HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 04-04Meridian City Council Meeting April 4, 2000
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:39 p.m. by City Council President Keith Bird.
Members present: Keith Bird, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Tammy deWeerd.
Members absent: Robert Corrie.
Others present: Bill Nichols, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Gary Smith, Tom Kuntz, Ken Bowers, Will Berg.
Bird: It’s 7:30, April 4, 2000; I’ll call the regular City Council meeting to order. I’d like to welcome you folks here. Council, I want to apologize ahead of time for any mistakes
which I’ll make. Mayor Corrie’s out of town, so you guys get to put up with me tonight. Council, with your approval, we’ve got public hearings, and we discussed this at our last workshop.
I would like to at our public hearings, run under a time-limit rule that we had had in place but never have used, and that is the applicant will get 5 minutes to introduce his project,
the rest of the testimonies will be three minutes, and then the applicant will have another 5 minutes at the end to answer any questions, and the City Clerk will keep a timer here.
I believe whoever is testifying will be able to hear it. We’d appreciate it if they would adhere. If that would meet to your approval, I’d certainly like to implement that tonight
if that’s your desire.
deWeerd: I have no objections.
McCandless: I have no objection.
Bird: I do have – let’s have roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk. (Roll-call taken.) Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
Proclamation – March for Parks Day, April 22, 2000:
Bird: I have a proclamation to read from Mr. Mayor Corrie: Whereas April 22, 2000, has been established as March for Parks Day; and whereas March for Parks day has been established
nationwide as a demonstration as public concern over the condition of the nation’s parks and public spaces; and whereas these events will not only raise awareness but also necessary
funds for park improvement, protection and education projects benefiting national, state and local public parks; and whereas those participating in March for Parks are demonstrating
that they are committed to protecting and revitalizing our national treasures for generations to come; and whereas Friends of Meridian Parks is sponsoring a March for Parks event on
April 22, 2000, which will take place at Tully Park, and the funds raised will specifically benefit open space and park facilities in Meridian, Idaho. Now, therefore, I, Robert D. Corrie,
Mayor of Meridian, Idaho, do hereby proclaim April 22, 2000, as March for Parks Day in Meridian and call upon the residents of this City to observe and participate in this day as well
as the days
ahead with sensitivity and respect for the Nation’s precious parks and public spaces. Signed, Robert D. Corrie, Mayor of Meridian, Idaho. Thank you.
Item A. Approve minutes from March 21, 2000 Special Pre-Council Meeting: Approve
Item B. Approve minutes from March 21, 2000 City Council Meeting: Approve
Item C. Approve minutes of March 15, 2000, Special City Council Meeting: Approve
Item D. Approve minutes of March 7, 2000, Special Pre-Council Meeting: Approve
Item E. Tabled from March 21, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 81,000 s.f. mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland
Mini Storage Subdivision by Overland Mini Storage, LLC – 1230 East Overland Road: Moved to 1a
Item F. Tabled from March 21, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: VAC 00-002 Request for vacation of two 6-foot easements, north/south and east/west, by Hawkins Smith Management
Co – northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove: Approve
Item G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law AZ 99-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres to R-8 for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood / D.W., Inc. – west
of Eagle Road between Overland and East Victory: Moved to 7a
Item H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-009 Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed office building and townhouses in an L-O and R-8 zone of 5 acres by Centers
Construction, Inc. – west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview Avenue: Approve
Item I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-002 Request for preliminary plat for proposed Wesley Subdivision for 32 townhouse lots and one office lot of 5 .029 acres by
Centers Construction, Inc. – west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview: Moved to 5
Item J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-003 Request for preliminary plat for Woodbridge Subdivision of 164 lots on 50.9 acres by Woodbridge Community, LLC – east side
of South Locust Grove Road ¼ mile south of Franklin Road: Approve
Item K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Adult Entertainment Ordinance relating to zoning schedule: Approve
Item L. Lease Agreement with Kenneth Aschenbrenner: Approve
Item M. Development Agreement: AZ 00-002 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.029 acres to L-O and R-8 by Centers Construction, Inc. – west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview
Avenue: Omit
Item N. Development Agreement: AZ 00-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 3.68 acres to R-4 for proposed Pintail Pointe Subdivision by Jeff Manship – south side of Cherry Lane,
east of Black Cat Road: Approve
Item O. Approve bills: Approve
Bird: Okay, Council, we’ll get our agenda going. We’ve got the Consent Agenda. What’s your pleasure?
deWeerd: Mr. Bird, I would like to move that we approve the Consent Agenda with the following changes: The Consent Agenda to move Item E to 1a; Item G to 7a; Item I to 5 that will
substitute for Ordinance on Human Resources Department; remove M; remove 17-a-3; add 17-d-1 for the Fire Department.
Bird: Okay, have we a second?
McCandless: I’ll second.
Bird: Okay, any discussion?
Anderson: Yes, Mr. President. I would like to move Item No. 16 which we have two number 16s up behind 6a so – 6 ½ or whatever you want to call it – 6a, but do that public hearing before
we get into some of the longer lengthed ones.
Bird: So, Item 16, the public hearing VAR 00-004, variance for requirements of hook-up to City services by Sarah and Michael Bledsoe, you want to move to 6b? 6a? Okay.
Anderson: Whatever you want to call it. Somewhere between 6 and 7.
Bird: Okay.
deWeerd: I would agree to add that to my motion.
McCandless: The second agrees.
Bird: Any other discussion? Okay. If not, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES.
Item 1a. (Item E.) Tabled from March 21, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 81,000 s.f. mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed
Overland Mini Storage Subdivision by Overland Mini Storage, LLC – 1230 East Overland Road:
Bird: Regular agenda Item 1a which is tabled from March 21, 2000, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for request for Conditional Use Permit for 81,000 s.f. mini-storage on Lot
2 of proposed Overland Mini Storage Subdivision by Overland Mini Storage, LLC, 1230 East Overland Road. What’s your pleasure, Council? Staff, any comments?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. President, members of the Council, the Item was tabled due to the applicant’s original inability to comply with the plan regarding landscaping. You’ve seen this
several times. We do have copies of the revised landscape plan for this plat which are available for you. The main change on this project has been a landscape buffer around the north
and east. Staff does recommend approval with the addition of one condition that the landscaping proposed in Nampa Meridian Irrigation District’s easement which is shown on the top of
the bank of Nine Mile Creek, they’re also proposing to put a fence there. Staff could support this only if a copy of the landscape plan is stamped approved by Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District since the landscaping and the fence is in their easement. And a copy of the executed license agreement with Nampa Meridian is received. So those two things: the copy of the
revised landscape plan that shows the landscaping around the north is stamped by NMID and that they have a license agreement. If that’s placed as a condition, Staff can feel that we
can recommend this compromise we made on the project.
Bird: Okay. Council, any questions?
McCandless: Do we have an Ordinance No. for that, Mr. President?
Bird: These are the Findings. This is E that went from – it’s just the Findings of Fact. I guess I have a question for legal counsel. With that much of a modification to the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law that’s already been drawn up, do we just – how do you do that, Bill? Do we have to come up with new Findings or can we just add to it?
Nichols: President Bird, members of the Council, if you will simply direct that we add that as a condition in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and in the Order, then we
can add that to that document based on your motion. As I understand it, it’s staff that’s recommending a requirement that this current landscape plan – is there a date on that plan,
Mr. Hawkins-Clark?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Nichols, there is. It’s dated March 2nd, Sheet LS-1.
Nichols: Mr. President, members of the Council, we can just simply add that in at the appropriate places in the document, and it’s my understanding that this is acceptable to the applicant
and the applicant’s engineer who is here.
Bird: Council, any questions?
Nichols: One other thing, Mr. President, members of the Council, this is not a material change because in effect it complies with the requirement that there be the buffering strip along
the boundary of the property to separate it from the others on the drain.
deWeerd: Mr. President, Brad, would there be any other changes that would be needed to the Findings?
Hawkins-Clark: Councilwoman deWeerd, no.
deWeerd: You’ve reviewed them and there’s nothing else that needs to be added or deleted?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
deWeerd: Okay. I have nothing.
Bird: Any other questions, Council? If not, I’d entertain a motion.
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the request of annexation for 8.25 acres – excuse me. For the Conditional
Use Permit for mini-storage subject to the approval of the NMID of the landscape plan and to have a Development Agreement drawn up.
Nichols: Point of order, Mr. President, Councilman Anderson. I believe the requirement of the staff of recommendation was a license agreement between the applicant and NMID.
Anderson: Okay. It’s a license agreement. Excuse me.
Bird: And the landscape – that included the landscaping dated 3-2-00 on LL-1?
Anderson: Yes.
Bird: Okay. Do I hear a second?
deWeerd: Mr. President, just a point of clarification, I think a Development Agreement has that already been drawn up? Okay.
Bird: Yes, it should have been. It’s been signed, I believe. It should have been before we come to pass this.
deWeerd: So I would second that without the Development Agreement on it.
Bird: You can concur?
Anderson: Yes.
deWeerd: Second.
Bird: Discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES.
Item 1. Tabled from March 21, 2000: Ordinance No. 867: AZ 99-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 7.25 acres to C-G by Overland Mini-Storage, LLC – 1230 East Overland:
Bird: Okay, Item No. 1 was tabled from March 21, 2000, Ordinance No. 867, request for annexation and zoning of 7.25 acres to C-G by Overland Mini Storage, LLC, 1230 East Overland.
Council, any discussion?
deWeerd: Do you need to read that?
Bird: Yes. Okay, the Clerk will read the Ordinance No. 867 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Ordinance No. 867: An Ordinance finding that certain land lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State
of Idaho; and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated general
retail and service commercial district (C-G); and declaring that the said land by proper legal description as described below be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State
of Idaho; repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith; and directing the City Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of
Meridian, Idaho; and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer
and Assessor, and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 53-2215.
Bird: Would anybody from the audience like Ordinance 867 read in its entirety? Okay, if not, Council.
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion to approve Ordinance No. 867 with suspension of the rules.
McCandless: I’ll second.
Bird: We’ve got a motion to pass Ordinance 867 with suspension of rules and seconded by Councilwoman McCandless. Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES.
Item 2. Ordinance No. 868: AZ 00-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 3.68 acres to R-4 for proposed Pintail Pointe Subdivision – south side of Cherry Lane and east of Black Cat
Road
Bird: Ordinance No. 868. Request for annexation and zoning of 3.68 acres to R-4 for proposed Pintail Pointe Subdivision, south side of Cherry Lane and east of Black Cat Road. Clerk,
will you read Ordinance 868 by title only, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Ordinance No. 868: An Ordinance finding that certain land lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State
of Idaho; and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated low-density
residential district (R-4); and declaring that the said land by proper legal description as described below be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; repealing
all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith; and directing the City Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho; and
directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor
and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Bird: Thank you. Would anybody from the audience like the Ordinance 868 read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council, any questions? Discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I would like to move that we approve Ordinance No. 868, request for annexation and zoning by Pintail Pointe Subdivision with suspension of rules.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Bird: Okay. We’ve got a motion and second to approve the Ordinance 868 with suspension of rules. Any discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd; aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES.
Item 3. Ordinance No. 869: Amendment of Fireworks Ordinance and adoption of new fees:
Bird: Okay, Item No. 3 is Ordinance No. 869, amendment of fireworks ordinance and adoption of new fees. If you would read the ordinance by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Ordinance No. 869: An ordinance of the City of Meridian relating to fireworks repealing Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the Meridian City Code providing for
a new Chapter 4, Title 5 to be known as the Meridian fireworks ordinance; providing for definitions; providing for permit; providing for applications; providing for investigations; providing
for term; providing for insurance requirement; providing for authorization date; providing for temporary fireworks stands; providing for liability; providing for record-keeping; providing
for compliance with Idaho State Code; and for providing for violations and penalties.
Bird: Would anybody from the audience like Ordinance 869 read in its entirety? Okay, if not, Council, any discussion?
deWeerd: I have none.
Bird: If not, we’ll –
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion to approve Ordinance No. 869, the amendment for the fireworks ordinance and adoption of new fees under the suspension of the rules.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: We’ve got a motion to adopt Ordinance 869 with a second. Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd; aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 4. Ordinance No. 870: Request for an increase in fees for park shelters and an amendment of available hours at Tully Park and Storey Park:
Bird: Item No. 4, Ordinance 870, a request for increase in fees for park shelters and an amendment of available hours at Storey Park and Tully Park. Mr. Clerk, would you read the Ordinance
by title only, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Ordinance No.870: An ordinance of the City of Meridian, Idaho, amending subsections A, B, C and D of Section 1 of Chapter 7 of Title 8, Meridian City
Code, to provide for the deletion of City Hall by the addition of Parks and Recreation Department; providing for additional language for refusal to vacate
shelters; and provide for a new subsection relating to park hours; and providing an effective date.
Bird: Would anybody from the audience like Ordinance 870 read in its entirety? Okay. Council, any discussion? Okay. I’ll entertain a motion.
deWeerd: Mr. President, I would like to move to approve Ordinance No. 870, request for increase in fees for park shelters and an amendment of the available hours at Tully park and Storey
Park with suspension of rules.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Okay, motion’s been made and seconded. Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 5. Resolution No. 313: Request for an increase in fees for park shelters and an amendment of available hours at Tully Park and Storey Park:
Bird: Okay, we’ve got Item 5 which will be Resolution No. 313. That is providing for Parks and reservations and use of park facilities and the effective dates. Discussion? I’ll entertain
a motion.
deWeerd: Mr. President, I move that we approve Resolution No. 313 with suspension of rules, the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
McCandless: I’ll second.
Bird: Okay, the motion has been made and seconded to approve Resolution 313 with the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 5a. (Item I.) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-002 Request for preliminary plat for proposed Wesley Subdivision for 32 townhouse lots and one office lot
of 5 .029 acres by Centers Construction, Inc. – west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview:
Bird: Now, Item 5 – the Ordinance has been omitted and I from the Consent Agenda, I believe, has been moved over there, and that’s the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, request
for preliminary plat for proposed Wesley Subdivision for 32 townhouse lots
and one office lot on 5.029 acres by Centers Construction, west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview. Staff, have you got anything?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. President, members of the Council, just ask that I’m on Page 7 of the Findings of Fat and Conclusions of Law dated March 29, 2000. Item No. 2.21, it refers to the
open-space requirement from the original plat for Wesley Subdivision regarding two lots of open space, and the plat – the Conditional Use Permit as approved contains not lot 17 and 18
or 34 and 35 as it states. We just ask that that state that the applicant shall provide a minimum of 26,849 s.f. of open space which is in relationship to Condition 2.11 of the CUP.
That would bring these two applications’ Findings to compliment and be the same requirement.
Bird: Questions, Council?
deWeerd: Mr. President, even though I’d like to see the two lots open space, I agree with staff. I would like to move to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the
request of the preliminary plat for proposed Wesley Subdivision with suspension of rules. Okay. Without suspension of rules.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Bird: Okay, we’ve got a motion to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the Wesley Subdivision for 32 townhouse lots and one office lot on 5.029 acres by Centers
Construction –
deWeerd: Mr. President, with a noted change from the P & Z staff.
Anderson: Second agrees.
Bird: Okay, with the noted change from Planning and Zoning staff recommendation. Any further discussion, Council?
McCandless: I have none.
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Bird: Okay, Item No. 7 is the tabled from March 21, the request for preliminary plat for 45 building lots on –
Anderson: Mr. President, we had decided to move the Bledsoe request to six-something.
Item 6. (Item 16.) Public Hearing: VAR 00-004 Variance in requirements of hook-up to City services by Sarah and Michael Bledsoe:
Bird: Item 6, a public hearing, variance in requirements in hook-up to City services by Sarah and Michael Bledsoe. I will open the public hearing and staff, any report?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. President, members of the Council, the application comes to us for a variance request. There is an existing single-family residence. This is zoned R-4. It is located
south of Ustick between Ten Mile and Linder, and they are requesting in order to put an addition onto their house, in order to accommodate the parents, they’re recessing not to require
to hook up to City services and to remain on their well and septic. It would be approximately 405 lineal feet from the sewer stub at the street that borders their driveway in order
to hook up, and so they are requesting the variance. Comments have been submitted by Central District Health Department which you should have in your packets. Thanks.
Bird: Any other staff? Okay. Applicant, if they would like to –
deWeerd: Mr. President, I had a quick question for Brad. Do you know if they’ve applied for the accessory use with Central Health?
Hawkins-Clark: Councilwoman deWeerd, I do not. I’m not aware if that has happened.
Voth: Council, my name is Nick Voth and I am the builder for Sarah and Michael Bledsoe. We have not –
Bird: Sir, would you spell your last name for the record, please?
Voth: V-O-T-H. We have as yet have not applied for a permit. We did not realize that that would be necessary for the addition. So we ask that when you hear this if – we just received
these Findings today ourselves. I just received this tonight. We would ask that upon an application if they do approve for saying that the septic is large enough for the dwelling and
the addition that it would be approved and it is not – they will not allow us, judging from their findings to expand the system. Therefore, we would have to be forced to hook up to
City services. So that’s my understanding from this. Like I say, we just received this tonight, and we didn’t realize that an application needed to be made. We understood that we
just had to apply for a variance.
Bird: Questions? Any questions for Mr. Voth? Okay, thank you. Anybody else like to testify? Council, any other questions or anything?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I guess I would have a question for Staff. How long does this process – are you familiar with the process, and should we table this until we know the outcome?
Hawkins-Clark: The outcome of –
deWeerd: The outcome of the evaluation on the septic system if it’s adequate to serve the addition?
Hawkins-Clark: Have to defer to the City Engineer on that.
Smith: Mr. President, Council members, Councilwoman deWeerd, I don’ know. I haven’t been involved in that review process with Central District Health, so I really don’t know what the
time period is for them to do whatever they need to do. I would assume that they’ve got on file the criteria for the septic tank and drain field that was installed at the time the house
was constructed, and they would more than likely just have to evaluate the dimensions of the system as far as the drain field is concerned and the size of the septic tank to ensure that
the capacity is there for the use that is intended. I don’t imagine that it would be much of a process.
Bird: Any other questions? Applicant, okay.
Bledsoe: My name is Sarah Bledsoe and I'd like to comment on this process. We’re foster parents, and every year, annually, we have to have the health department inspect our septic
system at our old residence. The inspection is not complex at all. The environmental engineer from the health department comes to the property, he reviews the specifications as the
City Engineer just stated, and it’s either / or. It works or it doesn’t. So we would like to have the approval of the variance pending that so that we don’t have to wait to be heard
again. Obviously, if it’s not adequate, we do have to hook up. So it’s not that it would need to be heard by the Council again. We feel that it’s spelled out pretty clearly what our
alternatives are. So you can make a ruling pending the outcome of the study, and the study is very simple. It’s very simple. They go according to the number of people that reside
in the house, the estimated water usage, it’s really simple. That’s all.
Bird: Questions? Thank you.
Anderson: Mr. President, to quote our Public Works Director, we’re not actively out looking for new customers for our sewer system, so knowing that if Central District Health does not
approve this accessory use application that they have no other choice to hook up, I would go ahead and made a motion –
Bird: Just a second. We’ve got to close the public hearing.
deWeerd: The motion was to close the public hearing, right?
Anderson: I would go ahead and make a motion to close that public hearing.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Bird: Okay, Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would also make a motion that we approve the variance for requirement to hook up to City services for Sarah and Michael Bledsoe.
deWeerd: Subject to …
Anderson: Subject to the outcome of the Central District Health Department accessory use application.
deWeerd: Second.
Bird: With the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts?
Anderson: Who is making this motion? Yeah. All that stuff. Instruct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Do we have a second?
deWeerd: Second.
Bird: Okay, we’ve got a motion and second to approve the variance in requirements to hook up to City services by Sarah and Michael Bledsoe with the conditions addressed in the motion.
Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 7a. (Item G.) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law AZ 99-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres to R-8 for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood
/ D.W., Inc. – west of Eagle Road between Overland and East Victory:
Bird: Item 7a is G off of the Consent Agenda, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, request for annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres to R-8 for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision
by Dan Wood/D.W., Inc., west of Eagle Road between Overland and East Victory. Staff, any comments?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. President, members of the Council, the Findings of Facts I revised March 24 from the legal department; there are some items to note. On Page 7 particularly – well,
first of all, on Page 6, these requirements form Ada County Highway
District do refer to the previous plat. Some of these might remain, but the majority of these refer to the old plat where they were proposing common driveways, knuckle turn-arounds
and other such things, so I do not believe Ada County Highway District has prepared an amended Staff report, so there are no conditions from ACHD for you to incorporate into our Findings.
I just recommend that if you want to move ahead that you just leave that – adopt the recommendations of the Ada County Highway District. Just leave it at that. As far as the City
requirements on Page 7, again, Item 15.20 regarding the two-foot wide planter strips is a reference to the old plat, so that needs to be deleted. Item 15.19 refers to the two-story
structure requirement that they would not be permitted on lots contiguous to the McDonald Lateral on the south side of this subdivision. If you recall, this did come up at your March
21st City Council meeting, and I do have copies of the minutes of that meeting here. It was asked that they wanted some clarification, the applicant would like this to be deleted.
They want the option to build either single- or double-story, and according to your last City Council meeting, that really was not addressed, and so that needs to be cleared up. There
was some leaning one way where the other specifically you (inaudible) at the March 21 meeting with this is not before us, this is not a preliminary plat we’re talking about zoning and
annexation, but in fact it is in the annexation and zoning Findings. That’s all.
Bird: Council, any questions?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I guess on 15.19, although we didn’t discuss that, when I sat on Planning and Zoning, we – it was the understanding that you couldn’t limit the number of stories.
I believe that was a point of discussion in Planning and Zoning, and I thought they took that recommendation off.
Bird: Okay, Council, any other questions?
deWeerd: I would recommend that we did.
Bird: Any other questions? Okay, Council, I’ll entertain a motion to either accept or deny.
deWeerd: Mr. President, I would move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres for the proposed Woodhaven Subdivision
with the following changes: on Page 6, it would be to include Mr. City Attorney – I guess I’d need help with the recommendations from ACHD that are still forthcoming.
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, Mr. President, members of the Council, as I understand it, we’ve had these Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for a long time, and this is the first
I’ve heard from staff there were problems with the ACHD recommendations or we would have tried to change them before they came to you. If Mr. Hawkins-Clark wants to point out specific
ones for you to delete by number or to change by number and insert some specific language, it’s a bit loose to simply adopt ACHD recommendations before you know what they are in the
revised plat.
Bird: The problem is that this particular development has had about three or four plats coming through. The final one that we voted on last time, as I recall, was just brought in at
that time, and as I understand it from Mr. Hawkins-Clark that ACHD has not seen the final plat that we’ve approved at the last Council meeting as I understand it; is that not right?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, it’s preliminary plat. Yeah. I do not know if they have seen it or not. I just do not – we do not have a record of their revised staff report that would amend
their previous report. We’ve not received that. The applicant may be able to address it, but –
deWeerd: Mr. President, could we ask the applicant to respond to ACHD’s action on this?
Bird: Yes, we can –
Nichols: It’s not a public – it’s just a status.
Bird: It’s just a status, not anything else. Dan, do you want to respond?
Wood: Dan Wood, 12141 West Blue Bonnet Court. Questions?
deWeerd: Has ACHD received the updated plat on this and have they had occasion to respond to it?
Wood: From what J-U-B has indicated so far, no, they haven’t had time to respond to it and hasn’t been submitted to them.
deWeerd: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Okay. Council, have you got anymore discussion or do you want to proceed on with your motion?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I guess the question I would ask is how long before ACHD would respond? I think that it would be important to have those comments in these Findings.
Bird: I agree with you, Tammy. Other Council, what do you have? What do you think?
deWeerd: Has ACHD given the applicant a time-frame when they would have their response?
Bird: When did they see this final plat for the preliminary plat, the final one of the preliminary plats? They haven’t seen it? How can they comment? Council, what’s your pleasure?
Anderson: Mr. President, it’s not like we have a whole lot of choice here. We haven’t seen the preliminary plat, we’ve not had a chance to comment on that. I think these Findings
of Fact need to be tabled until we receive their comments and they can be incorporated into the Findings of Facts.
Bird: Is that a motion?
Anderson: I will make that a motion.
McCandless: I’ll second that.
Bird: Any further discussion? If not, we’ll have a roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 7b. (Item 7.) Tabled from March 21, 2000: PP 00-016 Request for preliminary plat for 45 building lots on 8.25 acres for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood / D.W., Inc.
– west of Eagle Road between Overland and East Victory:
Bird: We go to Item 7b which was tabled March 21, 2000, request for preliminary plat for 45 building lots on 8.25 acres for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood/D.W., Inc., west
of Eagle Road between Overland and East Victory. Council, I think if you tabled the other, we probably should table this, too. We can’t approve a preliminary plat without approving
the annexation and zoning, too. So I would entertain a motion to table Item No. 7, also.
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion to table Item No. 7, the request for preliminary plat for Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood until – what kind of timeframe do we need
to get comments back?
Bird: Eighteenth; can we get it back by then? Two weeks, Gary? Okay.
Anderson: Table it until April 18th meeting, then.
deWeerd: Second.
Bird: Okay, made and seconded to table item No. 7 until 4-18-00. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 99-021 Request for annexation and zoning for a continuing care retirement community, single- and multi-tenant residential,
office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers – Joseph A. Billig – east of St. Luke’s between Franklin Road and Interstate 84:
Bird: Okay. Thank you. Item No. 8, public hearing, for any people that were not here at the start of the Council meeting, the Council has set up some rules on the public hearings
tonight. The applicant is going to have 5 minutes to start up front to present his application; the rest of the testimonies will be three minutes. The Clerk is going to keep a timer.
You’ll be able to hear it come down. The applicant will have another 5 minutes in the end to answer any questions that have been directed to him. We’re going to try to adhere to it
so we can get through these public hearings -- not going on for three and four hours. Okay, so, Council, I’ll open up the public hearing for –
*** End of Side 1 ***
-- AZ 99-021, request for annexation and zoning for a continuing care retirement community, single- and multi-tenant residential, office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers, Joseph
A. Billig, east of St. Luke’s between Franklin Road and Interstate 84. Staff, comments?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. President, members of the Council, on the screen, is the subject property, the cross-hatched items there. You do have before you a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission regarding these properties unless you’d like me to go into detailed explanation, it’s more or less this property was submitted by the applicant to change the
Comprehensive Plan, I believe last fall, to a mixed/planned use designation, the limited office zone is requested for all of that area that’s hatched. Staff agree that’s complies with
the intent of the mixed/planned use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. We would – there are no changes to the recommendation before you from Planning and Zoning Commission which
does include and we would ask regarding the landscape buffers that are Item No. 5 on Page 3 as well as everything else. Thanks.
Bird: Questions of staff?
deWeerd: Mr. President, just one. Brad, did you emphasize No. 5 because they currently are not complying on the plat?
Hawkins-Clark: Councilwoman deWeerd, no. Just pointed that out there. They actually are not intending to plat. So it’s just intended to be a single, planned unit development project.
Those kinds of buffers could not be included in the plat like they usually are.
deWeerd: But it is their intent to provide those buffers?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
deWeerd: Thanks.
Bird: Any other questions of staff, Council? If the applicant would like to come forward and give their presentation?
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland in Boise. As Brad indicated, we submitted this application for Comprehensive Plan change to a mixed planned use development
in the fall. This body did approve that application, and we brought before you with the Comp Plan change a rough concept. We’re coming back before you now with a request for annexation
and rezone. The zoning designation we’re requesting is an L-O or limited office zone. After multiple discussions with staff prior to application, it was determined that that particular
zone would provide the needs for this type of planned retirement community, and since everything under the mixed planned use development overlay requires a Conditional Use Permit and
we intended to do a planned unit development on the entire concept, that zone would accommodate our needs and would be consistent with the zoning designation on the St. Luke’s facility.
This is a copy of the site plan which we submitted as our planned unit development. I won’t go into the details. I’ll save that for the PUD. Do you have any questions?
Bird: Questions of Becky, Council?
Anderson: The question of access for Montvue Subdivision has come up several times. Is that the one road that you show – would that go into that Subdivision?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. This roadway right here through here down to this rotary is a public street. Will be built to Ada County Highway District’s collector standards. From here to here
and then would be built to public street standards and that would be a dedicated public roadway. It will adjoin Montvue on their eastern boundary.
Anderson: And at what phase of the project would that go in?
Bowcutt: I believe it’s in the second phase. Mr. Neal may be able to answer that.
Anderson: Which is tentatively planned for when?
Bowcutt: Three years. We anticipate this being at least a ten-year project.
Bird: Any other questions?
deWeerd: Mr. President, could I ask why it’s in Phase II and not in Phase I?
Bowcutt: Phase I, we are – we’ll build the necessary signalization at Franklin Road (inaudible) collector, the rotary come down through here to access the main facility. The medical
office that we intend through here, this roadway then would be constructed with that particular phase. We have agreed to that condition at Ada County Highway District that we will,
indeed, dedicate that roadway and construct it up to their perimeter.
deWeerd: But you have no set timeframe when that road would go in.
Bowcutt: They anticipate within probably three years.
deWeerd: But that’s anticipation date.
Bowcutt: Yes, ma’am.
Neal: Bernie Neal with Touchmark. Touchmark Living Centers, 2929 Waterford Drive, Spokane, Washington 99203. In the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing several weeks ago, Montvue
neighborhood had requested that we put some flexibility into the timing of building this street rather than putting it right into the first phase, that they would like to have some time
to determine where they would like it to hit the subdivision, so even though the place that has been chosen was a place that it makes sense to us, they wanted the opportunity to move
that. So we thought that along with the Planning and Zoning Commission that if that were set into the second phase of the project that that would be about the right amount of timing
that the Montvue would be satisfied with. We’re willing to build that street whenever.
deWeerd: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you. Anybody else from the public that would like to testify? Sir?
Willis: Mr. President, Council, my name is Richard Willis. I live at 3555 Montvue Drive. I’d like to state some opposition here. I’ve lived in Meridian in the Montvue Subdivision
for nine years, now, and needless to say, I’ve seen great changes in that subdivision particularly in the last six years. Six years I’ve been to a lot of the City Council meetings and
ACHD meetings, Planning and Zoning meetings, and every time there’s a commercial development, of course, the adjoining residents for the most part protest. (inaudible) things that they
would protest, a great number of them, but you can narrow them down to three issues, and I’m sure you’ve heard them all. It has to do with quality of life, traffic, and loss of property
values. Most of those subdivisions, however, have only had to face commercial development on one side. We have the map up here, you can see Montvue in five short years is completely
surrounded by commercial or retail development. We have St. Luke’s to the south, Touchmark to the east, and what your map doesn’t show, but you saw it on the design there that there’s
a multi-story commercial building along our east boundary. Across the street we have RC Willey, you see a commercial designation on the northwest corner of Eagle/Franklin, and you have
the office development on the other corner. What your map doesn’t show is across from St. Luke’s is that there’s two all-night convenience store/service station/fast food joints. We
have a motel and (inaudible) office. All of these things have come at the expense of our subdivision, and all of these things are true, that people complain about are true. Our property
values have declined. Someone will talk about that in just a minute. I was interested in reading your new Comprehensive Plan, and there’s a lot of wonderful things planned in your
Comprehensive Plan. You talk about connectivity and cross-access, and I (inaudible) about cross-access. You talk about protecting property values, transition of the zones, quality
of life, all of these issues. It’s too late for
Montvue. We have noise pollution; we have light pollution of all-night parking lots on both sides; we have a six-story building that’s going up in our back yard that oversees our subdivision.
If you want to know how tall that is, put the construction crane up today, go look at it and I can guarantee none of you would want that in your back yard. If it was in your back yard
you wouldn’t approve it. Be multi-story buildings (inaudible) east boundary. Our subdivision’s aptly named Montvue because of the view. We can see the Foothills, we can see the Owyhees;
of course, St. Luke’s took care of that to the south, Touchmark will take care of it to the east. I was thinking on the way over here we probably ought to call the place Commercial
View or Bedpan Alley or something like that based on what’s going in around us. To top it off, most of us had the hope that we could salvage something out of our properties. Under
the current designation you have Montvue as well as the Touchmark property designated as mixed/planned use. Imagine our chagrin to see a new proposed Comprehensive Plan showing a designation
for Montvue, a medium-density residential. Right now we average one home per acre there. How in the world you came up with medium-density residential for that property is beyond me.
It’s a travesty. (inaudible) two things. Hopefully you’ll never allow another subdivision to go through what Montvue Subdivision has gone through. There’s no transition; there’s
no barriers; the quality of life of that subdivision has been lost. Now, if you take away the only hope we have of mixed development or whatever, there’s nothing left. I ask you, don’t
do that. Put a designation on Montvue that’s at least compatible with the surrounding areas so that the residents there can at least salvage something out of the value of the property.
Thank you.
Bird: Council, any questions for him? Thank you. Anybody else like to testify?
Griffith: I’m Glen Griffith, I reside at 3295 N. Montvue Drive. I’m here to oppose the current development for three reasons. Not that it’s a bad development; I want to make that clear.
(inaudible) the area more desirable instead of bare and weed dirt, but as I see it, I have to look out for my property value and quality of life where I live because right at the moment
if I want to move, I can’t get the value from my home that any other person has a right to get. Property taxes just went down, and the only way I can approve for this is for some of
these public entities to finally listen to us and give us the connectivity that we need. It’s not too late to put something through into St. Luke’s driveway so we have some connection
into Eagle Road. The argument’s been made that St. Luke’s has nothing to do with this development, but we have signed memorandums between the two parties stating that the land-swap
is not to take place on the east side of our deal until they’re approved. So they are directly tied to this, still. That argument doesn’t fly because this body does have the power
and the right to imply still our public access that we should have to the south. It’s good that we have to the east, but that directs us to the busiest intersection in the state of
Idaho. I don’t think it’s right. Thank you.
Bird: Got any questions, Council, for him? Okay. Thank you. Anybody else like to testify?
Fuss: Hi, my name’s Natalie Fuss. I reside at 324 E. Montvue Drive. Last week I personally went over to the Tax Assessor’s office and viewed 17 homeowners’ real property tax values.
Out of 17, 11 property values have decreased ranging from $1,000 to $9,900. In reference to what Mr. Neal was talking about, yes, we would like a say in where our street attaches to
Touchmark for their stub connecting road. If our neighborhood was to stay residential, then two homes would have to be condemned for our road to be connected to theirs where they currently
have their stub going in at. They told us that the Meridian P & Z hearing that they would be applying for permits in Phase II in six to 12 months, not three years. That’s all I have.
Bird: Any questions, Council? Thank you. Any others want to testify?
Griffith: Trisha Griffith, 3295 N. Montvue Drive. I also did talk to the Assessor’s Office, and I asked them why my property value went down, and they told me that it went down because
we only have one access into our subdivision, and we haven’t been able to sell any homes in our subdivision, and he doesn’t foresee it in the future because he said it’s a nice place,
but once you see the problems you have getting in and out of our subdivision, no one wants to live there. I came to plead with you to ask you for your help for the safety of our residents
and our children and the older folks in our subdivision. It is a nightmare getting in and out. I don’t know how many times when I know I have, like my daughters, be driving, and I
know she’s about four or five cars ahead of me, and I see a car going down the burrowpit 40, 50 miles an hour just to get to Franklin to turn right. You don’t know how many times I
had to close my eyes because I knew she was going to be turning into our subdivision and wonder if she was going to be in a wreck or not. Just trying to get out into the median, that’s
the only place we can get in and out of our subdivision is in the median, and there are some nice people that do let us in and out, but they do drive down the median really fast, and
you have to creep out there. There are a lot of us who have had a lot of close calls, and I just would hate to see anybody in our subdivision get hurt. Any visitors or anybody. I’m
asking you to please take a close look at this connectivity to our subdivision. They’re looking at it in all phases, all different subdivisions, all different developments, and I don’t
understand why we are excluded from it. I would like to see us have access to St. Luke’s signal light which will help us for our safety and for emergency problems, too. It’s – even
though we have “do not block the intersection”, people see you there and sometimes they’ll look the other way, pretend they didn’t see you. They’ll still block the intersection. If
we had a fire truck or an ambulance that needed to get in and out, it’d be very tough, and if we had someone that needed to run over to the hospital, it’d be a lot easier for us just
to go from our subdivision right straight across instead of heading out into the busy road trying to get across to the hospital. Thanks.
Bird: Any questions? Thank you very much.
deWeerd: Mr. President, I guess I do in the fact that right now because of the way your houses are laid out, the connectivity just isn’t there as it stands. Like one of your residents
had acknowledged that there would have to be someone’s house removed to get the connectivity through at least to Touchmark. At this point, the St. Luke’s, you
know, they did have an offer, I don’t know if it still stands or not, but that was declined, so that would have been your private access in case of an emergency. I guess to solve an
immediate access is you need to come as a Homeowners Association to a consensus of where you want that connective street, and it sounds like the developers are willing to fit their load
to where you need it to go.
Griffith: We did meet with ACHD and St. Luke’s, and every solution we came up with, three or four different alternatives, and everything we came up with didn’t work because either backing
up or they didn’t think it was a – so we did try to come up with a solution, and that’s where St. Luke’s private or St. Luke’s offer was for a private, residential use only, 10 percent,
had to be signed by everybody. There was restrictions on there.
deWeerd: But were they giving you your emergency access? You had mentioned that in your testimony, and you know, it was on the table. We can’t go back and change what happened seven
years ago or even a year ago. Right now we’re trying to deal with Touchmark, and the sooner we can get an alignment into your subdivision, I think that that can be facilitated, and
it sounds like it needs to be worked out between your homeowners and the applicant. So you know, you will have another access outside of what you have onto Eagle.
Griffith: But this subdivision has been here for 38 years, and St. Luke’s hasn’t been around that long right there. Touchmark is – this has been established for 38 years, and it’s
just like a new kid on the block coming over and getting everything. You know, we tried to work out some solution and different things, but we didn’t have the – we were relying on the
experts and that to help us with it. We did try to come up with a solution to all of this. We are asking for your help on it.
deWeerd: And we’d like to help you through Touchmark. At this point, that’s where we can offer and so does the applicant.
Bird: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Anybody else want to testify?
Kerns: Forrest Kerns, I live at 230 W. Montvue Drive. You can help us, not just through Touchmark, but through Touchmark because you can not approve Touchmark’s application until St.
Luke’s gives them public access which is listed in some of the previous Findings of Fact from ACHD that it should be necessary, and Council chose to not accept that recommendation during
the St. Luke’s Phase III application. That map is not entirely correct. Right now – this road has changed. It now comes down through here and comes in down here. The Highway Department
did that when they widened Eagle Road in 1990 or ’89 and ’90. Now the light that comes in here, people come, they stop at this light and they run clear into the intersection when people
are coming out for the left turn from the new Chevron. You can’t get out a left-turn there. So the traffic is backing up from there to there already including down to the three-way
almost at certain times of the day particularly around 4:00 in the afternoon. So for us to enter here where we traditionally have, sometimes I have to get out and yell at people to
back up and pay attention to the signs that say don’t block the intersection. Please do not block the intersection. Like Trish said, they tend to ignore you most of the time. When
you pull
out, there are cars like you said, coming down the safety strip, the shoulder, at 40 and 50 miles an hour trying to make the turn here because there is no right-turn lane. When you
do finally get out in the median, there’ll be someone coming from clear down here to make a left turn down through the left-turn lane. I’ve been hit or almost hit two or three times
just as I poked out past two cars very cautiously and there’s someone coming down the left-turn lane. It’s a real problem. Mr. Willis addressed the fact that all of this that’s around
us in the new Comprehensive Plan – the new Comprehensive Plan has this office clear down to here to this road. Why we were left as reduced from multiple use or multiple-use designation
that we have now to mixed-use residential, I have no idea. That’s a reduction. It devalues our property even more because what are we going to do with it? The best use of that property
is consistent with the other property around it. Not residential. Access right now, there is a wide enough lot on Mrs. (inaudible) here to access directly in – I’m a surveyor for approximately
a 60-foot roadway into St. Luke’s. There’s access across here between these two residences without moving any houses. So the access is possible.
Bird: Sir, your three minutes is up if you’d please wind it up.
Kerns: In conclusions, what I’m asking is that you do not approve Touchmark’s application until the issues of access are resolved for Montvue and Touchmark and St. Luke’s.
Bird: Any questions, Council?
Kerns: And I’m not opposed to Touchmark at all. I think it’s a great concept.
deWeerd: Mr. President, I just have a comment. On the Comp Plan, the Comp Plan has not even gone through the open-house process yet; nor the public hearing, so that is not a done deal.
I would suggest the residents submit a letter to the Planning and Zoning Department requesting that your parcel –
Kerns: That’s already in the process.
deWeerd: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Bird: Okay. As – we’d like if people would have different objections or something. We seem to be getting the same kind. So anybody else want to testify? We’re not stopping anybody
from testifying, but we’d like to please get different views.
Fuss: Jeff Fuss, 324 E. Montvue Drive. First of all, I’d like to say that my tax appraisal went down 10 percent between last year and this year. Secondly, I’d like to say that the
way this has been set up so far doesn’t seem to be consistent with any commercial developments that have been done on any of the other sides of Eagle and Franklin or Eagle and Fairview.
Any of the other corners that have been developed have all got loop streets or a set-aside has been made for loop street around the intersection. Everywhere except from the southeast
corner of Eagle and Franklin. Okay? The
reason that we wanted to push the public street into Touchmark off of Phase II was first of all to give us time to sit down with Touchmark and find the best place to put that. Second
of all, if anybody’s been on Franklin in the last three months, you’ll realize that without significant improvements to Franklin, even with a light, it doesn’t do us any good because
you can’t make a left-hand turn because the traffic’s backed up from the light clear down past this development. It doesn’t gain us anything. It doesn’t really help the situation until
Franklin has been improved. The other thing, I keep hearing this over and over about the offer of the private access into St. Luke’s. You’ve already heard: We went through that.
We couldn’t physically fit the street through where they wanted it without, again, taking out a house. We keep hearing over and over again that the offer was made for a private road
and we should have taken it because the public system isn’t working and so we should go after private means to help take care of that. Now, I really don’t think that is a precedent
that’s been set that we want to follow-up on. Now, really, when it comes down to it, the whole deal with that would be the closest thing I can connect to – let’s say I buy a new Lincoln
Navigator. You get it home, it doesn’t want to start in the morning. You take it into the shop 10, 15 times and they can’t fix it. Well, I come along and say, look, I’ll solve your
problem. I’ll pay you a dollar, I’ll buy it from you and you won’t have the problem with the truck anymore. Well, that’s about what St. Luke’s offer was, and we keep hearing it again
and again and again. It was for us and St. Luke’s to put up the money to put in a private access because the public system broke. So what I’m saying is there should still be a loop
street here from St. Luke’s light around to Franklin just like it has been requested and built every other place around Eagle and Franklin and Eagle and Fairview. Thank you.
Bird: Questions? Thank you. Have any other testimony?
Hoalst: I’m Wesley Hoalst, 385 Montvue Drive. Could we have the video picture of this development, please? Thank you. Right at this time, there has not been acceptance of the Ada
County Highway District of the public road supposedly as was put into the plans from the Montvue Subdivision out on Franklin Road. So I’m requesting that this application be denied
until Ada County Highway District gets dedicated to that access and also it mentions about – in the plans there, it goes around to St. Luke’s and has an entry in – maybe if I point to
it – there is to be – this is to be a public road as I understand. So that’s fine, but if the Ada County Highway District hasn’t received the dedication of that, then it should be denied.
Also, there is supposed to be a public road down this way and into St. Luke’s. Now it seems like we should have the same access to public road from Montvue Subdivision and this should
be a dedicated – for this public road should be coming in. So that’s why I’m requesting denial of the application until the Highway District has received those dedications to public
road. As of right now it hasn’t been, and it will be as was testified a while ago, it’s going to be three years before this takes place. Well, that’s because there’s 10 acres here
that St. Luke’s needs for their construction road for their building. Well, that is not going to take place (inaudible) until that hospital is completed. Now, we don’t have any verification
that this public road is going to be dedicated, so I think it ought to be denied until it is dedicated by Ada County Highway District. Thank you.
Bird: Any questions of Mr. Hoalst? Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?
McCreedy: Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. My name is John McCreedy, my business address is 1275 Shoreline Lane in Boise. I wanted to provide just a couple brief comments
earlier. This morning I faxed you a letter on this application and would ask that the letter be entered into the record. Also, I wanted to request that the testimony that the residents
have provided tonight is considered as also part of the Conditional Use Permit application. Under your City Code, the requirement and standards for approval of a zoning amendment and
a Conditional Use Permit are quite similar. Rather than repeating the testimony twice, we would appreciate you considering the testimony as part of Touchmark’s Conditional Use Permit
application. You've heard tonight from the Montvue residents that essentially that they’ve lost the possibility of a future residential use of their property. The surrounding properties
have all gone commercial up until the recent draft of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, I think it was the intention of Meridian’s elected officials that the Montvue Subdivision be designated
as mixed/planned use. I understand that’s a draft of the plan and they will participate in the process. I think the point is that there’s really no hope for any future residential
use there at this time. Our goal for approximately a year now has been to persuade, convince and encourage you to plan for the future of this subdivision. We tried during the St. Luke's
application to convince the City Council that the Montvue Subdivision would be a future commercial development at some time, and that in addition to the needs for the residents’ safety
now, but also the need to protect their property values in the future, it was important to provide them with access to the signalized intersection on Eagle Road. Part of the planning
has been done tonight by Touchmark. Actually done over the last several months by Touchmark. I think they worked very hard on their application, and we’ve worked hard with them on
certain issues, and we appreciate that. But the problem is that it is extremely important that you study ACHD's Findings and Conclusions in detail. ACHD concluded that the Eagle/Franklin
intersection is over capacity. It’s broken. They also concluded that Eagle Road operates at a level of service F. That’s unacceptable. That there are approximately 60,000 more vehicle
trips per day that are planned for Eagle Road in the future. They concluded that Franklin Road suffers from severe traffic problems. So what you have now is a history of the Idaho
Transportation Department and ACHD intending to enclose the – to close off Montvue’s existing access to Eagle Road. That has been stated in plan after plan. Apparently, up to now,
anyway, the replacement is to send the Montvue residents out Franklin Road. I ask you if that makes any sense. I submitted to you the report from Dobie Engineering which shows that
the Montvue access to Eagle Road is beyond capacity. It’s broken. So what sense does it make to send the Montvue residents out through another series of intersections that are broken?
That makes no sense. What is important is that this body engage in planning for the future. I ask you to just take a step back and look at the big picture of these two applications.
We have a commercial application with Touchmark and a commercial application with St. Luke’s. They have signed a private memorandum of agreement agreeing to give each other access
back and forth. ACHD had stated that that connectivity is essential to those applications; in fact, they made it a required Finding and a condition. The goal is so that St. Luke’s
can get back to the Franklin Road
through a signalized intersection. Touchmark can get out through St. Luke’s to a signalized intersection. We now have at some point some flexibility with Touchmark, a good possibility
that the Montvue residents will enjoy it, the Franklin signalized intersection. But we’re missing one final ingredient for adequate public access for them, and the key is public access.
That is allowing them the same privilege that these two commercial developers have: access to Eagle Road at a signalized intersection that functions. That’s their request. The site
plan that Touchmark has put before you proposes the majority of private streets. That site plan hasn’t been reviewed and approved yet by the ACHD commission. I encourage you to take
a look at Page 13, Item 6 of ACHD’s Findings and Conclusions where the Commission members, the ACHD Commission members expressed concern about the current site plan and the need to provide
public availability. It’s not a done deal yet, and there’s still a possibility of getting this proper public road planning done. We would ask your consideration of getting that done
by requiring the connection between the Touchmark property and the St. Luke’s property to be public. Really, to go back to the plans that have been in place for many years now, and
that is public road along St. Luke’s northern property boundary. I’ve issued to you earlier today a letter which outlines some of the legal authority I believe that you have to impose
that requirement. I also submitted two letters to the Planning and Zoning Commission (inaudible) discussed that issue. Thank you for your consideration.
Bird: Any questions, Council? Thank you. Anybody else that would like to testify?
Gearsdorf: My name is Chuck Gearsdorf, I’m the Administrator of St. Luke’s Meridian Medical Center. I reside at 3287 Sugar Creek Drive here in Meridian. Just a couple comments. We’re
– St. Luke’s is supportive of this property because we believe that it will be a quiet, complementary neighbor to our medical campus. Also, just for the record or in anticipation of
a question, St. Luke’s offer to provide a private road is still on the table. We have not withdrawn that. That offer included $100,000 to help get that road done. That’s still there.
I believe there’s no, as I understand it, there’s no public road connection between Touchmark nor St. Luke’s. They’re – in fact, ACHD recommended a cross-access agreement on private
roads and are negotiating that out as to where and so forth, but there is no public road connection with the St. Luke’s property. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Bird: Any questions? Thank you. Any other testimony? Hearing none, Becky, would you like to finish this public hearing up?
Bowcutt: We’d like to do a two-pronged rebuttal. It’ll take like two minutes.
Bird: Five minutes is all you’ve got, so get going. That’s fine. Five minutes is all you’ve got.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. I understand the frustration with the residents in Montvue. I’m sure when that subdivision was designed and construction 30 years ago, nobody ever anticipated we
would have an Eagle Road corridor and a big interchange and Franklin
Road would be what it is and all of that commercial development that we see going on out there. This area is an area that’s in transition. We saw similar things along Broadway Avenue.
There used to be quite a few single-family dwellings that fronted Broadway Avenue. Over time that made a transition to more intensive uses, and you saw conversions of some of the homes
to offices and removal of some of the homes and commercial uses took their place. Cities change, cities grow. That’s what is happening here. On the connectivity between our site and
St. Luke’s, we’ve worked hard to try to have some interconnection to take two private parties come together and have some private interconnection for this traffic and pedestrian uses.
We feel that each one will benefit the other. We have tried to work with the Montvue neighbors. We had a neighborhood meeting and invited them. Mr. Neal, I went – we went to the
meeting with their attorney. I talked to some of them on the phone, I talked to Mr. McCreedy on the phone. We’ve tried to do as much as we can, and we’re doing that by providing a
public street connection. We’re giving them access to a signal at Franklin Road Ada County Highway District stated same thing that Councilman deWeerd stated. We can’t go back five
years or seven years and change what’s transpired. What we can do is provide you public street access through Touchmark. That’s what we’re trying to do here. I think I’ll turn it
over to Steve. Here, Steve.
Bradbury: Steve Bradbury, 225 N. 9th in Boise. I represent Touchmark. I just wanted to briefly speak about the process in front of Ada County Highway District because I think it
would be helpful to you folks to understand it. The Highway District held a number of public hearings on the issue of traffic and connections. After even delaying the matter for some
several additional weeks in order to do some traffic studies for that intersection concluded that the best solution would be to allow for some sort of an interconnection between St.
Luke’s and Touchmark in order to relieve some of the traffic congestion that obviously exists at that intersection. The Highway District did not want a publicly dedicated road that
connected through there. They didn’t want it. I think you can find that in your staff report from ACHD that you have. What they did want is the connection which St. Luke’s and Touchmark
are working to provide. They also wanted the connected to Montvue which Touchmark is providing, and it’s all that it’s in its power to provide. It can’t provide connection, a public
connection to St. Luke’s. It’s just not in its power, can’t do it. Doesn’t own it. Doesn’t control St. Luke’s. The Highway District did, in fact, reach a final decision with respect
to this project. It approved the project, they adopted a number of conditions; one of those conditions was that there be a Development Agreement entered into before – and that Development
Agreement would be address the issues about the precise locations and precise configurations of the public and private streets. That’s all they did. It’s no different than what you
folks do probably weekly, certainly monthly, when you approve projects subject to the conditions of a Development Agreement being entered into. (inaudible) makes it any less final,
but there is a condition attached. It’s no less final than this decision that you make. I have been in contract with the attorney for the Highway District as recently as last week
professing language in this Development Agreement that we passed back some communications about that. I have no question that – no doubt, I should say, that the Development Agreement
is going to be entered into satisfactorily. Staff at the Highway District has approved the configuration and the location of the streets and the
connections from – I just don’t think you need to get yourselves too balled up by this notion that we don’t have a final approval by the Highway District when in fact we do. I’ll stand
for any questions if I didn’t make something clear.
Bird: Any questions, Council?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I guess while Mr. Bradbury’s up here, Steve, Brad, do we have an ACHD report?
Hawkins-Clark: I have not seen one since the previous approval. I do believe there is one. Has that been modified, Becky? Yeah. The January – mid-January? The January 13, 2000
is the date of the report that Becky Bowcutt just gave me.
Bradbury: For some reason you all don’t have it in your packages, we can certainly provide it. It’s been in existence now for – where are we? At least ten weeks. Thank you. Anything
else?
Bird: Any further questions?
deWeerd: I have none.
Bird: Council, any questions we need to ask while the public hearing is still open? If not, I’d entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Anderson: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Motion to close the public hearing and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Bird: Council?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I have a problem with
*** End of Side 2 ***
-- get so – and that shouldn’t be the fault of the applicant, but at this point, I just would really like to know what that says and don’t feel like I can take any action until we have
a chance to see it.
Bird: Did the Clerk’s office get a – the Clerk’s office has not received one. Planning and Zoning has?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, we do, and it would likely not have been in your existing packets for tonight’s meeting given the fact that it was dated approximately 3 ½ months ago.
Bird: Why was it not relayed to the Clerk’s office?
Hawkins-Clark: The copy that we have in our files here for staff is dated January 21, 2000 received by City of Meridian.
deWeerd: Mr. President, that’s neither here nor there at this point. I would like to personally have the opportunity to review that. I know that Mr. McCreedy gave us quite a packet,
too, and I certainly haven’t read any of that stuff either. I would hold it up for that, but I would like to get a better idea of ACHD’s and maybe their final approval if we do delay
this until the 18th.
Bird: Well, the public hearing is closed, so –
deWeerd: I do understand that. There’s been plenty of reference to the ACHD report, but would that be a problem to admit the ACHD final report since the public hearing has been closed?
Bird: We can do it in your motion, couldn’t you?
deWeerd: I’m asking the City Attorney.
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, President Bird and members of the Council, if the City in fact has a report, we can re-open the public hearing right this instant for the purpose of receiving
that report and then close it and get it on the record.
Bird: Do you want to make a motion to open the public hearing?
deWeerd: So moved.
McCandless: I’ll second it.
Bird: Okay, we’ll open the public hearing.
deWeerd: Do we just state to enter into evidence the ACHD report?
Hawkins-Clark: We can certainly copy this for the record if you like.
Bird: What’s the date on it? Not transmittal – when is the date of the report?
Hawkins-Clark: January 13, 2000, received January 21, 2000.
Bird: January 13th is when ACHD made the report – signed the final report?
deWeerd: Mr. President, you know I know everyone has referenced the same report, so I don’t doubt what it says, but a project of this size I think would be advantageous for the Council
to have a chance to review that document before we make any final decisions.
Bird: Okay. We’ve received that. Now, do you want to close the public hearing and then we can discuss what we want to do with that?
deWeerd: Yes unless the applicant has a need to respond before we close it. I think it would be appropriate.
Neal: Bernie Neal, Touchmark Living Centers, 2929 South Waterford Drive, Spokane. It’s hard for me to conceive how with the amount of time and the amount of focus that has gone into
the fact-finding and the study and the give and take, the questions that have been answered, the conditions that have been placed at two previous levels, that this report is not included
in your packets. I don’t understand. I would suggest – it’s not a lengthy report. It’s here in the room. I would suggest that the conditions that are there are short that you could
review that tonight. We have come here a number of times, we’ve had a number of people who don’t live in this valley. It’s hard for us to get here. It’s a big commitment. I’ve been
in this room a dozen times now. To see this grind to a halt for another week or two weeks or three weeks because of a clerical mistake that I think could get straightened out tonight
would not be fair to us. I hope that you can find a way to get through this issue tonight and not be waiting another several weeks for this technicality. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. The public hearing is open. Any more testimony? Have you been up? We’ll give you three minutes more.
Kerns: I would just like to ask that you consider tabling this until you’ve had a chance to review the total package, the report and – was not included in your packet. I think it deserves
some attention and some time to read and not just peruse it for a few minutes this evening. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you. Anybody else?
Griffiths: Glen Griffith, 3295 N. Montvue Drive. Just one item to add. This should not be rushed into one decision in one night over something as important as public transportation
and the good of the public. The president has already been set where the City of Boise turned down a Target application just north of ours at an intersection of Chinden and Eagle because
the lack of transportation, and it is not half as busy as Franklin and Eagle is. To continue to approve and approve development without taking into consideration transportation is unwise.
Thank you.
Bird: Thank you. Anybody else?
Willis: We’re used to disgusted looks, so it don’t bother us. We get them all the time. Just a couple of issues that I’d like to clear up. My name is Richard M. Willis, I live at
3555 Montvue Drive. I guess I can’t ask the developer, but you folks can, and ask St. Luke’s what the definition of a private road versus a public road. If I have a road that comes
in my property, my private property, that’s private. Once I open it up to the people behind me, is it still private or does it become public? You have a two-commercial interest here
that are scratching each other’s backs and letting each other use their road it appears. The question I have is St. Luke’s going to let Touchmark residents and visitors use their signalized
light on Eagle Road? That’s a question I think you ought to ask them. If they are, then that becomes public because it’s not for the private use of St. Luke’s. It’s for all those
who use that facility behind St. Luke’s. The other issue I’d like to clear up is the issue of the road into the Montvue Subdivision. I know you folks are tired and you don’t want to
hear this, but if you go back to your notes for the Planning and Zoning Commission and Mrs. deWeerd was on the Planning and Zoning Commission , they recognized a need for a public road
into the Montvue Subdivision. We had a location identified for that road. And the Montvue Planning and Zoning Commission recognized the need of that public road for the residents,
and they understood why the developer did not want us to have a public road into our subdivision. They approved in their meeting a public road for our use. You folks, of course, decided
with the commercial development. We’re used to that, but anyway, I wanted to make sure that those points were made. I’d like you to ask those questions about the public versus the
private road. Thank you.
Bird: Anybody else?
Anderson: Mr. President, I would move that we close the public hearing.
deWeerd: Second.
Bird: Moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Anderson: Mr. President, I would suggest that we get a copy of this ACHD study report and we recess for 10 minutes and review that.
deWeerd: Second.
Bird: Okay. Anymore discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
(Meeting recessed for 10 minutes)
Bird: Okay, Council will come back into session. We’ve all got a copy of the ACHD report. Any comments?
McCandless: Mr. President, with all due respect to the gentleman that just spoke to us about not having a report, and I can understand his frustration, but I have a frustration, too.
I can’t read the 17-page report and get anything out of it in five minutes. You know, I have empathy for both sides. I have empathy for those people that live in Montvue Subdivision,
and I also know that Touchmark is going to be a real asset to this community, and it is a beautiful, beautiful development, and it is in a perfect area because of its proximity to St.
Luke’s. There is a problem with traffic, a big problem. I just need time to go through all of this and think this through. It’s really all I have to say right now.
Bird: Any other comments?
Anderson: Mr. President, it’s just a comment I’ve read in this study a couple of places that I’d like to read. One of the recommendations on Page 7, No. 3, it’s a public collector
road through this property and St. Luke’s property connecting Franklin to Eagle Road will not provide a significant benefit to the traffic operations at Franklin Road and Eagle Road
intersection; however, the Eagle and Franklin Road corridor study stated that the collector road would provide a significant benefit for St. Luke’s by providing additional capacity for
their leg of the signalized intersection on Eagle Road. This presumes that if a vehicular connection between the two properties for inter-property travel and access for this property
to a signal at St. Luke’s driveway and Eagle Road and access to the St. Luke’s property to Franklin Road, and I think in our meetings that we’ve had with ACHD, the indication was that
due to some of the significant problems that they have with traffic stacking as they’re coming off of the interstate, they would just as soon not dump traffic from Montvue into that
particular area because that would hold the light longer and cause traffic to stack up a little bit more. I think there has been a generous offer from St. Luke’s to provide a private
road – that’s not what the citizens of Montvue wanted in our earlier testimony. A lot of those folks indicated that they had hoped they could get a public access so that subdivision
could eventually maybe even go to a retail or a commercial zoning so that it would increase the values of the properties. Most of them, I think, realize that because of the growth and
things like that, that when this subdivision was planned 38 years ago, I think was the number I heard, that nobody really envisioned Eagle Road being what it is. I remember when it
was two-lane country road that dead-ended at the freeway because there wasn’t an overpass there. But very similar to the residents up on Curtis Road because of the growth in this area,
they realize at some time, some of those things have to be sacrificed for the good of the community, and that road has been now developed into a major interchange in the state of Idaho,
and you have the freeway on and off ramps and we have a major north-south intersection, and unfortunately, that country-style living that was planned 38 years ago when they built that
subdivision has gone away. I think the developers of Touchmark have done an outstanding job of trying to work with the residents and provide a public access. I think at this point
that the residents should feel good about getting a connection to Franklin Road with the signal that would provide for safety if you want to get out onto there. They’re also offering
– the offer sounds like it’s still on the table from St. Luke's for a private drive if you prefer to exit that way. I think there’s been
a number of concessions made to help appease the residents in Montvue and they really need to look at some of those seriously and just – My feeling is that we should approve this annexation.
Bird: Any other comments? If not, I would entertain a motion one way or the other.
Anderson: Mr. President, hearing no other comments, I would make a motion that we approve the request for annexation and zoning for the Touchmark Living Centers and instruct the City
Attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
deWeerd: Second.
Bird: Discussion? No discussion? We have a motion to approve the request for annexation and zoning for the Touchmark Living Centers for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 99-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned unit development including continuing care retirement community, single- and multi-family residential
and office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers - Joseph A. Billig – east of St. Luke’s between Franklin Road and Interstate 84:
Bird: Item No. 9, public hearing, request for Conditional Use Permit for planned unit development including continuing care retirement community, single- and multi-family residential
and office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers east of St. Luke’s between Franklin Road and the interstate. I will open the public hearing and hear staff report first.
Hawkins-Smith: Mr. President, members of the Council, staff really has nothing much further to add. I would add here on the screen that this is the proposed layout of Phase I and a
reminder that what’s actually come before you and is on Page 3 of the recommendation to City Council, Item 1.11 that this conditional use is for the overall concept of the planned unit
development as well as Phase I only. As I understand, the total project was six phases; each of those would be required to come back for a Conditional Use Permit, would have to be noticed
to all property owners within 300 feet, et cetera. This before you is for the overall concept. If they do veer from that approved plan, if you do choose to approve it, then they would
have to substantially comply with it – all the future phases. This first Phase I is down on the south end of the project, and the elevations in terms of the main living center, care
center, are here along with some of the cottage homes.
Bird: Thank you. Any questions of staff? If not, the application come forward, please.
Neal: Bernie Neal, Touchmark Living Centers, 2929 Waterford Drive, Spokane, Washington. The Touchmark of the Treasure Valley is the multi-use continuing care retirement community as
described – three of the general uses we will be developing in approximately six phase over the next seven to ten years. The first phase, the first use, I should say, not phase, the
first use is an office medical park that will serve the public. It will be developed and brought through the City conditional use process at a later time. The second use is for multi-family
rental apartments that will primarily serve active seniors and younger empty-nesters which my age group would be typical, and possibly have a neighborhood that would house young families
as a housing alternative to the employees in the surrounding medical and retirement facilities. We would anticipate some units would be available to visiting members of families of
St. Luke’s and Touchmark patients for convenient, short-term stays. This portion of the project will also be developed and brought to the City’s conditional use approval process at
a later time. The third and last use of the Touchmark of the Treasure Valley is for a multi-level service retirement community. This continuing care retirement community will provide
services to the age 55-plus group with independent cottage homes, congregate apartment homes, assisted living homes, skilled and Alzheimer’s care, and a health and fitness club open
to the community. These housing and care choices are designed to allow seniors to gracefully age in place while maintaining both independent choices and a health and social safety net
that becomes more and more important to all of us as we grow older. I believe that we would like to spend the balance of our time after that general description of a continuing care
retirement community, I would like to spend the balance of our time speaking to some of the issues that are in the Highway District report that have given us comfort and may give you
some, too.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland, Boise. There are just a few things, as Councilwoman McCandless indicated, the staff report is quite lengthy. It’s quite
lengthy because Ada County Highway District took great pains to go through and list different uses that have been approved in this vicinity and give kind of a historical rundown for
their commission. There have been multiple traffic studies out in this vicinity. Almost every traffic engineering company in the Valley has done a traffic study. When we came before
ACHD, we asked them specifically who would you recommend that we use for this because everyone has looked at it and maybe we need another opinion, or whatever. We took their recommendation.
Ada County Highway District also retained the same company to expand on that study and do another corridor study. Basically it was found and stated, as Councilman Anderson indicated
the loop street through the property would only have a short-term effect on alleviating the traffic at the intersection of Eagle and Franklin Road. If Touchmark was required to build
some type of public loop street all the way through it, then Ada County Highway District and the tax payers would end up having to pay for that collector roadway because it would benefit
others and not just the subject property. It was determined by the analysis that, like I said, the benefit would be minimal. There is Ada County Highway District is still going to
have to spend a substantial amount of money to go into the Eagle Franklin Road intersection and upgrade it; put in free right lanes, free right-
turn lanes and so forth. One reason that the Highway District looked at our project in a different fashion than they have some of the other projects was the fact that this is a retirement
community. We’re a very low traffic generator. I’d like to read this one – Will, are you beeping me? I’d like to read this one statement: Trip generation rates for retirement communities
are well below that of conventional single-family homes. Retirement communities, and then it just goes on to exhibit trip rates of .27, have a peak hour rate of 2.83. The peak hour
trip rate for standard single-family residences is 9.57; so we’ve got a comparison between 9.57 and 2.83. It was admitted by the staff that this particular use is the best thing that
they could put on this property because it is such a low traffic generator. They don’t – we can’t have another McDonald’s out there or Burger King. They want to see something to drop
those traffic rates lower than the standard commercial than we’re seeing through that corridor. When we do comparisons, we’re just a little over 9,000 trips per day. The Credit Union,
McDonald’s and the C-Store out there generate 7,500 trips just for those three particular uses, and they're on a very small parcel of land. Only just a handful of acres. This particular
project is on 134 acres. With the interconnection between St. Luke’s and Touchmark, we’re going to get interaction that we hope would not utilize the Eagle Franklin Road intersection,
and that was one of the reasons that we agreed to go into the Development Agreement was because we were confident that our plan is a good one; the agreement between the two parties would
be honored, and we will provide some type of interconnection between potential users here and the St. Luke’s users. This is a very, very good project, and I think the City of Meridian
should be very proud to see it. One other thing you need to keep in mind is that it’s a phased project. We’re talking approximately six phases over 10, 12 year period depending on
the market. So you’re not going to see all of those 9,000 trips coming online immediately. You’re going to see it gradually come online. We are doing our part with signalization building
public street collector roadways into the project terminating them at rotaries and then extending the public street to Montvue. We are doing what we can. We can do no more, and I don’t
think we can go back and back track and revisit what has transpired in the past with St. Luke’s and the roadway and the existing light. Do you have any questions?
McCandless: Mr. president, Becky, did I hear you say a while ago that access road into Montvue was in the second phase of your building and that it was at the request of the Montvue
residents?
Bowcutt: That was my understanding that they’re not quite sure where they want the roadway to interconnect with their development. Where we show it on the plan – where we show this
out on a plan right now, it comes between two property liens right here. So we’re trying to get it to go between two homes so that you don’t end up if at all possible, happen to remove
one of the homes and minimize the impact. Montvue’s going to have to get together as a neighborhood and determine where exactly they want to see this and what property owner is willing
to allow this roadway to be constructed across their parcel to interconnect with our public streets, but I do think it’s very generous of Touchmark to agree to, hey, we’ll build it.
We’re not asking you to participate. Tell us where you want it along this eastern boundary. We’ll give you access to the light that we’re going to pay for. Obviously, it’ll be at
no cost to them.
McCandless: Okay. Thank you.
Anderson: On your drawing there, explain to me how those intersections work. I don’t see too many intersections like that here in Idaho where they have a planter in the middle of that
and you’re driving in a circle around that.
Bowcutt: Yes. It’s called a rotary or a traffic circle. I know where you’re going with this, too. I did have one of our designers check the radius on it to make sure that they would
meet Fire Department requirements for them to get around it because we don’t want to create the situation that you had on Northview. These do comply. You wouldn’t have any problems
with emergency vehicles. They create a traffic calming measure. So traffic would come down here and kind of go around them if you want to go eastward, you’d come and go around like
that. Ada County Highway District stated that they wanted some directional signs stating so that people learn how to use them. They are kind of a new concept in our Valley, but they
really work to slow the traffic. We’ve got quite a straight shot coming in through here, so we don’t want to see excessive speeds. This is going to be a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood
with lots of pathways and open space.
Bird: Anymore questions of Becky? Thank you, Becky. Anybody else like to offer testimony?
Nichols: Mr. President, if I may have a point of order, Mr. McCreedy previously asked that all of the testimony under the annexation and zoning matter be considered in the Conditional
Use Permit. I would recommend that the Council do that in order to avoid the duplicate testimony. If the Council so desires, they can incorporate that testimony into this.
Bird: Council, do you agree with that?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I would move that we incorporate all of the testimony from the annexation and zoning into this – for the Conditional Use Permit.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
McCreedy: John McCreedy, business address 1275 Shoreline Lane representing Montvue residents. Mr. Acting Mayor, members of the Council, thank you, Mr. Nichols. That was going to be
my first request. Now that you’ve had a chance to at least quickly review the ACHD Findings and Conclusions, I wanted to point out a couple of facts that ACHD found that I think need
to be thoroughly looked at during this development application. On Page 8 of ACHD’s Findings and Conclusions, ACHD concludes that the
Eagle Road Franklin Road intersection is currently over capacity. That is the first sentence of Item 1 under subheading F. Eagle Franklin Road intersection is currently over capacity.
On the next page, Page 9 under subheading G, Item 1, the last sentence says that the District’s current five-year work plan does not list this segment of Franklin Road for reconstruction.
In other words, there is no current plan to upgrade Franklin Road. The net result of this development application before you tonight is to – when the Transportation Department of the
State of Idaho closes Montvue’s current access, force these residents to go out Franklin through the Eagle Franklin intersection; in other words, you’ve made their access problem worse.
So has the Ada County Highway District. Now the suggestion is to accept St. Luke’s private offer and to acknowledge the generosity of Touchmark for their willingness to stub a public
road. I acknowledge Touchmark’s generosity. I think my clients do, too. The point for now is that public road doesn’t do them any good because until an agency is willing to condemn
someone’s property within the Montvue Subdivision and force a connection to that future public road, it doesn’t do them any good. That future public road is for the future. It’s there
in case Montvue Redeveloped as a commercial development which I think you’d have to put blinders on at this point to assume that is not going to happen at some time in the future. It’s
good planning, and we acknowledge that. But it wasn’t the only request that the Montvue Subdivision residents have made. Either of Touchmark or of St. Luke’s or the City Council or
the Ada County Highway District. We have consistently requested adequate public access to both Franklin and Eagle Roads. With all due respect, we believe the City Council missed the
boat when the St. Luke’s application was before it because for a mere dedication of 400 feet of right-of-way, we could have solved the entire problem, and given that subdivision adequate
public access and to tell this subdivision that it has to trade public access for private, restricted access to its neighbor, a commercial developer, thereby giving the commercial developer
even more control over the future use of its property is not right. At first blush it looks like a generous offer from St. Luke’s, but if you analyze it and you analyzed the long-term
legal implications of it, it would be a horrible mistake to accept only that offer. With all due respect, Mr. Siddoway understood that when he made a recommendation that I quoted in
my letter that St. Luke’s should be required to dedicate public right-of-way for a future road and if the offer is still on the table for the private access, great. That’s a good temporary
solution. But if the residents give – accept that offer, they’ve even further reduced the value of their property because they’ve given St. Luke’s the ability to say that private road
is for residential use only. Thou shalt not use it as a commercial connection. So they have no ability to market their property with adequate public roads. I want to point you to
one portion of your Comprehensive Plan which I think has been completely ignored in this development application. At Page 54 under the Transportation Goals, Policy 1.8.U states preserve
and protect future transportation corridor rights-of-way through land use planning; require all new development to provide adequate easements for future pathways. Goal 1.9.U states
encourage residential and non-residential developments to provide adequate easements for future pathways. That’s planning. That’s planning. Even for residential subdivisions. Require
developers to provide future pathways for future use. Now mention was made of the public loop road and the fact that ACHD abandoned that idea after some five or six years of requiring
it. Now it’s curious to us that it abandoned the idea in the first place,
and we completely disagree with that; however, if you take a close look at ACHD’s Findings, they did require as an essential term of the Touchmark Development, this is at Page 9 under
Item H.1 that there be a vehicular connection between the site and St. Luke’s in order to greatly reduce the impact from this development on Eagle Road. I ask you if ACHD is requiring
and this body is requiring that there be a connection to St. Luke's so Touchmark can access the signalized intersection on Eagle Road, what is the difference between that benefit being
extended to the Montvue residents? It’s completely discriminatory not to extend that benefit to them, and when you approve another development that has significant private streets,
you give another developer the power and the authority to control his neighbors. I believe that’s a mistake in precedence to set once again. We would again encourage you to take a
long and hard look at the ACHD Findings and Conclusions and please take a step back and look at the full transportation picture. Approving yet another series of private roads with private
easements in an area that needs public access is a mistake. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you. Anybody else like to testify?
Willis: My name is Richard Willis, I live at 3555 Montvue Drive. I’m sure you’re getting tired of hearing me, and I’m getting tired of getting up here. I live in the affected area
out here, and it’s not much fun to live there; it’s not much fun for my family to live there anymore. Traffic is atrocious. Anybody that’s got eyes to see and drives the road out there
knows that it’s got problems. I could never understand how you allowed, someone allowed St. Luke's to put a light – service a public drive on a major highway that currently backs traffic
up on a major interstate clear back to almost to Cloverdale on occasion. All your Highway District engineers say it’s a dangerous situation. Why you allowed that to happen I’ll never
know. It seems to me like St. Luke's ought to pay something for having that light there and the privilege for having that light. And that is to give access to all residents or all
neighbors who could benefit from that. It would greatly increase the safety of their families. I guess I just don’t understand. The other thing I just don’t understand, and I admit
I’m not very smart, but I hear all this talk in here about Montvue Subdivision having to make deals and arrangements with commercial developments around us to gain access to our property.
I mean, why should we, as residents, have to make those kinds of deals? They encroached on us. We didn’t encroach on them. It seems to me that’s the job of you folks as public entities
to look out for people like us when we’re faced with large commercial developments around us. You’re the folks that have the hammer. You’re the ones that can make these folks apply
and provide access for all the residents. If they’re going to interrupt our lives, they ought to be required to give something back to the community. Give something back to the community
for allowing them to have that light out there that endangers all our lives. We heard testimony here tonight that they were concerned that the 26 families in Montvue were going to trigger
that light at St. Luke's and cause more backing on the freeway. Well, if the 26 residents are going to do it, what are all these people in Touchmark – they said it wouldn’t be much
traffic, but I’ll bet you a dollar there are more than 26 families back there that will use that light every day. Not only that, but there will be commercial vehicles using that light.
If I understand the plan correctly, there’s two lights proposed on Franklin between Eagle and Cloverdale. Well, right now the traffic
backs up from Eagle almost clear to Cloverdale. Mr. Behr back there – there he is. Ask him how he gets out on the road every day from his property. Then the light at Cloverdale backs
up almost to Five Mile. Then at Five Mile you have four lanes, and that load backs up almost to the mall. We’ve heard testimony here tonight that Franklin is not even scheduled for
development for how many years? Can you imagine what’s going to happen to the traffic on Franklin Road when you get two more stoplights on there between Eagle and Cloverdale? I mean,
folks, you’ve got to think this thing through. That’s what the planning’s all about. Like Mr. McCreedy said, you’ve got to plan for the future. I hope that when you do that, keep
in line the needs and desires of the Montvue Subdivision residents. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you. Any questions? Council? Anybody else like to testify?
Fuss: Jeff Fuss, 324 East Montvue Drive. Again, when this private offer of St. Luke's, $100,000 sounds like a very generous offer. Again, I want to go through some of the details.
There’s not guarantee of that money with the completion of the project. One of the residents on the corner with if not the most expensive piece of property, one of the most expensive
pieces of properties in the subdivision had to give up use of their drive and their garage and half of their yard in order for that to happen with no compensation. Okay? The residents
of Montvue Subdivision are not a commercial, revenue-generating organization, so we would have had to raise that money some how to compensate that homeowner. These are some of the things
that are going along with that. $100,000 to put in a private road could easily be eaten up in engineering costs. I know I’ve done projects and eaten up a lot more than that in engineering
costs smaller than that. The other thing is this idea that somehow the residents of Montvue Subdivision are going to cause undue backup at that light at St. Luke's. ACHD Commuter Ride
which uses St. Luke's parking lot generates more vehicle trips per day than the residents of Montvue Subdivision would. So I really find that hard to believe that it’s okay for ACHD
Commuter Ride to do that because that’s helping out the community, but, yet, we don’t want these few residents here to have the same privilege. So I guess I agree with these two gentlemen
that I just don’t understand that the residents of Montvue Subdivision have to sacrifice for the public good, but it just doesn’t make sense when you start to look at these things and
start to look at everything else that goes on. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you. Anybody else like to testify? Okay. Applicant, you may have a short rebuttal.
Bradbury: Thanks, Mr. President, members of the Council. I’ll be as brief as I can. What I hope has been – I’m sorry. Steve Bradbury, 225 North 9th, Boise, representing Touchmark.
What I hope has become obvious to you, and it’s certainly become painfully obvious to Touchmark over the course of the several months while there has been pursuant approval for this
application is that virtually every person from the Montvue Subdivision stands before you and who stood before the Planning and Zoning Commission and stood before the Ada County Highway
District --
*** End of Side 3 ***
raw deal they got or are getting from St. Luke's. But this application isn’t about St. Luke's. This application is about Touchmark. It’s the Touchmark application that’s before you.
It’s not the St. Luke's application that’s already happened and decision already made. I hope that it’s apparent to you that the issues and the concerns and the problems that these
folks have had with the St. Luke's, the connection to St. Luke's isn’t something that Touchmark can do anything about. These guys (inaudible) – Touchmark’s trying to do deals with St.
Luke's, and they’re tough, but Touchmark’s doing the best that they can. They can’t revise something that they don’t (inaudible). Now, I think it’s worth doing one thing that may take
a minute or two, and that is I’d like to read one paragraph out of ACHD staff report that Mr. McCreedy lifted a sentence out of or made reference to because I think it’ll really help.
I think it’ll help you guys. It’s on Page 9, and it’s Paragraph 8-1. It reads: The site plan shows at least one private vehicular connection between the site and the St. Luke's Medical
Complex in a location that would provide the future occupants of this site good access to the traffic signal at the St. Luke's driveway intersection with Eagle Road. Such a connection
will greatly reduce the impact from this development onto Eagle Road Franklin Road intersection. A public loop road connecting Franklin Road with Eagle Road through this site and St.
Luke's campus will provide some relief for the Eagle Road Franklin Road intersection. The Findings of the Eagle and Franklin Roads corridor study, and that’s the corridor study that
Becky talked about that the Highway District Commission – in connection with this project, indicate that the relief would be very short lived and would defer needed improvements at the
intersection by only a short while. If it resulted in a long-term beneficial solution for the public, staff would recommend that this site provide such a connection and that the developer
be reimbursed by the District for much of its cost; however, since the data indicate that the reconstruction of the Eagle Road Franklin Road intersection would not be significantly deferred,
this expense would duplicate needed expenditures on Eagle Road Franklin Road intersection. Staff recommends that a public loop road from Franklin Road to Eagle Road not be required.
The Highway District is trying to think ahead and not spend money twice. That makes sense. I guess to summarize, I would just as soon spend a lot of time, a lot of effort trying to
figure this thing out. Unfortunately, you folks only apparently received the staff report tonight, but between us I think we have hit most of the high points. I’d be pleased to answer
any question you have.
Bird: Any questions, Council?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I guess I would have one, and this may seem farfetched, but I thought I’d ask anyway because I don’t know if it was considered at ACHD, but if the Montvue residents
are looking for access onto Eagle, and if this agreement would be for only the subdivision as it exists today, if they allowed the access to Eagle through the private drive for Montvue
residents only, would Touchmark, and I guess in essence, St. Luke's be amenable to that? I guess with St. Luke's offering the private drive anyway, I guess it would still be a private
drive, but it would only be honored as long as the development remains as it is. It’s a question.
Bradbury: I guess I have to – I’ll try to answer the question if I understood it, and if I get off on somewhere that you didn’t want me to go, let me know, and I'll go a different way.
Try to get me on the right track. The purpose of the connection between St. Luke's and Touchmark is to permit users of St. Luke's to access Franklin Road over the Touchmark property
and to provide users and occupants of the Touchmark property to access Eagle Road over the St. Luke's property. Now, the likelihood of other people from time to time using that road
I’d say is fairly high. So far as I know, anyway, and if I’m wrong about this, I hope somebody will jump up and say something different, I don’t expect there’s going to be anybody –
any traffic cops up there stopping people from utilizing this route.
deWeerd: So it’s not gated, it’s just a private drive, so it would in essence still have that access?
Bradbury: There would not be – it would be an unobstructed route of travel from Eagle Road to Franklin Road over – a portion of the route would be public roads and a portion of the
route would be private roads. He jumped up.
Neal: Bernie Neal, Touchmark Living Centers. From this point it would be – there would be nothing to stop anyone from following this route. This would be in the heart of St. Luke's
property. They will have a road that goes like this and connect to this stoplight. There isn’t any time of the day, any day of the week when that would be obstructed. Likewise, someone
coming off of the freeway could come in the right-only entrance – not the St. Luke's stoplight – but the right-only entrance to St. Luke's, follow the roadway here, and travel like so
to Franklin Road, to Montvue or to these homes here or these homes here. Now, there is one caveat to that. There’s a gate right here and there’s a gate right here that provides a neck
into the retirement portion of the Touchmark Community. The gate per the Highway District, the gate is open during daylight hours, so it’s closed at night. So this gate and this gate
and there will also be a gate here at a future traffic light. A gate here are open every day, daylight hours. The hope of the Highway District in providing these conditions as they
have laid them out to us both in their hearings and in staff meetings and bringing together of the Development Agreement has been that this circuitous route would be enough that it would
not provide a straight cut-through that would just bring the same problem that is here into these two stop lights here. Then we’d have a failure at all three places.
deWeerd: Right.
Neal: So rather than that, their thought was that with this circuitous route, now it’s possible – it’s likely that even emergency vehicles could use this if ambulance was running along
here and there was a traffic tie-up here which there are, and we’ve heard testimony about that, I’ve heard testimony about that at other hearings, it’s possible that ambulance could
come here and into the St. Luke's ER. So these gates being here, there is still, even when those gates are closed, even in the middle of the night when the gates are closed, still the
public could come this way, hit this traffic light, come this way, go around St. Luke's this direction; so there is still connectivity that goes all the way
through from Franklin or from Montvue through to Eagle through the St. Luke's campus even at night when our retirement community gates are closed. That’s more than you asked for.
deWeerd: Thank you. I’m glad that you explained that to me. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you. Anymore questions, Council?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I move that we close the public hearing.
McCandless: I second that.
Bird: Okay, we’ve got a motion and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Bird: Public hearing is closed. Discussion? What’s your pleasure, Council?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I guess I have one comment. It would appear that without this development, the Montvue property would really devalue. This is giving these residents some value
to their property and some access out onto the road. I guess I would like to move that we instruct the city attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision
of Order to – do I need to do a Decision of Order? Okay. For the request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned-unit development including continuing care retirement community, single-
and multi-family residential and office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers.
Bird: Do we have a second?
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Bird: Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, we’ve got a motion to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for Touchmark Living Centers. Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 00-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for existing car dealership (2 buildings), Fairview Mini Storage, by L.B. Industries - front four acres and
proposed 72,000 s.f. mini-storage on the back four acres – east of St. Luke’s between Franklin the I-84:
Bird: The next item, 10, is a public hearing, request for Conditional Use Permit for existing car dealership, two buildings, Fairview Mini Storage, by L.B. Industries, front
four acres and proposed 72,000 s.f. mini-storage on back four acres – east of St. Luke's between Franklin and I-84. I’ll open the public hearing, and, staff, any comments?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. President, Council, the subject’s property is here. The cross-hatched piece, currently the car dealership is in the front half. The application is proposing to
use the southern half of the – southern portion of this parcel. Again, the – we have Fairview and here is the proposed layout for the site. These rectangular units are here on the
southern boundary. There is a landscape strip separating the use from Dove Meadows Subdivision. We would ask that our staff comments be incorporated in this. Here’s an elevation of
the proposed storage building units.
deWeerd: Mr. President, Brad, I guess I had a question regarding the plan itself. I understand that is a private road; is there no buffer required between the road and the storage
units? Are those just like a zero lot line there? They’re right up against that road?
Hawkins-Clark: The requirement in the ordinance is 20 feet between incompatible uses.
deWeerd: Where is the lot line on this? Is it in the middle of the road? Is it right there where the buildings begin?
Hawkins-Clark: Look at a better scaled plan in just a moment. It appears that, forgive me. This was Steve Siddoway’s project – here’s the private road coming off of Fairview. Coming
south. As a private road, the applicant would have to speak to where the property boundary is here on the west or here on the east. Typically if this is an easement situation, this
would be the property boundary. You’re correct in that there’s no landscape buffer for here. The buffer is here and along the south. There’s an existing sewer and gas, and these are
the utilities that are stubbed right here in this location. Three parking spaces provided with the manager’s office and living quarters situated here. This is a chain-link fence.
This is currently asphalt, of course, in terms of the sales lot. This is all a single parcel is the reason it’s coming before as this Conditional Use Permit since we’re looking at two
principle uses on a single lot. That’s the reason for the request for the landscaping on the north as well to get the site in compliance with Code. The emergency fire route is here.
I’m sorry. I said Dove Meadows. That’s Danbury Subdivision. Don’t know if that answers your question, Councilwoman deWeerd –
deWeerd: No. I still want to know why there is no buffer or why those buildings begin right along side of the road, and I guess I understand it’s all one lot, but why there wouldn’t
be any buffer or any softening along that chain-link fence, landscapewise, landscape islands or something to relieve that fenceline. Now, one last question. Do I understand through
your staff comments that they’ll be putting a sidewalk along Fairview as well as a condition?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
deWeerd: Okay. That’s all I had.
Bird: Any other questions for staff? If the applicant would like to come forward. Is the applicant here?
deWeerd: I guess I’m not going to get my question answered.
Bird: Would anyone like to testify? Public testimony?
Morgan: On your description here, the last sentence says east of St. Luke's between Franklin and I-84. That’s wrong.
Bird: Could we get your name and address, please?
Morgan: Bernadine Morgan, 1187 East Fairview. Our property joins.
Bird: Do you have any questions? Council? Would anybody else like to testify? Hearing no more testimony, I’d entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
McCandless: So moved.
Bird: Do I have a second?
deWeerd: I just think the applicant needs to be here to answer questions. As it stands, I think it’s really ugly having buildings right up against the road. Frankly, unless I have
some answers, I would move to deny. In fairness to the applicant, it would be nice if that applicant were here. That’s my opinion.
Bird: I’ve got a motion to close it. Do I have a second?
Anderson: I’ll second the motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES TO ONE NAY.
Bird: Okay, Council, what’s your pleasure on the –
deWeerd: Mr. President, I move that we recommend denial of the CUP for existing car dealership and instruct the city attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order to reflect that.
McCandless: I’ll second that.
Bird: It’s been moved and seconded that we deny the Conditional Use Permit for an existing car dealership, two buildings, Fairview Mini Storage, by L.B. Industries, front
four acres and proposed 72,000 s.f. mini-storage on the back four acres. Any discussion?
Anderson: Mr. President, I guess this is just a comment, and I guess I can direct this more toward Tammy because you used to serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission, but I think
at the point when a project reaches the City Council level, it’s not necessarily up to us to start imposing new conditions at this point that have never been heard by an applicant throughout
all of his P & Z process. If that was a requirement, and if that’s what the City Council wants, then they need to direct the staff that that’s what they need to do. As far as I know,
this stub street that goes in there just goes in there and dead-ends. It doesn’t go anywhere. There’s commercial occupants on the other side which is a car wash operation. I just
think that it’s inappropriate for us at this level to start throwing in new conditions that have never been heard on applicants. I don’t disagree with maybe that is ugly, maybe that’s
something to be done, but it should be done prior to it ever getting here.
deWeerd: Mr. President, being ugly or not, the applicant isn’t here. This is the final place for decisions. You know, I guess I don’t have an answer as to why the applicant wouldn’t
be here. I did try to get minutes from the Planning and Zoning meeting so I could see what the applicant said or what transpired there; unfortunately, the table isn’t working. So we
don’t have any public record on it. I can’t – I guess we could ask staff to ask the questions and ask that the applicant be here if he’s serious about this application, but as the application
stands right now, I am not in favor of it. The applicant’s not here to answer any questions.
Bird: Mr. President, for the reason stated by Tammy, that’s why I seconded the motion. Because if they don’t – the applicant can’t attend the meeting to present this to us, then I
don’t see any reason for us to go through it again.
Anderson: I would suggest that the motion should be then, to maybe table it. We close the public hearing, but to deny the applicant, we don’t know if this reason why he’s not here;
maybe his family was sick and he had to take someone to the hospital for all we know. You’re assuming someone’s guilty without even knowing what the circumstances are. I know this
application has been in our packets for quite awhile and it’s been postponed several times, so whether they were even notified they were on the agenda tonight. We don’t know that information.
I guess I would prefer that the motion be withdrawn and we table it and instruct staff to contact the applicant and ask them to be here.
deWeerd: I think that sounds very fair.
Bird: I agree with Ron. We have passed deals like this, and the applicant hasn’t come forward. We shouldn’t be the design criteria when it gets to City Council. That should have
been done –
deWeerd: I’m not trying to design it, but without an applicant here to respond is kind of hard to ask questions.
McCandless: I will pull my second.
Bird: You’ll pull your motion?
deWeerd: I certainly would.
Bird: Now I’ll entertain a motion to table it.
deWeerd: Mr. President, I would move to – no, we’ve already closed the public hearing. I voted against the public hearing, by the way. Okay. My first motion would be to re-open the
public hearing.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
deWeerd: Can I do that since I voted against it anyway? Okay.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
deWeerd: Mr. President, I would like to move that we continue the public hearing for the request for Conditional Use Permit for an existing car dealership by Fairview Mini Storage and
request that staff notify the applicant of the next public hearing which would be April 18th and request his or her presence.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Motion made and seconded to continue the public hearing for the Fairview Mini Storage until 4/18/2000. Anymore discussion? If not, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES.
Item 11. Public Hearing: AZ 99-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres to R-4 by Bear Creek, LLC – east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland :
Bird: Okay, Item No. 11, request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres to R-4 by Bear Creek, LLC – east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland. I will open the public hearing and
staff comments first.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. President, Council, the red outlined property on the screen is the subject property. Annexation requested for R-4 would be a rezone from the County R-T to a City
R-4. I think you’re familiar with the location on Stoddard Road. Of course, there’s the property on the west, Overland on the north. State Highway 69, Meridian Kuna here. Victory
to the south, the Kentucky Ridge County plat to the south of Victory Road. The recommendation you had before you and we did not have any modifications to that.
Nichols: Mr. President, just a reminder to the Council that this hearing was re-opened on the issue of the sewer because of questions that were raised by Mr. Lee Centers with regard
to the Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision, and I believe Mr. Smith is prepared to address those issues.
Smith: Mr. President, members of the Council, I have some comments to make in regards to that issue, and I’ve got a little packet of information that I will pass out to you. It is
– these are copies of correspondence that we have received previously and have been distributed to you previously. I just wanted to give them to you again along with a drawing that
references this project and the Kentucky Ridge Subdivision which is the item of interest at the moment. A copy of this information was given to Becky Bowcutt and Mr. Spinks this evening
before the start of the Council meeting. At the public hearing on March 7th, I brought to your attention some correspondence that I received from Mr. Lee Centers who owns property south
of Kentucky Ridge Subdivision. As a result of that information and your motion as I understood it, was to re-open the public hearing to receive new information concerning the questions
that Mr. Centers had raised. Reference was made to my memo of March the 6th which transmitted a copy of some correspondence that the Kentucky Ridge developer / engineer had sent to
Ada County Development Services. The packet of information that I have just given you, I’d just like to review briefly. The first correspondence that I had received on this matter
from Mr. Centers was a copy of a letter to Jeff Patlovich, the Director of Ada County Development Services, dated February 22nd. I received that on the 22nd of February, it was hand-delivered
to me by Mr. Centers. Attached to that was the conditions of approval for the Kentucky Ridge Subdivision by Ada County Development Services, and specifically Mr. Centers had referenced
Item No. 30 in those conditions of approval which had to do with the requirement for Kentucky Ridge to connect to City services. Meridian Municipal sewer, once these services are reasonably
available, and it went on to state that the service or the sewer from Kentucky Ridge shall be installed in such a manner that this can be easily disconnected from Meridian Heights community
sewer service. Subsequent to receipt of that information, I transmitted it that same day to City Clerk Will Berg and asked that the information be distributed to Mayor Corrie, City
Council members, Becky Bowcutt and anyone else that would have interest in that information. On March the 8th I received a letter from Jeff Patlovich, the Director of Ada County Development
Services, concerning the Kentucky Ridge Estates and he basically in his letter just reiterated that the plat was conditionally approved by the Board of County Commissioners and Condition
of approval No. 30 reads as follows, and he outlined Condition No. 30 again. On March 10th, I received a copy of a letter written by
City Attorney Bill Nichols which is the last copy of correspondence that you have in the packet where Mr. Nichols renders his opinion as to the condition that was placed on the approval
of the Kentucky Ridge Subdivision concerning connection to municipal city sewer. We have not been able to find any reference in city records to – let me back up for just a second.
On the map, the drawing that we attached to the copies of correspondence, you can see the location of Bear Creek Subdivision which I have shown as a cross-hatched outline. The temporary
lift station site is shown, and it’s colored green at the Stoddard Road. The dashed line that is also highlighted with green extending from Bear Creek to the north and west is a future
Black Cat Trunk sewer line. The subdivision that the question was raised for service of the subdivision is Kentucky Ridge Subdivision which is directly south of an extension of Stoddard
Road, south side of Victory Road, and I’ve outlined that in orange. The Meridian Heights Subdivision is to the east or to the right of that Kentucky Ridge Subdivision also outlined
in orange. The existing sewage lagoon which is operated by the Meridian Heights Homeowners Association, I believe, is colored green. It is basically located between Meridian Heights
and Kentucky Ridge and abuts the south edge of Victory Road. Mr. Lee Centers’ property is outlined in blue and is contiguous for a short distance of the south boundary of Kentucky Ridge.
I think those are the highlights. The yellow highlighted area is the existing city limit boundary, and from that you can see the contiguity between the city limits and the proposed
Bear Creek Subdivision as Brad had pointed out to you earlier. Temporary lift station that is being proposed to serve Bear Creek Subdivision will pump sewage at the location adjacent
to Stoddard Road north to Overland Road and then east along Overland Road to a point where it can access the Ten Mile Drain sewer line. That Ten Mile Drain sewer line is the really
dark line that extends along the – for reference, the eastbound off-ramp of the interstate at Highway 69. We contracted the City of Meridian contracted with J-U-B Engineers to perform
some ground elevation investigation for the property south of Victory Road, and the reason for that investigation was to determine the best alignment for the trunk that comes through
Meridian Heights. Whether it should indeed be built or the best route would be built in Victory Road east to Kuna Meridian Road and then north of Kuna Meridian Road. As shown on our
facility plan, or if perhaps the best alignment would be into Bear Creek down to the Harden Drain area which would be an extension of the Black Cat Trunk. They have acquired the ground
elevation information through their GPS station, and they are preparing that information now for presentation to us. We do not have that information now at this point to be able to
definitively tell you which direction that sewer should be constructed. We have met, Brad Watson and I have met with Becky and Mr. Johnson and Kathy Stroscheim, an engineer from Briggs
Engineers, and we have discussed the alternatives that are being looked at in terms of the Black Cat Trunk line extending and the possibility that this line will be or could be necessary
to be built in Bear Creek Subdivision as opposed to a construction of the line in Victory Road from the generally the lagoon area of the Meridian Heights / Kentucky Ridge development
to east on Victory to Kuna Meridian Road. I don’t believe that the applicant has a problem with locating that sewer if that’s the way that it is finally determined, has a problem with
locating that sewer within their subdivision. Obviously, we want to be sure that we’ve located it in the correct position to serve the property that needs to be served. I have expressed
to the developer that this would not be an additional financial burden on
them, the oversizing of the line would be something that the City would be involved in. It would be – if that is the alignment that is ultimately determined, it would come through their
subdivision and exit onto Victory Road, and at that point, it would be available for future extension to the south for connection of properties as properties develop. I think that’s
all the information I have to give you unless you have some questions.
Bird: Okay. As I understand, we made the motion to open this up strictly on the Kentucky -- legal Counsel, is this not right? On the sewering of it? Is that right? Whether or not
we had to take them in. What Gary had just told us and what your letter says, there is no condition that ties us to the – that we have to come down because the sewer isn’t going to
come contiguous to that property line as I understand; is that right?
Nichols: Mr. President, members of the Council, at this time, even after Bear Creek is annexed, Kentucky Ridge would not be contiguous, and also the way the sewer is planned, Bear Creek
will pump into the Ten Mile Drain, and I think the City Council has the discretionary ability to determine when something is reasonably available and when it is not. The way the Black
Cat Trunk would be constructed, this Kentucky Ridge is near the upstream end of that Black Cat Trunk. Mr. Smith’s comment was in regard to the oversizing the line. To put some infrastructure
in place in Bear Creek if that’s what J-U-B recommends that would later on be connected to the rest of the Black Cat Trunk when it gets that far. So I have not found anything yet that
says that you have to take their sewer, and certainly not without annexation. You can’t annex them unless they’re contiguous. Even if they were contiguous and submitted an application
for annexation, if you determined that you could not accept their sewer in the Ten Mile Drain, you’d deny the annexation request.
Bird: As I understand it, actually, we would not be – we’re pumping into another – the Ten Mile Creek, Bear Creek, which isn’t even in the line that is supposed to sewer that. So I
would say what they mean by reasonable sewerage out there would be the Black Cat Line would have to be out there to do that reasonably. Am I not right, Gary? I hope.
Smith: I guess I would just leave that interpretation up to Mr. Nichols as far as the legality of it.
Nichols: Mr. President, with all due respect, lawyers tend not to be reasonable. What’s reasonably available is essentially a discretionary function of the Council. I don’t think
it’s when the developer determines it’s reasonably available. It’s when the municipality determines it’s reasonably available.
Bird: Council, any other questions? Okay. We’ve got the public hearing open. It’s for the one item regarding the Kentucky Ridge sewer issue. Is there anyone that would like to testify?
Centers: My name is Lee Centers, 3770 South Linder. The ponds to Kentucky Ridge and Meridian Heights are located directly to the south of this project. Through Kentucky
Ridge I’ve got a sewer connection to my property, and it was proposed to bring down through and either go through the Ten Mile or the Black Cat. I’d like to see the City to plan for
that sewer connection when Kentucky Ridge is annexed in. You’ve got approximately 300 homes up there that are on temporary DEQ ponds, and it would require some planning. It would become
contiguous to the ponds belong to Meridian Heights and to Kentucky Ridge, and that’s right across the street. I think for that reason it would become contiguous if they wanted to annex
in. It’s the most direct line whether it goes to Black Cat or to Ten Mile, it’s the most direct way to go through to Bear Creek. Before you vote on it, you ought to wait and see what
J-U-B comes up with to see which way it can go, because I guess right now, we don’t know.
deWeerd: Gary, is that not in the Black Cat Trunk service area? I thought that was (inaudible).
Smith: Yes, it is.
Anderson: And a follow-up question, was it not at the advice of our public works not to take additional subdivisions and keep dumping them into other service areas?
Smith: Yes, sir.
Centers: Well, if you don’t make provisions for this, what will they do when the time comes?
Anderson: That is going to have to be serviced from the Black Cat Trunk.
Centers: Well, it gravitates into the Ten Mile.
Anderson: We’ve had J-U-B design us a sewer study for us and set up established zones, so that’s what we’re trying to stick with is the plan that has been designed for us.
Centers: That is the way it is designed. It’s designed to go into the Ten Mile.
Bird: What? Bear Creek?
Centers: Kentucky Ridge and Meridian Heights.
Bird: I don’t think so.
Smith: There is a diversion structure that has been established on State Highway 69 about ¼ mile north of Victory that would or could divert flows from either the Meridian Heights Kentucky
Ridge trunkline, that flow could be diverted into the Black Cat Trunk. There’s flow that’s coming from the Ten Mile drainage that could be diverted into the Black Cat Trunk, and it
just depends on how the development takes place as to what flow goes where. If nothing else developed out there, and Kentucky Ridge and Meridian
Heights were the only things that were being sewered; nothing else happened farther south, then that’s correct. The flow would go into the Ten Mile trunk.
Anderson: But, obviously, we’re looking at the possibility of additional development going (inaudible) piece of property.
Smith: Correct. You’d have the Ten Mile Trunk feed comes up State Highway 69 is the –
*** End of Side 4 ***
-- into a 12, so it’s going to divert.
Bird: Any other questions, Council? Thank you. Anybody else like to testify?
Bowcutt: I’ll be brief. We started this project, our first public hearing was April 1999, so we’ve been going at it for a year. It’s been rigorous, but we feel it’s been worth it.
Mr. Centers says you need to provide for future planning for elimination of pond or the lagoon for Meridian Heights and Kentucky Ridge. That’s what Gary’s trying to do right here by
having us upsize our sewer lines as they come through us down to this point where eventually Black Cat will come across in a southwesterly direction and intercept that. So even if J-U-B’s
determination is, yes, the sewer should go down the street and then up Meridian Road in the future, it really makes no difference because that last phase of ours, I believe our Phase
V or VI is where we would be upsizing it, and then there would be a short portion that would run through the park site. We’re going to be into design for a considerable amount of time.
I think we have the time to deal with these issues, and this is a design issue. We’re doing what we can, and we just want to move forward. A year’s a long time. Do you have any questions?
Bird: Do you have any questions? Thank you, Becky. Anybody else like to testify regarding the sewer?
Row: My name is Chuck Row. I own property that’s across Stoddard Road. It’s near Bear Creek. The only comment I have is I hope that the Council really takes a good look at the sewer
system. I believe one mistake has already been made with the traffic coming out of Elk Run. It looks real similar to what the testimony you just heard from another subdivision that’s
been surrounded by a commercial construction in the previous subdivision – Montvue. You’ve got the same thing with Elk Run with the traffic that comes out of Elk Run and traffic backing
up at the intersection. I hope that we spend the extra time to look at the sewer, and let’s get the sewer figured out so that the surrounding area, not just Bear Creek, but the other
property owners that are in the area. We just take into consideration what the needs are going to be there before we make a ruling on Bear Creek and Kentucky Ridge and get the entire
area that we have out there. That’s all I have. Are there any questions?
Bird: Thank you. Anybody else like to testify? Okay. Hearing none, I’d entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Anderson: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Okay, it’s been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Bird: Council, discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. President, we already have Findings drawn up; is that correct? We just have not acted on those Findings?
Nichols: Point of order. President Bird, Councilwoman deWeerd, they would only need to be amended to reflect the additional public hearing on this date. I believe that the issue with
regard to connectivity of the other property to the south is not an issue that needs to be addressed in the Findings given – you can decide that if you want to add some findings, but
I would think that the way it stands now, the information that has been received takes care of that issue.
Bird: Do you understand that, Council?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I guess the design issue should be left to the staff to work out with the applicant. That needn’t be a part of the motion; is that correct?
Bird: (inaudible) incorporate into the Findings of Facts that we’ve already got drawn up. The testimony that we got in this public hearing –
Nichols: President Bird, members of the Council, Mr. Smith, correct me if I’m wrong, but would not all these design issues be in the form of the final plat?
Smith: Yes, sir. They’ll be part of the final plat submittal. They won’t be on the plat itself, but the development plans that will accompany the plat submittal will show these design
requirements.
Nichols: So the Council then, it comes before the Council for final plat approval, and that issue will have been worked out by that point?
Smith: Yes. The Council won’t see the development plans, per se. The plat will be before the Council for approval.
deWeerd: One more question. Do you need action as far as what Council feels is reasonable connectivity or service ability for the sewer, or can we just assume the
attorney’s direction and put that into the Findings? I’m not being clear with my question, but I guess do we need to address in these Findings if there is any impact to other developments
other than this?
: (inaudible)
Bird: Council, what’s your pleasure?
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of the 150.79 acres to R-4 for Bear Creek, LLC, instruct the City Attorney to prepare
Findings of Fact – amend the Findings of Fact to reflect the testimony that we heard tonight on the sewer issues and draw up a Decision of Order.
deWeerd: The Decision of Order is already drawn up, so just amend that, too. I would second that.
Bird: Discussion? Hearing none, we have got a motion to pass the amended Findings of Fact and Decision of Order reflecting public hearing regarding sewering tonight for the annexation
and zoning of 150.79 acres to R-4 by Bear Creek, LLC. Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 99-010 Request for preliminary plat for proposed Bear Creek Subdivision – 326 single-family lots on 150.79 acres by Bear Creek, LLC – east of Stoddard Road
and south of Overland:
Bird: Item No. 12, public hearing, request for preliminary plat for proposed Bear Creek Subdivision, 326 single-family lots on 150.79 acres by Bear Creek, LLC.
Nichols: President Bird, members of the Council, point of order. This, again, was held up because of sewer issue alone. It would be appropriate for the Council to incorporate into
this matter all of the testimony that was given during the last issue that you just reviewed and then to see if there are any additional comments that’s not duplicative.
Bird: Do you want to incorporate?
deWeerd: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Moved and seconded that we incorporate the testimony of the public and staff from the previous item of annexation and zoning to the request for preliminary plat for proposed Bear
Creek Subdivision; all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Bird: Would anyone else like to testify regarding the preliminary plat for the proposed? Okay. Come forward.
Critell: My name is Wilford Critell. I preside at 2875 Stoddard Lane. Councilwoman Anderson answered this question on the last one. He said on the meetings that I’ve been to, I understand
that staff can correct me if I’m wrong, but Bear Creek was to dump into Black Cat Trunk originally. You just stated briefly (inaudible) we’re not in the process of dumping our sewage
into other subdivisions, but yet, you’re willing to take Bear Creek and dump it into Ten Mile when it’s actually supposed to be going to Black Cat. I just thought I wanted to bring
that up seeing how legal or not we have to close public hearing to public comment. The remark made at the last Council meeting by Councilman Bird stated that he didn’t want to open
this up for a public free-for-all. If you don’t want public comment, don’t send registered letters to my house. If you want public comment, accept it. You haven’t addressed traffic,
you haven’t addressed half the issues, but just like St. Luke's and in the interest of money, it’s been taken care of. Any questions for me? Correct me if I’m wrong on something I stated.
I don’t believe so.
deWeerd: We’ve been entertaining this application almost a year now, and it’s gone through the –
Critell: I realize that. I’ve lived here for 30 years.
deWeerd: And have you been to the public hearings?
Critell: Yes. I went to the Ada County Planning and Zoning when they recommended denial of the sewer line, and yet, somebody on the Council said we want that stricken from the record.
deWeerd: Sir, this has been going through public hearing, though, for all of those issues, and we keep re-opening it for new issues – the other ones, this is essentially already have
been voted on in December and approved. What has been debated at this point it’s just details of the Findings of Fact. That’s the only reason this has been continually re-opened for
public hearing is to address those details in the Findings. We did hear the public, and we did entertain all those issues at one point or another, and, you know, we just open this up
again to resolve the issue of Kentucky Ridge. That was just to iron out a detail in the Findings.
Critell: Yes, it was my dad’s conversation with some people in Kentucky Ridge that brought that letter down. So I’ve seen the letter. It says when the sewer’s within 300 feet of their
property, and Victory Road is not 300 feet wide, so if there is a house that borders Victory Road that’s within 300 feet, I think legalwise there would be some repercussion. To say
sewer is available within 300 feet; what happened? I don’t know if you have the letter, but (inaudible).
Bird: Thank you. Any other questions?
McCandless: I don’t have a question; it’s more of a statement. When I came on the Council in January, and one of the hearings we had on Bear Creek, I did express many concerns about
the traffic issue. It was too late to do anything about it at that time because it had already been approved.
Critell: That was my misunderstanding.
Bird: Anybody else like to testify?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I move that we close the public hearing.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Moved and seconded that we close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Bird: Discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I move that we instruct City Attorney to amend the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of the request for preliminary plat for proposed Bear
Creek Subdivision. Is that all? Oh. And to incorporate the additional public testimony that was heard tonight regarding sewer.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Moved and seconded that we pass the request for the preliminary plat for proposed Bear Creek Subdivision with the amended testimony we hard tonight. Discussion?
Anderson: I just wanted to make a comment. The sewering issue is a troubling issue with this, and we had a session where our Public Works Director educated us about the sewer system
and about our comprehensive study that we had J-U-B doing on sewering our entire area and our plan. I think the Council is all the wiser for that, and this particular area of the City
is going to be very difficult for any future developments. I think we got behind the eight ball on this one, and knowing what we know now about sewering issues, I’m not sure that this
one would have been given the approval that it was, but that will be something that we’ll be weighing heavily on the Council’s mind on any future projects that come out of that area
because that is going to be a real problem area for all of us.
Bird: I’d like to say that I agree with Ron. I’m sorry that the gentleman felt that I didn’t want public input or something, but it seems like we’ve been dragging this thing on. I
think that I would be the first to say that we probably should have taken a lot closer look at the sewering problem on that. I for one, if I’m on the Council and it comes to the point
that Ten Mile gets filled up, we’re going to be in problems by pumping there. Ten Mile – each one of these sewer lines runs through an area to service that area. A lot of development
south will take Ten Mile. We should have used our heads a little better. That’s my comment. Okay. Anymore discussion? Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 13. AP 00-001 Appeal of Planning and Zoning Administrator’s denial of sign application to replace existing display with a new display cabinet with a message center by Meridian
High School:
Bird: Okay, Item No. 13, appeal of Planning and Zoning Administrator’s denial of sign application to replace existing display with a new display cabinet with a message center at Meridian
High School. Staff, report.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. President, members of the Council, as in the two previous applications with electronic signs, Idaho Independent Bank being one of those, as you’re well aware, this
is a result of interpretation by Planning and Zoning Administrator Shari Stiles of what flashing signs means. We are in the process of amending the new sign ordinance draft which hopefully
will correct this. In the meantime, this has been the protocol to get this all electronic boards being recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Department. This is the sign
elevation. Can’t see it through all the lower portions, of course, the sign area. It will be in the same location as the existing sign at the high school. Approximately the same size,
setback approximately 5 feet from edge of sidewalk along Linder Road near the main entrance there. In terms of location, no changes. Height, it would comply with the code in terms
of ordinance. I guess that’s it from staff.
Bird: Any questions? Is the applicant here? Okay.
Carney: Mike Carney, Principal of Meridian High, 1900 West Pine Avenue. We’ve appealed this, and I believe the ordinance said you could not have a flashing sign. We’ve written a letter
of appeal that we will not flash the sign, we’d simply let it be a reader board. What we have now, we can’t put up a week’s worth of activities on it. It takes about two hours to re-program
it as it is because it’s hand done. The one we have proposed here, we can put two or three week’s worth of activities on it and let it run for a period of time; we can do that in a
matter of minutes through a computer. Do you have any questions?
deWeerd: Mr. Carney, I understand that pole is covered; is that correct?
Carney: Yes. The pole will be covered with a stucco base. It’ll be much, much more attractive than the one that’s there. It’ll have the stucco base on the bottom of it, and it’ll
wrap around the top of the logo, the Warrior logo, so the attractiveness of the pole itself will change completely.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Bird: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Council, discussion? What’s your pleasure?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I move that we approve the sign application to replace existing display with the proposed display cabinet with message center as proposed.
McCandless: Second.
deWeerd: That would be to overturn the denial.
Bird: Yes. You’re approving the appeal; right?
deWeerd: Yes.
Bird: Anymore discussion? Okay. We’ve got a motion to approve the appeal of the denial of the Planning and Zoning Administrator’s application to replace existing display, a new display
cabinet at the Meridian High School with a message center. Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 14. Request for revisions to the Final Plat of the Villas at the Lakes by Keith Jacobs, Jr.:
Bird: Item No. 14, request for revision to the final plat of the Villas at the Lakes by Keith Jacobs, Jr. Staff.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, President, Council, you have in your packets, I believe a letter dated March 27th from Keith Jacobs of PLS that summarizes the changes to this final plat. A commitment
was made during the preliminary plat that there would be a pathway along the Eight Mile Lateral, and it would appear that if a pathway could not exist, then they should not be able to
include it as part of the 10 percent common area of a planned-unit development which is a requirement of the planned-unit development which (inaudible) Eight Mile Lateral is now not
being proposed as an amenity, the City Council needs to re-think waiving the tiling requirements of the Eight Mile. I think that other than the changes that were proposed in the letter,
that’s our main comment from staff.
Bird: Questions of staff? Hearing none, is the applicant here?
Jacobs: Good evening. Keith Jacobs, Power Engineering, 1295 South Eagle Flight Way. The main reason we’re proposing the pathway was proposed initially because this development was
to be a gated community. It’s not gated now. That idea was rejected. We do have free access through the subdivision to the northern west cul-de-sac, and that would allow these people
accessing the golf course to move from the existing subdivisions of Cherry Lane and through this area and out that way. Our client will landscape that area between the Eight Mile Lateral
and the fence on the boundary of the subdivision. What we’re proposing, we would have to take out the asphalt surface along the Eight Mile Lateral primarily a liability problem with
Nampa Meridian to have a pathway through that area with an open ditch. We’re coming back before you before we record this plat to get your recommendation on this. I do have a map that
shows the relationship, Eight Mile Lateral, the asphalt path and then a concrete sidewalk that runs through the subdivision. Present that to you now. As you can see from the map,
the Eight Mile Lateral’s in blue, the brown is the asphalt path. We proposed to take out the asphalt path that parallels the Eight Mile Lateral. The portion of the asphalt path that’s
along where the sewer easement is would remain, and then the sidewalk that’s colored in red is in place. We will provide an opening through the fence at the west boundary of that cul-de-sac
to allow pedestrians to travel through there and on into the golf course area. This is a map of the area, and as you can see, here’s our proposed subdivision. There’s the cul-de-sac,
there’s a roadway that’s started to come in this way, service this area, and there will be a sidewalk in there along this area, and it’ll peel back which will give them access up to
the golf course parking lot and then, of course, the clubhouse which sets in here. Do you have any questions?
Anderson: I don’t really have a question of you. I guess this is a comment and then a question of our legal attorney. This whole idea of removing this path is really absurd with me
because this is the area where the clubhouse – we’ve had golfers for over 20 years now walking up and down the edges of that ditch going out to the tee boxes, and we have golf carts
that travel up and down the other side of it even now. To think that all of a sudden because we’ve put asphalt on one side of this ditch that it’s a major liability just really baffles
me. I really appreciate the fact that you guys put in the asphalt, and I think it really enhances that area, and I’d like to keep it. So my question to legal counsel would be, I thought
Nampa Meridian told us that they were amenable to working out agreements that would allow us to do pathways next to the park. It would seem logical that the next step is we should set
up a meeting and see if we could work out the liability issues and sign the agreement with them so that we could keep this thing paved and not be tearing it out.
Bird: I agree with you, Ron.
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, was that a question?
Anderson: Yes, it is. Is there a solution besides tearing out this asphalt? Can something be worked out?
Nichols: I would ask the applicant, has Nampa Meridian informed you that you had to tear out the asphalt paved path?
Jacobs: As I understand Nampa Meridian is requiring the asphalt pavement be taken out if the Eight Mile Lateral is not piped. So you lose the amenity when you pipe it because then
it’s just green; it’s not – the mix we’re used to at this point. So our options are to leave it in and pipe the Eight Mile Lateral through that section that fronts this subdivision
or take out the path and pave it. The client was pointing out as you have observed, too, that there are people using that pathway now. But that’s where we’re at.
Nichols: This is an existing, paved pathway?
Jacobs: We paved that about a month ago or so.
Anderson: It’s been gravel for years. That’s where the clubhouse was, but now it (inaudible) asphalt on it.
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, President Bird, members of the Council, I think the issue is how can you accommodate this particular applicant not knowing what the outcome might be of
negotiations with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District with regard to the license agreement for that path; in other words, if you hold up a change and he can’t go forward with what he
wants to do, it would seem to be better to craft something that’s in the alternative that says if this agreement can’t be worked out, then this is what you do with the lateral. Tile
it and cover it over. If one can be worked out, then you can leave it open. Does that make sense?
Anderson: I think the issue really with Nampa Meridian is, and what I’ve heard with the other cities, is if the City is willing to take on the liability, then they don’t mind the path.
They want something that releases them from the liability. So I know they have in Nampa they’ve worked out an agreement that addresses Nampa Meridian’s concerns on those liability
issues, and I would think we could have a meeting with them in the next week or two and see if we could address those same issues and get this work out so they don’t have to do anything
different.
Nichols: I don’t disagree with your premise.
Anderson: I would prefer taking that approach first than I would tearing it out. Obviously, it’s more expensive for you guys to tile this ditch than to remove the asphalt. How big
of tile would that take, do you know?
Jacobs: Forty-two, forty-eight. Somewhere in that area. It would be reinforced concrete pipe. Pretty spendy.
deWeerd: It is their amenity for their open space. Then that opens a whole other can of worms of how are you going to replace that amenity? Certainly not with the five-foot wide sidewalk.
Are you recommending, then, Councilman Anderson, that the City approach Nampa Meridian on this?
Anderson: Yes.
deWeerd: I would support that.
Bird: We need to get something resolved. Every time we come up against Nampa Meridian, it’s a joke.
deWeerd: So you’re directing who to do this?
Bird: I think the decision’s going to have to wind up being to the Council if you’re going to have a liability. If you’re going to assume liability. That’s what I believe – something
definitely needs to be done.
Anderson: We’ve got a gravel path there. Evidently they have no problem with gravel, but the minute you pave it, then it’s a pathway.
Bird: Got anymore questions for the applicant?
Anderson: What’s your situation right now? How soon do you have to have some type of action or word back on this?
Jacobs: The plat is at John Priester’s office, and I’ve asked him to hold that until you render a decision. So within a week or two weeks after you give the okay to record it.
deWeerd: What is your alternative to the open space requirements if this agreement cannot be made?
Jacobs: I think I have to defer to Mr. Campbell and have him address that issue.
Campbell: My name is Doug Campbell, Steiner Development. As far as the alternative, we don’t have one. I guess the situation that Nampa Meridian states is that they would like the
City to take the responsibility, liability, and obviously the City’s been working on that for the last few years and haven’t come up with any solutions. I offered to come up with a
bit of liability on the Homeowners Association for whatever figure they would like to come up with, and they said the Homeowners Associations aren’t worth the paper they’re written on
or however you want to say that. We do have a professional management company that manages all of our Homeowners Associations, and it’s real strong. We do have a really strong Homeowners
Association. I don’t know. It’s something that my – what I was thinking was to leave the asphalt down, you know, and let Nampa Meridian push me. I don’t know. Or we’ll tear it up,
and people are still going to use it. You know, like tonight, I was out there at 7:00 tonight, and there was five or
six couples walking up and down the various canal banks. The one thing, if we lift this – it’s a shame that I put it down and they call it an attractive nuisance. I just don’t know.
They’re the toughest. I’ve never worked with a more difficult governmental body, agency or whatever you want to call them, and you just get frustrated. I, like Ron says, think what
we’ve got to do, the City’s got to have the City Attorney sit down with their City Attorney, they do it in Boise, they do it in Nampa. Why can’t the City of Meridian come up with something?
I’m not sitting here – there’s just got to be some way that we could satisfy these – it’s a shame we’ve got all these canals running through there, and everybody’s got greenbelts running
through their canals and their waterways, and here we’re sitting in Meridian, and we can’t get off the dime and do something – we’re letting people push us around, and it’s a shame when
you walk out there in the golf course area, and we could have a really nice little pathway system if they would let us, if they would work with us. I just think that in going back to
your question, I don’t know as far as the open space. I don’t know what we’ll – we don’t have any alternatives. If this – if you decide that you’re going – where we’re at right now,
we’re ready to record – we’d like to get recorded and start selling lots. I don’t want to sit here tonight and get some type of a game plan from the Council so we can move forward and
start selling lots and maybe work toward something. I don’t want to go out there tomorrow and start tearing that asphalt up. It’s a shame I’ve got a ten-foot path 700 feet long that
I told City of Meridian we would do when we got the project developed, and I worked with Nampa Meridian on a licensing agreement, and you know trying to tell them that we’ll put the
liability policy up. No. The City obviously could work on it – they’ve been working on it for the last two or three years with the various different city attorneys or what – I don’t
know – you guys know more about that than I do. So I don’t know. I just know that I’m sitting out there with 43 completed lots, and I can’t sell them. Councilman Anderson asked what
– how long can we wait? Well, you know, every – I’m sitting out there with a million dollars worth of improvements, and I’ve done basically everything the City’s wanted me to do over
the years that I can and I’ll do the same thing over here, but I’d like to move forward with this and get it behind. Like I say, if we ripped up the asphalt, they're still going to
– like Councilman Anderson was saying, they’ve been using that for the last 22 years. They’ve been going up and down that canal bank and all of a sudden we’ve got –since we’ve kind
of dressed it up a little bit, we’ve got an attractive nuisance. As Nampa Meridian calls it. Getting back to tiling it, tiling is an alternative, but tiling is $100 a foot to tile
that. There’s 700 feet; that’s $70,000 worth of tiling there. That’s a lot of money. You talk about open space, you know, the planner said his recommendation was to recommend it to
being tiled. Well, going back, I’ve been out there for six years. I’ve donated I don’t know how many acres worth of land to the golf course, okay, for that golf course to put in that
I didn’t get credit on this piece of ground. We fought and we fought and we fought when this project was going through and we never got any open-area credit on this one particular spot.
I’ve given Fire Department – fire sites for the Fire Department, I’ve given (inaudible) for the City to put the golf course in. I think we’ve done – we’ve been pretty – piped some
of the canals out there. We’re in a pickle right now, and I just need some help. Like I say, I don’t know how we can structure it to where you can get us to where we can start moving
lots and we can work on this other situation.
Bird: Gary?
Smith: Mr. President, Council members, we do have an agreement in place with Nampa Meridian for pathways. It’s not along irrigation ditch, is it? It’s along drains? That’s the big
difference between the two.
Jacobs: That's a live water and that’s a drainage – the agreement that you have now is with the drain ditches, I think.
Smith: Yes. Fothergill was the one that started it all. That was going to be used as a model agreement for our pathway project along Five Mile Creek, too. On the other hand, another
comment as Doug mentioned, if you go out to Eight Mile Lateral south of Overland Road as it parallels along Hunts Bluff and it’s on the other side of Meridian Greens, there are a lot
of people that walk those ditch banks all the time. Now, it’s a gravel road, arguably, maybe not as attractive as a paved pathway, but they’re certainly being used.
Campbell: Yes, the one thing that we could – I kind of side with Councilman Anderson. You know, it’s a shame that we sit out there and we – nobody’s taken the effort to even try to
– I guess the City has taken the effort, but they haven’t. They’ve felt that they didn’t want to do what the Nampa Meridian would like them to do. But it’s a shame to tear it up, but
if we had to go lift it up, we’re still going to have a nice walkway through there. The people are going to use it whether it’s paved or not, but it’s – like I say, it’s just a shame
that we have got to tear it up, but I don’t know what else to do unless we go headfirst into our attorney’s office and try to get something to where both the City and the Nampa Meridian
can –
Anderson: Can you give us a week to maybe set up a meeting with them to see if there’s any headway that can be made in working out an agreement? I would hate to lose that amenity.
I think it’s really –
Campbell: I think it would be okay. I don’t know if there’s some type of condition you can put on us, but let us put the map signed and put some type of – let us proceed with it while
we’re working with this. There’s no reason why, like I said, I’ve been sitting out there – not your fault, it’s just the way that it takes a while to get these maps signed – been sitting
out there completed for two months now. We need to get some lots sold and closed, and I hate to – a week turns into another week, and you know how the – trying to get meetings set up.
We’ll be two weeks before we can probably even – I don’t know if there’s something – we know what the problem is. Let me go ahead and get my maps signed and then put some type of –
meet back in a – give a 60-day period to where we maybe can work with the Nampa Meridian and come up with some type of decision.
Anderson: Mr. Attorney, could we do approval subject to – the final plat is approved right now with us. The hold up is Nampa Meridian Irrigation. So simply do an approval with a contingency
that if an agreement cannot be worked out with Nampa Meridian that
it would then have to be revised – I’m searching here – for such and such standards to (inaudible) –
Campbell: The one thing I was thinking – if we could work on an agreement, what we would do is just pick up – what do we have, a couple of inches up there? Two or three inches of base
plus the two and-a-half inches of asphalt, is just go in there and pick it up, and what I can do is I can put some lawn in there and just make a nice – instead of doing a gravel – leaving
a gravel there is go ahead and landscape the 15 to 20 feet, and the people that use it aren’t going to drive their carts on it. They can drive their carts on the street to get over there,
but they can walk if they choose to walk through that, they can, by just walking over. I think it’d be worth a shot to go back to Nampa Meridian to see if we can get some of these pathways
– not just for the Villas or the Ashford Greens or the Lakes at Cherry Lane, but throughout the City I think we’re foolish, as a City and as developers, not to proceed and try to do
what the Nampa City’s doing and the Boise City’s doing.
Bird: Okay. Bill?
Nichols: Mr. Campbell, if I read your letter right, the City has signed the final plat. Is it Nampa Meridian that’s refusing to sign the final plat?
*** End of Side 5 ***
Campbell: No. What – all the governmental agencies have signed the map. We’re just – we came along this problem, and what we’re trying to do is instead of having the City – we’re
trying to be up front with the City because we’re having a problem. We don’t want the map signed off until we get the City Council’s approval, basically. We’re just – Gary's signed
it for the City, who else signs it? The Mayor? Will signs it. When we couldn’t get this licensing agreement worked out, that’s when we kind of put a halt to the final signature.
Nichols: President Bird, if I may ask a questions of Mr. Hawkins-Clark. Brad, what would be the effect of just eliminating that last sentence in Note No. 8?
Hawkins-Clark: Without seeing the terms of the licensing agreement, I guess it’s kind of hard to answer that question.
Nichols: As I understand it, he can’t get the license agreement with the paved path. My question is what if the City approves the plat without this requirement of the license agreement?
What does that affect your department had in mind for this development?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I guess functionally, I don’t think that was a condition put on by the Planning and Zoning Department in terms of the – obviously, the open space. But the – I
can’t see that the Department would have any issue with taking off the license agreement (inaudible) per se.
Campbell: It wasn’t a condition. I think the way we represented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council was that we were going to put the pathway through there,
and, obviously, if everybody knows that we’re going to put the path through, then we are going to have to obtain a licensing agreement, but it was never stated in I think any of the
conditions besides that we had to get a licensing agreement. We just all knew that’s what had to take place in order to do what we were trying to do if that makes any sense. So it’s
just a formality issue that if we were going to put a cart path over Nampa Meridian easement that we would have to have a licensing agreement. We put it on the plat because I think
that’s what you have to do.
Hawkins-Clark: Is that full 10-foot wide all within the easement?
Campbell: Yes. It’s all within the easement.
Anderson: I was thinking we could make it work against them, they don’t seem to mind if you have a golf course and you can walk along the edge of it while you’re golfing and hit your
ball in it like I do and be digging in there head first trying to get your ball out. If we were to incorporate that piece of property somehow say it’s the golf course, they evidently
don’t have any problem with driving golf carts along the –
Campbell: That’s what I told them. (inaudible) golf course. What’s the problem since we’ve been out here for 21 years, water’s been going through, and they come back and say that’s
that famous word “attractive nuisance.” I have heard it a hundred times. It’s kind of attractive. It’s kind of pretty.
deWeerd: Would they allow you to grass it, then?
Campbell: Yes. We could grass it, and that’s the other thing I thought we could do is sign some type of agreement with the City, just take that licensing agreement off of the plat and
have the – I could have my attorney draft something up and have your city attorney review it saying that if we can resolve this within a 90-day period that Steiner will come back and
tear it out and sod the pathway. That would be my common area, pathway, whatever you want to call it.
Anderson; That’s what I think we ought to do is have a motion that if an agreement can’t be worked out that it’s removed and we comply with their (inaudible). That’s the hang up, having
the asphalt, and obviously you’re willing to remove it if we can’t work it out.
Campbell: I’m sitting out there with quite a bit of money. I’ve got to make a move. I’m willing to – it would be nice to have the asphalt, but if we can’t, the grass would be a nice
feature.
deWeerd: You would still like the City to be involved in seeing if they can get some help facilitating an agreement?
Anderson: I would like to see you save the asphalt. It could be the start to future pathways.
Campbell: I’ve got another – we’ve got that Wilkins Ranch project, and a lot of you are familiar with that. I could take and block up all that area up there and it’s crazy. We’ve
got a nice little project out there, and if we could sit down with these folks and – it’s got to be workable because they’re working everywhere else. Agreement in Nampa and agreement
in Boise and structure it after that. It can’t be. It’s not –
deWeerd: Mr. Kuntz has his hand up.
Kuntz: Nampa Meridian will not allow you to fence between the canal and the pathway?
Campbell: Yes, you can put a fence up. The problem – you can put something like a – like Gary was saying, along Salmon Rapids’ canal, they’ve got wrought iron, and you could put a
wrought iron fence up, but what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to have the view from the home sites and not have to look out into a golf course and look into a wrought-iron fence.
That’s what we’re trying to preserve. We’ve got those lots that go around that canal that look out onto No. 1. If you put a six-foot wrought-iron fence out there, you’re going to
feel like they’re in jail. So that’s --
Bird: Council, do you want to make a motion?
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion that we approve the revisions for the final plat of the Villas at the Lakes by Keith Jacobs, Jr., pending the City enter into some negotiations
with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to try to avoid removing the paved path. If those efforts fail, then the applicant would have to make the improvements that Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District has requested.
McCandless: I’ll second.
deWeerd: Is that meaning that you won’t – they’ll put (inaudible) grass?
Anderson: Grass or I don’t think Nampa Meridian actually specifies. You can have a gravel path.
Campbell: Like I said, I could –
Nichols: Councilman Bird and Council, I think it would be a three-quarter minus a permabark is what it would be.
Bird: Okay. Anymore discussion? Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 15. Resolution Amending Resolutions 277 and 286 pertaining to the
“Commercial / Investment Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement ID#57176” Police Land Purchase:
Bird: Item 15, resolution amending resolutions 277 and 286 pertaining to the Commercial Investment Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement, ID# 57176, Police Land Purchase. This is
Resolution 314. Mr. Nichols, do you – is this what we – the last thing we had done, all word for word?
Nichols: President Bird, members of the Council, this is what was presented to you I believe last week at the workshop, and I believe it’s what we wanted.
McCandless: Mr. President, I make a motion that we accept the Resolution amending Resolutions 277 and 286 pertaining to the Commercial Investment Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement,
ID#57176, and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest; Resolution No. 314.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Bird: Okay. Any discussion? If not, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Item 17. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Bird: Sewer and water delinquency list. Delinquency for turn off scheduled 4/12/00. This is to inform you in writing, if you choose to, you have the right to a predetermination hearing
at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 4, 2000, 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 April 12, 2000, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to
contest his or her water, sewer and trash delinquency? Anybody? No response. 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 State Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $34,152.61.
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion that we approve the water, sewer and trash delinquency list.
deWeerd: Second.
Bird: Moved and seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Bird: I’ve got one thing to say, you guys. I don’t know if you know it, and it’s not on the agenda, but it’s this: We haven’t been paid $34,000. Our subcontractor has been – is paid
regardless of whether the money is collected or not. I think that’s something that we need to look into. At least, that’s the way I feel. Our trash is paid regardless of whether we
get their money or not. It’s like a subcontractor out on the – you don’t get paid until the general contractor gets paid, and he doesn’t pay you until he gets paid from the owner.
We’re up front fronting this. It’s something I think we need to look at for the budget yet.
Anderson: We always hear what we’re delinquent on a monthly basis, but then we’re always told a lot of those people pay late. We never get a figure of how many people default on us
and we never get the money.
Berg: They’re still on this list because they are defaulted or turned off.
Anderson: We need to know like a year-end and how many people that we never collected from.
Bird: We can certainly pull that up for you. Thanks, Ron.
McCandless: Mr. President, if I could say one thing, I’m still getting complaints from people who have proof that they paid and they’re still getting – they’re still on that list, and
they’ve even gone so far as with one couple to complain to me that they had their water shut off.
Bird: And they had paid?
McCandless: They had paid and they had proof that they had cancelled checks.
Bird: Okay. I will – I was going to do that, but I (inaudible). We met, Reta, Kevin Smith from the Accounting Department, Mayor Corrie, Leslie who is the manager of the department,
and myself. Kevin Smith from the auditing firm is going to come in and see if he can get some red flags for some of this stuff that’s going down. It seems like to be truthful with
you guys, us Councilmen are the only ones who are getting complaints. We’re the only ones that are hearing about it. So if this isn’t worked out, you guys have, at the February workshop,
authorized to get an outside audit in here. That building department – we’re going to try this first to save some money. If they can’t get it figured out, then we will pull a management
audit from the outside. Okay? That’s what we decided.
McCandless: Okay.
18. Department Reports:
A. City Engineer – Gary Smith
1. Bid results for Drilling of City Well No. 21 Project:
Bird: Okay, Department Reports. We’ve already had the – the first one is the bid results for City Well No. 21.
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion that we approve the bid from Riverside, Inc., for drilling of Well No. 21 in the amount of $103,150.50.
deWeerd: Second.
Bird: Okay. We’ve got a motion and a second to approve Well No. 21 to Riverside, Inc., for $103,105.50. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
A. City Engineer – Gary Smith
2. Request to connect to City services by Opal C. Farrington
1130 East Pine, 1180 East Pine:
Bird: Okay, request to connect to City services by Opal Farrington.
Anderson: Is she within the City limits?
Bird: She is not in the City limits.
Anderson: Does she agree to be annexed?
Bird: She agreed to be annexed, I believe, or we didn’t know.
Farrington: If we have no choice. We prefer not to be, but if that’s the requirement –
Bird: We have –
deWeerd: Do we want her to come forward, Keith, and identify herself?
Brock: My name is Cecille Brock. I live at 7305 Glenn Ridge View. My grandmother is Opal Farrington; I’m here on her behalf. I forgot the question.
Anderson: The question was about annexation.
Brock: That’s fine. We’re in agreement to that if that’s what we need to do.
Anderson: It creates some other problems for us if we don’t make you annex.
Brock: Now, I had a question on this. It has 1130 and 1180 requested for three separate properties. One of them we just – did you get a copy of the map that we sent with the letter?
For the third part, too, because I would like to move into Meridian as well.
Anderson: Is the third part the one that says not a part?
Brock: No, that’s the first part. The one that says not a part is – that’s 1180 East Pine. That’s where my grandmother lives. That’s on the corner of Adkins Lane and Pine. 1130
East Pine was the portion that was split.
Anderson: That’s the one identified as Parcel 1 or Parcel 2?
Brock: Parcel 1. Well, Parcel 2 is the original, was the whole thing, and then Parcel 1 is where we would want 1 and Parcel 2 is where we would want 1, and then not a part would be
one. Have I confused you?
Anderson: So 1130 is Parcel 1?
Brock: Not for the Parcel 1, not yet.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Brock: The existing house is 1130 East Pine. The not a part is 1180.
deWeerd: Parcel 1 doesn’t have an address.
Brock: Right.
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion that we approve the request to hook to City services for Opal Farrington for Lots 1130 and 1180 and the unknown one which is identified
as Parcel 1 on the map, allow them to hook to City services subject to them submitting for annexation into the City.
deWeerd: Second.
Bird: Motion made and seconded to allow the request to connect to City services by Opal Farrington at 1130 East Pine, 1180 East Pine and the Parcel Lot 1 with the condition that they
proceed to annex into the City. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
City Engineer – Gary Smith
3. Emergency Hook-up to City Services by Charles Cahoon
1875 N. Locust Grove:
Bird: Okay, Item 3 on that was taken out.
Discussion of water hook-up by Terry Scofield for Summer’s Funeral Home at Eagle and Ustick:
Bird: Discussion on the water hook-up by Terry Scofield. I think we basically took care of that, did we not? Did we give them the answer?
deWeerd: No. We deferred this.
Anderson: So we can meet about it.
Smith: Mr. President, Council members, the notes that I made for myself are as follows: We have to complete a water model analysis to see that we can supply that quantity of water.
Kenny’s going to check for me to verify the fire-flow requirements. I will talk to the other property owners out there at Ustick and Eagle Intersection to see if they would be interested
in participating in that waterline extension, and then I’m going to research with PUC to see how they certificated area is arrived at for United Water. Beyond that, those are all the
notes that I made.
Bird: For the 11th.
Smith: Yes, April 11th. Right.
Bird: Okay. So we don’t need to enact upon that.
B. City Planner – Brad Hawkins-Clark
1. Ada County Development Services:
00-10-PDR, also 00-05-ZC by Steve Smith for Edinburgh
Place Subdivision of 138 buildable lots with a rezone from R-T to R-4 of 40.69 acres – north side of McMillan Road approximately ½ mile west of Eagle Road:
Bird: Okay, Ada County Development Services.
deWeerd: Mr. President, first just to make sure that it’s on our workshop notice.
Bird: Beg your pardon?
deWeerd: In our strategic planning, that it’s on our agenda. (inaudible) finance director.
Bird: Financial Director, 5:30 to 6:30. They’ll be calling in adding about 50 more things.
deWeerd: I’m just making sure that the ones that we agreed on are there, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Let’s finish our meeting then – okay. Ada County Development Services. That’s the one we needed to get a letter for by tomorrow. We were going to – on our letterhead, asking
them to request delay; is that not right? You will take care of that, Brad? Asking, you know, it says they will say we’re not – it won’t be considered anything if we don’t have something
on our letterhead by tomorrow, and we need more time. Isn’t that what we agreed upon?
Anderson: We were going to meet on the 11th; right? The 11th we’re going to have one hour of financial director and half hour of the water thing for Summer’s Funeral Home. Okay.
Well, this is something – Brad’s going to write a letter asking for extension until the 18th.
deWeerd: Can we discuss it at our Pre-Council? Did we talk about starting to do Pre-Council starting earlier so we can get through –
Bird: We were going to discuss that with Planning and Zoning workshop. Okay. We’ve got one more, guys.
deWeerd: Mr. President, maybe because we do need to discuss this, we may want to meet a little bit earlier, like at six, to make sure –
C. Parks and Recreation – Tom Kuntz:
1. Agreement with the Land Group for Generations Plaza Phase II:
Bird: You mean on the 18th, Tammy? Yeah. That’d be no problem at all. That’s acceptable to me. Six on the 18th. Okay. Brad’ll take care of that. Parks and Recreation. We need
to approve the land agreement with the Land Group, Phase II. It’s already been discussed. So I would entertain a motion one way or the other.
deWeerd: Mr. President, I move that we approve the agreement with the Land Group for Generations Plaza, Phase II, and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Oh – he already
signed it. And for the Clerk to attest.
Bird: What’s the amount? Any discussion? If not, All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Bird: Tom had on the deal, but I think – Tom was going to get three more – Tom, weren’t you going to get at least three?
Fire Department – Fire Chief Kenny Bowers
Contract with the fire truck bid:
Bird: Okay, Fire. Chief Bowers.
Bowers: President, Mr. Bird, yesterday I received a contract from Pierce Manufacturing to build our new fire truck. I got a copy to Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Keith Bird and Ron Anderson.
Ron Anderson had a couple questions in the contract. I was able to get some answers back to him today, but I haven’t heard back from him on what he’s thinking the new contract verbiage.
So, Ron, were you able to get my voice mail?
Anderson: Yes, and I guess there were a couple issues with the contract that I had. One of them was that I wanted everyone who worked on our truck committee to understand what that
contract said that we would be signing, and one of those is that the specifications that the truck committee wrote and the specification that Pierce submitted, what the contract says
when it gets down to the brass tacks and we’re arguing over the specs, theirs is the one that counts, so everybody on the committee needs to have thoroughly read that truck spec and
make sure they have interpreted that and they understand what is coming on the truck so there won’t be any question. The second comment I had was on the payment. They were wanting
a payment on completion of the chassis of somewhere around $156 or $157,000, and the remainder prior to the truck leaving their factory in Wisconsin which I disagree with that. I would
not recommend paying them until the truck is delivered here in Meridian and we have done the acceptance test on that vehicle. I think that should be subject to a negotiation, they want
an additional $1500 if we were going to wait and pay them when it got there versus pay them while it was at the factory. It doesn’t take more than three or four days to drive the truck
out from the factory, so I’m thinking even if they waited one week for their truck, the interest rate would not accumulate to $1500, so I guess it would be my recommendation that we
propose back to them because that’s what that was was a contract and was a proposal on those dollar amounts that we not pay them the additional $1500 for the payment coming when the
truck got here.
Bowers: Sounds good. We’ll do that.
Anderson: So did you have anything as far as your discussions with used fire equipment, the local dealer on that?
Bowers: I had talked to Gary Hughes on it, then when he told me about the $1500 was the interest that Pierce charges them until he gets paid the full amount, and that’s exactly when
I called you, and you were at the City Council – City Hall. I didn’t go any farther with it at that time. I didn’t know if there was any way out of even getting out of that $1500 for
interest. I don’t know.
Anderson: I think that since that’s a typed-in part of that contract that that would be something that would be negotiable. I would think if they want to sell a $300,000 truck that
they’d be willing to beat the $1500.
Bowers: Exactly. Always before, City Council, we have went out and picked it up ourselves and paid for it at the factory, and by this way, they’ll bring it out and they will have to
do the acceptance test here. We have to do it within 10 days.
Bird: Is there any problem with that, Ron, doing it within 10 days?
Anderson: No. Ought to be able to do that within a couple days of its arrival here. I guess it would be my recommendation not to sign the contract until Kenny can work out with –
arrangement, and I don’t think we ought to pay them the other $1500 to –
Bird: That’s approved, but I don’t think – the Clerk should sign and (inaudible) worked out to the satisfactory of the City. Agree with it, Council? Okay. Thank you, Kenny. Captain
Musser, you’ve got anything for the Police Department?
Musser: Mr. President, City Council members, the Police Department does not have anything to report at this time.
Bird: I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Anderson: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK