the November the 16th, 1999 meeting with the request
made by Mr. Bird. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR REZONE OF .6 ACRE FROM R-8 TO L -O BY MIKE
GAMBLIN—LOCATED AT CHERRY LANE AND LEISURE LANE:
Corrie: Item No. 3 is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: Request for
rezone of .6 acre from R-8 to L -O by Mike Gamblin located at Cherry Lane and
Leisure Lane. Any comment from staff at this one? None? Council.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law, Decision of Order with a modification to 2.29, Page 23 adding at the
beginning of that paragraph the words "prior to applying for a building permit" and
then continuing on with the sentence.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bird to approve
the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Item 3 with the addition of the
comments made by Mr. Rountree. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all
those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? All ayes, motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I believe that's roll -call.
Corrie: Oh. I'm sorry. All Findings are roll -call?
Gigray: Only if that's your rule. Roll -call's required for Ordinance passage and
for Resolutions to enter into contract.
ITEM 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR VARIANCE OF MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH AND MAXIMUM
CULDESAC LENGTH FOR THE LAKES AT CHERRY LAKE #9 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT—NORTH OF CHERRY LANE & EAST
OF ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION:
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 5
Corrie: Item No. 4, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: Request for a
variance of maximum block length and maximum cul-de-sac length for the Lakes
at Cherry Lane No. 9 by Steiner Development. Any staff comments? Okay.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,
request for a variance of the block length for Steiner Development.
=111111111110= 0=1 ON
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, seconded by Mr. Bird to approve the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Item No. 4. We'll have a roll -call
vote; Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Corrie: All ayes, one absent, motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 5. TABLED 10/5/99: REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT FOR LAKES @
CHERRY LANE #9 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT—NORTH OF
CHERRY LANE AND EAST OF ASHFORD GREENS
SUBDIVISION:
Corrie: Item No. 5 was tabled from 10/5/99: Request for final plat for Lakes at
Cherry Lane No. 9 by Steiner Development, north of Cherry Lane and east of
Ashford Greens Subdivision. Any further staff comments? Okay. Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 6
Rountree: I move that we approve the final plat for Cherry Lane's No. 9 subject
to the conditions that were provided on the preliminary plat.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bentley to
approve Item No. 5, final plat for the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 9. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote; Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED ENGLISH GARDENS
SUBDIVISION BY PROJECTS WEST—SE CORNER OF TEN
MILE ROAD & CHERRY LANE:
Corrie: Item No. 6 is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: Request for
preliminary plat for proposed English Gardens Subdivision by Projects West.
Any further comments from staff?
Stiles: No.
Corrie: Council, what's your pleasure?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
approving the preliminary plat for English Gardens Subdivision.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bird to approve Item No.
6, request for preliminary plat for English Gardens Subdivision by Projects West;
any further discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote; Mr. Bentley.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 7
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-15 AND L -O FOR
VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION BY GOLD RIVER COMPANIES,
INC.—NE CORNER OF PINE STREET AND TEN MILE ROAD:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: Request for
annexation and zoning to R-15 and L -O for Valeri Heights Subdivision by Gold
River Companies, Inc. Staff comments? Council?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order of denial for annexation and zoning for Valeri Heights.
:3 &T490 • N :1
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, seconded by Mr. Bird to approve the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Item 7 for denial. Any further
comments? Roll -call vote; Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 8
ITEM 8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO I -L FOR TEN MILE MINI
STORAGE BY ED BEWS—WEST OF TEN MILE AND NORTH OF
USTICK ROAD:
Corrie: Item No. 8 is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: Request for
annexation and zoning to I -L for Ten Mile Mini Storage by Ed Bews west of Ten
Mile, north of Ustick Road. Staff comments?
Stiles: None other than those in the Pre -Council.
Corrie: Okay.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
and Decision of Order with modifications to Items 16.2 on Page 5 to include the
words in the fourth line after I -L Zone that the Development Agreement should be
required and that it restrict the use to mini -storage and that the same modification
be made on Page 12, Item 3.1 of the Decision of Order.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bentley to approve the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with a modification as stated in the
motion. Any further discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On 3.2, 1 didn't think we was going to tile the ditches – page 12.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I can't have recall on the motion, but I think the request was to waive
that in the original request, and I thought our motion for this Finding and Fact
reflected the waiver. It may not have.
Bird: And also on that same paragraph down at the end, it says to lawn area
between the back there, and we was just going to sterilize that ground. It's
saying put lawn area in. That's not right. Isn't that right?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 9
Rountree: Yeah.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Mr. Bird is correct on that. We did talk about not putting lawn back
there but sterilizing.
Bird: That was the way we approved the Findings of Facts. Staff, do you
remember? Isn't that the way we approved that, and we weren't going to tile the
ditches?
Stiles: Not the Creason. If there's others, they would need to be tiled.
Bird: Yeah. But the only one that was involved there, and we were just going to
sterilize that because we weren't going to landscape it or do anything like that.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Okay (inaudible)
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move (inaudible) Mr. Rountree's motion second does the
same.
Corrie: (inaudible)
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I would move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law with modifications to Item 16.2, Page 5 adding the words to the fourth line
after I -L zone development agreement should be required and also to restrict the
use to mini -storage. To modify Item 16.3 making reference that Council waives
the requirement to tile the Creason Lateral and not to provide for a lawn area in
that area behind the storage buildings adjacent to Creason Lateral. Make those
same modifications on Page 12 to Items 3.1 and 3.2.
Corrie: Motion's been made. Is there a second?
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Bentley.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 10
Bentley: Would that be to — you want to add the word "sterile" in there so that we
make sure that we don't put weeds in there?
Bird: Sterilize it.
Corrie: I'm not going to use that word.
Bird: How about sterilize the ground?
Corrie: Well, if we're in discussion, I have a problem with sterilizing the ground
adjacent to a body of water. They have to control the weeds by City Ordinance.
Bentley: Okay.
Corrie: Leave it as is.
Bentley: Leave it as is.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Any further — there is no
discussion. Okay. All those — let's do the roll -call vote; Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
ITEM 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINI STORAGE
FACILITY CONSISTING OF NINE BUILDINGS AND ONE SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING/OFFICE BY ED BEWS --WEST OF TEN
MILE AND NORTH OF USTICK ROAD:
Corrie: Item No. 9 is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: Request for
conditional use permit for mini storage facility consisting of nine buildings and
one single-family dwelling/office by Ed Bews, west of Ten Mile and north of
Ustick Road. Any staff comments?
Stiles: In keeping with the previous motion on Page 19 of the Findings would
require a similar change for the Creason Lateral, and then also the one change
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 11
on 21, Item 2.3.5. There's also still reference made to needing a correct legal in
these Findings.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have a procedural question
will get us an ordinance for annexation.
we act on a conditional use anyway?
We just passed Findings and Facts that
Should we wait until that's done before
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, you shouldn't grant an order of
conditional use permit until the property is annexed into the city, and that's been
your procedure.
Bird: How long is that going to take?
Corrie: (inaudible) for annexation would be how (inaudible).
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I guess more point of process is it requires a development
agreement it'd have to be signed before we moved forward, so we probably
would — if we tabled this, it would have to be until the first meeting in December
which would be the 7t". Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we table Item No. 9 until December 7t" and while on table,
instruct the city attorney to make those necessary changes on Page 19 and Page
21 and get the appropriate information that would correct the legal description.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bird to table Item No.
9 with the attorney to take the modifications to the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law until 12/7/99. Any further discussion? Okay. Roll -call vote;
Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 12
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PHASE 3 OF ST. LUKE'S
MERIDIAN MEDICAL CENTER -- BY ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER AT 520 S. EAGLE ROAD:
Corrie: Item No. 10 is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: Request for a
conditional use permit for Phase III of St. Luke's Meridian Medical Center by St.
Luke's Regional Medical Center at 520 South Eagle Road. Staff, comments?
Okay.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
and Decision of Order granting conditional use permit to St. Luke's Regional
Medical Center.
:3RM.-.•�•.1
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bird to approve the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Item No. 10. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote; Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 11. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM 10/5/99: REQUEST FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING (R -T TO R-4) BY CHARLES
CRANE—LOCATED AT 3610 W. USTICK ROAD:
Corrie: Item No. 11 is a continued public hearing from 10/5/99: Request for
annexation and zoning (R -T to R-4) by Charles Crane located at 3610 West
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 13
Ustick Road. At this time, I'll open the public hearing -- continued public hearing
and hear from staff. Staff first, then I'll (inaudible)
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this was continued to give the applicant an
opportunity to read through the conditions of approval and discuss the problem
we had with the lot split. It's located at — this parcel is just across the street from
Englewood Subdivision along the Nine Mile Creek. Here's our Wastewater
Treatment Plant up here. They had requested an R-4 zoning and an R -T zoning
was recommended by Planning and Zoning. They requested annexation so that
they could split this lot, and since that time, we have changed directions on
where we go on these one-time splits. We had hoped to get together with Mr.
Gigray, Gary Smith and I, to discuss some standards for this one-time split, but
we've been unable to do that yet. I guess the — I'd like — if the applicant wants to
get up and testify, if he's still willing to go through with the annexation and zoning
and has the patience for us to try to work this out so that we could facilitate that
one-time split, that's what we're looking toward, but our problem is that we're
having parcels split without any notice to the City, without any request, and it's
creating a lot of problems for us. Gary and I both agree that we do need some
standards for it. It would be nice to be able to do it administratively instead of
having to go through subdivisions all the time for some of these smaller lots, but
we are just not there yet.
Corrie: Okay. This is a public hearing (inaudible).
Crane: My name is Charles Crane. I live at 3610 West Ustick Road. I'm the
owner of the property. Basically, we've — what started this process was I had a
period of unemployment, trying to sell a piece so we can keep our home. So I
would want to proceed with this. It's already been four months. We're getting
close to — if we don't sell something, they're going to repossess it. So if we can
get annexed, whatever procedures the City would require of me to go through, it
would be better than losing our home. I know the County and other cities around
here have a fast-track procedure for a one-time split, but if Meridian wants me to
go through the entire subdivision process, whatever I have to do at this point,
would like to get this done. Thank you.
Corrie: Questions, Council?
AR0MIIFVVT719 its
Corrie: Mr. Crane, do you have any kind of a concept laid out on that piece of
property that you could show us or —
Crane: For the split?
Corrie: Yeah.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 14
Crane: Yeah. Basically, this triangle, I was going to make a smaller triangle right
here just straight back from the road, and this little corner triangle of about two-
thirds or three-quarters of an acre is going to be a building lot that I was going to
sell. The existing house has been there since the 20s right in this spot next to
this corner here. This house and an acre was what we are trying to keep. The
other option is to sell the house and an acre and keep the piece of land, and
when I get back on my feet, build something there.
Corrie: Have you discussed this with Ada County Highway District and did they
allow two points of access off that parcel?
Crane: I went — there was an ACHD meeting, and they gave staff approval for
the development (inaudible) planning people and (inaudible) planning people was
a staff level (inaudible) from the Road Department.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, just a question: Reviewing the
recommendations to the City Council from the Planning and Zoning Commission,
you may want to ask Shari and the applicant here about this, 1.1 talks about a
restriction that the property could only be split into only two parcels. If you want
to have a condition of zoning, we have to do a development agreement. If you're
not — if you're comfortable without doing a development agreement, I would say
that any split under your existing ordinance is a subdivision and would have to be
handled that way anyway. That's — that would be one thing — and whether or not
this applicant or the staff have any problems with other recommendations of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Corrie: First ask you that question. Any problems with that?
Crane: I'd be willing to enter into agreement for a one-time split if that would help
the proceeding.
Corrie: Okay. Staff?
Stiles: My only question would be the way he has described that having the two
houses with frontage on Ustick Road, do you have a problem with that?
Corrie: Do you want counsel to have that?
Rountree: Is that rhetorical, Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 15
Corrie: I'm sorry. I'll open it to the (inaudible)
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, as far as I'm concerned, if ACHD has allowed the access,
they meet the setback requirements and provide the right-of-way setback that
ACHD may need in some future time, it's not the best thing in the world, but if
they're in general agreement with it, I don't have a problem with it.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I don't have a problem with it.
Bird: I don't have a problem with it.
Corrie: Okay. That's the question, Shari. Yours?
Stiles: Well, the comments that they've made, the Ada County Highway District,
are based only on this application for annexation and zoning. They haven't
approved two accesses to Ustick Road. The applicant is also requesting that he
not be required to construct the sidewalk on Ustick which they are asking for.
Corrie: Yes, go ahead.
Crane: The Road Department, when I asked them about the sidewalk and some
of the other requirements, they said that would only apply if it came before their
kind of like Commission, like what you guys have, that the staff -level approval
that they gave doesn't require those things to be done unless it comes before
them as like a subdivision or something that would have to be reviewed. But just
a one-time split doesn't go through that. It just goes through the staff -level
approval which they already gave. Basically, they said they'd never see me again
if all I was doing was a one-time split.
Corrie: Shari, comment?
Stiles: Could we make part of the development agreement that they share a
driveway at least?
Crane: Currently, there's two entrances to Ustick Road where the house is. It's
a circle driveway that goes around the house. There's actually two entrances
currently. If necessary, I guess we could block one off and maybe move it over
to the piece of property we were going to split off. There currently is two
entrances to the road. There is, I think, 200 feet of road frontage for the corner
that I was going to split off, so it has a large section of roadway. The ACHD —
there's a -- the Road Department did say something about this subdivision
across the street that the driveway, they would prefer it to line up with this
subdivision road across the street, so this would — I could enter into an
agreement that that would be the entrance way for the property to correspond
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 16
with this and to match what ACHD said. They said they would prefer to have a
24- to 30 -foot driveway entrance that matched up with the road. I could do that.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I meant of the applicant, Mr. Bird.
Crane: Thank you.
Corrie: We'll see if we've got anybody else here that would like to talk. Is there
anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony on this request for
annexation and zoning? Okay. Any other comments, discussion?
Bird: I've got a question for staff, but I'll wait until you close it.
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion then to close the public hearing.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: (inaudible) public hearing if you want.
Corrie: Whatever you want. Motion made to close the public hearing. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, I got a question to ask him. The development agreement and stuff
on something like this is split — could we not handle that during the plat — the final
plat or the preliminary plat or what, you know, you have to file that with —
necessary to drag all those other stuff in for this one deal?
Smith: Mayor and Councilmen, I'm not sure I'm the best one to ask that question
to for a development agreement. I don't know the statutory requirements as they
may be that would require — what would require the conditions. It's my
understanding that if it was allowed without the subdivision, that that's what the
applicant is desiring to split that piece off.
Bird: But wouldn't the plat take care of all these conditions and like the
development agreement and all that stuff when you put the — file a plat?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 17
Smith: If a plat was prepared, yes. They could be addressed by the plat.
Generally speaking. Now, there are some things that are contained in a
development agreement that don't show up on the plat such as fencing
requirements, that sort of thing, just as an example, does not show up on a plat.
Primarily, the plat is a survey document, and a lot of the conditions in the
development agreements are just that. They'd be conditions. Not necessarily on
the plat.
Bird: The smaller one, I was just wondering if we could have less paperwork,
less red tape and get it moved through a little faster by not doing that.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I'd like a question for counsel. What is the best way to proceed with
this?
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bentley, I'm looking at the recommendations to
the City Council from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and typically in the
development agreements, you can require those as a condition of the zoning
designation, and usually you do two things in development agreements. One is
you somehow in some of them restrict the kind of use it's allowed within the zone
beyond the use that the zone allows. I didn't see any additional restrictions in
this recommendation other than the zoning designation of R-2, so if you were
going to require a development agreement, in that development agreement you
were going to restrict use beyond the R-2 zone, then we would need to have that
motion articulated with that additional restriction would be. The other parts of the
discussion or development agreement would be conditions of development. That
is what conditions would you impose upon this particular applicant in his
development of the property that should be placed in the development
agreement. A lot of the discussion I heard here in the public hearing seemed to
be centered on the issues regarding access, sidewalks and other issues that
would be associated with street construction, and those types of matters which,
as I understand, are subdivision ordinance as it is today, which would restrict any
division of property. So if this applicant sought to even divide this one time, they
would have to go through some type of platting procedure, and as I understand
the development standards of the City, and in its approval process of plats, that
issues with regards to street configurations, location of boundary of each
particular plat, areas that would have to be dedicated would be usually conditions
of approval of a plat upon recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Administrator, Public Works Department. I think you have to look at this in terms
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 18
of how you see the facts whether you see whether or not you think a
development agreement is needed to govern conditions of development or
restrictions on uses beyond what the R-2 zone would restrict or allow and beyond
what could be done in normal platting process given the intentions of this
applicant.
Bentley: Thank you, I think. It's an R-4 request.
Bird: (inaudible)
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'm really confused.
Bentley: Me, too.
Rountree: What we're being asked for is a one-time split. We've done one-time
splits historically. What I'm hearing now is we can't do one-time splits anymore
without going through the subdivision, preliminary platting, final platting process,
so I'm a bit confused there. In terms of what action we would do next, it seems
that we would have a finding and adopt whatever conditions of recommendations
that have been made to us and instruct staff to work with the applicant to move
forward with either a type of plat that would satisfy what we've historically done
with a one-time split or we have to instruct the applicant and staff to move
forward with the (inaudible) subdivision process. — experienced one thing and
I'm hearing another; thus, the confusion.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rountree, this issue, as you remember, came to
the Council when we had the appeal of the decision of the administrator
regarding the Yanke Machine Shop application. I was asked to review that by
the Planning and Zoning Administrator. In my reading of your subdivision
ordinances (inaudible) allowing one-time splits, it was not provided for in your
ordinance. The ordinance is very specific in its definition that any division of any
parcel that would have existed, I believe the ordinance was passed originally in
1984 was a subdivision under the terms of the ordinance. As you heard this
evening, staff is trying to work on a procedure where the subdivision ordinance
could be amended to allow for administrative lot splits to accommodate the kind
of thing you're talking about, and I think everyone on the staff agrees that needs
to be done. I just have to advise the Council and staff that my interpretation and
reading of the ordinance, and that's what it is. I don't know what advice they had
before.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 19
Bird: I'm as confused as (inaudible). Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Do we have a short plat where we can do a preliminary and final at the
same time? That would probably be the fastest route to go, wouldn't it, for the
applicant? How do we make that (inaudible) — so we just need to approve the —
I've got another question.
IOT@T i=- A=:3ISO I
Bird: For Mr. Gigray. He's going to research it. If we approve the annexation
with the Findings and stuff, then we have to go through the final — the whole
conditional thing, so why can't we just without the conditions and then find it, and
it'll take care of itself when it goes into the plat thing? That's the question I got
for — I just want to help the gentleman get his problem solved. We might get you
screwed up, but we'll try to help you.
Corrie: Be a party to a bankruptcy here. Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I think the only real decision you
have to make this evening is whether, obviously, whether or not you want to
annex and you want to give it this zoning designation, you want to do the R-4 as
they requested or do the R-2 as recommended by Planning and Zoning. The
ordinance on subdivision will take care of itself, and there is one provision here,
and Gary reminded me and we're aware of it, where he may be able to apply for
some relief from having to go through the whole platting procedure. I think the
thing that you've got to decide is do you want any conditions on this annexation
and zoning that would be in a development agreement to assure whatever
results came out of the division of that property and its use that you needed to
have in a development agreement that you wouldn't have without it, because if
you annex without a development agreement, then they're just subject for the
general terms of the ordinance in which they're zoned. There's no other
restriction on use, and there'd be no restriction on development other than what
your other ordinances provide.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we have Findings and Facts and Conclusions of Law
prepared for the annexation and zoning request from Mr. Crane in that
annexation and zoning —
*** End of Tape 1 ***
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 20
I would have the request made by the applicant from R -T to R-4 be to an R-2
zoning and that the Findings also incorporate the recommendations provided to
the Council from Planning and Zoning.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bird to approve the
request for annexation and zoning with the stipulations as stated in the motion
and to have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law drawn up by the
attorney. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 12. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM 10/5/99: REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 96 UNIT APARTMENT
COMPLEX (PROPOSED COBBLESTONE VILLAGE) BY STAMAS
CORPORATION/IONIC ENTERPRISE, INC.—SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE & FRANKLIN:
Corrie: Item No. 12 is a continued public hearing: Request for conditional use
permit for a 96 -unit apartment complex (proposed Cobblestone Village) by
Stamas Corporation/Ionic Enterprise, Inc. At this time, I'll re -open the – continue
the public hearing on Item No. 12. Staff?
Stiles: I really don't know what's going on with this. I guess Bill's raising his
hand.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I believe the hold-up on this
particular matter is not so much with conditional use permit which I believe is
being continued because of the fact that the earlier action which I believe has to
do with the development agreement and annexation is the fact that the
corporation, Ionic, which is supposed to enter into the agreement, is still not
qualified to do business in the state of Idaho, and we've just held this until they
were provided with proof that they had appropriately registered with the
Secretary of State because you can't do business as a corporation unless you're
so recognized, and so I have not – I double checked the file before coming to the
Council this evening, and we still have not yet received that proof. I believe the
hold-up, the information that we've received was that the president of the
corporation's a California corporation was out of the country or something and
wasn't returning until sometime in late October, and probably hasn't got it done
yet.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 21
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we table – continue the public hearing for conditional use permit
for a 96 -unit apartment by Ionic Enterprise until 11/16/99.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made by Mr. Bentley, seconded by Mr. Bird to continue
the public hearing on Item No. 12 until 11/16/99. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TARAWOOD SUBDIVISION BY
MICHELANGELO INVESTMENTS, LLC—SOUTH OF LOS
ALAMITOS PARK & NORTH OF SHERBROOKE HOLLOWS:
Corrie: Item No. 13 is a public hearing: Request for reconsideration of a
preliminary plat for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC. At
this time, I'll open the public hearing. Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, just a point of procedure, I reviewed
the notes concerning this particular matter and the various motions that were
made, and I, to assist the Council in this regard, it's my opinion in reading those
that actually no motion concerning this matter ever passed. The motion that did
pass was to continue the public hearing, and I think that at least from my
standpoint as I would prepare Findings if you reach some type of conclusion
would be just to show this as a continued public hearing if that's agreeable with
the members of the Council. That's how I see the minutes as I read them.
Corrie: Okay. Then Item 13 will be a continued public hearing rather than public
hearing. Same thing, but it's continued. Staff, any comments?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, my recollection of what happened was the public
hearing was closed, the plat was denied, and after that happened, the applicant's
representative got up and gave additional testimony that the rest – the people
that were in opposition to the project, they had already left because the public
hearing was closed. I think that was why the public hearing was re -noticed so
that those people would get notification of this public hearing so that the
applicant's representative could bring forth any new testimony that they had
since the public hearing was closed. We probably should be acting on the
Findings on the annexation and zoning prior to any action on the plat.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 22
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I just reviewed the minutes before
coming here, and as I read them, it appeared to me the motion that was made
by, I think it was Councilman Bird, didn't pass. Then there was a discussion,
then it was finally determined to continue the public hearing for more information.
But be that as it may, you all decide how you view that. I just wanted to make
comment, I think, since you continued the public hearing, you could proceed to
take testimony on — then we can deal with that.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening? Becky.
Bowcutt: Also, I apologize for my attire this evening, but I don't have anything
that I can coordinate with this that's dressy. Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering,
1800 West Overland, Boise. Just to refresh your memory, we did hold the public
hearing on the annexation and the rezone request to R-4. I submitted my
testimony. Mr. Stoppello submitted his, and we did have opposition from the Los
Alamitos Subdivision residents and the President of the Association. Their main
concerns was issues of liability and traffic. Then the motion was made to
approve the annexation and rezone and adopt appropriate Findings. I believe in
the motion they removed condition requiring a pedestrian access to the
Ridenbaugh Canal. That was supported unanimously. At that time, Councilman
Anderson did not state that I will support the motion; however, I have some
reservations or concerns about the development. So when the preliminary plat
was opened up, I basically asked that my testimony on the annexation be
submitted for the preliminary plat also. Obviously to save time because the
hearings have gone quite long. The opposition did get up. I believe the
President of the Association got up, made a couple of comments, and then the
vote was taken to deny the plat. What I was puzzled about is the annexation was
kind of tied to the plat, and so I wasn't sure what had transpired, but I came away
confused. I did jump up. I did ask for reconsideration because if Councilman
Anderson, Councilman Bentley had some concerns and wanted additional
information to make a decision upon this project, then I wanted an opportunity to
submit that. That's why I'm here this evening. I did get a letter from Ada County
Highway District. I don't know if Will distributed that to everyone. Will, did — I
faxed it to Will this morning. Yes. I met with Ada County Highway District, Dave
Slatt (sic), Christy and Steve Arnold. I went over the concerns that the Council
had brought up and the concerns of the neighborhood. They generated this
letter. Basically what it states is these two stub streets out of Los Alamitos must
be continued into this project. The extension of these roadways does not exceed
capacity of the local streets in Sherbrooke Hollows or Los Alamitos, and that staff
supports the proposed layout without any additional, unnecessary stub streets to
the west. I did bring some maps for you to make it a little easier. On the
overhead you can't really see where the traffic's going because it's cut off.
These are maps that let you view from Locust Grove to Eagle Road and out to
Victory. They're too big for an overhead, so — If you noticed on that map, the
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 23
project in question has the black line around it. As you can see, the stub street to
the south in Sherbrooke Hollows has a pretty direct path out to Victory. Also, it
has a pathway out to Locust Grove. So there are three points of possible access
through Sherbrooke Hollows and then there are these two stub streets that will
lead to one access up here going out to Locust Grove. There's also the potential
for traffic to split and go out to the east through the vehicular bridge over the
Ridenbaugh and get into Thousand Springs. It has always been important that
we make some type of connections to these public streets. This particular
section with that vehicular bridge being in the middle of the section provides
many options. This parcel is a small parcel. We're talking 32 single-family lots.
The density of this project is less than Los Alamitos. It is comparable or less
than Sherbrooke Hollows, and consistent with Thousand Springs. The fears that
they neighbors had was that all the traffic would use their streets. According to
Ada County Highway District, that is not correct. If people, depending on which
direction they're going to go and where they live within this Tarawood
Subdivision, they're going to take multiple routes. Accesswise, this property has
with the three stub streets, a lot of different options. This was the traffic study
that was done on Sherbrooke Hollows. Since then, we came in with that
Sherbrooke Village which brought this street straight down. It was estimated this
project would dump up to 300 trips per day into Sherbrooke Hollows. That was
based on the traffic engineer's estimate. You — the average single-family
dwelling generates up to 10 trips per day, and so that'd be about 30 homes. The
other thing I wanted to bring to your attention that I brought up the fact that the
bridge was not a good idea over the Nine Mile drain, and was the difficulty that
we have had in the past dealing with the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.
This is a letter I got from the EPA, and it took me over a year to be able to pipe a
portion of that Nine Mile drain, and I would just like to read this to you: "The
Environmental Protection Agency strongly objects to the proposed elimination of
this reach of Nine Mile Creek. Despite the existing degraded condition of this
stream, there are opportunities to improve the condition of this stream as long as
it remains an open channel. Putting the stream into a pipe forecloses these
opportunities." We spent hours and hours and hours with these EPA guys on
just a pipe. This wasn't even the big drain. This was just a little ditch that fed the
Nine Mile drain, but because on the map it said Nine Mile Creek where this little
tiny ditch was, we fell under Army Corps jurisdiction. I'll submit that for the record
also. We would have to, in order to cross that creek with a bridge, we would
have to deal with Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency,
Fish and Wildlife Service, we have to deal with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District.
There is a whole regiment of agencies that we must go through, and they must
all consent to the structure that we intend to put into these facilities, and that was
my problem here. Everyone consented except for the EPA, and it took us many,
many months of discussions and trying to find alternatives, and when we could
demonstrate that we had no alternatives, they finally went ahead and approved
our project. The other thing I'd like to mention was the issue of pressure
irrigation that was brought up. We will not be connecting to Los Alamitos'
pressurized irrigation pump station. I have met with Nampa Meridian Irrigation
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 24
District. They indicated to me that that system is at capacity. There are
problems with that system, and they said the problems are due to the fact that
the engineer, the previous engineer, who designed it, we did the last phase, but
the irrigation design was done prior to us working on the project, did not loop
lines. There are many dead-end lines within Los Alamitos Subdivision. Those
dead-end lines are causing problems with pressure. So that is out of the
question as far as any irrigation for this particular project. We have two options
according to Nampa Meridian: Go in and upgrade the pump station for
Sherbrooke Hollows and Thousand Springs; that would require bringing three-
phase power into it or, two, have an independent pump station for this
development. Those are the two options. We have adequate water sourcing for
that. It's just a matter of which way Nampa Meridian determines they want us to
go. What was the other — the other issue was the issue of liability. It was stated
that the Los Alamitos had concerns that if our traffic went through their
development, a car accident happened, that they could have liability problems.
According to the Ada County Highway District, that is ridiculous. They said that
should have no bearing. The last issue that was brought up was the issue of
schools. A letter was sent by Mr. Carberry. It talks about the overcrowding that's
taken place in the schools at this time. Mr. Carberry says these are their new
letters. They neither approve developments nor do they recommend denial.
They're giving us the facts. He is stating that the schools out in this vicinity,
especially Mary McPherson is over capacity. They're trying to get a new site
right now. I've been working with them. They want a site south of Victory, but
we've got to figure out how to get sewer to it because the Nine Mile trunk is at
capacity. So that is an issue. The high school site, they believe they're going to
build that within a couple years. The middle school will have some relief in the
fall of 2000 with the new one east of Eagle Road. So we are making headway.
But these types of letters — we're going to see a lot more of them because this
situation is pretty much the same for most projects in the Meridian area at this
time. We're asking you to approve this project. We feel it's a good project. It is
an abnormal parcel; it is in -fill. We've done the best we can with what we have to
work with and the limitations. To put a bridge either to the west or to the east
doesn't make any economic sense, and the Highway District says they will not
support it. Do you have any questions?
Corrie: Council?
AR0MIIFFUT719 its
Corrie: All right, Becky. They don't have any questions.
Bowcutt: One thing I did forget, the applicant did meet with Shari, and he and
Shari did come to some agreement on pedestrian access. Just for the record,
Nampa Meridian has an easement here where the small drain turns into the big
drain, and he's agreed to grant a pedestrian easement across the back, and
there's also a Nampa Meridian easement here. We grant an easement back
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 25
here and link in with this pedestrian pathway that's already in existence, and that
10 -foot easement would link to that. So we would not have a new point of
access to the Ridenbaugh, but we would merge our access with this one, and
that would put it right at the vehicular bridge. So we will provide easements for
that access, and then if that bridge ever came in, you could walk back behind
here and then you could go down the Nine Mile drain.
Bird: That's your complete south — make the — across the whole south?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Linking right into this pedestrian path. Run the south
boundary.
Bird: And no more to the Ridenbaugh?
Bowcutt: No. We would not have a separate access to the Ridenbaugh. No, sir.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: No questions.
Bowcutt: No questions?
Corrie: Nope. Anyone else here tonight that would like to issue testimony on this
request? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the continued
public hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the continued public hearing regarding the preliminary
plat for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to close the continued public hearing on
Item No. 13. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 26
Bentley: Would — question for counsel. Would this require new Findings?
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bentley, we do Findings on preliminaries. We
don't on finals.
Bird: This is preliminary. So we would have to have Findings.
Gigray: The Findings that we do are simply to try to follow the provisions of your
ordinance with regards to preliminary plats and the conditions preceding to
granting them and including the conditions imposed in granting a preliminary plat
if you grant it.
Bentley: My question was because of the new testimony brought forth whether
we should have some new Findings.
Gigray: There have been none prepared.
Bentley: Thank you. That's all I have.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. The Chair will entertain a motion —
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we direct the attorney to Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law and Decision of Order for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo
Investments, LLC and approval.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird, second by Mr. Bentley to have the attorney
draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the Order in the
affirmative. Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 27
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 14. TABLED 10/19/99: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
12.801 ACRES FOR TARAWOOD SUBDIVISION BY
MICHELANGELO INVESTMENTS, LLC—SOUTH OF LOS
ALAMITOS PARK & NORTH OF SHERBROOKE HOLLOWS:
Corrie: Item No. 14 is request for annexation and zoning of 12.801 acres for
Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC. Staff, any comments
on the Findings of Facts on this one? Let the record show she held her finger up
for one minute, please. Okay. (inaudible)
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, if her previous proposal is accepted to do away
with the pedestrian walkways that we had previously requested, on Page 6 of the
Findings, Item 15.12, that would need to be deleted.
Corrie: 15.12 on Page 6.
Stiles: And also Page 14, Item 3.12 would need to be deleted, and we'd also like
to add the condition that a common lot be provided along the entire southern
boundary of the property. That's all I had.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,
request for annexation and zoning of 12.801 acres for Tarawood Subdivision by
Michelangelo Investments with the following additions: On Page 6, 15.12 be
deleted; Page 14, Item 3.12 be deleted; and with the addition that a common lot
be provided on the entire southern boundary. That's it.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the request for annexation and zoning with
the additions stated by Mr. Bentley for Page 6, Page 14 and the common lots.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 28
Bentley: I move we take a 10 -minute break.
:31iTeMIM, I=40 reWIs, T111
Corrie: We'll take a 10 -minute recess. Be back at 10 minutes after 9:00.
(Where upon meeting was in recess at 9:10 p.m.)
ITEM 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW
BUILDING HEIGHT OF 43 FEET IN AN I -L ZONE BY FOOD
SERVICES OF AMERICA:
Corrie: -- City Council meeting and open the public hearing for Item No. 15 as
request for variance to allow building height of 43 feet in an I -L zone by Food
Services of America. I'll open the public hearing and invite staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, staff did not prepare any comments on this. They
are requesting to go to 43 feet. There's a 40 -foot maximum limit in the I -L zone,
and we have no problems with their request.
Corrie: All right. Thank you. I'll — since this is a public hearing, invite the
applicant to speak first. Have your name, please, and spell your last name,
Avery: Mr. Mayor, Council, may name is Gene Avery, A -V -E -R -Y. I represent
Food Services of America. Currently, our warehouses are at 40 feet. We're
requesting a three-foot variance. This will allow us to have 50 percent more
storage space with the advanced technology that we've had in the last few years.
It will avail us to have 50 percent more storage. Rather than spreading the
warehouse up for three feet extra, we have a 50 percent more storage area.
That's why we are requesting the variance. Any questions?
Corrie: Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Very good. Thank you.
Avery: Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public like to issue testimony on Item No. 15 for the
request for the variance? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the
public hearing.
Bentley: So moved.
:]rom&q - .l l
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 29
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in
favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council.
Bentley: Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Question for staff. Kenny. Do you have any problems with this from
the fire side?
Bowers: Mayor Corrie, City Council and Mr. Bentley, we do not have a problem
with this as long as it meets Uniform Fire Code. I do know — we do have other
buildings that are taller than this.
Bentley: Thank you. That's all I have.
Corrie: Any other questions, discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: All right. I'll entertain a motion on the variance request.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we have Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order prepared for the variance request with a favorable decision.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded that we have the attorney draw up
the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with a due -pass recommendation.
Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF THE EAST
SIDE YARD SETBACK (REDUCTION FROM 10 FEET TO 7
FEET) BY PIPCO, LLC:
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 30
Corrie: Item No. 16 is a public hearing. It's a request for variance of the east
side yard setback (reduction from 10 feet to 7 feet) by Pipco, LLC. At this time,
I'll open the public hearing and invite staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, Becky's going to have to address this. I didn't
quite understand from the application what it is they're requesting. The fence is
off, apparently, by seven feet, and since it's been in that location for a number of
years, the property owner adjacent to them is unwilling to go with the actual
surveyed property. What Becky is telling me is that they are asking for a
reduction from a 10 -foot setback on the east boundary to a 7 -foot setback.
Corrie: Okay. This is a public hearing. Ms. Bowcutt.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland, Boise. Just
to refresh your memory, that Seabury Subdivision that I brought through, it was
some four-plexes. This was an existing R-15 zone just to the north of it. This is
an out -parcel here, and it's on Broadway. That parcel you see in red is vacant.
They intend to build a multi -family dwelling on that property. One of the problems
that we found out in that area is all the fences are off by seven feet
approximately. Somewhere down the line, many, many years ago, a surveyor or
a property owner or somebody got off, and it was perpetuated all the way down.
What we have happen is the adjoining property owner on the east — on the west
side of it — is it the west side? The west side of us. Her carport overhangs onto
this property, and her fence encroaches into this property. So what we're asking
for is a reduction in the side yard setback on the east side from 10 to 7, so a
deviation of 10 feet, in order to move — so we don't have to disrupt her fence, her
carport, because that's her main concern. She wants the property as it. Now, on
the east side, the fenceline is seven feet over. So technically even though we
would be getting a variance, when you look at it in the field, it would appear that
we were closer to the property line than is allowed by the zone. Am I being
clear? This is a very strange one. I have talked to other surveyors out in this
area. I did get another call from another neighbor, and the same situation on
down the street. The — our survey department said the only way to solve the
problem is probably for someone to take the initiative to do a record of survey on
all of these parcels and try to get everybody's property line matching up with the
fences, and do like a property -boundary adjustment all the way down the block.
That's the only way to clean it up. But we have an issue of like adverse
possession because these fences have been there for so long, so to go and tell
people what they thought was their property for many, many years it's not is
going to be hard, so that's why we would recommend lot -line adjustments to
clean up the problem if the neighbor of if these residents want to do that in the
future. That's their only option. This solves the problem at hand for us at this
time. That's why we're here tonight asking for the variance.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 31
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Are you actually then going to change the legal description to reflect
that? Unless you change the legal description, you're — no matter where the
adjacent property owners' buildings are, you're still within ten feet --
Bowcutt: So your question is —
Rountree: -- of the legal boundary. My question is why are you here?
Bowcutt: Why are we here?
Rountree: Unless you're going to change the legally described boundaries.
Bowcutt: Because in order to change the boundaries, we have to get
cooperation from all the adjoining property owners.
Rountree: No. That's not my question. If your description is such that where
you build the building allows you 10 feet to your described property line, you're
within and you're consistent with the ordinance.
Bowcutt: But in order to meet that, I would — I'd have problems with the carport
on the west side.
Rountree: You'd have seven feet between the two.
Bowcutt: I can't — I can't get the building in there with the carport and the fence.
I see what you're getting at: Why am I here? I'm here to try to find a
compromise with the property that has an encroaching carport and fence. So
what I'm asking for is on the other side of the property, I want a three-foot
deviation.
Rountree: On the other side of the property?
Bowcutt: Correct. Yes, sir. On the other side of the property so that my building
would slide away from her carport. That's what I said in the field — when you look
at the fences, it would appear that I meet the setbacks. But in reality as far as
where the property line is of record, I would be encroaching three feet.
Rountree: Okay. All right.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: She answered that. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 32
Corrie: That answered the question; we were on the wrong side of the fence.
Thank you, Becky. Anyone else from the public like to issue testimony on this
variance request? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public
hearing on item 16.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 16.
Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Rountree: I have none. Other than I don't see any difficulty with this.
Bentley: I don't either.
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion on the request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we get Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Decision
of Order regarding a favorable motion for the variance on the east side yard
setback reduction from 10 feet to 7 feet by Pipco, LLC at the site on West
Broadway and west of 4t" Street.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to request the attorney to draw up
the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with a favorable vote for the Item
No. 16. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now, we're going into here the public hearings for the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. So what I would like Council, if they would be so inclined, we
will take 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 in that order and hold Item 19 and 20 until
after that's done. If the Council would like, they can open each one separately,
hear it, and do the Findings of Facts and come back for the 16 (inaudible)
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 33
Bentley: I haven't any problem.
Bird: I have no problem with it, Mayor.
Rountree: Sounds like a plan to me.
ITEM 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE LAND USE FROM SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED/PLANNED USE BY J -U -B
ENGINEERS, INC.—WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN
FAIRVIEW & USTICK:
Corrie: Item No. 17 is a public hearing: Request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change land use from single-family residential to mixed/planned
use by J -U -B Engineering, Inc. So I'll open that public hearing on Item No. 17.
Staff, any comments?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, we have no additional comments. Nancy Taylor
from J -U -B did leave because she thought that these were not going to be heard
tonight.
Rountree: Who?
Stiles: Nancy Taylor, the representative. We had no particular problem with that
designation there. They'll all have to come back in for annexation and zoning
and conditional use permit.
Corrie: All right. So, Mr. Counselor, do we continue this one, then?
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, J -U -B is the applicant. I guess the
question is whether or not anyone here, anyone else is here to testify on this
matter, and I guess it depends on what your ultimate decision would be. If you're
inclined to grant this, I don't know that they'd have any prejudice by leaving.
That'd be a judgment call on your part. If you wanted to be very technical, I
guess, you would continue it because of that information.
Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the public like to issue testimony on
Item No. 17? All right. I guess the question would be any of you have any
problem with that request to change land use from single-family residential to
mixed –
Bird: I sure don't.
Rountree: I have no discussion during the public hearing.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 34
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 17. All
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I guess we could do the motion right along with each one. Okay. I'll
entertain a motion, then.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the request — get the Findings of Facts of Decision
of Order request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change land use from
single-family residential to mixed/planned use by J -U -B Engineers and
incorporate west of Eagle Road between Fairview and Ustick.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the attorney to draw up
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with approval on Item No. 17. Any
further discussion? Roll -call vote; Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bentley: Since we told the gal from J -U -B, are we just going to notify them so
they don't have to make a trip back here? Or are we going to go ahead and — I
would prefer you do that. There's no sense in her coming back.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, you'll have Findings prepared for the
16th; is that correct? We'll be notifying them and telling them that the —
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 35
Bentley: Yeah. I just meant to let them know that we've already gone ahead and
approved that one so she's aware.
Berg: I can make that contact tomorrow.
Bentley: Thank you.
ITEM 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE LAND USE OF 12.3 ACRES FROM
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL BY
DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED REALTY
CORPORATION/DAKOTA COMPANY—SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW
AND EAST OF RECORDS:
Corrie: Item No. 18 is a public hearing: Request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change land use from 12.3 acres from single-family residential to
commercial by Developers Diversified Realty Corporation/Dakota Company. I'll
open the public hearing. Staff, any comments?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, the applicant has requested changing from
single-family residential to commercial. I'm not sure how we can work this. Our
current Comprehensive Plan requires that all uses in the mixed/planned use area
require conditional use permits. If this is approved to commercial, we would ask
that there also be incorporated in the text that this particular project would require
conditional use permit.
Corrie: All right.
Stiles: And it will require platting.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions, comments? Okay. Since this is a public hearing,
request the applicant first.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 East Park Center
Boulevard, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. I'm just a little bit confused. Are we going to
have a public hearing on this matter or not?
Corrie: You're in it right now.
Durkin: If you look at the agenda for tonight, I think it would be clear that this
Item and the next item and the next item are related. I have a presentation and
in interest of time, I've kept it brief, but it's – they're all related. I'd like to just go
through the presentation, and I may mention annexation, I may mention rezoning
in this, but it will keep the other matters when we get to those brief, if that's all
right with everyone.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 36
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I have a question. You said this item, the next one and the next one.
Are you talking 19 and 20?
Durkin: Yes.
Bentley: Okay.
Durkin: 18, 19 and 20 are all related to the same issues, the same matters.
Bentley: I was just trying to get it straight for the record, because we said we
were going to skip over 19 and 20. But you're going to address those, 19 and
20, now?
Durkin: They're in my prepared presentation, and then I'll re -address them again
if you'd like.
Bentley: That's fine. I just wanted to have it clear for the record when we type it.
Thank you.
Durkin: Thank you. I am the President and the owner of Dakota Company, Inc.,
a Boise -based development company, and I'm here tonight on behalf of the
applicants, Developers Diversified Realty. There's a couple things that I'd like to
make clear for the record in the interest of clarity. These points relate to all three
applications you discussed a moment ago. I've gone through this same text
during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearings that we've had on this
application. We have changed the name of the entire shopping center from the
Family Center at Meridian to Meridian Crossroads. So when I use the term
Meridian Crossroads or the Family Center or the Family Center Meridian, I just
want the record to reflect I'm talking about the same property. Last year we
began the City approval process for the development of the shopping center.
That is now well underway. It's — this turned out to be a six-month process, but
we did gain your approval for a conditional use permit, and as you know, some of
the stores are now open. The two major concerns that we faced were the
potential for noise problems and traffic congestion. We conducted several traffic
studies and concluded that the highway and streets were suitable for the center.
In addition, we agreed to add turn lanes, stoplights and to set aside some land
for future road widening and overpasses. We conducted a noise study — we
hired an outside consultant to conduct a noise study, and we spent a lot of time
adjusting the site plan and making other modifications to ensure that the noise
from the operation of the center wouldn't --
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 37
*** End of Tape 2 ***
the land that we now have as part of the shopping center. I'm going to walk over
— Shari, do you have a slide on that?
Stiles: Which one?
Durkin: To give the members of the Council and the public the bearings here,
this is Fairview Avenue. This is Eagle Road. This is the Shopko store as it now
exists. We have building permits for this phase and will begin construction of that
soon. We either have building permits or expect to have them shortly for this end
of the development. All of the improvements from Records Drive which is here
with the signal around to Presidential are installed or being completed at this
time. What we're talking about in the Comp Plan change is this area in white that
is now a turf farm and a landscaping area. This is an existing, occupied
cemetery to the east of that. There's a street here that is Ventura Street; it
intersects with Fairview. Our submittal to ACHD is to continue that — it will
eventually continue into the east side of the Crossroads Subdivision area. We
are going to talk about a Comp Plan change for this piece of property which is
designated single-family residential. We're going to talk about annexation of this
piece of property tonight from the county into the city. Then we are going to talk
about a rezone of this property. This property is now zoned I -L -L. It's called I -L.
Oh. 1-L. Our plan is to combine this so that it's all the same zoning and when we
go through the platting process and conditional use, this will become one parcel.
So the reason we're requesting the rezone is so that these will share the same
zoning. You may recall that when we went through the process on this, the
zoning allowed a shopping center with the conditional use, but we feel that it's
better to have the adequate zoning on this parcel so — there's three things we're
going to talk about tonight. Comp Plan change for this parcel and annexation
and zoning for this parcel and then a rezone for this parcel. Why are we asking
for this change? Do we really need more space? Let me answer these
questions before I go into the viability of the residential use for this property as
it's now designated. We're asking for a change in order to add a tenant to the
shopping center that from a size and scope standpoint, cannot be
accommodated elsewhere in the shopping center. This tenant will build a store
that will bring many benefits to the shopping center and to the City of Meridian
including groceries. We've really had many calls from a nearby residence
requesting grocery stores, and now we have one ready to go forward. We will
meet the screening criteria and the landscape plan for the entire project. In fact,
Tom, I'm just going to ask you to put up the other — just put that — this plan that
Tom has just put up represents a blow-up of that portion that is, again, the white
area is the area that we are doing the Comp Plan change request. That
annexation and a gray area is the rezone area. We have — we're submitting
plans and we submitted them landscaping really matches the existing center with
a couple of changes; the buffer area to the south is wider, and the buffer area,
that berm area along Fairview Avenue is wider. But the development will, from a
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 38
screening standpoint, the masonry wall will continue all along the south and it's
indicated on the plan, and, again, it'll continue along the east boundary all along
the new street. As you can see from our application both here and to ACRD, we
have no access on the new street. All the access will be controlled through the
existing improvements on Records Drive which is now a signaled intersection,
and the access points onto Fairview Avenue. The loading for this center will not
back up to any existing or any future single-family homes. What loading they will
have will back up to a cemetery that will be well -screened. The comments in the
staff report about the operation possibly interfering with services at the cemetery,
the cemetery people are in support of this application. We worked out a
screening plan that they're pleased with. We'll be presenting that further in the
conditional use permit process. But remember, the two major concerns that we
had before, noise and traffic. From a noise standpoint, this is a drastic
improvement from anything that we now have approved on the gray area of the
plan. I'd like to just talk a moment about traffic. Tom, could you hand out the
letter that Patrick Dolby letter and the other — those two. I have a handout here.
They may be stapled together. There's a letter — well, let me remind you first.
We now have the approval in hand to build about 100,000 square feet on the
gray area of that plan. What we intend to do is add 12 acres to the site, yet add
an additional 100,000 square feet overall. We, through our earlier approval
process, submitted traffic studies that were reviewed and approved by this group.
We did an amendment to that just indicating what the traffic impact would be for
this new store, and it's really insignificant. The new store, by building a 200,000
square foot store here, according to the traffic study, it adds 2,000 vehicle trips a
day which is 1,000 cars a day to that area. There's some discussion in this letter,
and I'm talking about the Patrick Dolby letter, not the ACHD letter that you were
just handed. There's some discussion about where that traffic will come from.
Then second letter that you have is a letter from David Slatt (sic) from ACHD
agreeing and approving the amended traffic study. Should we fail to
accommodate our Comp Plan change, annexation and rezone change, this
tenant would go somewhere else in Meridian or west Boise resulting in shoppers
coming here for one thing, leaving the center and going somewhere else —
maybe across the street, maybe across town — to shop at their store. This
results in much more travel, not less travel. We — if we were denied these
requests, we'd still go forward then and build the 100,000 square feet of
development that we now have approved, and you'd have an additional 200,000
someplace else. We think this is a real improvement. The property is
designated along with the cemetery as future single-family residential. I think it's
doubtful that the cemetery, which I mentioned earlier is occupied, will be moving.
We (inaudible) small strip of property that's between the shopping center and the
cemetery. The Comprehensive Plan now recommends commercial development
occur along streets with major traffic. I think everyone would agree that Fairview
meets that criteria. The center is being built to handle this traffic. The off-site
work or the work on the ACHD property will be completed by us well in advance
of our opening. Other areas in the city face problems with traffic; I read in the
paper everyday about areas in Meridian where maybe the planning wasn't great
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 39
and the traffic is now becoming a problem. This entire project is well-planned
and set up to accommodate increases in the future. As the traffic increases, it's
doubtful that the land that we're talking about on the Comprehensive Plan area
will develop into single-family. However it develops, if it weren't developed by us,
there would be access on Ventura Street without the benefit of a light that we
have on Records Drive. In short, the designated use is not likely to occur. Our
plans will enhance our shopping center, will bring substantial revenues to the
city, will put no significant burden on the roads, schools, parks or utilities, and will
improve the layout of the buildings and the overall shopping center. I'd like to
request that you approve our request for a Comprehensive Plan change, and I
further will be requesting that you approve our request for an annexation and a
rezone of the Parcel 5 or the gray area there. After seven months of public
hearings and meetings, we are anxious to proceed and go forward. We have
read the Findings and we, in our application, had requested that you put the
burden on us to go through conditional use process with this land and a
development agreement. We're in full agreement to that. We might only add
that the Findings as I read them here, I would assume would be modified with the
final outcome of a conditional use permit with the City, but what I've shown you
tonight, what I've submitted in the past and what you have in Will's office back
here are exactly the same, and that's our full intention of what we plan to
develop. I'll happily answer any questions.
Corrie: Questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your presentation. Is there anyone else
from the public that would like to issue testimony on this request for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change land use from single-family
residential family to commercial? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to
close the public hearing on Item No. 18.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 18.
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion on the request if we have no further discussion.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 40
Rountree: I move that we have city attorney prepare Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and incorporating recommendations from Planning and
Zoning and that they indicate the testimony presented here this evening as it
relates to the applicant agreeing to the requirement of a CUP for any
development in this area along with development agreement.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we have the attorney draw up
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and recommend to the Planning and
Zoning and CUP and development agreement on Item 18. Any — Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Just a point of information for the Council. Given the motion, and I
assume if it passes, I will provide in the Findings which you'll get a chance to look
at, that those — that the development agreement and the CUP will follow in those
applications because our legal authority to require development agreement will
be in the rezone designation portion. I think that's basically kind of how it was
handled by the Planning and Zoning recommendations, and I intend to follow that
lead if that's agreeable.
Rountree: That's fine.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote; Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 21. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED
RESIDENTIAL FOR TERRACE LAWN MEMORIAL GARDENS,
INC. BY CLARK DEVELOPMENT/BILL CLARK —SOUTH OF
FAIRVIEW AVENUE BETWEEN EAGLE ROAD & CLOVERDALE:
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 41
Corrie: We'll move to 21 and we'll come back to 19 and 20 then. Item 21 is a
public hearing: Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from single-family
residential to mixed residential for Terrace Lawn Memorial Gardens, Inc. by Clark
Development/Bill Clark south of Fairview Avenue between Eagle Road and
Cloverdale. At this time, I'll open the public hearing on Item 21. Staff, comments
first?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I think these people also left as they were told this
was going to be continued.
Corrie: Okay.
Stiles: The Findings that were prepared that would need to reflect that this is for
Clark Development/Terrace Lawn instead of J -U -B Engineers. I don't find in
these Findings that we would support a mixed/planned use development but not
the mixed residential as we have zero standards for mixed residential. We don't
even have a definition for a mixed residential area. It does list our comments, but
in there, in Conclusions of Law, it's not specific that it is designated mixed
residential — mixed/planned use development into the mixed residential they
requested which I believe was what Planning and Zoning Commission approved.
This application would also require a plat to be prepared. It's all part of the same
parcel as the previous application.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions to Shari?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: This is a public hearing. Anyone else that would like to issue testimony
on this request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Item 21? Okay. Hearing
none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item 21.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 21. All
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion then for the request on Item 21.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 42
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we have Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law to
reflect the recommendations from Planning and Zoning and the
recommendations from the Planning Administrator that would indicate that the
reference should be to Clark Development/Bill Clark, not J -U -B, and the zoning
be described that the City would support mixed/planned use development.
:3T01IIIII&V..iON
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bird to have the attorney
draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the recommendation of
the Planning and Zoning and Planning Administrator and the other modifications
as stated in the motion. Further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, roll -call vote; Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
22. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO
MIXED/PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT (TOUCHMARK LIVING
CENTERS, INC.) BY JOSEPH A. BILLIG/WATERFORD
DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY—EAST OF ST.
LUKE'S BETWEEN 1-84 AND FRANKLIN ROAD:
Corrie: Item 22 is a public hearing: Request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from single-family residential to mixed/planned use development,
Touchmark Living Centers, Inc. by Joseph A. Billig/Waterford Development &
Construction Company. At this time, I'll open the public hearing on Item 22.
Staff comments?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 43
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for virtually all of the area between the
Montvue Subdivision and the Edgeview Subdivision between Franklin and the
Interstate. The Edgeview Subdivision that's shown here is Boise City area of
impact. This is out area of impact boundary. They have joined together with the
— all of these parcels here for a development that they have already submitted for
annexation and zoning and conditional use permit that will be heard on the 9th by
the Planning and Zoning Commission. We recommended approval of this as a
mixed/planned development, and it's actually being proposed as a
mixed/planned development, oddly enough. But we did ask as part of their — as
an amendment to what they'd requested that this parcel here also be included as
that mixed/planned development because if this weren't included, it would still be
designated single-family residential. So our recommendation was that all of this
be designated that and it's nice that it's not coming in one lot at a time.
Corrie: Anything else, Shari?
Stiles: No.
Corrie: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that
would like to issue testimony on Item 22?
Bowcutt: I feel kind of bad because I sent my clients at home. One went to
catch a plane. I told him they weren't going to be heard tonight. I did, for the
record, indicate — Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland — I
did for the record tell one of the Montvue residents there was one representative
from their neighborhood that this would not be heard tonight. So
Corrie: We can continue it.
Bowcutt: I feel a little bit bad. We are having a neighborhood meeting with them
tomorrow night. I just don't want them to think we deceived them in any fashion.
As Shari indicated, we're asking for mixed/planned use development. A portion
of this is already designated mixed/planned use. This is the St. Luke's facility
here. This parcel is owned by St. Luke's is 10 acres here which was the original
Holloway parcel. The designation runs about through here. Approximately 60
percent of Bews property is already designated mixed/planned use development
and then everything to the east is designated single-family. We're asking that we
just have one designation for this property. As Shari indicated, we are coming
through with a conditional use, PUD, annexation and rezone application. We are
meeting with the Montvue residents, a neighborhood meeting tomorrow. We
have done our traffic study and ACHD is reviewing that. We are supposed to be
heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the 9th; however, I was
informed by the Highway District today that their commission will not hear it until
the 17th. I appears that we're going to probably have to defer that out because
the Planning and Zoning Commission stated when they reviewed this Comp Plan
change they didn't want to see our applications unless everyone had had an
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 44
opportunity to comment and we had all of our ducks in line. Do you have any
questions?
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Question concerning the portion that you don't have colored and we
don't either, but the suggestion that it be included in the rezone — the —
Bowcutt: Comp Plan change?
Rountree: Comp Plan change.
Bowcutt: I think it's probably in the best interest of that property owner, long-
term, he was approached to sell a portion or all of his property to this project. I
think he indicated at this time he wasn't interested, but he didn't want to rule that
out. It would be in his best interest and I think the City's to have an isolated
single-family — they're going to have to come back through and do what we're
doing now if it's not incorporated as mixed/planned use development.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Becky, your display is somewhat different than ours. Is ours incorrect
as far as the R -T portion adjacent to —
Bowcutt: No, sir. Yours — yeah. That is incorrect.
Rountree: Next to Montvue?
Bowcutt: Yes.
Rountree: That piece should be included as well.
Bowcutt: It's already mixed/planned use development. It already is.
Rountree: Okay.
Bowcutt: And then that goes over to about where that arrow is. Then it's single-
family residential on eastward to your impact boundary.
Rountree: Okay.
Bowcutt: So, yeah. What you're seeing here is incorporating that R -T area with
the exception of a little out -parcel here.
Rountree: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 45
Corrie: Any other comments? Questions? Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Just a point of procedure and a point of information. It may bear on
questions you may ask in the public hearing, and that is the referring to the map
on the wall, the R-3 that's out, if that's not part of the original application and
hasn't been through the Planning and Zoning Commission for a Comp Plan
change, if you should be inclined to include it, I think you may find yourself into a
material change and that would require further hearings, and I just provide that
information to you just for information. I don't know whether it is or not, and
maybe that can be clarified. That property owner — this isn't an application, as I
understand it, by the City that's been initiated; it's been initiated by the developer
and the property owner.
Corrie: Anyone from the public like to issue testimony? Wes?
Hoalst: Wesley Hoalst, Montvue Subdivision, 385 Montvue. My question to
Becky would be on the strip of land just directly to the west, there's — where the
R -T is, there's a small strip just above — right there. Is that portion going to be
also included in this change to multiple use?
Bowcutt: It is already designated as mixed/planned use development.
Hoalst: Well, it is already? Because it isn't in the plans, and I don't think the
development owns that portion; is that correct?
Bowcutt: (inaudible)
Hoalst: It doesn't show up on their plans there nor does it show there that that's
the case it already is. Also, even though the large strip, there are three there,
where it has not yet been included in the development, and this is not for
something for the Council to determine, but the plans, the schematic drawings
doesn't show stub streets to that area of which also should be stub streets over
there next to Montvue. I would think that that should be included in the plan. I
think the Highway District whenever it does have a development up against
private property, they usually — it is the requirement that they have stub streets.
believe that is a requirement.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Becky,
do you have any comments backwards? I mean, you don't have to get up unless
you want to.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 46
Bowcutt: With the Comprehensive Plan, you're not approving any concept or
anything. I just want to go on the record. The issues of stub street connections,
signals, interconnectivity, that's going to be dealt with the CU and the application
that's moving forward. We appreciate your attendance at the meeting tomorrow
at the Convention Center so that we can discuss those issues and try to work
something out in this vicinity. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Becky. Anyone else? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to
close the public hearing.
:]TOMU • u =9- I
Corrie: Maybe we want to continue it. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just for discussion in the public hearing. I think it would be wise to
continue it, but I think it would also be beneficial to have a Findings prepared in
anticipation so all of these things can move forward together if it in fact close of
the hearing in two weeks we can wrap them up. I don't know if that's doable or
not.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don't think we can make a decision if we keep the public hearing open,
can we, Charlie?
Rountree: No. But once we close the public hearing, you can make a decision.
Bird: Yeah. So with — I thought you said you wanted to continue the public
hearing and still make the decision.
Rountree: I didn't say anything about making a decision.
Bird: Of getting the Findings of Facts.
Rountree: (inaudible) Findings of Facts together that may or may not have to be
modified after closing the hearing.
Bird: Can we do that? I guess we can —
Rountree: If requested by the Council, do what they direct.
Corrie: Okay. Like Charlie says, (inaudible) continue it (inaudible) —
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 47
Bird: But then we can't enact upon it when we enact upon the others because
we won't have the —
Corrie: We can't (inaudible) Facts to us —
Bird: We can have them, but they're just preliminary. We'll have no motion. Can
we do that all in the same night? Make a motion to do it and then do it again?
I'm for that.
Corrie: I think you can.
Bird: Get your motion out.
Gigray: I could just take a directive to just work on it and not make any decisions
and continue the public hearing is what I would recommend.
(inaudible discussion)
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing on Item No. 22
and direct counsel to draft a preliminary finding for possible consideration after
the close of hearing.
Bentley: Do you want a date on that?
Rountree: Which would be December 16th. Excuse me. November 16tH
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to continue the public hearing and
have the attorney draw up preliminary Findings of Facts on Item 22. Further
discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote; Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
C*.T�'i=_ L = 0 -MO
Bird: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 23. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO
MIXED/PLANNED USE (MILLENNIUM BUSINESS PARK) BY G.L.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 48
VOIGT DEVELOPMENT AND OVERLAND 16 LLC—WEST OF
EAGLE ROAD AND SOUTH OF OVERLAND:
Corrie: Item 23 is a public hearing: Request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from single-family residential to a mixed/planned use (Millennium
Business Park) by G.L. Voigt Development and Overland 16, LLC. At this time
will open the public hearing on Item 23. Staff?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, on all of these that you're ordering the Findings
on, I already have Findings on all of these. I guess I'm a little confused as to how
this is – what we're doing on the Findings because we've already got Findings on
all of these. I didn't know if you've had a chance to review them and whether
you're going to make changes to these as a result of anything that's happened
tonight, or – anyway, this project is the parcel that's directly across the street
from there would be the John Deere, SYSCO, the Freightliner parcel. This is
recently approved for Treasure Valley Music. This is the high-school site. This
four acres here was donated to the City for a park site. This is the undeveloped
corner here. This has recently been split. I believe this is approximately five
acres has been sold to the LDS Church for a church facility. This is another
problem with the splitting. Obviously, they've made one parcel into three now,
and there's been platting take place. We did recommend because of the
changes in the area, if you may remember, this entire 97 acres at one time was
zoned R-4 and proposed as Sundance Subdivision. Because of the changes in
the area, that was abandoned. Staff recommended approval of the
mixed/planned use designation, and it came through as annexation and zoning
with a conditional use permit.
Corrie: All right. This is a public hearing. I'd like the developer – Becky.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland. As Shari
indicated, we got some intensive uses on the north side. The single-family
designation is not appropriate for this property. When we sold that parcel to the
high school, just south of what you see there, the School District indicated they
did not want this property to be developed as single-family. Their preference
would be something like office or commercial. They don't want to have another
Borah High School situation. We did make a commitment to them that this would
not be single-family. We got some concepts that we've bounced off the school
district. This is just a rough concept. It shows some mixed use and that was
what was intended for the mixed/planned use development zones. We got a little
office, a little commercial, daycare, seminaries, multi -family, a nice well-rounded
type of project for this area. Right now we're in the process of getting the sewer
across the Interstate. I believe I got a schedule on that and they're hoping to
begin next week. We'll begin boring the freeway and bringing these sewer trunk
across. This is a good project. We'll be submitting rezone application, PUD and
a plat to clean up the previous divisions that have taken place on the property.
We think this is a good designation. Do you have any questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 49
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Becky. Anyone else from the public that would like to
issue testimony on Item No. 23? Hearing none, pleasure of the Council to close
the public hearing?
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in
favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council, motion on the request?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we show a favor Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for
the planned -- Comprehensive Plan Amendment from single-family residential to
mixed/planned use Millenium Business Park by G.L. Voigt Development and
Overland 16, LLC west of Eagle Road and south of Overland.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird and seconded by Mr. Rountree to have the
attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with a favor of
approval on Item No. 23.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I have a question. On all these items I believe we've stated at the
beginning that we were going to continue them and now we're not continuing
them.
Bird: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I thought — that was what we originally talked about, but when we went into
it, I thought we was going to go ahead and act upon them when the time was
going fast. That was what I understood, and I could be wrong.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 50
Bentley: Yeah, but my only question is I believe that we stated when we opened
the meeting tonight that these five or six items would be continued to the 16th
until everybody was here to vote on them. Now we've sat here and closed part
of them. I don't know how much the public is left that had any indication of being
part of this, and now we've closed the hearings on them.
Corrie: Well, it looks like we may have a legal — Mr. Gigray. Where do we stand
on this?
Gigray: Well, it's a matter of probably review of exactly what was said and
whether or not there was an actual vote taken at the time that said you were
going to continue them. I remember there was an announcement. I don't
remember a vote that was taken by the Council to in fact do that. I guess the
question would be whether or not anyone would be prejudiced by this and as an
additional assurance, you might request that anyone at the next Council meeting,
is anyone appearing on any of these have anything to say? I think at that point
you could determine whether or not there might be any prejudice that would have
issued from any announcements that may have been made, and you could delay
decision with regards to the matter to see what the situation looks at the time. If
you want to head on the course you're going on now, if you want to rescind the
course that you're going on now, then I think you're going to have to go back on
each of these items and unclose the public hearing and undirect me to make
Findings and continue the public hearing on each one of them.
Bentley: My point is, if we get to this point in two weeks and somebody walks in
and says, yes, I want to get some testimony, re -open, then we're going to have to
turn around and take the whole block of items and move them back two more
weeks.
Gigray: Well, it may depend. There may be someone there that could appear —
it could happen on each one of them or it might only happen on one of them or it
may not happen on any of them.
Bentley: But the point is you can't make Comp Plan changes in two weeks and
then come back two weeks later and do it again. They have to be done as a
block.
Gigray: No. That's the only — the State Law was changed by the Legislature in
the last year, and even before, it only restricted recommendations by the
Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council, and then they amended it
this last year to provide that it only affected Planning Map changes which these
applications are, but that statute's very specific in it only references the
Commission and it does not reference the City Council. So you are not under the
same restriction that the Planning and Zoning Commission is. No.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 51
Bentley: Okay. Thank you.
Gigray: No. You could split them all up. You could pass one every Council
meeting if it was on the agenda.
Bentley: Okay. I didn't realize that. I thought they had to be done in a block.
Gigray: No. You don't have a problem. It's just with the P & Z Commission
that'd be different.
Bentley: We're fine then. That was my only concern.
Corrie: Okay. I think we have a motion for the Chair on Item No. 23 for the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with a favorable approval. Any further
discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, roll -call vote; Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 24. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO
COMMERCIAL BY QUEENLAND ACRES, INC.—SOUTH SIDE
OF OVERLAND ROAD ACROSS FROM INTERSTATE CENTER
SUBDIVISION AND ROARING SPRINGS WATER PARK:
Corrie: Item 24 is a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from single-
family residential to commercial by Queenland Acres, Inc., south of Overland
Road across from Interstate Center Subdivision, Roaring Springs Water Park. At
this time I'll open the public hearing on Item 24. Staff, I'll get right to you in just –
you won't take long, I'm sure. Staff.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this was also a request from single-family
residential to commercial, a recommendation and what was recommended by
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 52
Planning and Zoning Commission was that it be changed to mixed/planned use
development.
Corrie: Okay. Now. Your name and —
Lotspeich: I'm Carol Lotspeich, 1032 East Cane in Meridian.
Corrie: Would you spell your last name, please, just for the record.
Lotspeich: L -0 -T -S -P -E -1 -C -H. I've had lots of practice at that.
Corrie: Thank you very much.
Lotspeich: I have — her map (inaudible) as mine, so I won't show you mine. I'm
here this evening because we own this property that is surrounded by
commercial, and it's really inappropriate to be single residential. I've found
during this process that a lot of people come across Black Cat overpass, go
down Overland to get on the freeway which puts a lot of traffic in front of these
rentals. So we would like to have this changed to mixed use. My map shows the
commercial that's around it. The veterinary clinic is north of it. Mountain View
Equipment. Boondocks. Roaring Springs Water Park. JB's Restaurant and the
Sandman Motel's on the corner, and a Texaco Station and Roho is to the east,
and the Country Corner is there, too. It's really inappropriate to have this little
piece of ground as single residential. The renters have a really hard time getting
out early in the morning and in the afternoon, and it — I think we have probably 10
or 11 accesses onto Overland, but we would really like to have this changed in
the Comprehensive Plan. We don't have any big plans yet on what we're going
to do with it, but we'd just like to have it. Shari would like mixed use and that
would be fine with us.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions for Council? Bentley.
Bentley: Been on a long time since you lived on Loring, hasn't it?
Lotspeich: It has been a long while. I'm glad I live where I do because the
traffic's not nearly as bad. But they did put a light in there.
Bentley: They finally put a light up there. Yeah.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the public
that would like to issue testimony on this Comprehensive Plan change, Item 24?
Is that a yes, Shari? Okay. What's the pleasure of the Council to close the
public hearing?
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 53
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: So moved.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in
favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move to instruct the city attorney to prepare favorable Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law for Queenland Acres, Inc.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded – (inaudible) attorney draw up the Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law to favor approval on Item No. 24. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. I'm sorry.
Roll -call vote; Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 25. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO
MIXED/PLANNED USE BY IDAHO BASEBALL ACADEMY—
NORTHWEST CORNER OF AMITY AND MERIDIAN ROAD:
Corrie: Item 25 is public hearing: Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
from single-family residential to mixed/planned use by Idaho Baseball Academy.
At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Staff.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this application is for a project that is pretty far
removed from our current annex area. It's on the northwest corner of Amity and
Meridian Kuna Road. They're proposing to build a facility for the Idaho Baseball
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 54
Academy that would have an indoor facility with some retail and office use
approximately in this area, and the remainder of it would be baseball fields. They
ask for the entire area to be designated mixed/planned use development, and
also at that public hearing at Planning and Zoning Commission, these people
were there chomping at the bit waiting for this designation to occur so that they
probably could come in along with it. We're concerned that if this were
designated —
*** End of Tape 3 ***
the property could be sold off and Chevron, Jackson's, someone else may come
in and then make them an offer they couldn't refuse to develop that corner as
commercial property. So the compromise was arrived at was that the area that
they proposed putting the building and parking lot would be designated
mixed/planned use, but the entire remainder of the parcel would be open space,
park designation. We did receive a letter from Ada County Planning Director
today. I don't know if it — if you had a chance to see — they are concerned that
there's not anything within their ordinance that would permit them to do this.
Either currently with their current designation or even under their proposed new
zoning ordinance. But in the last paragraph of their letter, it seems that if we can
provide some text specifically geared to this parcel as what we expect to be
there, they may be able to consider that use. I'm not certain that would happen,
but they're asking for direction from the City as to some kind of guidance on what
kind of range of use is the City would allow in that mixed use area and we could
prepare that. I don't know if we need to continue the public hearing if we are
proposing those text changes or — might have to get (inaudible). I would hope
that maybe we could provide some text changes as a part of this request for
amendment. Say yes.
Bentley: Bill's got a thought.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Madam Administrator, it would
seem that that would be a major material change as I understand it. I don't think
this application included any discussions of textual changes to the
Comprehensive Plan. You — I would think will want to have the applicants
address this letter from Ada County Development Services because it seems to
raise kind of serious questions as we have to interrelate with Ada County
because this is an impact area matter, not potentially subject to immediate
annexation. It would seem like those might pose some relevant questions that
could be addressed. You do have the authority under your own ordinance and
under the provisions of your Comp Plan to continue this matter, and you can
even require a study on things and have them report back as to what the
appropriate thing is to do, so there are some options, and I think I provided a
memo to you just generally for providing some procedural information about
Comp Plan Amendments, and that's one of the items that is an option to you if
you should choose to exercise it.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 55
Corrie: Okay. Since we have a public hearing, would you like to come up and
perhaps address to couple of those questions?
Lawson: Steve Lawson, Idaho Baseball Academy. I'm the president. We're
located at 1208 North Orchard in Boise. Mr. Mayor and Council members, we've
just received this letter from the Ada County also, and I haven't had a whole lot of
time to study it. I talked with Patricia Nielson on the phone for a few minutes. It
didn't do a whole lot of good for me, you know, really, because, again, I didn't
have a lot of time to study what was going on here. One thing that I see in this
letter that I think could fix this whole thing, at least from the County's perspective.
It's the second to last — I might be wrong. This is the way I interpret — second to
last paragraph. It's the second or third sentence. It says: The combination of
indoor and outdoor amusement facilities would only be allowed in a commercial
zoning district. Now if we did the multi -use plan, I think that the outdoor and the
indoor could be used. We could — the County would go along with this because it
does permit commercial use in that plan. What we agreed upon last time we
were here was we want to build fields. Just saying we're going to build fields
doesn't guarantee that; I understand that. I understand your concern about us
going out and selling the corner of the, you know, that corner, because that is a
nice corner. That's one of the reasons we bought it. That's a great piece of land.
We did agree on the compromise that we would take the parks for 22 acre, or 23
acres and then 2 acres of commercial. That was with the understanding that we
thought we'd be able to change some of the text. Now we didn't ask for any text
change when we made the application originally because we didn't realize that
we had to until we came to the Planning and Zoning meeting. Because I didn't
have enough time to really study what the County said here, what you said about
doing a study, you know, there needs to either be somemore information about
this if you guys' concern is that if you give me the entire 25 acres as multi -use or
mixed planned, that we'd sell that corner. Now, whether we can come up with a
development plan which I really hadn't known about until after our last meeting.
I'm getting a little bit smarter and studying a little bit of this now, but if I don't
know if you read that the same as I do, that paragraph that I'm talking about, and
I'm sure not here, Shari, to go back on what we talked about that night, but,
again, I have some things going on that I'd like to see this go as quickly as
possible, too, and if there's any way to take that entire piece and change it as
we've tried, but also have a development of agreement, I don't know if that can
be done since we are in the county. Once we, you know, that's the whole
problem there. Once we, you guys, make this decision, then we go to the
county, and how much they're able to work with you, I'm not for sure, but, you
know, that is a concern. But also within stating (inaudible) maybe if there is an
agreement, the, you know, those will be filled, built there and then not a Chevron
or Albertson's or whatever. Then maybe that's the answer. The entire 25 acres
as proposed. I'm not for sure, and like I said, I'm not trying to go back on what
we talked about before by any means, because I was happy with that because
want to build fields. But we also need an indoor place because that's pertinent in
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 56
this part of the country. That's a huge aspect of what we're doing here. If I'm
reading that right, I think we can still do this. But not as discussed last time with
the Planning and Zoning as they recommended. I have no problem doing it that
way either. You know, we're just trying to get things going too. We're trying to
move along, and this is part of it, of course. Any questions? I'd be happy to
answer.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I believe you stated that although you did not indicate in your
application, it was your understanding there would be some requirement for text
changes and description of use activities.
Lawson: No. I didn't mean to say that I don't think.
Rountree: That's what I thought I heard you say.
Lawson: What I said — what I thought I said was that when we made the
application — when we did the application, I didn't think there would be any text
change specifically designed around our situation. I thought it would be
mixed/planned use, done deal, really. Then we started talking about not having
the services out there, and then leaving the city and going to the county, and the
concerns there. That's where I thought that the text change was coming. That
was my understanding when I said text change was that we would be discussing
here's what the City wants, County try to go — stay right on this track with us
because it's kind of a unique situation.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public like to issue testimony on this Item 25?
Hearing none, Council, pleasure on the public hearing?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: It seems like we've got a couple directions going here. Seems like
there needs to be some continuity with the County as well as with the staff as to
what we're going to do, so I think we're going to need to continue this and have
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 57
the three parties get together and see if we can't iron out what we need to make
this project fly.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If I read this letter right, with the facilities they want to put out there, the
only thing that's going to be left by the county is commercial, is the commercial
zone. If we do it the way we want to do it, then they've got to open it up, as
read the letter here, they've got to open it up to the public with no charge; it's a
public facility at that point which it will be a public facility, but it won't be for
(inaudible) run a business out of it. 1, personally, think that corner — I have no
problem with that corner being commercially zoned, whatever. That's an ideal
corner. I know Shari said that we wouldn't want a Jackson's or somebody out
there, but I'm sure in five, ten years, it's going to be a awful good location for that,
and I could see stuff going out there. I'd lot sooner see something on that four -
lane Amity Road there than something sitting over on Cloverdale or someplace
where you got two lanes to get people in and out of. I would have no problem
taking the County's advice and changing that to the commercial zoning. That's
my opinion.
Corrie: Any comments?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I would like to do whatever we can to expedite this. It seems to me
that Mr. Gigray's indicated that if we get into a situation where we may have to
provide text to the county, what our zoning designations mean, in my mind is not
a material change, but I believe it will be a material change if we were to move
forward with the entire commercial zoning when it's been brought forth and
discussed in Planning and Zoning as open park and a small portion being mixed
use or commercial. I guess I don't know if that's a particularly good solution for
getting this thing moved forward. I would propose, depending on how big a
grimace I get from the end of the table, that we look at Findings and Facts and
concurrently instruct staff to clarify what mixed/planned use or whatever the
zoning designation's going to be, would allow, if that's what the county has to
have in order for them to permit this. In my mind, that's nothing more than
putting forth what's already been discussed and refining what it means. If it's
been discussed and it's many things, then I guess that it could have many
definitions, and still not a material change. In my mind.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
C61.T1i[_LVA =:31 41
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 58
Bird: While we got the public hearing open, Shari, you can give me the answer
on this. What is mixed use? Does commercial fall within mixed use?
Stiles: It does, but there are other areas in the Comprehensive Plan that state
it's not to be changed to mixed development unless it's hooked up to municipal
services. So I don't know it's going to help him if you did say it's all commercial.
Bird: No, but it won't — I'm saying if we pass it like they have — has been done by
the Planning and Zoning, mixed use, would that include commercial which would
benefit what the county zoning is saying? In mixed use, can you have
commercial zoning is what I'm asking. I don't know. That's why I'm asking.
Stiles: Sure you can, and I think that's why they're asking for a clarification in the
text because if we would address that specific area on what we intended — in
fact, all of these applications should have included text amendments because
there's nothing in the text that deals with any of those areas. I still think if we can
work with Ada County and ask them what they need, it is going to be a text
amendment, but to designate that all commercial, that's not a good idea.
Bird: No. Not — I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that if we designate it mixed
use like has been brought forward to us, right?
Stiles: Uh-huh.
Bird: Then in mixed use you can go to commercial which satisfies, as I read this
paragraph here, satisfies the county's zoning.
Stiles: You could except there are other areas in the Comprehensive Plan that
commercial development is not encouraged unless they're hooked up to
municipal sewer and water.
Bird: I understand that, but I just trying to — I'm like Charlie. I want to see the
thing not get bogged down in a bunch of red tape. I just wanted to make sure
that in mixed use that — that in commercial could be included in mixed use.
Stiles: Oh, sure. You know, that's where the Chevron, Texaco, all that was
mixed use.
Bird: That's what I thought. Yeah. Okay.
Gigray: I'm just saying while the public hearing's open, just keep in mind the
recommendation of Planning and Zoning is to carve out two acres of this parcel
and the one mixed use designation and not the rest of it. I think you could do
that and I think you could also grant their original application for the whole piece,
which I don't think is a change in the application and everybody's on notice
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 59
tonight, I don't think those are material changes. The only thing I can see in the
letter from the Ada County Development Services is, obviously, is the county
zoning ordinance that will apply, and they're just questioning whether or not if you
do this Comp Plan Amendment, they will have an ordinance that will be, or their
new ordinance would come into conformance with our Comp Plan, but you could
go ahead and grant the application if you feel it meets your own criteria and then
let the County worry about their zoning ordinance in relation to that. Then the
applicant would have to worry about that through the county.
Bird: (inaudible) applicant (inaudible) public hearing open.
Corrie: Do you have any problems with that, Steve?
Lawson: I don't think so. I don't have any problems with that, but I do want to
state that I think that's where Shari and I were — that's still what the concern is, is
that once I leave here, the control over that piece of land's out of your hand, and
might be a guy to go down and sell that down the road. I should have brought
my resume with me tonight to, you know — I know some of you gentlemen, and
we want to build fields. That's how I want to make my money; not selling land.
That's my — that's what we want to do. That's, again, I know that doesn't keep
us, once we leave here, from going to the County or trying to sell that, but I don't
have any problem with that because that's really what we originally wanted to do.
We compromise at the Planning and Zoning because that's what I want to do. I
want to build fields, and I thought that was a way to go because that was a
recommendations and with the Council people that night. I don't have any
problem what Mr. Gigray just talked about.
Corrie: Okay.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Just a point of information. Yeah, I think the only way you can put
conditions on a Comprehensive Plan change that would affect certain properties
is that you would have to provide some textual provisions in the Comp Plan
related to that. I think that, from a general standpoint, would be kind of a
departure from the way the Comp Plan exists now in I don't know whether or not
you're going to head in that direction with the new Comp Plan or not, and you
start spotting around and saying, well, we got this parcel that's subject to this
condition and the text, and this and this and this and this. That would be
somewhat extraordinary. I think, legally, you probably could do it, but I think it'd
be a material change to if you're going to include textual changes that you'd have
to re -notice the hearing and get comment on that if you want to go in that
direction.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 60
Corrie: (inaudible)
Bird: I'm ready to close the public hearing.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: If you are.
Corrie: Ready to close the public hearing; I'll entertain a motion as such.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in
favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment. If you got a clear
direction, shoot it at us.
Bird: I'm not sure I got a clear direction on anything, Mr. Mayor. This is just
discussion? Okay. Probably what I'm hearing now is we should just pass it like
with recommended by the Planning and Zoning with the mixed use at two acres
and then the other 23 acres in open land; is that right?
Corrie: Two acres and 25 acres from single-family to mixed use, yes.
Bird: Is that the way you guys understood — Okay. I can certainly — Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we have the attorney draw Findings of Facts, Decision of Order
in favor of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from single-family residential to
mixed/planned use by Idaho Baseball Academy on the northwest corner of Amity
and Meridian Road and showing the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made by Mr. Bird and seconded by Mr. Rountree to
have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in favor
and include the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote; Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 61
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird
I -Awe]
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING TO C -C OF 13.09 ACRES BY DEVELOPERS
DIVERSIFIED REALTY CORPORATION -4000 E. FAIRVIEW, 1/Z
MILE EAST OF EAGLE ROAD:
ITEM 20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 11.4 ACRES
FROM I -L TO C -C BY DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED REALTY
CORPORATION/DAKOTA COMPANY—SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW
AND EAST OF RECORDS:
Corrie: Okay. Let's go back to 19 and 20. We'll open up the public hearing on
Item 19 and 20 at the same time, and we had testimony for but we can add that
in for the testimony. I'll open the public hearing on Item 19 and 20.
Durkin: I think I'm the only one here (inaudible). I have – in reviewing Findings
of Facts, I have just one, two words, I guess, or three words, a sentence I'd like
added where the Findings recommend that we follow the specific
recommendations as spelled out for ACRD. I'd like to have the flexibility or as
modified by ACHD in the future. Are you with me on that?
Rountree: What number are you on? Page No. –
Durkin: Okay. I'm on Page 4.
Corrie: Are we on No. 19?
Durkin: Yes.
Corrie: Okay.
Durkin: By the way, for the record, I'm Larry Durkin. Sorry. Larry Durkin, Dakota
Company, 380 East Park Center Boulevard, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. Just for
example, I'll take 1.8 on Page 4 where it says a maximum of three driveways are
approved on Records Drive. That's not a good example. Sorry I'm not more
prepared on this particular matter here. Okay. I'd like to draw your attention to
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 62
Page 3, Paragraph 1.2. 1 have no knowledge of any change here, but where it
says dedicate 76 feet of right-of-way. If later when ACHD when they have final
plans says we want 77 or 72, 1 don't want to have to come back and re -do this,
so my request is adopt the recommendations of Ada County Highway District as
follows or as subsequently modified by ACHD. That's my only request. That
would apply to the annexation and the rezone. I don't think that — I think ACHD
may have some adjustments that are small, and I don't want it to jeopardize the
rezone that we have if they —
Bird: We have no problem with that.
Durkin: I'd be happy to answer any other questions.
Corrie: Okay. I don't see that there's anybody else to testify. Shari?
Stiles: I thought we had already — I thought you had already ordered Findings on
this earlier.
Corrie: Not yet, no. We held those — that one back. We just had him (inaudible)
testimony because he was in Number 8 as well.
Stiles: Okay.
Corrie: So we have testimony here for 19 and 20 —
Stiles: And then you'll only act on those —
Corrie: Those two.
Stiles: -- after the Comp Plan is revised?
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: Our hearing is open for both of them.
Corrie: Hearing is open for both; that's correct.
Bird: Do you have anything?
Stiles: That's all I have.
Corrie: Okay. Anyone else? Council, anything?
Bird: I have nothing.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 63
Corrie: Okay. Hearing that, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on
Items 19 and 20.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 19 and
20. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion or request on Number 19 first for annexation and zoning.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we approve the request for annexation and zoning and have the
city attorney prepare Findings with the addition where they can use Planning and
Zoning's Findings with the addition that changes are — changes in the request of
ACHD as required.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the
request for annexation and zoning on Item No. 19 to C -C of 13.9 acres by
Developers Diversified Realty Corporation as motion stated. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote; Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Item No. 20, I'll entertain a motion on the rezone for 11.4 acres, I -L to
C -C.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 64
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we have attorney prepare Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law incorporating the recommendations of the Planning and
Zoning for the rezone of 11.4 acres from I -L to C -C.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bird to approve
the request for rezone of 11.4 acres from I -L to C -C and the attorney draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with a Decision the recommendation
of Planning and Zoning. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor
of the motion say aye. Excuse me. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 26. REQUEST FOR BEER AND LIQUOR LICENSE FOR TEXAS
ROAD HOUSE:
Corrie: Item No. 26, request for beer and liquor license for Texas Road House.
Chief.
Gordon: Mr. Mayor and Council, I don't have any problem with those (inaudible)
application for Texas Roadhouse. We would recommend that Council
(inaudible).
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion on the request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 65
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the request for beer and liquor license for the
Texas Roadhouse on Fairview Avenue.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mr. Rountree to approve
the request for beer and liquor license for Texas Roadhouse. Any further
discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 27. CANVASSING THE VOTES FOR CITY GENERAL ELECTION:
Corrie: Item 27, canvassing the votes for the City General Election. Mr. Berg.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I'm going to pass out the results of
the election, and then I'll open up the voting ballot boxes and present you with
the poll books and tally books.
Corrie: All right, sir.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Berg: This is Precinct 800.
Corrie: Throw one down here and we'll start the other end.
Berg: Precinct 801 with the tally book.
Bentley: That's for you.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: What? The ballots?
Berg: (inaudible) Is there any questions about the sheets, the summary sheets,
the tally books that I might answer? This shows the total number of ballots.
Bird: I got the southeast.
Corrie: 2,035?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 66
Bird: They look okay to me. Which one you got there, Glenn?
Bentley: I have 802.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bentley: Okay. It's late. Let's get out of here.
Corrie: Do we need to certify? Is there a (inaudible)
Bird: That would have all the registered voters, wouldn't it?
Gigray: Do you have a form for that, Will, and if you don't, we can prepare one
that they can go ahead and just take it and make the motion and resolution
certifying the election results (inaudible).
Bentley: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: I move we prepare a form certifying the results of the election.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to prepare a form and certify the election,
canvassing the votes for the City General Election. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bentley: I have a question.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Will, how many registered voters do we have?
Berg: On October 8th was the last day to pre -register, and I want to say there's
13,620 at that time, and then, of course, you have the same-day registration, and
we had quite a few of them. I have not counted all the ones that registered on
the same day.
Bentley: 36,000 and we only had 13,000 registered?
Berg: 36,000 people and so —
Bentley: Well, I realize (inaudible)
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 67
Berg: (inaudible) 1/3 are kids, and – yeah.
Bird: I think you got a bigger percent than 2.7 (inaudible) in Meridian.
28. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES:
Corrie: All right. Delinquency turn-offs. This is to inform you in writing, if you
choose to, you have the right to a predetermined hearing at 7:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged
on the facts and to defend the claim made by this City that your water, sewer and
trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. This service will be
discontinued on November 17 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone
present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer and delinquency? They
are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the City
reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho Code. Even
though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The total amount of the turn-off
list is $119,198.90. I'll entertain a motion on the water, sewer, trash delinquency.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the water, sewer, trash delinquency in the
amount of $119,198.90.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the delinquency turn-off. All
those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
29. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH
WATERLINE INSTALLMENT PROJECT—EAST FIRST
STREET
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, first item I have is a waterline installation
project on East Sixth Street that we needed to construct in order to provide fire -
flow to that area of town. We had three estimates that were obtained; Bitterroot
Construction and Mike Rice Excavation and MaKay Construction. Bitterroot was
the low bidder, $16,430. Public Works would recommend that you approve the
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 68
issuance of a contract to Bitterroot Construction for this amount to construct
approximately 325 feet of 8 -inch waterline on Sixth Street.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we award a contract to Bitterroot Construction incorporating
Mayor to sign, Clerk to attest for approximately 325 lineal feet of 4 -inch diameter
waterline on East Sixth Street with an 8 -inch diameter to resolve fire -flow
problems.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve waterline installation project
(inaudible) Gary Smith's Department Reports. Further discussion? Those in
favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
2. AMENDMENT TO ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH
CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR BIO -SOLIDS DEWATERING
PROJECT
Smith: The second item I have is a requested amendment to the engineering
agreement we have with Carollo Engineers for the bio -solids dewatering project
at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. They had requested an amendment of
$13,180 to their agreement based on several work items that are outlined in their
letter. I think you have a copy of their letter in your packet. Brad and I reviewed
their request and agreed to support $10,368 of their request change to their
agreement. So on the basis of our review, and they have agreed to this reduced
amount, we would recommend approval of an amendment to their engineering
agreement in the amount of $10,368 as justified by Brad's correspondence to
Carollo Engineers.
Bird: And they have accepted that?
Smith: Yes.
Bird: They've come down, I see, in their deal. They've come down from
$13,000?
Smith: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 69
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: I move that we approve this amendment to engineering agreement with
Carollo Engineers for the sum of $10,368.
Rountree: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the engineering agreement with
Carollo Engineers, dewatering project. Further discussions? Hearing none, all
those in favor of the motion say aye.
Bird: It's a contract.
Corrie: Oh. It's an amendment to the agreement. Roll -call vote; Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Aye.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley.
Bentley: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Is there anything else to come before the Council? I'll entertain a motion
to close.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: So moved.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian City Council Meeting
November 3, 1999
Page 70
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:10 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK