HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 08-01Meridian City Council Meeting August 1, 2000
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by City Council President, Keith Bird, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 1, 2000.
Members present: Robert Corrie, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird.
Others present: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Bill Nichols, Bill Gordon, Shelby Ugarriza.
Bird: Welcome ladies and gentlemen to Meridian City Council Meeting of August 1, 2000. Roll-call from the Clerk, please.
Item A. Tabled July 5, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item B. Amended Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-032 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 6.36 acres for a proposed Park-and-Ride lot for 100 vehicles by Ada County
Highway District currently in a C-G zone – southwest corner of Meridian Road and northeast corner of Overland Road:
Item C. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for proposed Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision of 26 building lots and 2 other lots on 7.99
acres in an R-4 zone by Robert Glenn– north of Ustick Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
Item D. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for proposed Cafarelli Industrial Subdivision of 3 building lots on 5.40 acres in
an I-L zone – north side of Franklin Road west of Linder Road:
Item E. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-029 Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed processing of medical claims / insurance billing on property located in
an R-15 zone by Sarah O’Neal – 1447 Sandalwood Drive:
Item F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-012 Request for Variance allowing a gravel driveway and parking lot
rather than paved for Memorial Pet Care by Larry A. Eld., DVM – 654 East King Street:
Item G. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-030 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pet cemetery for Memorial Pet Care by Larry Eld, DVM, currently in an
I-L zone at the Meridian Business Park – 654 East King Street:
Item H. Development Agreement: AZ 00-011 Annexation and zoning of 3.4 acres from RT and R1 to R-15 for proposed Penn Station Apartments by Pangaea Land Planning – south of Fairview
Avenue on the east side of Stonehenge Way:
Bird: Mayor Corrie will be in a little later, he had a few things he had to take care of, so I'll try to struggle through here. Council, we got the Consent Agenda, what's your pleasure?
De Weerd: Mr. President, I move we make the following changes to the Consent Agenda: Table Item A to September 5th; table Item B to September 5th. That's all on the Consent Agenda.
I would like to make a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the changes noted.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: It's moved and Seconded Council to approve the Consent Agenda with the changes of A and B being tabled to September 5, 2000. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9 . Public Hearing: VAC 00-006 Request for vacation along the common lot line between lots 23 and 22 of Block 10 – located at the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 6:
Bird: For the public's information, Item No. 9 on the Regular Agenda was put on mistakenly, we do not have all the facts out of Planning and Zoning for that yet, in fact, I don't think
it's come out of that, so that will not even be an Agenda Item.
Item 2 . Ordinance No. 881: AZ 00-011 Annexation and zoning of 3.4 acres from RT and R1 to R-15 for proposed Penn Station Apartments by Pangaea Land Planning – south of Fairview Avenue
on the east side of Stonehenge Way:
Bird: Clerk, would you please, what's the number of the Ordinance and would you read the Ordinance by title-only, please.
Ugarriza: Mr. President, members of the Council, that's going to be Ordinance No. 881: An Ordinance finding that certain land known as Penn Station Apartments lies contiguous or adjacent
to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho and finding that the owners made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed
to the City of Meridian and zoning, designated medium-high density residential district R-15; and declaring that said land by proper legal description is 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 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 63-2215.
Bird: Thank You. Anybody from the public would like this Ordinance read, Ordinance 881 read in it's entirety? Seeing none, Council what's your pleasure?
Anderson: Mr. President. I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 881 for Annexation and Zoning of 3.4 acres from RT and R-1 to R-15 for proposed Penn Station Apartments
with suspension of the rules.
De Weerd: Second.
Bird: It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 881 with suspension of the rules. Roll-call vote, Clerk, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
3. Ordinance No. 882: AZ 00-004 Request for annexation and zoning of 16.119 acres from R-T to C-G for proposed Resolution Business Park by G.L. Voigt / Overland, LLC – south of Overland
Road and east of Locust Grove Road:
Bird: Council, next Item is the Ordinance for Resolution Business Park for Annexation and Zoning of 16.991 acres from R-T to C-G, by G. L. Voigt / Overland, LLC — south of Overland
Road and east of Locust Grove Road. Clerk, I take it that's going to be 882.
Ugarriza: Right.
Bird: Would you read the Ordinance by title-only, please.
Ugarriza: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Ordinance No. 882: 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
neighborhood business district (C-N) and declaring that 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 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 63-2215.
Bird: Would anybody from the audience like Ordinance 882 read in its entirety? Seeing none, Council, I'll entertain a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. President, I move we approve Ordinance No. 882 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 16.119 acres from R-T to C-G for the proposed Resolution Park with suspension of rules.
Anderson: I'll second it.
Bird: It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 882. Roll-call vote, Mrs. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Ordinance passed.
Item 4. Continued Public Hearing: AZ 00-012 Request for annexation and zoning by Opal Farrington of 4.70 acres from R-1 to R-4 for proposed addition of a home – northwest corner of
East Pine Avenue and Adkins Way:
Bird: Council, this is a continued so we don't need to open, it's never been closed. Is the applicant here?
Brock: My name is Cecile Brock, and I live at 7305 Glenn Ridge View in Boise, Idaho. It's my grandmother's property, and it’s my house that we're building.
Bird: When we continued this, Council we had some questions that we needed answered by the applicant, I believe, regarding – we had some testimony last
week regarding the ditch – the tiling of the ditch. Shari, do you have a question or comment on this?
Stiles: Mr. President, Council members, we wanted to make sure the applicant was here to understand that a condition of the annexation was that the ditch was to be tiled along Adkins
Lane. There are problems with the ditch there and apparently down stream water users are having trouble getting their water consistently, and that was why we wanted to make sure that
you were here to understand that that was a condition of the annexation.
Brock: I was not aware of that. I think part of the problem with people on down the line getting water is nobody wants to help clean the ditch.
Stiles: A recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, it wasn't very clear, is their recommendation that the irrigation ditch be tiled by anyway necessary on the property.
I think we need to nail down the details of that, it will need to be located outside of the future right-of-way of that Adkins Lane, and I think the concern-I've got pictures, this
is showing the ditch along the lane, half of the road has been constructed by the property known as Maws Subdivision No. 3, this is showing some other areas that are apparently a problem
now, and we continually have problems with these ditches throughout the City, and that was the reason for their recommendation that that ditch be tiled at this time.
Brock: The pictures that you're looking at were in the middle of the construction when we were putting City Sewer and Water across to the new houses and across to that 1130 East Pine,
my grandmother's house, we took city, water the there, well, city sewer to there and city water and sewer to the other house on the other side and to my new property, and so this was
all during the construction. When we're done, it won't look like that, it'll just be a normal ditch.
Bird: Council, any questions? Okay, thank you. Anybody else here would like to testify in this matter? Staff, you got anything before we close it or anymore comments. Just a second,
we've got somebody that wants to testify.
Morgan: My name is Bernadine Morgan, 1187 East Fairview and we use the irrigation water beyond the ditches here and on our way down here tonight, we drove by and the weeds are up over
my head, and it's continued to be this way for many, many years, particular this time of year we know that all the weeds are high every where, but then we don't get our water, we simply
don't, and the area it shows now, yes, this was during the time that they were putting the new road in there, but it still needs to be taken care of there. It's been many years that
we've had to go through this and we've never gotten any satisfaction or any help and we're not kids, we can't do it by ourselves. Thank you.
Bird: Thank You. Applicant.
Brock: Can I say something else?
Bird: Yes, come on back up.
Brock: My only point is and-can I ask you guys-can we get a recommendation from the irrigation district? As I understand it, this has been an on-going problem between the Morgan's
and the Farrington's for many years, but it is not the Farrington's sole responsibility, as I've understood it, to maintain the ditch for someone else. We've never had any help and
we have asked and it was, for many years, it was maintained, and there was never any help forthcoming from the people on down the line. If we need to we can bring the former irrigation
district, the guy that was in charge of it, Martin (inaudible), he was in charge of the irrigation district for a long time and we can bring him as well, but it's my understanding that
it's not our sole responsibility to take care of it and it has-we're the only ones that burnt it this year, and it does need to be maintained again, but, I do have a problem with being
held solely responsible for it.
Bird: Council?
Anderson: Mr. President, I have a question of our legal counsel, I guess my understanding of the irrigation was-would be that you would be required to maintain the ditch in good enough
condition that it would not inhibit the flow to downstream users, not necessarily that everybody downstream would have to go upstream to clean the ditch, I mean, it's your obligation
to keep that clean while (inaudible) through your property, isn't it?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Members of the Council, it's my understanding of water law, that when the ditch goes through your property, you cannot take action which impedes the delivery
downstream, whether that translates into an affirmative duty to clean, I frankly haven't researched that. I will say that you do have an ordinance in affect that says: All ditches,
when property is brought into the city, if there is an irrigation ditch, it has to be tiled. The only exceptions that we have seen have been drain ditches where there anticipated to
be a pathway along that drain ditch and it's not a live water, but you will recall that at the last meeting we had a problem with a downstream property owner who could not get the water
because of failure to tile a ditch as required by a prior Council in a development and that developer is having to look at now tiling that ditch so that water can be delivered.
Bird: Shari, you have any, staff, you have any more? Anymore comment from the public? Council, you've got anything to say before we close it?
De Weerd: Mr. President, just that, Cecil, you understand it is one of our City Ordinance's and so it's a requirement to everyone that annexes into the city.
Brock: In what timeframe?
De Weerd: What time frame on the tiling of the ditch, Shari, can you answer that?
Stiles: It doesn't state a time frame, but I think the Council should designate a time frame that as soon as the irrigation season is over they need to tile that ditch, this year.
Bird: That can be taken care of, the time frame can taken care of in the Development Agreement as we bring it in.
Stiles: We didn't ask for one on this development? If they come in the future and they'll just have to meet City Ordinances if they come in at a future time. I don't think that the
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission is adequate to deal with this, that we need to set some time frames and some remedies for-if it's not done, such as, shutting off
sewer and water.
Bird: Okay, thank you. Council, anymore comments? If not, I'd entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Anderson: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Okay, Council, you're (inaudible)
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I mean, Mr. President. I keep giving you a promotion or something.
Bird: Yes, you do, you can have it.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for Annexation and Zoning by Opal Farrington for 4.70 acres from R-1 to R-4 for the proposed addition of a home with the following changes
to the recommendation by Planning and Zoning, on page 1, no. 4, that R-4 be changed to R-1, on no. 5 that R-1 be changed to R-4, on page 3, 1.4, that you strike the end of the sentence
by any way necessary on the property and add to that at the end of the irrigation season, as well as to be maintained through that season, that the ditch be maintained until the time
it's tiled, and that it be not in the right-a-way by Adkins. There is also one more change on page 2, no. 10, that that read R-4 instead of R-1, and to have the City Attorney draw up
the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,
to also include in 1.4 that the tiling be coordinated with Planning and Zoning so they can maintain there sewer and water service. That's a way to check it, right?
Stiles: The plans will actually be approved by Public Works Department or Nampa Meridian.
De Weerd: Okay, Public Works.
Stiles: Just so that we have some remedy, I mean, if there are no consequences then it's not going to be done, so, yes, if you can add that, they'll be subject to sewer and water cut
off.
Anderson: Done with your motion, then?
De Weerd: Yes.
Anderson: I'll second it.
Bird: We've got a motion on the floor, seconded. Roll-call vote, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Continued Public Hearing: AZ 00-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC – north of Victory
Road and east of Meridian Road:
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing: PP 00-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 91 building lots and 10 other lots on 40.33 acres for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory
41, LLC, currently in an RT zone and proposed R-4 zone – north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road:
Item 7. Continued Public Hearing: VAR 00-006 Request for variance of the 1,000-foot block length for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC, currently in an RT zone and
proposed R-4 zone – north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval
Bird: Council, would you like to include in these public hearings Items 5, 6 and 7, they all deal with Timber View or Observation Point?
De Weerd: Yes, please.
McCandless: Yes.
Bird: Staff, I'll open the Public Hearing, staff, what comments?
Stiles: Mr. President, Council members, this is for a 40 acre parcel of ground that's adjacent to Meridian Green Subdivision and East Victory Road. They are proposing an R-4 zone,
they have submitted a new Plat today that shows some larger lots along the northern boundary. I'm not sure what all the other changes are, this is the irrigation ditch that runs through
the property, this area down here would be the southwestern portion where there's an existing home. This area south of the ditch cannot be sewered at this time, it would be outside
of the sewer boundary for the line that they are proposing to use. You can see here the difference in elevation for the adjacent property, there's a gravel pit adjacent to the property
on the northern most-this portion in here is all gravel pit. The applicant, they can go into more detail what they are proposing, but they are proposing that this would be not developed
at this time, they would also like to leave the existing house there. Staff had supported this at the beginning, but, we did go out and take a picture of the house, and we would not
support leaving this house as part of the application, if it were to be annexed into the city. They do meet all the requirements of the R-4, which is what they're proposing, they do
need to have a Variance on the 1000-foot block length, also, they would need a Variance on the 20-foot planning strip requirement that would be adjacent to the incompatible uses. This
is all commercially zoned in the County now, that's where Victory Gardens is, they also have a drilling company that has a building down here, this would be where that existing home
is. There block lengths exceed 1000 feet; this one is particularly long, if Council will support a Variance of that block length requirement, we would ask that there is a pedestrian
walkway bisecting the property. They do have a stub street here, there's another stub street that was platted as part of Meridian Green Subdivision that will be continued through into
this property. I believe those are the major issues for this Subdivision, this would be all a common lot that would be on the north side of the canal, and they (inaudible) planning
strip adjacent to Victory Road. That's all I have. Any questions?
Bird: Before we go any farther, the 20-foot buffer is not in the public hearings at all on this the variance has not been filed is not part of these three applications?
Stiles: It is not, the 20 ft. planning strip requirement we haven't noticed that properly and we do need a new application for just that 20 ft. planning strip requirement.
Bird: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that for the folks out in the audience. Any other, applicant?
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickory Dale, Boise. I'm representing Mr. Cavin (sic) in this application. Since I started this application, I agreed to finish it, if you wonder
why I'm here.
De Weerd: Well, you're looking good. Retirement must be good for you.
Bowcutt: Semi-retirement. As you can see by the contours, this property is not your average property which is being developed for single family development in the City of Meridian.
Most of the property in the city is relatively flat, this particular property is very hilly with a tall knoll that runs through the mid section. Each one of these lines represents
a one ft. contour, for example from this point to this point here, which is approximately 140 ft., it's dropping 10 ft. When Mr. Cavin started this project he wanted to take advantage
obviously of the contours, that's the smart thing to do when you're developing property with topography like this, otherwise you end up doing substantial amount of cutting and filling
and grating on the site. He also wanted to take advantage, because of the height of this property, the view of the Boise front and the beautiful view of the Owyhee front, in a southwesterly
direction. He did not want lots backing up to Victory Road, so he came up with this concept of this 40 ft. landscape buffer here, and then having this single loaded roadway that runs
along here. Everything is kind of oriented a little bit in a northeasterly direction to optimize the view. The other thing that he wanted to do was to make sure that these lots were
large enough to accommodate extremely large homes, homes that would be compatible and consistent with the homes in Meridian Greens. In the previous hearings that transpired there has
been changes that I would just like to mention. At one time we had three lots on a knuckle located here, here's the existing home that Shari showed up on the screen. Staff indicated
that your sewer boundary line for this trunk line that will be extended from Meridian Greens is right here at the Kennedy lateral. ACHD also did not want us to put a knuckle, so we
eliminating these, the two lots and just left-this is one large lot with that existing home. Mr. Cavin’s caretaker resides in that home who takes care of his father's house south of
Victory. We also, at the time, were opposed to this westerly stub street, we thought that we kind of got mixed signals from the staff concerning this; this property here zoned R-T was
a gravel pit, the owner of the property got up at the Planning and Zoning Commission and indicated they're in the process of reclaiming it, it's not an active pit anymore, they're not
taking anything out of it, but putting it in; on your existing comp plan that's designated for single family, on your future plan map, it's designated medium density single family, so,
therefore, obviously the intent is that that become single family and that is why we were opposed a 20-foot strip being allocated along there for buffering, because that use, obviously,
is temporary (inaudible) a public street to the property for redevelopment of that parcel as residential in the future. We believe we provided substantial depth here, 127, 134 ft.,
and we feel that each lot owner would be able to, if they see fit, provide the best type of buffering they can with there own choice of landscaping, fencing, (inaudible), etc. As Shari
showed you on the screen, we sit up high, we're not low, so, as far as buffering from view, that's not
going to be that difficult. Also, when you create a 20 ft. strip that has no aesthetic benefit to the majority of the development, no practical use to the majority of the development,
over time, we find, that it just becomes unmaintained and becomes weeds because most of the residents can't see the benefit. Since this use is temporary, we feel that the Council should
grant us a waiver for that 20 ft. buffer. This use right here is the Victory Greens Nursery, over here, that is a residential parcel and then we have Meridian Greens above us. We also,
one of the changes we made, is we took one of the lots out here. We battled with the Planning and Zoning Commission, we tried to adjust our lots to increase their widths, and finally,
Mr. Cavin made the decision that it was in the best interest of Meridian Greens and himself to go ahead and remove one lot, so we did remove a lot from the north and widened those out
so they're all 100 plus, and the Meridian Greens are all 100 in width, so we've matched there width. The lots, as you can see, are large. A lot of these are 20,000, 16, 13,000, our
density is 2.08 dwellings per acre, so it's really low; we want to provide (inaudible) housing, we even agreed at the Planning and Zoning Commission to put a statement on our Final Plat
and minimum lots are home size of 2100 square ft., excluding the garage. These are the types of homes that Mr. Cavin intends to construct on the property. The homes shown in that picture
reside at Brook Dale Meadows off of McMillan between Cloverdale and Eagle Road. He would like to build the same type of homes on this property. Some of the other things that we did,
we took out a total of 7 lots to increase the lots sizes within this development. One was taken out here, one was removed here, we moved one from this block, this block, this block
and then took two lots out, for a total of seven, so we have reduced this by 7 lot, and what we took over to the staff was the reduction. We'd already taken these out and this one out
prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission we took out an additional 4 lots and that was the only change that was made to this plat was removing 4 additional lots. We also had, at
one time our approach was over here and we want to try to provide like a kind of a half moon, flower type entry, some amenity here. When ACHD asked us to move our entrance further east,
then we ended up with it in the middle of a lot and analyzing that we were concerned about the access to that lot, whether that would work. We show these pathways coming along here
and one of the things we talked about, with the staff and at the Planning and Zoning Commission was, we're going to have a decorative cobblestone wall that you see here and in front
of that cobblestone wall will be a (inaudible) sidewalk and landscaping, we'll have brakes in the wall where that sidewalk would come up here and then continue westward here. The staff
asked that, if we would come in and construct a pathway along this Kennedy lateral, one of the things we brought up was, yes, we think that's a good idea, but we'd end up with two sidewalks
side by side and that didn't make a lot of sense, so, if the city would allow us, we'd take that and just meander it right here and that would provide the access from Observation Drive,
and we would go in and do some landscaping along that Kennedy lateral as an amenity. Do you want me to address the staff's conditions that-item by item or just the p and z's?
Bird: Council, what do you want?
De Weerd: They should be one in the same.
Bird: No they're not, they're different.
Anderson: Need to address them both at some point.
Bowcutt: I guess, for the record, I'd like all my comments to be included for the Preliminary Plat and Annexation, so I only have to do this once.
Bird: And, how about the 1000 feet --
Bowcutt: And the variance, yes. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that no buffer zone be required right here along this west boundary, they saw that as, possibility detrimental
in the future and the fact that that's going to be residential in the future. Secondly, we did comply with what they asked us to realign our lots on the north to 100, we also had a
condition that staff set forth that said, there's some gaps in the fence up here along Meridian Greens, and staff indicated that we should go in and install matching fence where it is
lacking along the north boundary. We objected to that, because our question was, why was Meridian Greens not fenced in the first place, it's for many, many years been a condition of
all residential developments that they provide perimeter fencing. We didn't feel that that was right, that we be obligated to fence that north boundary. Mr. Cavin indicated that he'd
be willing to split the cost for that, but , we felt that that was not right, that it be our sole responsibility. The Planning and Zoning commission concurred with us on that item.
They also asked for a stop sign be placed at this intersection. We stated, that we'd obviously have to get approval from ACHD in order to do that; a representative from ACHD was here
that evening, he said that he did not believe that it would cause any problems. They also asked us to put some type of a small, little median there, like a concrete median, we'd used
them before, it keeps the traffic from cutting through, because our intent here is the traffic come through, have to slow down and come around that to enter into Meridian Greens. We
are required, this is a temporary turn around, but it's constructed like it's a permanent turn around, and we were required by the Highway District to extend that into our site. Concerning
the pathway: The way this development is designed, this block right here is 1000, maybe a 1006 form point A to point B, this block here does exceed 1000 ft. The staff has asked that
we put some type of a pedestrian pathway to break the long block up. When we were working on this prior to even submitting the application, I had one in there, but then, after looking
at the topography, I had some concerns. We've got as much as a 7 per cent slope there, one of my concerns was, you get a kid on a bike or a kid with roller blades on, they come down
the pathway and then with that slope going right into the roadway, would that cause some type of a hazard for that child, so after looking at it, thinking about it, talking with some
other members of the staff at Briggs, I removed it prior to ever submitting it. Now, the staff has asked that we add that back in, your
ordinance does talk about using pedestrian pathways to break up blocks, but it says, right-a-way for pedestrian walk ways in the middle of long blocks maybe required where necessary
to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation. So, it does give the Council that option. I've got some concerns, we evaluated it, it can meet ADA standards, but we have to do the landings,
and I guess I have some-you know-I'm just trying to visualize my kids on a pathway that's sloping into a roadway, I don't think it's a good idea and that's why we opposed it at the Planning
and Zoning Commission and we still oppose that as a requirement. I just think it could create a safety hazard and this section of the ordinance talks about for convenience purposes,
I think out of convenience, taking that kind of risk kind of bothers me, so, I would ask that that would be eliminated. We feel that this is a good project, it's low density, large
lot, larger homes, I think with our elimination of some additional lots, the Meridian Greens residents should be happier. We did have our differences in the beginning, but , we have
tried very diligently to try to work out the issues with this Subdivision. The Council does need to consider that this is not a flat piece of property and in development of parcels
with this type of topography, it changes a lot of the things that we would normally do if it were flat. Do you have any questions?
Bird: Any questions for the applicant?
Anderson: Mr. President, I have some. Becky, what's the ADA requirement for the slope on the sidewalk?
Bowcutt: The Planning and Zoning Commission debated it and debated it and looked at it, one member, through calculations said, he thought it could meet ADA standards, but we'd have
to do those landings, so you'd have to take it down a certain percentage, then create a landing, and then we'd probably have to go in and put up railroad ties, some retaining walls to
make it work, so it's not your standard pathway. It doesn't lead to a school, it doesn't lead to a city park or anything like that, I just can't—
Anderson: Looks kind of hilly out there and not being familiar, just looking at that terrain that you have there, is there a possibility where you could move that pathway over where
it's not-is there a location where it's not such a steep grade, like by moving it to the left or the-
Bowcutt: The property flattens out when you get up in through here, as you can see, the wider the contours become, the flatter the property. Over here it's not-over in this area it's
not quite as steep, but you can see they're still, the contours are quite close together.
Anderson: So, with some contouring or something like that-
Bowcutt: And the landings, it was calculated that it could meet ADA standards, yes, sir.
Anderson: And those large irregular lot that are on the east side of the property, is that because there's existing structures there, is that why those are so strange shaped?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir, there's an existing home right here, and this just ended up in that large of a configuration.
Anderson: And there access will be in and out through the Subdivision?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. This will take access here and this takes access right here, we meet the frontage requirement right here at that 90 degree corner. This is the other existing home
here which takes access at Victory Road at this time.
Anderson: And that's the other one that you take acceptation to removing that as our P & Z staff has asked?
Bowcutt: Well, it is an old home, it appears to probably be the original homestead if one were to look at it. Mr. Cavin's wish is that he not remove it at this time, just leave it
as it is, it's currently on a septic and well at this time, and then if-eventually he'll have-he'll do something with it, and then if it were to be replaced then obviously he'd have
to hook to sewer and water.
Anderson: Are you still proposing doing this landscaping and pathway that you show in this drawing down past it?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. We'd have to go ahead and-we're going to have a break in the sidewalk because of the Kennedy Lateral here, but then we pick it up and bring it down here and we'd
still have the same 20 ft. requirement right through here.
Anderson: So, what's that triangle piece right now, is it just a field with weeds or what is it?
Bowcutt: It's kind of like a pasture. This spring it looked real nice, as you can see, it was green and-there it is right there, that's it and that's the nursery you see west of it.
In the staff they talked about making it a city park, but it's not large enough, being isolated by that Kennedy Lateral, to make it a park, and obviously with the 84 lots that we propose,
we don't have enough lots to really support a park with this kind of low density.
Anderson: How big is that piece of land?
Bowcutt: 72,000 Square Feet.
Anderson: One and three-quarter acres.
Bowcutt: That's when you take out the canal, and then the 20 ft. for landscape-
Anderson: I have no further questions.
Bird: Council, any other questions for the applicant? Thank you Becky. Is there anybody here in favor of this project that would like to testify? Anybody here opposed to it that
would like to testify? If you would, we'd like to hold our testimony to 5 minutes or less, please.
Segmiller: Thank you Mr. President, Members of the Council, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. My name is Lee Segmiller, I live at 512 East Whitehall, Meridian Greens.
My concerns are in three general areas.
*** End of Side 1***
Segmiller: I would strongly suggest that the Council require applicant's to show their material in a way that the audience can see, it doesn't help us to comment intelligent on a poster
board that we see the back side of, and so, this is the fifth evening that I've been to these chambers and following this project and there have been changes made, and it's a little
hard to see on the back side of a poster board what those are. To address my concerns, 1st, matter of safety: I'm concerned about approximately 1000 ft. of straight road coming down
the hill entering Meridian Greens and close proximity to my home. I can visualize that there would be high speed traffic, I can visualize that someone in a hurry might be coming down
this hill, it's a rather steep hill, and entering through this cul-de-sac, which is not showing on the map, and failing the (inaudible) that corner. The applicant did put in a jog in
the road, but the recommendations of Planning and Zoning, if my recollection is correct, was that there was to be a concrete island in the center of that road to force people to slow
down. If this is just a straight road, flat road, people will go through that and totally ignore the island. I would also express my keen desire to have that old home removed, that
seems to me, to be an ideal location for illegal criminal activity to occur in close proximity to this Subdivision. Abandoned homes are not a good idea to have in a residential district,
so I would recommend that you ask that home be removed. My second area of concern has to do with adverse effect on my property values. The applicant has increased the lot sizes joining
Meridian Green and I'm pleased to see that, I don't have any information as to the area of these lots, whether they're comparable with Meridian Greens or not, they are the same width,
so that's a help. One of the reasons we picked Meridian Greens is because it gives a feeling of openness and spaciousness between the homes, it's not crowded. This proposed development
is a choice piece of property and I think it should be developed with that in mind. One item of concern was the roof material, Meridian Greens requires tile or cedar shakes, the applicant
has proposed the use of asphalt composition shingles, mention was made of this in previous meetings that it would be a minimum of the presidential grade, sculptured type roof, but I've
seen nothing in the presentation this evening that would cause that to be a specification, I'd like to see that made a matter of specification in this tract. The third area that I'm
concerned about is what's going to happen to my water pressure? My water in this Subdivision right now is inadequate, it often measures 25 lbs. per square inch, that will not do if
you're trying to water a lawn, you can't get a stream of water on the roof if you had a fire on the 4th of July, it's very annoying. I would like to see some discussion of this item
as to how that's going to be handled, if you plug in an additional 40 acres worth of houses, that has to influence the water pressure. I appreciate, again, this opportunity to speak
and thank you for this opportunity.
Bird: Council, any questions of the gentleman? Thank you very much. Anybody else like to testify?
Martinez: Good evening, my name is Boris Martinez, my address is 521 East Whitehall St. in Meridian Greens. Let me start off by thanking the developer for going to the trouble of taking
out that lot that helps appease me somewhat. I should point out, that when I originally came here-I was going to get really excited, but, now it puts me at ease a little bit. The one
thing that you should note though, is that, although the width of the lots are the same, the depth are not, so they're still not-well, let me put it this way, our minimum lot size along
that-along here is 13,200 square ft Really, what I was looking for was that the lots that they put back there be as big as our smallest lot, so, as you can see, I'm not asking for the
world here, I'm trying to create a situation where I can assure myself that the lots are such that they can put houses of comparable value. I'm just concerned that on small lots you
get small houses, no matter how hard you try, it's really hard to put a really expensive house on a small lot, so I appreciate the fact that they took the lot out and I'm just wondering
if maybe there's something they can do with just moving the lots a little bit to get us closer to that 13,200 square foot Looks like you had a question, oh, okay. Something that was
just brought up concerning the fence, actually, I was surprised that that was a requirement on their part, but, just to set the record straight, from what I remember, the Planning and
Zoning recommendation on the fence was that someone was suppose to look up and see whether the ordinances were in place at the time of that development where they were required to put
up that fence. If that was a true statement, then, whoever the developer is for that needs to put up a fence, if that development was in place before that Ordinance came into effect,
then the new developer is required to put it in. I didn't here any mention of that, just seems to me like somebody should investigate who exactly is responsible for putting that fence
in, if so, they should do it. Another thing, we have 10 ft. setbacks in our Subdivision and , again, as Lee has mentioned, it creates an atmosphere of openness, that's one of the reasons
I moved into that Subdivision is I like to see space and, I believe that the setbacks they have in place for these Subdivision is 5 feet, so, in my mind, it creates-you've got smaller
lots, you've got shorter setbacks, it's just hard to maintain that openness. Now, I'm not asking that they do 10 foot setback for the whole thing, but it'd be nice if there was some
kind of blending process where our Subdivision blends into them, and then as they move forward they can do whatever they want. I know that the developer has to make money and I'm all
for that. Another issue that I wanted to bring up and I don't know if you guys can help with this or not, but, the homes actually in the back part or the Meridian Greens Subdivision,
they don't have (inaudible) irrigation water whatsoever, so we have to rely on normal city water to water our lawns, and so, one of the things we were hoping we could do was, since,
they are being forced to put (inaudible) irrigation water through there anyway, if there was any way whatsoever that we could hook up to their system. Now, I think it's only fair that
we should pay some amount of money in order to try to compensate them for that, but, it just seems odd to me that we have an ideal opportunity to at least get some homes on (inaudible)
irrigation water and, this will probably be the last chance we have to do that. I did talk to the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and they said that if the (inaudible) irrigation
remain private then we could work something out with the developer, if it got turned over to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District then they would not take it over if we did that. Just
seems strange to me-to me that's a very clean situation, it doesn't address everyone, it doesn't help everyone, but at least it helps the people who are up against the new Subdivision
that's going in. So, I guess in closing, I'd like to say, it would be nice if they could at least have lots as big as our smaller lots, I don't think we're raising the bar incredibly
high here and maybe with this lot removal and maybe with playing a little bit with the property (inaudible), they might be able to get there. Thank you very much.
Bird: Any questions of the gentleman?
Anderson: Mr. President. When you were talking about the setbacks were you talking about front yard setbacks or-
Martinez: Side clearances.
Bird: Any other questions?
Anderson: You are aware that the new plot plan that we have, there lot sizes are 12,648 ft., I mean that's 350 square feet shy of what you're asking. I think that's pretty close.
Martinez: All I would say in response to that is that we really didn't have any visibility of that until just now, so, it's hard to articulate an argument for something when no data
has (inaudible) time, and this was suppose to come before you 2 weeks ago anyway, so, why wasn't it brought then? It would have been part of the record at that time, it would have given
me an opportunity to review it, and make some comments on it at that time.
Bird: Any questions? Thank you very much.
Martinez: Thank you.
Bird: Anybody else from the public like to testify?
Ovart: My name is David Ovart, I live at 1019 East Dominica Meridian Greens and currently building a home on Whitehall that backs the Subdivision. Many of my concerns have been addressed
fortunately by the (inaudible), I appreciate that, taking the lot out would be a big improvement for those of us who back up that part of the neighborhood. I guess the only concerns
that I have left is the home size, 2100 square ft. is certainly more reasonable. According to the Ada County Records, the Recorder's office, the average size of the house on Whitehall
there is 3073 square feet, so there's still, if those houses were built to satisfy covenants, a 50% difference in home size, which is still somewhat concerning to me as far as (inaudible)
continuity through the neighborhood. It would be nice to see that addressed in some way, so that there's houses that are at least close to the same size in the area. The other thing
that I would like to-just a second that I think was mentioned before, is that our water pressure is sometimes pathetic in the neighborhood there, and I would like to see that addressed,
the pressurized irrigation, getting those houses on pressurized irrigation that it's near, may not do a lot, but it certainly would help a little bit, at least to get those houses form
pumping city water onto there lawns, which is currently happening, so if those things could happen, I think that would be helpful. Thank you.
Bird: Any questions? Having none, thank you very much. Anybody else like to testify? Seeing none, applicant, would you like to reply.
Bowcutt: The question came up about the island, the concrete island will channel that traffic and it will require that it slow down to make that turn, we also realign the way that stub
street intersected with our street so that it was not a direct dump into that culdesac. Concerning the roofing materials, Mr. Cavin did go on the record that they would do 40 year architectural
shingles, very high quality. The homes that you looked at in those pictures have those types of shingles. A lot of the buyers that Mr. Cavin deals with do not prefer shake shingles.
We don't have a climate that's conducive to that here, we have to many extremes, to cold in the winter and to hot in the summer and they don't last here. Many homes on my block, which
are only six, seven years old are already replacing their cedar shingles, so that's why Mr. Cavin has chosen that. Concerning the water pressure, we will have a pressurized irrigation
system, probably sourcing out of the Kennedy lateral. The Meridian Greens Development, for whatever reason does not have pressurized irrigation, but goes off domestic water. I did
call Donna Moore at Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and I talked to her about this, because the question did arise, could those lots hook up onto our main line that back up to us.
Donna Moore stated that the district has been in discussions with Meridian Greens for multiple years now, wanting them to do a LID to go in and retrofit this neighborhood for pressure
irrigation, and she says every time they start making progress, then, they have a new home owners association president elected and it's starts all over again, so they haven't made a
lot of progress. The district policy is, that, we cannot hook up platted lots unless, you hook up the entire Subdivision, and obviously that's not possible. I don't think it's Mr.
Cavin responsibility to go in and pay for something that Mr. Fuller should have done with Meridian Greens, such as fencing and pressure irrigation. On the depth of the lots, multiple
discussions took place about lot sizing and compatibility. The Planning and Zoning Commission made a good point, it doesn't have to be exactly the same square footage, just within that
range, and what they saw as the most important thing was that 100 ft. width, if we could match that width, we are a little bit shallower, we're 124, 126, it varies along there, I think
they're 130, 134, and it varies along there with there lots, but I feel we've done a really good job, we're not just doing you're standard, trying to do 80x100 lots, we're trying to
do (inaudible) and nice homes, and Mr. Cavin's indicated that these homes, because of the views are going to be very expensive, and, even though we're setting that 2100 square ft. minimum,
it's most likely these homes will far exceed that, just like there's have, because it's a wonderful area, good view. Side setbacks, we're asking for an R-4 Re-Zone, the R-4 zone has
5 ft. side yard setbacks. With the reduction of the lots, and widening most of these lot out to the high 90's to 100, most likely you're going to see quite a distance between those
homes, but, I would not want to impose a 10 ft. setback on these homes, that's not the zone that we're asking for. We've got ample room, it's going to feel just as open as Meridian
Greens, and if you look at that development there are lots in there further north that are a lot smaller than we are, they also back up to Sportsman's Point, so we feel that we're going
to be a wonderful neighbor and a benefit to the City of Meridian, and we hope that the Council feels that way too. We've done everything we can, we just-there's not a lot more than
we can give, if I was doing 3/12 units to the acre, ya, but not when we're doing 2.08. Thank You.
McCandless: Becky, didn't you say that that house that was in that triangle was occupied by the caretaker?
Bowcutt: Yes, ma'm.
McCandless: So, it's not empty.
Bowcutt: No, it's occupied, I went by there myself, I saw people living in it.
Bird: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, Becky. Council, any questions before we close the Public Hearing, so we aren't reopening it again.
Anderson: Question of staff: Gary, the water pressure issue, could you maybe address that?
Smith: Mr. President, Council Members, I don't have any specific information right at the moment, I'm going to have to find out. We have a booster station at Overland Road that boosts
the pressure to Meridian Greens, and I'm just not aware of any water pressure problems, so I'll just have to find out, and I'll also find out what the computer model says for this Subdivision,
because it should have been run on the Preliminary Plat basis to see what kind of pressure they will experience in there.
De Weerd: Mr. President. If you're computer model would have shown there was anything that was in-unacceptable levels, you would be bringing that up, correct?
Smith: It should have been in the staff report, yes ma'm.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a question for Shari, was there any resolution on the fence requirements on Meridian Greens, were they required to fence there back property line?
Stiles: The Meridian Greens Development was Preliminary Platted years ago, I don't know if it was 1990, maybe Mr. Bird would know, but, the Preliminary Plat was all done at one time,
the requirement for perimeter fencing is not an Ordinance requirement, it's in the comprehensive plan that was adopted at the end of '93, first part of '94, that's when that requirement
came in affect, it is not an Ordinance requirement, it has been made a condition of annexations, new annexations as they come in, but, I'd have to go back and look at the specific requirements
for that plat, but I don't believe that would have been a requirement at that time.
De Weerd: So, as far as the building, permits does that then require the new development coming in to fence that?
Stiles: The reason for the fencing requirement, is primarily to protect adjacent agricultural lands. It wasn't intended to provide a fence for adjoining neighbors, that was the primary
concern was all of the trash that was being blown onto adjacent agricultural properties and that's the reason for the perimeter fencing.
De Weerd: Okay, well, I guess I'm kind of confused, because, someone has to fence my back yard, and I don't want a fence back there that someone says, until they do that, they can't
get building permits, so, I guess that raises in my mind, is that a similar situation here or not, you know, all the neighbors have fences, but mine and so, they're telling me they have
to put a fence up before they can get a building permit, is that going to be the same in this development, and then, who puts that fence up?
Stiles: If the Council makes it a condition of approval for a perimeter fence, that they have to put fences adjacent to those properties on the north that don't have fences, that'll
be a requirement, we wouldn't-
De Weerd: Okay, so it's not a blanket thing?
Stiles: It wouldn't have to be a blanket thing.
Anderson: Shari, your comments on the elimination of the 20 ft. buffer to the west and also on the pathway, the elimination of the pathway, would you give us some comments on your feelings
on those?
Stiles: Because of the length of this, we would try and encourage somekind of pathway through there, if it truly is a safety issue, of course, we would not want to have them provide
that, but it gets to the point where, if this person wants to go back to this person, they've got a fence back there, they don't have a gate, this person, in order to go to this house
has to go all the way around, and that's the reason for breaking up those block lengths. It would be preferable to have some kind of a pathway through there, but, again, without looking
at how they might have to design that, if what Mrs. Bowcutt is talking about is true, and it would be a safety problem, we could support eliminating that. As far as the 20 ft. planning
strip requirement, if Mrs. Bowcutt would, because of her testimony, saying that they are in the process of reclaiming that and intend to develop that residentially, I could support,
if she will bring in a letter from that property owner stating that, that this is-that they are reclaiming that as no longer being used industrial as a gravel pit, and they are going
to do that residentially, I would support, not even requiring the Variance for this portion of it, however, this is already commercially zoned, it's already in active commercial use,
and I would not support eliminating the planning strip requirement adjacent to that use. That could also be something we could take care of in the future when this redevelops. I don't
think it's-since the house is clear over here, I don't think that it's imperative that that be provided at this time, so I don't know if Mrs. Bowcutt is willing to consider that, but,
since this is so much higher, it's really not going to be much use to them. If the people have a problem with this gravel pit and what it looks like, they can go in and put in their
own-they have a 15 ft. yard setback, I really don't see it's going to make-be of much use there, but adjacent to this, I do think that they are going to need that.
Bird: Any other questions?
De Weerd: I just have one more. Was there a traffic circle in that one intersection or did you just do kind of a (inaudible) out? In the intersection that goes into the Meridian Greens?
There wasn't a little concrete circle there or traffic circle, is there, or not, but it will exist?
Bird: Sir, let me ask you a question first, is this a reply to what our staff said or what the applicant, okay, just that.
Segmiller: I like to respond to the comment about there having no indication that there's a water pressure problem. I've lived in that Subdivision 31/2 years and have made many calls
to the water department with regard to the water pressure. I purchased a gauge to measure it, I'm a Mechanical Engineer, and I know how to measure water pressure. When that boost pump
is not operating we have 25 lbs. per square inch pressure. The most I have ever seen is 60 lbs., more frequently 50-55 is what we have to work with on our city water, and it's very
difficult, at times to get the yards watered, and I'm just concerned we get all these additional houses hooked up to the city water, what that's going to do. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you. Council, anymore questions?
De Weerd: Just one of the City Engineer. What are the acceptable water pressure levels?
Smith: 35 is the minimum at the street I wasn't aware of the pressure problems, I know that at times when the booster has been down for mechanical problems, there have been problems
with the pressure, but I don't get those calls, and the water department is suppose to address all of that, so-I just personally am not aware of it, other than at times when the booster
station's down. Now, I will find out, and make sure that, if there is a problem, we get it rectified.
De Weerd: Thanks, Gary.
Bird: Thank you, Gary. Council, anymore questions? If not, I would entertain a motion to close these three Public Hearings.
Anderson: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Discussion? Hearing none, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Council, what is your pleasure on Item No. 5, Request for Annexation and Zoning?
Anderson: Mr. President. I would make a motion that we approve the request for Annexation and Zoning of the 40.33 acres from R-T to R-4 for the proposed Timber View-Observation Point
Subdivision and instruct the City Attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: With the recommendations of the-
Anderson: Subject to recommendations of staff.
De Weerd: Mr. President. I just have a question of Councilman Anderson. On page 2, 1.1 that requires the minimum 20 ft. landscape buffer, do you want to add language to that if the
land to the west will be used for industrial or, is there any amendment that you want to do to this recommendation?
Anderson: I think that the comments that we heard by the applicant were appropriate. If this is, indeed, going to be reclaimed, the comments by staff, were that if she were to bring
in a letter stating that that was what the intent was, that that condition could be eliminated, but if such documentation could not be produced, then that would be left in there.
Bird: Mr. Anderson, I've got another question on one point to, right below there; a Development Agreement is not required? We had made a decision that all annexations were going to
have a Development Agreement. I guess-a question for staff more than it is for me, I don't know why that's in there, if that's what our policy-
Bird: That's what our policy has been, Development Agreement, we can cover a lot of ills that way with a Development Agreement. We can make sure things are done right.
Anderson: Do you want to respond to that Shari?
Stiles: Normally, in the request for Annexation and Zoning, if they're accompanied by plats, we don't have a problem with them not having a Development Agreement, simply due to the
fact that they have to meet the Ordinance Requirements, it may be justified in this case, just due to the fact they've made these representations of the bigger lots and the various things
they've represented as part of this application, may warrant a Development Agreement, because, the fact is, if they didn't have the Development Agreement, they could sell off this property
and somebody else could come in with 8,000 square foot lots. As long as they met the Ordinance, the R-4 zone, then that's all they would need to do.
Bird: Would you like some amendments to your motion now?
Anderson: I would like to amend the motion, then, to change recommendation 1.2 on page 2 to read that a Development Agreement would be required.
Bird: Do I hear a second?
McCandless: I'll second.
Bird: Discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mrs. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor, do you want to take over?
Corrie: Yes, thank you, Keith.
Bird: We're on Item 6.
Corrie: Have we opened the Public Hearing (inaudible)
Bird: The Public Hearing's all taken care of, we've just got to pass-
Corrie: Item No. 6 is a Public Hearing Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 91 building lots and 10 other lots on 40.33 acres for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41,
LLC. So, we have the Public Hearing already opened-staff-
Bird: It's closed, we're just voting on it. The Public Hearings are through and-I'm sorry, Mayor, I wasn't very clear.
Corrie: Thank you very much. Okay, then, I'll entertain a motion on the Preliminary Plat on Item No. 6.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question, and I believe this is just a clarification, I believe that that has changed to 91 lots to 84 lots, so I think that needs to be put in the deal.
Corrie: Is that correct, Shari, it was changed to 84 lots? Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for the City Attorney. When the applicant was stating the Items on the Findings or on the recommendation that she had some issues with, I couldn't
find all of them, so did you note a lot of those changes, or how do we go about going through our motion noting the required changes that are needed, to these recommendations? Unless
any of the other Council members were following that.
I don't see some of those conditions in here.
De Weerd: I couldn't either, so-Shari, did you follow on those, that the applicant noted some of the items?
Stiles: I don't have Planning and Zonings recommendations in my file.
Bird: Did they present those in writing, or was it just strictly verbal?
Stiles: You're suggested changes to these, did you just have them all verbally or did you actually write them down?
Bowcutt: Most of them were in my written comments, staffs comments.
Bird: What's the date on that, Becky?
Bowcutt: May 9, 2000.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, just a further point of clarification. Ms. Bowcutts letter was directed to a staff report, not to the specific Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations, so,
it might take some time to correlate. Some of the recommendations, of course, come right out of the staff comments, some of them are added by P&Z at the meeting and so, it's one of those
where you look at the substance, not the number so much.
Bowcutt: I have reviewed Planning and Zoning Commissions comments. I have highlighted on mine those conditions which I brought up as issues.
De Weerd: I guess, the questions I have are with 1.13, which refers the three original lots that were down on blocks 7 that are outside the service area. Since it's been re-platted,
does that comment need to be in there?
Stiles: On 1.13 you could end the sentence after Ten Mile Service area and take out the remainder of that sentence, where it says, however lots 2, 3, 4, block 7 are outside the service
area, and take out the following sentence, but the rest of it should stay.
De Weerd: So, keep the sewer manhole sentence in there, right? Take out the sentence in between the first and the third, so delete sentence two, correct?
Stiles: Delete the end of sentence one, and delete sentence two.
De Weerd: Then, on 1.18, which needs the Variance, does Council have enough instruction on that, so we don't have to try and reword that, and will they still need to apply for a Variance?
Stiles: There's a couple of those conditions that are run together there, it looks like, where it starts at 7, about midway through, you see there where it says 7 and the 20 ft. wide
minimum landscape buffer, that should be a new item, but on 1.18, it could, just a suggestion, a 20 ft. wide screen will be required along the west boundary along the Subdivision adjacent
to the existing gravel pit, unless a Variance is granted or the applicant provides evidence from the adjacent land owner that mining activities have stopped, and that residential development
is planned for that property. That 1.18 also doesn't address the, very clearly, the commercial property, south of the Kennedy lateral, and I believe they still need to have that 20
ft planning strip adjacent to that use.
De Weerd: So they'll need-okay-so, what she said, right, and then, 1.24 , I think, deals with your recommended pathway, I believe, is this the one that would deal with the block length
and the pathway requirement?
Stiles: That probably should be addressed as part of the Findings for the Variance on the block length.
De Weerd: Although, this recommends the pathway, if the grade is to much that it would cause a safety hazard. Do you want that put in there, inserted in there, somehow?
Stiles: If it would cause a safety hazard as determined by staff or by the applicant?
De Weerd: By staff. Is that appropriate, Mr. Attorney?
Nichols: Mrs. de Weerd, Mayor, Members of the Council, the question is whether you want a pathway in there, and if so, under what conditions. It would seem to me that one of your policies
that you have in place now, is to afford increased pedestrian pathways, and particular where this one block exceeds the 1000 ft., I think we're thinking about the one in the middle,
not necessarily the one at the bottom. Having said that, the question is, what's more important to you, the pathway or the possibility that somebody's going to (inaudible) off the pathway
on to the street in this residential Subdivision.
De Weerd: I guess, if you're asking me what my concern would be, is, that if we create a pathway, that it is safe.
Nichols: I think that's a matter for engineering, and , if it's an 8% grade, and that's existing ADA standard, and if there are these landings, and I presume there might be other features
that would be acceptable in a pathway that would still satisfy ADA with regard to dips, or something that would slow a bicyclist or a skateboarder or a rollerblader coming down the hill.
I would assume that some of those things could be done, although, maybe that would create a skateboard park where they don't want one, but-
De Weerd: So, the staff and the applicant can work that out?
Bird: I've got a concern with landings, if that's the grade coming down, if you're going to stop the steepness by landings. I don't know how ADA addresses landings. I have a real problem
with the pathway for safety for young kids, rollerblades, skateboarding, is a real popular item, I see some future chances of some children coming out in front of some car, even if it
was going 10 miles an hour, then (inaudible) the car they could be hurt pretty bad. I'd sooner see the person in lot 1 have to walk all the way around to lot 40, or drive around, what
they'd probably do.
Anderson: I agree with Keith, I think these items either they need to be deleted or need to send this back to staff and the applicant because, I don't think the City Council place is
the right format to start redrafting language that is in Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, and so, they either need to be deleted completely or we need to send this back to
staff and they work out the proper language.
Bird: I've got a question, I agree wholeheartedly with you, Ron. If we delete 1.24, that 1.24, in this application, then we're basically approving the 1000 ft. Variance, aren't we
Mr. Attorney?
Nichols: Mr. Bird, Mayor, Members of the Council, you could not take action, well, I would recommend against taking inconsistent action on the Variance application, if you, if you change-specificall
1.24 addresses pathways only. It simply indicates the pathway is a, if you will, a mitigation of the exceeding the 1000 ft-once you approve this Preliminary Plat with a walk that's
more than a 1000 ft. long, then essentially you need to be consistent in your Variance application treatment.
De Weerd: I guess, so what I'm hearing Councilman Anderson telling us, is to give this back to staff and say, clean up the language. Then, are you going to specifically tell them what
language you want, I mean, what issues you would like clarifications on?
Anderson: Well, I think those things have been spelled out, but, at this point, I think, myself, as well as other Council members are confused about what it is that we want to do, because,
again, we're setting in a meeting trying to edit, well, if you strike this, and you added this, and you did this, and you deleted that, I think we need to be looking at a clean-
*** End of Side 2 ***
Anderson: Clean up the language before we vote on them. I personally think leaving the 20 ft. buffer on that piece of property that's going to be undeveloped, that little triangle
piece, off to the west side of that, makes no sense to me.
There's nothing built there right now, and when somebody builds there, then they'd put in the landscaping; to me, to landscape that field on the left hand side, makes no sense.
De Weerd: And, I think staff recommended that that not be a requirement until that piece develops, or, I believe, that's what I recall.
Anderson: See, and that wasn't how I understand that, so, that's-
Bird: That is not how it's wrote up.
De Weerd: See, we're confused.
Stiles: These are the Planning and Zoning Commissions recommendations, that is how they are written up by the City Attorney's office, is based on recommendations from the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The staff can't take these, and change them, without knowing what you want. I mean, either take the recommendations or change them, but don't ask staff to go back
and change something, I mean, it's a recommendation. You're the body that makes the decision whether to accept those recommendations or change them.
De Weerd: I guess my question for the City Attorney would be, if we pointed out the issues that needed work on, is that sufficient enough to rule on these recommendations, and ask for
Findings?
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor, Members of the Council, the short answer to your question is yes. If you say, in the motion, delete 1.13, change 1.18 this way, change 1.24 this
way, then, I'd take notes of that and the Findings and Fact that come back to you have made those changes in them, so that we can specifically address those things that need to be changed
from the recommendations. That would be my preferred way of doing, instead of trying to discern what it is that you want from your comments. Mr. Mayor, may I make a suggestion? If
you've got it down to a few issues, what I suggest might be a way to do this, at least for tonight, and we can think about maybe a better way to do it next time, would be a specific
motion, would be a withdrawal of the current motion and a new motion to amend the recommendations or change the recommendations, either one at a time with regard-vote on 1.13, whether
to delete it, vote on 1.18 with regard to what you want to do about the 20 ft. strip, vote separately on 1.24 regarding the pathway, and then we've got specific direction as to what
the final thing that you vote on would be. In other words, if you-either that, or simply put it in a motion, you know, I move that we approve, with these specific changes on these things,
and I'm sorry if I can't be more clearer than that for you.
Anderson: What was the other one besides 1.24 and 1-
Nichols: My notes indicate 1.13, 1.18, 1.24.
De Weerd: And I would have 1.2, which has been taken care of, so it should be deleted, and 1.3 probably needs some clarification. I had another question on that one.
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor, Members of the Council, 1.2 when I would prepare the Findings and Facts, I would eliminate that, because this Preliminary Plat that we received,
which is dated whatever date's on it, would take care of that, so, we would take that out.
Bird: I've also got on 1.12, (inaudible) existing domestic wells or septic system (inaudible) project. So, what we're saying, is that little corner, if we were to leave that house
that's on it's well and septic tank, they're saying they have to remove the well and septic tank there, as I understand it, so, they have choice but to remove the house.
Anderson: You could leave the house, you just couldn't leave the well.
De Weerd: Well, you could make an exception to that piece of property.
Bird: I just want to bring that point up, I'm like Ron, I don't see any, you know, that little property down there-
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, another thing you could do on that, would be to declare that the house would be a (inaudible) use, it could not be expanded, altered, added
onto-there's two houses on there-are they both in a problem or-no. The one house that's on an existing house on the east side of this Subdivision would be required to hook into city
water and sewer.
Bird: Yes. Is that the Peterson Homestead? Well, how do we get out of this.
Nichols: We could take a recess. Again, this is one of the choices that you can make, you can say on 1.12 that the existing home that fronts on Victory Road, could be allowed to maintain
it's current septic system until sewer was available from the Black Cat trunk extension, but that water would need to be, in other words, domestic water supply would have to come from
city water. I'm taking that from Councilman Anderson's comment, because that's where the problem is, is the sewer's not available to that lot, but water should be available to that
lot.
Bird: Are they going to run a line under that with a (inaudible), are they going to run a line down to that little parcel of water? I don't think so, it's not in the Plat. So I would
think that we would have to leave the water and septic tank, the domestic well and the septic tank there for that one house, make it that that house is the only one that's allowed to
use it, no other thing can be hooked to that septic or well. (inaudible) Plat that line, that water line is not going to go
down through there, nor should it have to for one little piece of property. Let's get this over with.
De Weerd: We're trying.
Bird: You ready?
De Weerd: Sure.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if I may, in your discussion, not to drag this out, but if each of you would express your opinion on these specific points, before someone
makes a motion-well, wait a minute, I think we have a motion on the floor now.
De Weerd: No.
Bird: No, we don't.
Nichols: We don't have a motion, okay, excuse me. Time flies.
De Weerd: Seems like we should, but-
Nichols: If each one will express their opinion, then someone can craft a motion, I think, at that point.
De Weerd: Would you like me to attempt this? I will offer for point of discussion that we delete 1.2, that we use the City Attorneys language for 1.12, that we delete the second half
of sentence one, where it starts, however, lots 2 through 4, and the second sentence in 1.13, that we, in 1.18 we use Shari's comments to be added after adjacent to the existing gravel
pit. I didn't write all of them down, I just-with her comments, and then maybe starting at a 20 ft. wide minimum landscape buffer be a new item, and that we don't do anything to 1.24
until we discuss the Variance.
Bird: Do you want it eliminated or just leave it as it is?
De Weerd: Just leave it as it is, until the Variance is dealt with.
Bird: I agree, except on 1.2, I think that that should state that the existing well and septic system, shall be used only on the one house that is located on the south east-
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I just recommended we use the attorneys language, that big, long piece that he said. I didn't mean to embarrass you.
Bird: Okay, no problem then, make your motion.
Anderson: Just a couple comments, on 1.3, on the fencing part, to me, it seems like we should just remove that entirely and I do agree with comment, I mean, just because Meridian Greens
was not required to put that in, does not mean we automatically exempt everybody else, if our Ordinance is to put fences on those, I mean, it seems like they should put the fence up,
to me, and that would be, I guess, my thoughts on that one is to have the Observation Point-would be obligated, or I don't know if that's addressed somewhere else later in here about
them building a fence, and then 1.13 it seems like you could eliminate that whole thing, because, why do we need to describe what direction the sewer's going to come from, and if we're
going to take the last part of those sentences out of there-
De Weerd: I think those are just standard.
Anderson: Okay, that's just standard language, okay, I would agree with that one. And then 1.24 seems like we could eliminate that whole language from there (inaudible) we have not
voted on that Variance yet, if we remove the language here, we're not doing anything to affect the vote on that Variance, we're just taking the language out, saying that, we don't think
a pathway is feasible in this particular project.
Bird: I agree with you.
Corrie: So, Mr. Anderson, (inaudible) at 1.24 just eliminate that.
Anderson: Eliminate the whole thing.
Corrie: Any other comments (inaudible)
Bird: I do, on 1.3. I don't think our Ordinance-I think it's like Shari says, it recommends putting fences up where you've got open grounds. Between Meridian Greens and Observation
Point is not open grounds, you've got houses backing up against houses. I think that is something that the owners between the two properties can decide themselves, whether they want
to do it. Now, the west side, which is open, they might (inaudible) want to put that up on the east side.
De Weerd: That's addressed later on in here.
Bird: Well, 1.3 says period, around the whole thing, so you either leave it in or you take it out.
De Weerd: (inaudible) 1.20.
Bird: Well, how can you contradict yourself?
De Weerd: Well, that was an additional recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to be added to 1.20, so it was just addressing the north side. This one, only addresses
the requirement along the open area sides on the southeast and west property lines. So, 1.—
Bird: It don't say that.
De Weerd: Yes it does, in the second line. Okay, and 1.20.
Bird: Oh yes, east, west -- that's duplication.
De Weerd: This was put in there by Planning and Zoning to address the concerns of the neighbors on the north side, and that's the only thing that that addresses. 1.20 addresses the
other property lines.
Bird: (inaudible) contradict themselves. It says fence along the north property line (inaudible) is required only when fences do not currently exist.
Anderson: 1.3 contradicts 1.20.
Bird: That's what I'm saying. So, I think we just ought to scratch 1.3.
Anderson: I do too.
Bird: Let 1.20 take care of it. We need to talk to Bill.
Corrie: (inaudible) I think that's all we talked about.
Bird: Takes us longer to make a motion than our public-
De Weerd: Would of helped if the applicant would have gone by the sayings.
Corrie: (inaudible) Request for Preliminary Plat?
De Weerd: I think Shari has another comment.
Corrie: Okay, I'm sorry, Shari.
Stiles: I guess I'm still not real clear about the fencing. On that 1.20, is the applicant required to fence where there's not existing fences between Meridian Greens, or is that going
to be taken out?
De Weerd: No.
Anderson: We're going to leave 1.20, but 1.3 contradicts what 1.20 says, 1.3 says they're not obligated to build a fence, and then 1.20 says, they are.
Stiles: So, you are going to require them to put a fence next to Meridian Greens where they don't currently have a fence?
De Weerd: No.
Bird: No.
Stiles: That is still in there in 1.20.
Bird: You're right.
Stiles: If you don't want that, that entire second sentence, you should strike that.
Bird: That's right, on 1.20. Take the second sentence out.
Corrie: Shari, are there existing fences at Meridian Greens there?
Stiles: There are some, but not all the lots have been fenced, there's some open.
Corrie: So, this is required then, if they don't currently exist, they have to put them in?
Stiles: Right. I just wanted to be clear on what you're-
Bird: We're scratching that.
Anderson: There's roughly nine lots, how many of those are fenced? Roughly, half of them?
Stiles: Looks like there's a vinyl fence all along here.
Bird: I think the neighbors, if they want a fence between them, they can get together and put one in.
Anderson: Okay, let's move on.
De Weerd: I move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare the Findings and Facts and Conclusions of Law to approve the request for Preliminary Plat, approval of 84 building lots
and etc. on 40.33 acres for the proposed Timber View Subdivision/Observation Point by Victory 41, LLC, currently in an RT zone and proposed R-4 zone—with the following changes to the
Planning and Zoning recommendation. Delete 1.2 and 1.3. On 1.12 use the suggested language that the attorney offered. On 1.3 delete the last half of sentence 1 after the Ten Mile
Service area (in that sentence there, delete sentence 2 and sentence 3 and keep the last sentence with the sewer manholes). On 1.18, after the sentence that ends adjacent to the existing
gravel pit, add the suggested language by Shari Stiles and break out the last part of the paragraph where it begins a 20 ft. wide minimum landscape buffer as a new point. On 1.20, take
out the second sentence, delete that, and delete 1.24.
Anderson: I'll second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded for the request for Preliminary Plat with corrections as stated by Council. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay, Item No. 7. Request for variance of the 1000-foot block length for proposed for proposed Timber View Subdivision.
Bird: I move that we approve the variance of the 1000-foot block length for proposed Timber View Subdivision/Observation Point in the proposed R-4 zone-north of Victory Road and east
of Meridian Road and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: I move that we take a ten-minute recess.
Item 8. Public Hearing: VAR 00-011 Request for variance from required pressurized irrigation to permit utilization of domestic water for landscaping for Olson & Bush Subdivision No.
2 by R2 Development – north of Franklin Road and west of Eagle Road:
Corrie: Okay, we'll take until 9:40. Okay, we're back in business. Item No. 8 is a Public Hearing: Request for variance from required pressurized irrigation to permit utilization
of domestic water for landscaping for Olson & Busch Subdivision No. 2. At this time I'll open the Public Hearing, staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, would there be any objection to addressing Item 15 with this as that's the Final Plat?
Bird: That isn't a public hearing though, is it?
Stiles: No, it's not. The conditions of the Final Plat need to reflect the decision on the variance.
Bird: Variance, that's correct.
Stiles: I wouldn't mind moving it to the last, since I've got that (inaudible)
Corrie: Well, we have to --
Bird: We've already opened the public hearing.
Corrie: We've opened the Public Hearing, so, the thing is, the variance has to be approved before the Final Plat, so, go ahead Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, the Request for variance is for the pressurized irrigation and the applicant has indicated that since there will not be very much landscaping in this
development, they would like relief from that requirement and the fact that it's an industrial subdivision. Staff did not recommend the approval of the variance, due to the fact there
will be landscaping in the development, in particular, there is a requirement for trees to be planted along the southern boundary and that was a condition of the annexation. I don't
know how much they would end up having by the time this property develops, the new landscape ordinance should be in affect. That's all I have. I'm sure Mr. Miller has some comments
to make.
Corrie: Any questions for Shari right now. Okay, this is a Public Hearing and I invite the applicant first.
Miller: Brad Miller representing R2 Development, 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate your time this evening. Olson Busch No. 2 Subdivision
is similar in nature to Lane Industrial Park in Rail Side Subdivision which are very near that area. It's an industrial subdivision, traditionally in Industrial Subdivisions the landscaping
is much less intensive than it is in residential or commercial developments. We would ask that we receive the same consideration that Rail Side Subdivision and Lane Industrial Park
received. The City Council did not require them to put in pressurized irrigation, they waived that requirement, and I ask that the City Council also waive the requirement for us since
we'll have a minimal amount of landscaping. We will meet the requirements of the city landscaping ordinance, but it will by a minimal amount. Any questions?
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: How many trees are on that?
Miller: How many trees are on it now? None.
Corrie: Will be?
Miller: I have no idea. The requirement on the southern boundaries that we put in, what's the spaceage (sic), Shari? Twenty-five feet apart? Twenty-five feet apart and the requirements
that they grow between 20 & 40 feet, and the subdivision itself is only 10 lots, so, it's a very small subdivision. Thank you.
Corrie: Does anyone else in the public like to issue testimony on Item No. 8, request for variance?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I would like to understand the variances a little bit more, could Shari or the City Attorney explain, you know, I guess I understood variances due to a hardship,
can this be explained a little bit more in detail?
Corrie: Who's going to do it?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, variances are typically for a hardship, they are not to be financial in nature, it has to be because of unusual topography or those kinds of issues, or,
in the case of the pressurized irrigation, if they do not have water rights for the property, in those cases they can't provide a pressurized irrigation system. The Ordinance is also
very specific on what happens if they don't provide the pressurized irrigation, it gets pretty extensive, I mean, along with paying a fee for the lots, it also has language that, if
they put a well on line for the city, they could-that requirement could be waived. I don't know if Gary has any thoughts on whether pressurized irrigation should be required or not,
I don't know what the history has been with Rail Side Subdivision. As far as their water usage, I know that there are lots within there that they wish they did have pressurized irrigation,
but, I guess staffs contention is, if there's water available to the property, they should provide the pressurized irrigation. Did that answer anything?
Corrie: Is there water there available?
Stiles: There is an irrigation lateral that runs along the western boundary of the property, and then, the Evans drain is what runs along the northern portion of the property. I don't
know if there is any possibility of getting irrigation water from that source, but, certainly, this lateral that runs on this boundary, would have water available to the property.
De Weerd: Shari, when those two other industrial parks, Lane Industrial Park and Rail Side, was this an Ordinance at that time, and did they have to come in and get a variance for that?
Bird: Yes.
Stiles: They did.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I've got a couple of questions, one for Mr. Miller, if he'd like to come back up. What is the problem Brad with putting in a pressurized system?
Miller: Well, the main consideration is, it's a small subdivision, and we do not want to have an owners association, associated with the subdivision, that's one consideration. The
other consideration would be, that we just don't need it for the amount of landscaping that we are going to have. I mean, we will have some lawn in there, but it'll be mainly trees
and shrubs.
Bird: I don't believe Gary can do this, but the drain ditch along there, you can't take pressurized irrigation out of that, I don't believe the Bureau of Water or whatever the name
of it is, will allow that, on the north side.
Miller: In other subdivisions that we have, the Teare Avenue Subdivision, we have two meters on each of those properties, one for the irrigation, one for the domestic, and that's worked
out real well.
Bird: You actually put in a pressurized system, you just use off domestic water?
Miller: To the best of my knowledge, it is not a pressurized system.
Bird: It's just a sprinkle by hose.
Miller: Yes. Well, we have a sprinkler system there. It's not by hose, but there's two meters.
Bird: That's what I mean, but you are coming off of domestic water?
Miller: Correct.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Did you ask Gary a question?
Bird: I asked Gary a question, I don't believe they will allow us, you know she said we had a ditch on the north, but I think a drain ditch, they will not allow you to take water out
of, will they, to pressurize?
Smith: Councilman Bird, Mayor, and Council, I think it depends upon the water rights downstream and whether or not the water that's in the drain --
*** End of Side 3 ***
Smith: -- has rights to that water down stream. All of the waterways through the City of Meridian are considered drains by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. None of them are classified
as creeks by the district, the developers classify them as creeks for marketing purposes, but in Nampa Meridians eyes, they're all drains, and, for example, Five Mile drain that runs
past the Waste Water Plant, they take water out of that down stream, but they have water rights down stream too. I can't answer your question. I just don't know on the Evans what that
would be like. Nampa Meridian. I'm sure would be able to address that.
Cook: My name is Richard Cook. I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland, and also representing the client’s interest in this particular development. Regarding the water issue,
I have a transmittal here from the water department, which recommends a one-point connection from the domestic water to supply water to a pressurized irrigation system for this development
which is dated July 18, 2000, if that will help you in your decision.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other discussion? (inaudible) public, before we close it?
Anderson: Shari, the other two projects that they listed that said that they weren't required to have those in, did those go in prior to our ordinance being enacted, or-
Stiles: No.
Anderson: They were both after the fact?
Stiles: Yes.
Anderson: And, the reasoning is just basically because they're industrial, with very little landscaping, I mean, it seems like that ought to be, I guess, there should be an exemption,
I guess, when you start talking about square footage, or the number of plants or something, because, depending on the size of the development, whether it's industrial or not, at a certain
point, you're going to be using a considerable amount of irrigation water just for the landscaping.
Stiles: I would say that, my guess is, they were granted that variance is the composition of the Council at that time.
Anderson: Does our ordinance address anything about square footage of landscaping or anything, I mean, we ought to have some type of guideline that says, if it falls under these guidelines
then, it doesn't require a pressurized irrigation, I mean, it would seem to me.
Stiles: You're right, it does need to be re worked, the entire section that deals with that pressurized irrigation, because, (inaudible) what I mentioned about putting a well on line
for the city.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, Councilman Anderson, you're absolutely right, there's a significant difference between the amount of water that's required for sprinkling purposes
in a residential subdivision, and you could take Meridian Greens as a good example, I mean, those are 12-14,000 square foot lots that maybe have 5,000 square foot of surface, hard surface
area, and the remainder is landscaped. Very intensive demand on the water system, as compared to an industrial park, commercial subdivision, such as this, and others, that would have
relatively small amount of outside water use, so, it does need to be changed, our ordinance does need to be changed to address those two very distinct differences in water usage for
irrigation purposes. The other thing is that I'm finding with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, in terms of maintaining small individual systems, they want larger systems, like Nampa
has, where they maintain their own system, but, they want large pump stations, large (inaudible) systems, multiple development being served by that pump station, and, without an owners
association in a subdivision like this, it'd be very difficult to make something work like that. I don't know if that helps you any or not, I mean, the ordinance is the ordinance right
now, but like Shari said, that needs to be massaged.
Corrie: Any other questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on the Request for variance from required pressurized irrigation.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item No. 8, Request for variance from pressurized irrigation. All those in favor, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Further discussion of Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion then on the Request for Variance.
Bird: I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order for the variance in favor of Olson, Busch, Subdivision No.2 by R2 Development,
to be allowed to use permit utilization of the domestic water for landscaping.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the approval of the (inaudible) variance request. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Public Hearing: VAR 00-014 Request for a variance of the 30-foot front yard setback required in the L-O zone, proposing a 20-foot front yard setback by the City of Meridian
– West side of Ten Mile Road approximately ½ mile north of Cherry Lane:
Corrie: Item No. 9 has been removed, and we are on Item No. 10, is a Public Hearing: Request for variance of the 30-foot front yard setback required in the L-O zone, proposing a 20-foot
front yard setback by the City of Meridian-West side of Ten Mile Road approximately one-half mile north of Cherry Lane. At this time I'll open the public hearing on Item 10 and staff
report first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, the City of Meridian is the applicant on this application to allow the Fire Station to be built with less than the 30-foot required setback in this zone.
It's a little hard to tell from this site plan, but, this line here would be the 48-foot setback from the centerline that's going to be taken by ACHD when they redo this roadway to
a five-lane section. This is the 30-foot setback that's required in the zone, the only portion of the building that would encroach in that 30-foot setback, would be where this entrance
is, and they have a covered entry, so this is the only portion that would encroach into that setback. We did meet with the surrounding property owners, and none of them expressed any
concern regarding this issue of the plan, so, we would recommend approval.
Corrie: Okay, anything from the Council? I suppose we can here from the applicant, it is us. Is there any one else in the public that would like to issue testimony at this point?
That seemed easy. Okay, hearing none, any questions of Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 10, Request for variance by the City of Meridian. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor
of the motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion to -- a new variance.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve the Request for a variance for a 30-foot front yard setback that's required in a L-O zone, and approve the 20-foot front yard set
back requested by the City of Meridian for the property for the sub-station on Ten Mile and instruct the city attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: I heard a second down there, okay, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the variance motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. CUP 00-035 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the continued operation of a cornfield maze, The Maize, by Sam Johnson and The Maize, LLC currently in a C-G zone:
Corrie: Item No. 11 is a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the continued operation of a cornfield maze, The Maize, by Sam Johnson and The Maize, LLC currently in a C-G zone.
Discussion on the Conditional Use Permit, Council.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council, this is for the property that was previously annexed into the City of Meridian. At that time it was proposed as a power mall, due to the lengthy process
for approval, that project fell through and this is still being farmed, even though if is still C-G. The applicant had come before the city last year and got approval for operating
there, what they call the Maize, you may have seen it in the paper or the aerial views of it showing the cow last year, I don't know what there plan is this year, but --
De Weerd: Oh, I got lost in it.
Stiles: The Conditional Use Permit last year was for only one year, and what they're proposing now, is that this be a yearly approval, until such time as the property is redeveloped.
Staff would recommend approval with the conditions noted in your Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening? Yes, sir. Do you have any problems with the Findings, and what they're asking?
Johnson: No, I do not.
Corrie: Okay, is there anything else you'd like to say? Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't get your name.
Johnson: My name is Sam Johnson, 14135 West (inaudible), Boise.
Corrie: Thank you Sam. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay, thank you.
De Weerd: Can I have a map this year?
Corrie: It's a maze, you know, your suppose to know where you're going.
De Weerd: I make the mistake of following my kids.
Corrie: Okay, any further discussion on the Conditional Use Permit? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion for the request.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for the continued operation of cornfield maze, The Maize, by Sam Johnson, and to adopt staff comments
and Planning and Zoning recommendations to have the attorney draw up the appropriate papers.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made to approve the Request for Conditional Use Permit and to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in proper order, reflecting the
approval. Further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mrs. Clerk.
Roll-call: Bird, aye; deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. CUP 00-036 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a tri-plex apartment complex by Merlyn and Brandon
Schmeckpeper currently in an OT zone at 210/214 King Street – east of First Street and south of the railroad tracks:
Corrie: Item No. 12, Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a tri-plex apartment complex by Merlyn and Brandon Schmeckpeper currently in an OT zone at 210/214 King Street-east
of First Street and south of the railroad tracks. Staff, comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council, this is for a tri-plex on King Street between 2nd and 3rd, East 2nd and 3rd. At the Public Hearing for the Planning and Zoning Commission, they had made
a recommendation, initially, to require a variance for the setback requirements. This is an old town application, and the standards for old town are a little confusing to all of us,
because it says the setbacks would match the corresponding use. When, initially, we were talking about a 5-foot per story setback requirement, which is typically for residential subdivisions,
the density proposed for this lot would require an R-40 zone, which would not have side setback requirements, and so, staff did not feel that it was necessary to go through a separate
variance procedure for the setbacks. They have shown approximately 7-feet from the property line on both sides for their open area with sidewalks, these are some views, the elevations
that they have provided for the property. I believe ACHD had made some comments regarding paving of the alley, I don't know if they're still left in there, but, as you can see, with
three garages, they would definitely be accessing that alley. I had a call from Kristy Richardson of the Ada Count Highway District, and apparently the commission had backed off on
the paving requirement for the alley based on testimony that they would not be using the alley for-they wouldn't be required to have the alley if it's part of their parking. It would
be quite an expense and quite a length that would need to be paved as these are one-way alleys. I believe their initial requirement is that they would have to come all the way from
Third Street, to and through this property. This is a very dense use of the property, however, we do encourage higher density structures in the old town area. I guess the design of
it, it seems a little imposing, we've got another structure in old town that kind of takes your breath away when you drive past it, down by, I think it's on Ada Street, if you'd seen
that particular development. Staff would support approval of this with the recommendations of Planning and Zoning.
Corrie: Any questions at this point of staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Brian, if you'd like to --
Schmeckpeper: Brandon Schmeckpeper, 8810 Churchill, Boise. I really don't have any comment. We are going to pave the alley.
Shari: Oh, you are?
Schmeckpeper: Yes, and other than that, if it's approved, I don't have any complaints.
Bird: Recommendations and everything agreeable?
Schmeckpeper: Yes.
Corrie: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on the Request for a Conditional Use Permit.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit to construct a tri-plex apartment complex by Merlyn and Brandon Schmeckpeper currently in the OT zone at 210/214 King
Street-east of First Street and south of the railroad tracks and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision of Order.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in appropriate order, with the approval of the request for the Conditional Use Permit
on Item 12. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 13. CUP 00-037 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a proposed addition of 2,574 s.f. to the existing 4,715 s.f. telephone equipment building by US West Communications currently
in an OT zone – NE corner of Meridian Road and Idaho Street:
Corrie: Item No. 13, a request for Conditional Use Permit for a proposed addition of 2,574 s. f. to the existing 4,715 s. f. telephone equipment building by Us West Communications currently
in a OT zone at the northeast corner of Meridian Road and Idaho Street. Shari, comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for an expansion of the Us West Communications Building. It basically is across the street here surrounding the old town branch of the Meridian
Library. They're proposing this addition here would basically line up with the Meridian City Library. A recommendation was
made regarding the chain link fence, that they wanted a more decorative fence adjacent to this street here, and I have a note from Brad Hawkins Clark that Bob Smith, the architect, said
the chain link fence will be moved closer to Meridian Road and an iron decorative gate installed, and that would be, per item, 1.12 of the recommendation to City Council on page 4.
So, that would be a change to this plan, but, staff would recommend approval with the conditions stated in the recommendation to the City Council.
Corrie: Any questions, comments from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: The applicant here this evening? Since the applicant isn't here, I don't know, I suppose the-what are they-they're going to put the vinyl fence rather than the fence they're
asking?
Shari: A chain link fence and then they would put a metal gate, a decorative gate.
Corrie: All right, thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed addition of 2,574 s.f. to the existing 4,715 s.f. telephone equipment building by US West Communications
currently in the OT zone with the recommendations of 1.12 on page 4 to show that there will be a steel gate, a decorative steel gate installed and for the attorney to draw up the Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the Request of a Conditional Use Permit, Item No. 13 with the approval
and draw up the proper forms. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 14. CUP 00-038 Request for Conditional Use Permit by Dave Williams for proposed Meridian Academy of Gymnastics for a dance, karate and gymnastics studio currently in an I-L zone
– 1530 E. Commercial Avenue in the Railside Business Park:
Corrie: Okay, now 14, Request for Conditional Use Permit by Dave Williams for proposed Meridian Academy of Gymnastics for a dance, karate and gymnastics studio currently in an I-L zone-1530
East Commercial Avenue in the Railside Business Park. Staff, comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is an application for a gymnastics facility in an I-L zone. We don't have any designation for a gymnastics facility, but it fall most closely under
private schools definition which does require a Conditional Use Permit. This property is in the Rail Side Subdivision and , there was one notation made by Brad Hawkins Clark on the
recommendations to the City Council on this project. Commissioner Norton had requested additional signage stating child play area, or something similar, I'm not real sure that's necessary
here, but, it seems to be a good use for industrial area, it's worked well for Wings over in Boise and staff would recommend approval with the conditions noted by Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Applicant? I think he went home.
Williams: My name is Dave Williams, 4124 North West View Way, Boise, Idaho. Mayor Corrie, City Council members, I'm the owner of the subject property at 1530 East Commercial Avenue.
This building and project is 80% complete, landscaping is in, we're ready to finish the siding. The proposed tenant improvement has been constructed under my name because I kind of
liked the way this facility was going to lay out. This is going to be a wonderful facility. My neighbors to the north of me are Traditional Electric, and the neighbors wife can't wait
until this gymnastics goes in, we have several people who have indicated that they're thrilled that they're going to have a gymnastics karate facility that will be this close, rather
than have to go to the xyz, way down in Boise. What we have done, the southern portion of this building, where you see facing East Commercial Avenue with the two ingress, egresses that
south face of the building is all store front, there are no overhead doors, there will be no truck traffic in and out of that portion of the building. The back of the building, as you
can see, has the overhead doors, we have eliminated three of those overhead doors that will be the back area of the gymnastics. They will have one overhead door so that they can facilitate
bringing their equipment in and out. I've been told by the owners of the gymnastics who are with us this evening, Cindy Williams and Colleen Kelly that the exit to the north of the
building out toward the overhead doors will be for staff only, therefore, the children and, of course, the parents will egress through the south portion of the building where the store
front is, and, of course, not having the truck traffic, etc. The gymnastics will be 8,240 s. f., for a total of 18,720 s. f. in this building, they will be positioned approximately
in the center of the building. At the west end of the building there's
approximately 4500 s.f. that I have leased to Wood Craft and Trim. They're a custom cabinet shop, and then I have approximately 6,000 square feet yet to be leased at the east end of
the building. It appears, I'm going to have three tenants in this project. As far as parking is concerned, this was an issue that was brought up in specific comments by Planning and
Zoning, and it was stated, the applicant shall verify that parking is adequate. I have 50 parking spaces, and I have space at the very back of the building, particularly since I have
removed three overhead doors where I can have additional parking, and double my parking in the back area, but, even with the 50 parking spaces as has been constructed, the Wood, Craft
and Trim will have a maximum of six employees, two on site maximum at any given time as the other four come in early in the morning and leave with their product and go to their jobs.
The academy, the girls tell me, will have approximately six employees that would be on site at any given time, they might have a (inaudible) of eight employees, particularly when the
karate classes are being taught, but they have classes that will be primarily in the evening. Some classes during the day, of course, limited staff on hand during the day, more staff
of an evening, but at varying hours, depending on what classes are given, so with there six employees, six employees for Wood, Craft and Trim, I propose that the balance 6,000 square
feet would l be somewhere in the neighborhood of six employees as well, taking a total of 18 parking spaces out of 50, leaving me 32 parking spaces on site and quite adequate to meet
the ratio of 1-10 concerning the children. As for the comment made by Planning and Zoning concerning signage, I would not mind at all placing some signs in (inaudible) location, particularly
the ingress, egress off of Ralston at the north of the building where we would have some truck traffic, stating, caution, children present, something of that nature, if it's necessary.
I believe that the way this building has been plotted on this ground, that we won't have any problems in this area at all. The building is fire sprinklered completely, our sprinklers
in place as we speak. The (inaudible) walls are also rock(inaudible), which is a fire retardant as well, and these children will be well protected.
Corrie: Okay, anything else?
Williams: No.
Corrie: Council, questions?
Bird: Mr. Williams, I take it-you said they're taking 4500 s. f. out of the center?
Williams: They're taking 8,240.
Bird: How many of those-the two center entries going to be there's, or just one? On the south wall, that entry and that entry.?
Williams: Those two entries and then the very next one to the left. One entry will be eliminated.
Bird: How many entries is going to be into that place?
Williams: These two (inaudible). A total of three entries, store front entries, to the front.
Bird: Six 0 doors or three 0 doors?
Williams: Three 0's.
Bird: Is that enough for your occupancy load?
Williams: And three additional exit doors, mandoors to the rear and including a 12x14 overhead door.
Bird: So, they're going to be wide open in there, so that exits can be-you can get from the front to the back with no hang ups or anything.
Williams: Mr. Bird, we also have out of there office reception area, we have two additional doors that go directly into the gymnastics area for rapid exit out the back.
Bird: I know in some gymnastic things you can have lots of kids at the meets and stuff, and the overhead door does not work as a life safety exit, unless it's automated that-
Williams: We've strategically located three exit doors, mandoors out the back of the building, and then we do have the three at the front, strategically located such, that they are
available to every room.
Bird: Okay, no problem. Nice addition.
Corrie: Okay, any questions? I'll entertain a motion for the Request for Conditional Use Permit by Dave Williams.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we instruct the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order, to approve the Request for Conditional
Use Permit by Dave Williams for proposed Meridian Academy of Gymnastics for a dance, karate and gymnastics studio currently in an I-L zone.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the Request for Conditional Use Permit by Dave Williams for Meridian Academy Gymnastics, the attorney to
draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order, stating of the Council's approval. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess, I just wanted to take the opportunity, I appreciate the fact that you guys are putting in a facility for the kids and I think that's something that Meridian
needs, but I'd just kind of like to be on record that, I do have some safety concerns about putting that type of facility in in an industrial type of setting and with Woodworking on
one side, and we don't know what's going on the other side, and the fact that there could be truck traffic coming in and out of those doors, in the case of emergencies, you've got them
exiting, you know, those are part of your exit ways and they're not always going to exit in orderly fashions, and I think you're going to have a hard time placing and keeping the kids
solely in the front of that building, so I just personally think that , I mean, it would be great if that entire building was rented out for the gymnastics facility and karate, but,
I have some real reservations in just safety concerns for the kids about a mixed setting.
Bird: To add to that, I agree with Ron, but I also know where the Bronco thing is-traffic is twice as (inaudible). I really question, but this should be taken care of by our building
inspector. I question the life safety code exit square footage for the amount of kids that could be in there for the square foot, but I think that will be taken care of in the building
process. I've got that concern of-because you can't use an overhead door as a life safety exit. I can't believe that they don't pairs of six foot doors in the front, but I'm happy
to see the addition come in here.
Corrie: Maybe, if you get enough kids, you can have the whole building. Any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY
Item 15. FP 00-013 Request for final plat approval of 10 building lots and 1 other lot on 14.39 acres for Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 2 by Ronald VanAuker – north of Franklin Road
and west of Eagle Road:
Corrie: Three ayes, one no, for the record and attorney will draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Item No. 15 is a Request for final plat approval of 10 building lots
and 1 other lot on 14.39 acres for Olson & Busch Subdivision No. 2 by Ronald VanAuker. Mr. Attorney, we can go ahead and approve that and then have the approval on the Findings of Facts
from Item No. 8 at the next meeting and then also the approval of the final plat at that point, is that correct?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if I understand the question correctly, Item No. 8 was already taken care of, and we'll prepare those and have them available for the next
meeting, and the final plat doesn't require Findings of
Fact, but, the appropriate documentation, if you approve it will be ready at the same time.
Corrie: I must admit I stated the question kind of awkwardly. Staff, comment on the final plat.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a 10 lot industrial subdivision to be known as Olson & Busch Subdivision No. 2. Hopefully you do have our comments. I didn't get them in
my packet, but, we have some comments that were dated July 27,2000.
Bird: What date?
Stiles: July 27th.
Bird: Twenty-seventh. We've got them, yes, okay.
Stiles: This annexation was subject to a Development Agreement. Staff recommends that that Development Agreement be in place, if not prior to final plat approval, at least prior to
signature on the final plat. We did meet with the applicant late today. I appreciate the fact that he came over and was able to go over these items with us . It seems there are not
very many issues remaining, and one of them may be a little more cleared up, now that the pressurized irrigation is not required and there will not be a business owners association associated
with this plat. As part of the annexation, one of the requirements and for the Preliminary Plat was that all sewer and water lines be located in a common lot. The applicant has shown
a common lot or a separate lot that would have both the city sewer line and Ada County Highway District storm drainage line in it, and that is why it was increased, we asked that it
be increased to the 25.5 feet, so that it all be included in a single lot. They had shown it on their plat here as having a common lot with some additional easements on either side,
and that can create problems when you're talking about fencing and actual uses of that property. Bruce Freckleton and I struggled a lot about this common lot. Our initial comment was
that we wanted that to be a common lot that was totally fenced off and unusable by any of the development . The applicants made a pretty convincing case that they can word the easement
language, and that some kind of a deed restriction, so that, if it goes with this property here, they'll be fully aware that the city needs 24 hr. a day, seven day a week access to that
lot, so that they couldn't be building fences through it, gates through it, storing materials. It would be a good place for parking, as long as the vehicles were able to be moved and
the city could get access to that. The applicant is going to pipe the Evans drain through here, that's a lot of usable property once that is done, that's about a 60-foot easement there,
and they have indicated they will be doing that. On Item No. 6 of our general comments, about providing 5-foot wide sidewalks, the applicant is requesting that no sidewalk be required
on the east side of Olson Street. This is-(inaudible) Machine is currently there, and they did not want to
provide that sidewalk on that side. Staff would support that. Our Ordinance does require sidewalks on both sides of the street, except in cases where the lots exceed 100 feet, and
then the Council may waive it on one side of the street. On site specific, Item No. 3, we had asked for a letter of credit or cash for tiling of those ditches prior to signature on
the final plat, the applicant had objected to that, and stated that that would be done-that we could tie that to the building permits, and staff has no problem with striking that letter
of credit or cash requirement, as the incentive to get it done. Prior to applying for building permits is adequate, to insure that it is done. On Item No. 6, note one, that we would
ask that they also provide a utility easement (inaudible) around the subdivision boundary, this is a typical comment on plats. The applicant intends to provide all the utilities through
a joint trench along east Lanark, and they would not need the perimeter utilities easement, and we have agreed that that would not be required. Item No. 10 is where we had asked that
the Business Owners Association be responsible for this lot. We wouldn't want that item stricken in it's entirety, we would like it if it can be, maintained by the owner of lot 10,
block 2, with specific language regarding the restrictions on the use of that property, be included both on that note and within the deed-upon sale of the property. It will still be
covered by a blanket easement for the City of Meridian and Ada Count Highway District storm drain, and no fences, structures or trees would be allowed within the easement, and they need
to indicate that that 24 hr., seven day a week access needs to be provided to those manholes, and for that same reason, the applicant objected to site specific comment no. 7, and again,
if the applicant can work out appropriate language with the Public Works Department, we have no problem with that being maintained by the owner of lot 10, but we would like it to be
a separate lot or a very definite easement, (inaudible) easement, and that they take in that full 251/2 feet. Item No. 13, we'd had a statement about the Union Pacific Railroad corridor
and having that designation as a multiple use pathway in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. We would like to see some kind of landscaping adjacent to that, even though Mr. Miller doesn't
think it will be a pathway in anyone's life time. The new landscaping Ordinance will also require landscaping on that boundary. He didn't really object to it so much, except, we went
to not acceptable toward that comment to acceptable providing landscaping required is consistent with City Ordinance in effect of the time of the building permit. That was acceptable
to us, as well. Item 14, we have asked for fencing of that Railroad right-of-away and no encroachment of the right-of –way, so it's not being used, and they have agreed to that provided
that the chain link fence is considered acceptable for the non-combustible fence and we're not going to require rod iron. We do need to have the Development Agreement done, this was
annexed back in 1996, it's going to take you some research, but, there were some kind of odd things related to this subdivision. The neighbors, the residential neighbors to the north
along Franklin Road, some of them were understandably upset about the condition of some of the existing developments in there and what
*** End of Side 4 ***
Stiles: The Development Agreement has been lifted. That item has been dealt with, and I believe that addresses all the concerns that we had.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have a question Shari. This is kind of off the subject, but yet it isn’t. Why all the sudden we’ve got to have the Development Agreement here but back on the Observation Point
we didn’t have to have a Development Agreement. Now tell me why the difference is? Either one of them could be sold as whole. Observation Point would probably be quicker to sell that
an industrial area. Why are we – why is the difference here? Is just for my own question knowledge.
Stiles: Well, I agree with having the Development Agreement now for Meridian Greens because you have placed conditions on that over and above what our ordinance requires as far as you
know the size of the homes, the size of the lots, and all of those things. If you are requiring something over and beyond what the ordinance requires you need to do it through a Development
Agreement. Same as in this case. The annexation and zoning they have very specific requirements about screening the yard and for this tree requirement along the southern boundary.
Had you not required the Development Agreement you can’t make that requirement. So it’s only when you were asking for something – if they can’t just go in there and comply with City
Ordinance and don’t have to do anything and over and above what City Ordinance requires then you wouldn’t need a Development Agreement. I guess we didn’t ask for it to be required in
Meridian Greens because as far as I am concerned if you approved an R4 subdivision they could go in there with R-4 lots as long as they meet all the conditions and that would include
the planning strip requirement the variance for the block length. Those are all ordinances that when you are talking about a residential subdivision you pretty much control that through
the platting process to make sure they comply with the ordinances.
Bird: But the Development Agreement also helps if they are sold off, doesn’t it? Isn’t that? Isn’t that another somebody if a Developer was to get in through and then sell it off
to somebody else that ensures that that person is going to develop it according to the Development Agreement?
Stiles: Right, but if you didn’t have the Development Agreement anybody could go in and go back and just plat it however you want it.
Bird: That is what the Development Agreement is for.
Stiles: Like as far as Opal Farrington, too. If you have conditions that’s the only time we ask for them.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay, Applicant.
Miller: Brad Miller representing R2 Development; 3084 E. Lanark, Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, I would like to thank you for your time this evening also I
would like to thank Staff for their cooperation in working with this from Shelby who provided me with City Ordinances over the fax to Gary’s assistant Bruce to -- he probably wouldn’t
like being called you assistant to Shari. I appreciate their help in this. We’ve been able to navigate our way through most of the issues and Shari touched on those. The only real
issues are that sidewalk on that east side of Olsen Avenue they have their parking and chain link fence there and it really won’t serve any purpose to have the side walk there. Tile
the ditch, we discussed that and we didn’t want to do the letters of credit or cash on that the Perimeter Utility Easement that would not be necessary. The largest issue I think and
I know it’s been a concern with Gary Smith over a number of years is how does he preserve the integrity of his sewer easements and provide access to the manholes. There is only one
manhole that is in that area and that’s just south of that Evan Drain. The other manhole is in the middle of East Lanark. I would like to work with Gary and Bruce in coming up with
some sort of either strengthened easement language, or deed restriction along with a note on the plat restricting parking or use of the area right around the manhole. One of the other
ideas also was to put pipe bollards around the manhole say 10 foot by 10 foot square so that we can keep that area preserved in the unlikely even that they need to get there pumper truck
in there, whatever it’s called, they can have access to. So we’re in full agreement with providing that the reason we didn’t like the separate lots fenced in on both sides idea was
it takes the land out of production it doesn’t allow anyone to use it, it’s going to become a weed patch. I’d rather combine it with lot No. 10 and have them take responsibility for
it. The easements already in place to the City of Meridian we just need to provide access to that man hole is what we need to do, but we are willing to work with Gary in any way that
we can in doing that and also if we do sell the lot and I would say there’s probably a 50-50 chance that we will sell some of those lots Mr. VanAuker’s mode of operation is to build
and hold but if we do sell those lots it will be a full disclosure item up front that you cannot use that 10 foot by 10 foot area and this is an easement area you have to provide access
to the City 24 hours a day seven days a week. Thank you.
Corrie: Gary is that proposal meet with you approval?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, I don’t know the legality of a Deed Restriction but as long as we had that in place if it was a permanent fully recognizable up front requirement
on the sale of a lot that a purchaser would have no problem with seeing it and accepting it, understanding it then I guess I wouldn’t have a problem with that. I guess I haven’t worked
with it before, it has been discussed but we have never accepted or a final proposal has not been made for that type of restriction. As you know our main concern is getting access to
the sewer line anytime we need to access it and this particular sewer would be draining some of Mr. VanAuker’s property of the east side of Eagle Road so we want to be sure we have access
to it in case there is a problem. Particularly at the man holes but secondarily we’d want to be able to get to the sewer line if we had to. Expose it, dig it up for any reason. So
I guess I don’t have a direct answer for you Mayor, but I think that we can probably work something out. I agree with Brad’s concern about having an alley way there it’s been a concern
in a couple other instances where it’s been fenced on both sides and it just becomes a place for weeds to blow and debris to gather and so forth, it’s a maintenance issue.
Corrie: Okay, thank you. Council, motions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: All right you have heard the Staff and the comments from Mr. Miller. I’m you ready for the motion to entertain (inaudible).
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Final Plat approval of ten building lots and one other of 14.39 acres at Olsen Subdivision, Olsen Bush Subdivision #2 by Ryan VanAuker, North of Franklin
Road and West of Eagle Road with as Shari and Brad have stated on the general comments. No. 6 would be acceptable to the Staff as stated on the July 31, 2000, letter from Mr. Brad Miller
of VanAuker. Site specifics No. 3 is acceptable to the Staff as written by Mr. Miller. No. 6 is to be worked out with a Deed of Trust between Gary and the Attorney to get it in there
that we have access to the manhole and that takes care of No. 7. No. 13 is acceptable as long as it’s consistent with City Ordinance in effect in time of building permit. No. 14 is
provided with chain link, which is acceptable which Staff said was. No. 16 we took care of at an earlier deal and for the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law, Decision Order and Development Agreement.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the request for Final Plat with Staff comments and comments made by Mr. Bird on the ordinance – excuse me on the request and have the
Attorney to draw up the proper order in reference to the Final Plat. It’s a little different. I don’t think there are any finding of fact on this one –
Bird: No there won’t be. I’m sorry.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. Department Reports:
A. City Council President – Keith Bird:
Discussion of Monthly Expenditures and Revenue Report by outside auditors
Corrie: Okay we are at department reports. City Council, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Well Mr. Mayor I’d requested that that last deal and I don’t know if you and Janice have had a chance to get together regarding the month – looking into having our P&L’s or Monthly
Expenditures and Revenue report by outside auditors, if you’ve got an idea of cost yet or not.
Corrie: We don’t, but she’s just about to finish it up though.
Bird: So we should have about 15? Okay, we also I have an item to that we added to Mayor under this is the Masonic Temple lot which personally it believe is a fine asset to the City.
I appreciate them letting us have lease on that lot now they have requested that we pay all the maintenance seeing how they use it little or nothing which I think if I remember right
we were talking maybe 4,000 dollars a year; 4,500 dollars of something? And they would like to know if we would be interested in that. I think that it would be a shame to the citizens
to downtown Meridian if we did not keep that lot and kept the maintenance on it and I would like to defer to Mr. Nichols I think he’s got something to say about it.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Member of the Council, the existing lease that the City had on this property is expired and the Masonic Lodge has asked that we resolve this issue. I know
that Mr. Berg, Will Berg was pretty interested in getting this thing moving so we can get something done on it. What I am looking
for is direction from the Council the old agreement is they pay half the maintenance and the City pays half. It’s my understanding that they don’t have too many lodge members they use
it once a month and one evening and so it’s used as a public parking lot during the day for employee parking to elevate some of the parking problems in downtown you can make a policy
decision if you wish to basically provide this public parking for the cost of maintaining that lot.
Corrie: Do we know what the cost is? That was my question this afternoon.
Ugarriza: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I wasn’t able to find that figure today as we kept missing phone calls. I’m sorry.
Corrie: So we’re in the ballpark of 4,500 dollars, the total?
Ugarriza: I’m sorry, but I don’t know.
Bird: Mr. Mayor when we discussed that last two weeks ago the $4,000 – $4,500, and Gary maybe can help us, but I think we’ve been paying about $2,000 or something, I don’t know. It’s
going to depend on – it might cost us $4,000 the fist year or $4,500 to get it up. There’s quite a bit of work I understand that needs to be done over there, but after that it probably
won’t cost us that. I think that even if it cost us $5,000 dollars that’s a pretty cheap parking lot for the citizen for downtown and we know that downtown Meridian needs some parking.
I think this is one way we can help downtown and help our taxpayers.
Corrie: I agree. I just wanted Council to kind of have a ballpark figure here.
Bird: That sticks in my mind that Will had said something when he was discussing that two weeks ago, but I – $4,000 or $4,500 is what I was thinking. I could be way off base, which
won’t be the first time.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Nichols we just need a motion.
Nichols: I would prefer Mr. Mayor and members of the Council if you want to renew this lease with the City taking on the maintenance as you so direct me to prepare that document or
renegotiate that deal with the Masonic Lodge and then we present it back to the Council for the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With that I would move that we then instruct the Attorney to then draw up the appropriate contract showing that the City is will to negotiate the complete control – or the up
keep on that and to come up with a contract for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Is there further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
City Engineer – Gary Smith:
Item 1. Request from Chris Williams to enter into a Latecomer Agreement for a sewer line extended to serve Lansbury Lane Subdivision
Corrie: City Engineer Keith Smith.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our first item is a request for Developer Chris Williams who developed the Lansbury Land Subdivision for the City Council – or the City of Meridian to
enter into a Latecomers Agreement with him to reimburse him for a share of the offsite sewer construction cost that he installed in 1993 to serve his subdivision it is also able to serve
land adjacent to his subdivision and with the platting of Salisbury Lane Subdivision it prompted him to come and talk and lodge this letter with you for your approval to enter into a
Latecomers Agreement. We have six, I think, building permits in hand the Building Department ready to release them for Salisbury Lane subject to finalizing latecomer fee for his request
and if you allow this to take place then we would have the numbers available tomorrow to assess the building permits for Salisbury. The preliminary numbers indicate that the latecomer
fee will be somewhere around 200 dollars a lot to repay a portion of the offsite sewer construction that he incurred in 1993. I can’t tell you – if you are going to ask me why he waited
this long, I have no idea. I’m sorry.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Now Gary maybe I should be asking Bill now we’ve got this latecomer fee we’ve got the new one in place so that they’re going to be collected and paid back to this guy at a normal
pace and we’re not going to come ten years later and pay interest and everything like that?
Smith: This particular one will happen real quick because there’s only two service – there’s only two pieces of property that will be served by his offsite one is being developed right
at this moment, Salisbury and the other one is a long narrow pieces just on the south side of Lansbury which will go quickly also.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we enter into a Latecomers Agreement for sewer line extended to service Lansbury Lane Subdivision with Chris Williams and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: A motion is made an seconded to approve the Latecomers Agreement with Chris Williams on the Engineers request. All those in favor say aye. Oppose no.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
2. 1000 Springs Subdivision – License Agreement with NMID
Smith: Thank you, Mayor and Council. Second item I have is a request to approve a License Agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for some fencing that will be installed
by the Thousand Springs Subdivision Developer around the bridge crossing of the Ridenbaugh Canal. It’s a safety issue between the two subdivisions to keep foot traffic out of the canal
maintenance road. The reason we are involved in it is because the property upon which the fence is to be constructed is owned by the City of Meridian. On one side of the road is one
piece of property that is dedicated to us by the Developer for a future park site. I don’t know if you recall that or not. It’s kind of a four corners deal. This is one piece of that
on the other side we have a piece of property that was dedicated to us by the Developer for a pressure buster station for a water station and that’s our involvement here. I think the
Bill Nichols has reviewed that agreement and I don’t know if he has any comment concerning it or not.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I didn’t have any problems with that proposed License Agreement in that instance because it was such a very narrow issue and it simply involved a fence. It shouldn’t
be any problem.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the License Agreement.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we authorize the Mayor to sign, the Clerk to attest for the License Agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District Thousand Springs Subdivision.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the License Agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. Any further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor of the motion say
aye. Oppose no.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Attorney you had on the first request you had a look of –
Nichols: Well thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, typically a Latecomers Agreement has a ten year duration and where this request is coming in this is a late Latecomers Agreement.
I’m wondering Gary, we need to worry about the duration of this thing? If we can use the standard ten year deal or just make it the three years since that’s what it would have been
anyway, or does it make any difference on this one?
Smith: Mr. Nichols, Mayor and Council, I think probably just put a ten year time on it from now even though the construction occurred in 1993. He’s just requesting it now so that will
be more than adequate to cover the development of those two parcels. Also we did figure 100 percent development in the service area rather than our standard 50 percent over that ten
year period because it’s such a limited area and we know it’s going to develop.
C. Planning & Zoning – Shari Stiles:
Request for Private Road for Building East of R. C. Willey by Ronald VanAuker:
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: Unfortunately, I don’t have an overhead for this, but this was precipitated by the Applicant’s Architect coming in and telling us that ACHD had just approved another public
street. I don’t know why this has been such an issue in the last six months with the Ada County Highway District but it’s really getting to be a problem. So as our ordinance defines
a lot as having frontage on a public street or an approved private street. I asked Mr. Miller to submit this so it could go through some kind of a process since we don’t have one at
this time. We would like to actually have a formal process were they’d have to submit and pay 10,000 dollars or whatever to get it approved. They are eligible for a building
permit. This is another piece of property that requires a Development Agreement but they are eligible for the building permit on the property that is just immediately east of RC Willey’s.
When RC Willey’s came in the site plan was approved. They were approved with what we thought at that time would be private streets since they subdivided it. They since then dedicated
those streets as public streets. Mr. Miller is very aware of the requirement to go ahead and plat this property, hopefully sooner than later. This is all one piece of property there
on Franklin Road and they’re proposing a private road that would be in the alignment with Lanark and proposing a private street at this time it would be a dead that would also exceed
or street length requirements for Dead End streets. Mr. Miller is just doing what we’d ask so at least we go through some kind of process and I would like to get on record that when
we go with Ada County Highway District to quit approving streets in our city without approval. Even State Code requires them to have City Council approval. If they did this they could
go ahead and do a one time split if the private road’s approved they would then have frontage on the approved on the private street they would then also be eligible for another building
permit on the other piece of property unless this is split when they come into Planning and Zoning Commission for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance we would expect the requirements
on the entire piece of property be met. That would include the sidewalks that would include the 20 foot buffer that was required adjacent to the residential property when they came
in for the annexation, tiling of the entire ditch all those issues that we need to deal with but I am assured that they will come in shortly hopefully and not another six to eight years
or whatever it’s taken so far but hopefully they can work with RC Willey’s. They are proposing to tile the drain back there. We do have RC Willey’s bond whether it’s expired or not
I don’t know about the tiling of the rest of the ditch but that’s the whole purpose for this is for Council formally either approve or not approve a private street there so that they
can jump through all our hoops -- temporary private street.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Back on the ditch – I think that ditch is the one that we got from the Bureau of Land that they did not want that thing tiled. That is the one that’s the drain that runs to –
am I not right Gary? That’s the drain that runs through there and they did not want that tiled? They wanted – they were afraid we were losing aquifer?
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor and Council, as I remember the drain the discussion on tiling that drain centered around it remaining as drain if it was tiled and so that it would have
to be tiled either with a perforated pipe or a pipe with open joints, but it had to continue to function as a drain. It couldn’t be solid piped and that’s just from my memory and it’s
not real good anymore but that’s what I remember.
Bird: I agree with you there and we at that point I think the Council had decided that we’d just leave it open and forget about it because it would be a real headache to get the perforated
pipe and stuff in there. So I don’t know why we’ve let other places go on back there without bonds or anything else, I don’t know.
Corrie: They were also concerned about that undergoing underneath Eagle Road. If they get it piped big enough (inaudible)
Nichols: Yes, there was a quite a question on the diameter of the pipe that was required. Somebody was saying whether it was the district or someone else that the required pipe was
a lot smaller than the pipe crossing under Eagle Road so there was a real question mark on that issue. Shari was just saying that she thought Mr. VanAuker wanted to tile that to pick
up that drowns for use.
Miller: Brad Miller, we have approval for Nampa-Meridian to tile the ditch from you know where our offices are on East Lanark behind the lots we own there we have a License Agreement
with them now to tile that. I believe that it is designed at 60 inches in diameter. Does that sound right Gary? Dave Rolland (sic) designed that it’s all approved and I can get that
documentation and the design for you if that helps you, but we’re thinking we would like to tile that behind the new proposed 72,000 square foot building there on the East of RC Willey’s.
I mean it gives us land to work with. Now there’s 60 feet dedicated to –
Bird: There was some government agency that Charlie Rountree when he was on the Council had -- or him or Glen. Barrel Reclamation that – boy they were pretty adamant that you like
Gary said you’re going to put perforated pipe in there and they didn’t know what size it was and because they didn’t want to lose the drainage part plus the aquifers.
Miller: Well we’re working with John Anderson and have extensively over the past five years on that issue and he seems to be up to speed on it and I ‘d rather not ask the Barrel Reclamation
any questions if John’s going along with it.
Bird: We were told – I understand Brad that Nampa Meridian didn’t have complete control over that it was something to do with Federal, the Bureau.
Miller: I am not asking the City Council to enter into this conspiracy with me, but-
Bird: We’re staying out of it.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Miller. I appreciate it. Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari what’s your say? What do you want us to do? Approve this building? Is that what you’re after?
Stiles: The building is not the issue we’re not approving any site plans just the private road.
Bird: Just to approve the private road? That’s the one that goes from Guardian onto in front of the building? Is that what you’re considering a private road? Cause the other one’s
already been deeded. Guardian or whatever’s the name of that – That’s already been deeded and everything.
Stiles: Well they’ll still need to come back in the future to plat that because they deeded that without any City approval too but that’s RC Willey’s. This would be just the section
that’s coming off that RC Willey’s road.
Bird: That’s what I am saying the one that comes off the new part that comes from Gad road down to the other one. This one right here. I move that we approve that private road called
Lanark private and allow the building to go forward.
De Weerd: I would second that, if we’re just talking about a road.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the private road as mentioned. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Oppose no.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I would like to call an executive session under State Code 672345(a) Personnel and for the Attorney to come in with us.
Corrie: The motion has been made. Any second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: We’ll join to an executive session. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: We’re all here. I entertain a motion to come (inaudible)
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay motion made and seconded to come out of executive session. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor, before we adjourn I’ll make this fast and furious. First item I would like the two assessments that we’ve had done of the Fire Department and the Police Department
to be put out for public record. I am not asking for approval of it I am just asking that they are put in the Clerks office for the public to come out to ask for and welcome to get.
So with the Councils approval and with your approval I would like to see us get those readily available however many you think we would need and have them in the Clerk’s office and
everybody who wants them will come through the Clerk’s office to get them. They don’t need to be handed out at the Fire Station or the Police Station. Let the people come in. Secondly,
and this goes back to the Rycof thing I think certainly didn’t give me the assessment of the fire – or the Police Station the Police Department that I was expecting. I would like to
see us contact the people that did the Fire Assessment they do police. They had approached us originally on the Police Department when they did the Fire and if the Council approves
I would like to have them present an offer before us and for us to accept and have and come if they would like to do that. I understand that they don’t have to have to have three if
it is under 25,000 dollars, is that right Bill?
Gordon: President or Mr. Bird, Mayor and Members of the Council, an evaluation like that is a personal service this contract I am not sure it has to be bid at all.
Bird: Thank you. I didn’t think it did. Well Council I don’t think we need to take a vote but is everyone in agreement with that? Have the Mayor get a hold of those people and have
them give us a written bid? Okay one more item then I’ll let you go. This is in a form of a motion and the only reason I am doing this is I think it is only fair to the banks that
give us bids on the financing of the Police Department. What we are stating here in the Agreement that we have seen whoever you have seen you chose to be the low bank in regards to
how we finance it all it will say is we will work with them. I don’t care if it goes out for a bond or we pay cash or how we do it. I guess if we pay cash we won’t do it. With that
Mr. Mayor I would like to make a motion and I thank all three banks for their time and effort getting this together but I would like to make a motion that we enter into an agreement
for any financing for any type that is need however we finance with First Security Bank of Idaho for the Police Station.
McCandless: I’ll second.
Corrie: Okay motion is made and seconded to enter into an agreement for investment banking services with the First Security Bank in reference to the Police Station. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Oppose no.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Thank you. With that I will make a motion that we adjourn.
De Weerd: I second.
Corrie: Motion – all approve say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:50 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK