HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 08-15Meridian City Council Meeting August 15, 2000
The regularly scheduled City Council meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. on
Tuesday, August 15, 2000, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Robert Corrie, Keith Bird, Tammy deWeerd, Cherie
McCandless.
Members Absent: Ron Anderson.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Bill Musser, Will Berg.
Corrie: If I could please have your attention, I will open the Meridian City Council
on August 15, 2000, at 7:35. First off I’d like to have roll-call, Mr. Clerk. Thank
you. First off I’d like to welcome Troop 199 here today. Hope we have a good
civics class this evening. Also welcome everybody here this evening. It’s a good
turnout. I thought maybe everybody would be in Boise at their Council meeting
trying to see about the nightclubs, but I’m glad to see everybody here.
Item A. Approve minutes of July 18, 2000, City Pre-Council Meeting:
Item B. Approve minutes of July 18, 2000, City Council Meeting:
Item C. Approve minutes of August 1, 2000, City Pre-Council Meeting:
Item D. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item E. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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 F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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 G. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 2
Item H. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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 - southeast corner of I-84 and Eagle Road:
Item K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item L. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item M. Item Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item N. Beer and Liquor Renewal by Mohammad Alidjani for the 19th
Hole
dba 127 Club at 127 E. Idaho:
Council, we have the Consent Agenda in front of you. What is the pleasure of
the Council?
Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda with Items D, E and F noted
changes by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and the approval of the
Consent Agenda.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 3
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the
corrections on D, E and F from the staff. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote,
please, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 2. Public Hearing: AZ 00-006 Request for annexation and zoning
of 12.73 acres from R-T to L-O and R-15 zones by Vicki Welker /
Gold River Companies, Inc., for proposed Valeri Heights
Subdivision – northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile
Road:
Item 3. Public Hearing: PP 00-005 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision with 10 building
lots and 2 other lots on 12.73 acres in proposed L-O and R-15
zones by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc. – northeast
corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road:
Item 4. Public Hearing: CUP 00-014 Request for Conditional Use Permit
for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision for a 128-unit apartment
complex, townhouses and office on 12.73 acres in proposed L-O
and R-15 zones by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc. –
northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Okay, on the regular agenda, first off as I mentioned just before the
Council meeting, Councilman Anderson is not here this evening, and the Council
would like to have all four Council people hearing this one and also in the voting
of it. So what I’m going to do is open the public hearing on Items 2, 3 and 4
which is the Valeri Heights Subdivision, and we are going to have a special
session hearing just the Valeri Heights again on the 22
nd
of this month on this
coming Tuesday. It will be a special session hearing only that. Now, if there’s
anybody here that came to testify that cannot be here the 22
nd
, then we will hear
your testimony tonight and the absent Councilman will have to read that
testimony and go over the tapes, then he will be here the 22
nd
. Now, is there
anyone here tonight that cannot be here the 22
nd
of this month? Okay, we have
one, two. All right, two. So, again, those two will be heard tonight at this time for
the Valeri Heights, and the developer has requested to have any rebuttal at this
time for those people. After they hear that, they have a right to rebuttal, and then
we will continue the public hearing to the 22
nd
. Okay. Everybody understand
what I’m saying? Okay, that will be fine –
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 4
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, some of the folks here are not here
for Valeri Heights, and so you need to distinguish – either way, those who are not
here on that issue might be counted as to vote for or against, so if you’re going to
do a show of hands deal, we might be able to make sure that there are those
interested in this particular issue.
Corrie: Okay, we’re going to have a show of hands, I guess, of those people
interested in approval and those who are not interested in approval. It will be no
value as far as testimony is concerned. It’s just noted on record. Also, you must
be here for that particular hearing. If you’re here for something else, you heard
the counsel. Show of hands who are here for the Valeri Heights Subdivision if
you want to be on record as being for Valeri Heights. Twenty-one. Okay. Now,
those who oppose it at this point. Nothing is going to be decided tonight. You’re
going to have to come back and talk. Those 21 are for; how many against,
again? And how many are undecided at this point? Okay. That’s a very
unscientific report – you people come back, now. Let’s be sure – we want to
hear you. Now there were two people that could not be here the 22
nd
. For those
that are for the Valeri Heights will be first, and the last will be against, and we’ll
have any rebuttal by the developer on those statements. Got it? I’ve opened the
public hearing on 2, 3 and 4. Okay. First one. Yes, sir, if you’d like to come up,
please, and give your name and address, please.
Kritchville: My name is Greg Kritchville (sic), and I’m for the developer. I think I
should be a much nicer corner there if they – for the traffic and everything
(inaudible). It seems like there’s quite a bit of traffic that does actually come
down that way compared to what there used to be. Now, I’ve worked
construction myself, and I've worked on a lot of apartment complexes, and I’ve
noticed (inaudible) a lot more space if you’ll notice on there. From the
boundaries, from the neighbors and everybody, there’s a lot of grass and
everything. When you have a place like that it seems like they keep it up a lot
better because it’s somebody else’s instead of all the homeowners – so the
weeds don’t get as bad or something like that. So I think it’ll be a nice addition to
the neighborhood over there instead of just a bunch of small track homes or low-
income housing or something like that. I think that’s about all I’ve got to say for
that.
Corrie: Thank you. One more, I guess, pros and cons. We’ll just have the two
of you – either for or against.
McNatt: Daren McNatt. I agree 100 percent with Greg there. I think it’s a great
development. I think it’ll work great for this town. I’ve seen this town go in the
wrong direction many times on the construction for over 10 years, and I’ve seen
bad decisions. I think that’s a good one. My opinion. It’s clean, it’s neat, I think
everybody will be happy. The surrounding people that like the field, I’ve got
news. Hey, that used to be a field, and they would like that to be a field, and I
don’t know what to tell them, but I think that is good. I like that. I’d like to live
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 5
there. I just support it 100 percent, and I don’t see anything wrong with it. I think
that’s a good traffic zone. I think Ten Mile has a lot of traffic. High-school kids
come down through there every single day. There’s a lot of people living to the
south of that, well, sorry, west of that, that the access is important to them, and
some development along that side – sidewalks, et cetera, et cetera, is good
because that is a heavy cross-traffic. If you ever go through that intersection,
there’s people crossing the road. Development is good because I’ve had some
close calls on that corner. Widening that, putting in a nice place there, sidewalks,
crosswalks, is good. I don’t see anything wrong with that. That’s all I have to say
on that.
Corrie: Thank you very much. Developer, do you have any rebuttal to what’s
going on so far? I don’t want to second-guess you at all here. Okay. Then with
that being said, I will entertain a motion. Everybody wants to talk, it’s going to be
on the 22
nd
. I’ll entertain a motion from the Council to continue the public hearing
until the special meeting on the 22
nd
of this month for Valeri Heights only.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing for Items 2, 3 and 4,
Valerie Heights until August 22
nd
at 6:30 p.m. in the Chambers.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the public hearing on Valeri
Heights until August 22, 2000, at 6:30 p.m. Any further discussion?
(inaudible comment from the audience)
Corrie: That’s a legal question, and I’m not going to answer that one because I
don’t know.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, it’s my understanding that when
the initial public hearing is held, if at that public hearing a continuation of the
public hearing is denounced to those present, that’s a valid public hearing, and
no additional notice needs to be posted or published in the newspaper.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, some of the things that we’ve done to
try to go beyond what the legality is, is to try to put some kind of notice in the
paper, and I’m sure I can get the Statesman to print something up that would
make a notification of that nature. By no means are we obligated to do that, but
I think it makes good sense for the Council to have that extra notice.
Corrie: We might even post it here in the Post Office as well for public notice. All
right. Any other debate for Council? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 6
Corrie: We will have the public hearing continued to the 22
nd
of August at 6:30
p.m.
Item 5. Public Hearing: AZ 00-009 Request for annexation and zoning of
101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire
Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC – southwest corner of
Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Item 6. Public Hearing: PP 00-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
for 78.4 acres with 263 building lots and 12 other lots for proposed
Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC –
southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Corrie: I am going to open the public hearing on the Autumn Faire Subdivision
the annexation and zoning and also the request for preliminary plat at the same
time. We will hear testimony on those two. So, at this time, I am opening the
public hearing and we first have staff's comments.
Stiles: This is for roughly 101 acres at the southwest corner of Ustick and Black
Cat Road. The applicant requested an additional public hearing so they would
be given the opportunity to respond to some of the Council's concerns which led
to the recommendation for denial of the first project that they had brought
through. This map is a little dated, the original request that staff had
recommended was that they include all of this property including this portion right
here. We have met with the applicant and have worked out some of the bugs at
least as far as some of the pathway and interconnections for hopefully a pathway
along the Sky Pilot drain. I will let the applicant address that and I have no
further information for you.
Corrie: Any staff comments? Since this is a public hearing, we have opened it to
the floor and those who are testifying in favor of this subdivision will start first.
Then we will have those who oppose and then the developer will give his rebuttal
to any questions that might have come up. So who is here that would like to
testify on this with the affirmative?
Wildwood: My name is Susan Wildwood, and I’m an attorney licensed to practice
law and I am here on belief of the developer Jim Starr and the applicant. First of
all, I would like to thank the Council for allowing us the opportunity to address the
questions that had been asked and were not addressed to your satisfaction at
the last hearing. My recollection after going through the materials that I had and
through my notes, there were basically questions in regard to the park, I believe
which was one of the largest concerns, there were also peripheral issues with
traffics and schools, and then there was a question, especially in regard to
sewer. Checking to make sure what types of materials you had in your packets, I
discovered that, at least it was my information, that you did not receive a copy of
the latest, greatest, most revised project, the preliminary plat and that's the one
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 7
Ms. Stiles is referring to. That actually would have been dated July 31, it would
have been delivered to the City on August 1. I made copies of those available
today as the extra packet. In addition, there was a letter that I drafted to Mr.
Nichols with regard to the park. I provide that to you as well. Also, if you will, a
smaller version of the larger map sitting down in front of the dais. In addition, we
received today a letter from Gary Smith, City Engineer, in regard to sewer.
Having said all that, the way I would like to approach that, I would first refer to the
park. There was some amount of discussion at the time both with Council
Member deWeerd, Mr. Anderson, Ms. McCandless with regard to the park.
There were a number of discussions with City staff, Mr. Nichols graciously meet
with us, and Tom Kuntz in looking at various ways we could address the
concerns with regard to that park. Basically what we have offered to do is that if
we receive approval for the preliminary plat, upon approval of the first final plat of
Phase I, we will be providing upon to the City, in the amount of the property
value, that would be the total acreage, approximately 7.8 acres times the
purchase price by Jim Starr. That bond would be provided to you and the terms
of that bond would be as stated in my letter. That would be exercisable in three
years, in the event we don't do one of the three things: One, Within that three
period of time, we have not donated the designated park site to you; two, or we
haven't donated to you substituted property in Phase 5 of the project; three, or
we have not donated to you other substituted property within the City which we
would purchase and then turn over to the Parks Department. I believe, Council
Member deWeerd was concerned about some sort of ironclad guarantee and in
discussions with Attorney Nichols and with Mr. Kuntz and my principles, we felt
that by binding for this park right up front and that it is exercisable either in three
years or in any of those three conditions so we provide that to you on approval of
Phase I. Then what would happen, is as part of the development of Phases 4
and 5, we will be providing at our expense, that the road across the drain to the
park. That would be the northeast corner of the park, that the road would be
stubbed in there, the sewer and water would be stubbed. Now, part and parcel
of this questions, had to do with whether or not there is sewer capacity, not only
for Autumn Faire I but also the park and for the other lots that we discussed that
would be around the park. That is the point of the letter from Gary Smith. He
points out that upon review of the lift station, the sewer capacity is adequate to
service Autumn Faire I but also what we have captioned Autumn Faire II.
Autumn Faire II I have not provided a copy to you, but I do have a copy. That
was submitted yesterday. So we do have pending with the City an application for
the portion of property that would contain the park and the houses or the lots that
have been identified as eligible or could be serviced by the sewer capacity. This
is a complicated enough project that I didn't submit that. But if you'd like, I do
have copies of Autumn Faire II and we can show you how that dovetails in. So
that the other thing that we will be doing after discussions with the Parks
Department, Mr. Kuntz, is because we would have the machinery on site, we
would most likely be doing the rough grading of the park as the same time as the
other stuff. The other questions that came up was when could you begin
developing the park so it can be an orderly development of the park site, we
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 8
would have the roads available, the sewer and water available, and we would be
working with you on the site grading. What we hope to do is to have the approval
of Autumn Faire I immediately followed Autumn Faire II, which actually would be
Phase 6. It would come in right after that. Then the roadway would be
developed adjacent to the park, would not go all the way around the park,
because we don't have sewer capacity yet for the properties that would be
essentially south of the park. This should answer the questions in regard how
are we going to donate the property to you, what are the guarantees that you can
come in and do you development in a reasonable period of time so it doesn't end
of being a weed patch, what are the sewer capacity issues, how are we going to
get the road way over there, and part of Autumn Faire II, still addresses the
questions that came up at that time. We would be looking at a pathway along the
drain that would allow interconnectivity into the properties as they develop both to
the south and then also to property nearest to Ustick. Apparently there's an
easement along the same drainage connection and so what we would hope to
do, is provide the interconnectivity so that we can provide walkways and
pathways. Now if you look at the plat we provided to you, the colored one, we
show the donated park land or the proposed park land in the true green, grass
green as we've jokingly come to know it. The other common areas in the
development, are shown in the sort of blue-green. I referred to those common
areas in my letter indicating that we have other areas within the development
itself that would be available for residents within the development to utilize it
would take some pressure off of the park. In addition, we have developed, or
would be developing in consultation with staff, the pathway which is shown in the
brownish color, so that would be a walkway or pathway that would allow
interconnectivity from development from either side of the project in addition to a
walkway that would come along the common lot and allow for pedestrian access
clear through the development down and into the pathway. What we are hoping
is that as the project develops out there, as sewer capacity becomes available on
the McDermott turn line, you will most likely be seeing some applications, but
what we wanted to be sure to do in staff, is that we provide pathway
interconnectivity for any development that would provide pedestrian access into
the park. In consultation with Mr. Kuntz, with Ms. Stiles, Mr. Smith, we made
these revisions to the preliminary plat. So that we could illustrate the
interconnectivity and pedestrian walkway on this particular project. There were
at least some peripheral questions with regard to traffic and traffic impact to this
project. We had a traffic study done which was also reviewed by ACHD with
regard to each intersection that is affected by this particular project, and I'm not
sure if you received a copy of the traffic study, but the executive summary
indicates that there is only one intersection that would be affected to reduce the
level of service below level of service A. Still it would be a B level of service,
there would be additional delay of four seconds per vehicle at that intersection
and still meets City standards as far as traffic delay. Of course, we will cooperate
with the requirements of ACHD. We have already moved roads around at their
request, they didn't like the location of some of the stub roads, at their request,
we have redesigned and then met with staff to be sure we met the correct
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 9
distances for access roads. What I would also like to talk about and it wasn't
gone into in any detail, but I think it is also an important consideration for the City.
There was a question on the amount of impact on this project on the school
district. The letter from the school district indicates that there are three schools
that would be servicing this subdivision. Chaparral, which is over capacity,
Meridian Middle School, which is at capacity but would be relieved because of
the new middle school this autumn, and the Eagle High School, which is at
capacity. I met today with Wendell Bingham who is the new supervisor of
Construction and Facilities Today, to talk about the letter and ask him questions
about how we would be impacting and we discussed the proposed school sites,
the impact on Chaparral. He very graciously went over the school map with me,
the proposed sites, there are two proposed school sites between this subdivision,
east of this subdivision and the City that are tentatively earmarked for elementary
school sites. He indicated that they would not be making a determination which
of these school sites they will be utilizing until after they get the enrollment counts
this fall. But he did say to me that he saw no undo, no negative impact on the
school system from this development on Phase I. We're going to have the
middle school to take over the overflow and the new elementary school site will
relieve the pressure both on Chaparral and on Chief Joseph. So that's what they
are working on right now and they feel pretty confident about how they are
working towards the bond. They are keeping track of the developments and we
will keep in touch concerning the phasing and working with them on the
developments for the school district. Because of the distances between the
schools, there may be some bussing required. Under state law, the school
district is on the hook for the first year of school bussing. The second year, the
state picks up 85% of the bussing requirements. He did indicate that funding
from the lottery nets them about $2 million a year to be spread over 40 schools,
and with the current tax base, they are keeping neck and neck with the capital
expenditures that are required for the small things in operations and
maintenance. The other issues that came up and Mr. Nichols kindly provided us
with the development agreement and we would put all of these in an agreement.
I hope I have answered all of your questions.
Stanfield: My name is Scott Stanfield, from Earl and Associates, representing
Jim Starr and his application. Basically I have hear representing the engineering
or technical related questions that you might have.
Deherro: My name is Linda Deherro, representing the community. I think it's
great for the subdivision to go in that area and the community is concerned with
the police department not being able to cover this area with the amount of police
officers that we have now. They can't cover the area that we have now and to
build a new subdivision at this time would only invite more crime and vandalism
to that area. The concern is for the people moving in there. Are we planning on
increasing our police department at all?
Corrie: The answer would probably be yes in increasing it.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 10
Janicek: My name is Monty Janicek, property owner. I have the property right
south of the proposed subdivision and I don't have any objections to the
development of this piece of property.
Langley: My name is Dean Langley, property owner. We currently own the
property for this subdivision. We are pleased to how the developer and their
agents have worked to resolve items that were expressed previously and sounds
like they have done a lot of work in that regard. We think that the development
would bring a lot of value and resources to the community. In regard to the
comment about police protection, the police chief did review this and sign off on
it. I assume there are plans in place.
Smith: This is the first time we have seen this revised plat and the Parks
Department supports the applicant’s park-land dedication. The only concern I
have at this time is the width of the pathway, which is a twenty-foot pathway,
which allows only five feet on either side making a narrow corridor. In
negotiations, we talked about a thirty-foot minimum. You will notice, in Autumn
Faire, they have lengthened the depths of the lots to 120 feet. Staff recommends
the lots be 110 feet so the minimum of the pathway be thirty feet wide. The other
thing that is not denoted on this map is where the cleanouts would be for the pipe
drain.
Wildwood: We have discussed the thirty feet and have no objection to the thirty.
The twenty is actually the size -- is the interconnectivity to the other subdivision,
but thirty is certainly realistic. Scott, the engineer, can introduce the cleanout.
deWeerd: Susan, originally you had talked about the bonding for the park and
you mentioned 7.8 acres, but on this map, it says 6.89.
Wildwood: I misspoke myself.
deWeerd: Then it is the 6.89.
Wildwood: Yes.
Stanfield: Regarding the drain boxes, again this is a preliminary plat. In no
means, is it the final design. The drain boxes, at a minimum, will be either side of
the right-of-way on the street that stubs out to the park land, and I believe
Nampa-Meridian, on a line this size diameter would be a 400 or 500 foot
separation.
deWeerd: Scott, on these other areas that are probably drainage lots, you will
work with staff, are those kind of low grade so residents could use those in the
subdivision?
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 11
Stanfield: Correct. Or goal is to create a usable space. The ground water is
somewhat shallow in that area, so even if we wanted to go deep, we couldn't get
away with it. So we widened them out, so we could shallow them out and make
them an amenity.
Bird: Scott, we do have one well site dedicated to the city, right?
Stanfield: Correct. We are willing to dedicate a well location, well site to the city
and I believe we show it in the northeast corner.
Stiles: I do note that some of the lots do not meet the minimum requirements for
frontage particularly some of the cul-de-sacs. There are minor things we can
work out.
Stanfield: We will meet the requirements.
deWeerd: On the pathway, you are going to dedicate the thirty feet and then
help with the rough grading of the park. Is the pathway going to be developed or
just dedicated?
Stanfield: Our standpoint on the pathway is to dedicate the land to the city and
then perform the rough grade and operations at the developers cost. The city
then will get an invoice for the cost of rough grading the park.
Kuntz: During the negotiation process, we talked about the developer providing
a four feet high metal fence that would run the length of the pathway. I'd like to
hear some discussion on that, chain link preferable.
Stanfield: The ordinance does not specify the fence. There are some conflicts of
metal versus cedar.
deWeerd: It seems that each of the issues have been addressed. It was kind of
interesting to find out the level of service at the intersections and what little effect
the project has on them. I appreciate the information and the time staff has put
into it as well as the applicant.
Corrie: I will entertain a motion to close this public hearing on Items 5 & 6 the
Annexation and zoning of preliminary plat.
Bird: So moved.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 5
& 6. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 12
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: I will entertain a motion on Item 5 which is a request for annexation and
zoning.
Bird: I move that we approve the annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT
to R-4 for the proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC –
southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads and for the attorney to draw up
the findings of facts and conclusions of law and decision of order.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: The motion has been made and seconded to request the favorable
annexation and zoning for the attorney to draw up the findings of facts and
conclusions of law to proper ordinance and decree.
deWeerd: Council Member Bird, would that include the correspondence that has
happened since the findings of P & Z?
Bird: Yes.
deWeerd: Okay.
Corrie: Any further discussion? We will call roll, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: I will entertain a motion for the preliminary plat on Item 6.
deWeerd: I move that we recommend approval for the request for the
preliminary plat for 78.8 acres with 263 building lots and 12 other lots for
proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision to have the attorney draw up the appropriate
findings of fact and decision of order, to include all staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the
order on the preliminary plat request to be favorable. Roll-call will be called.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 13
Item 7. Public Hearing: VAC 00-005 Request for vacation of the alley
intersecting East 1
st
between Pine Avenue and Idaho Streets on the
east side currently in an OT zone by Gary Benoit – East 1
st
and
East Pine Avenue:
Corrie: Item 7 is a public hearing, 00-005, this is a request of vacation of the
alley intersection of East 1
st
between Pine Avenue and Idaho Streets on the east
side currently in an OT zone by Gary Benoit. I will open the public hearing on
Item 7. I invite staff comments first.
Stiles: This is for the vacation of the alley between the Generations Plaza Park
and the proposed Generations II building that has already received conditional
use permit approval. I will let Tom address some of his issues here in a minute.
The vacation will only be for 86 feet on this property. That must include out to
the East 1
st
street. I wanted to address the parking lot layout for these two
parking lots. This is about the third version I have seen. Neither one of these
lots can accommodate this type of parking configuration and meet ordinance
requirements. The site plan that was approved with the conditional use permit
shows the existing layout of the City's parking lot which would be here, the traffic
would come in here, and then it would need to exist out the new parking lot. We
have had some discussion that they plan to reverse that, but that would require
modification of the conditional use permit. The issues are outlined in the memo
dated today.
Kuntz: You should have a memo from me dated today. I guess I want to jump
right to No. 2. Attached to the memo, are attachments A, B, and C. Attachment
C is the traffic flow plan that was approved in the conditional use permit
according to Shari. Option B I believe is a traffic flow plan that is in front of
ACHD for their approval. You notice that you enter into the new parking lot
directly behind the developer's building and you would exit through our existing
parking lot which would require reversal of the parking islands and the striped
lines as well as the alleyway, which currently moves from east to west. Option A
again would require exiting through our parking lot and entering through the
developer's new parking lot and reversing the flow of the alleyway which is east
to west. The first matter to be resolved would be which traffic flow is approved
and I believe is C.
deWeerd: I thought we approved B.
Bird: Me too.
deWeerd: I thought this was brought from the P & Z Commission.
Bird: I thought we had decided on Option B in the conditional use permit.
Corrie: We might have an accident looking for a place to happen in Option B.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 14
Stiles: It was never presented by the applicant to do it differently than shown on
the plan. The reason it came up was because some of the property owners were
given the map. The plan given to the council was revised on the night decided.
Kuntz: Tentatively Option B has been approved. This is what went to ACHD.
Musser: Option B would cause a problem. To have two sections funneling into
that area would cause a problem short of having to curb it which would cause
another problem for fire apparatus or emergency vehicles that would need
access further on down. My recommendation would be to limit the flow of traffic
to one direction, however, there are some business owners that use this area for
parking.
Bird: I know it would be tough to get used to, would making it west to east be
more feasible.
Musser: Potentially there would be a problem of traffic flow. Most common
collision in flow through traffic is when someone backs out and strikes the other
vehicle. We are going to be writing accidents and issuing citations for
inappropriate backing. I would not recommend Option B, Option A would be the
only option at this time.
Kuntz: The reason that A was not an option after the P & Z meeting, the
business to the east withdrew his support of the vacation of the alley because he
opposed the change of direction of the alley. In a meeting with that individual, he
would consent to leaving his support of vacation in place as long as the alley
directions stay the same. Which would bring us back to B or C.
Bird: I'd like Captain Musser to respond on C, because we are bringing the
people out right next to the traffic light.
Musser: I would recommend against exiting traffic from the inside of traffic.
Reaction time and possible vision obstructions, will create a problem. If we were
to have the egress reversed on this, we could probably make it work.
Corrie: Any other staff comments?
Kuntz: I have some more, but they may be confusing on this issue.
Benoit: My name is Gary Benoit, Stewart Rainey Benoit Company, developers of
Generations. The parking questions, we have gone through these various
scenarios and there probably isn't a 100 percent answer. The B Option is what
the P & Z Commission came up with at 1:37 a.m. and there was a doubt in
everybody's mind as to what was going on. At that time, I think they felt that that
was the lesser of all the evils, with proper signage indicating to people that they
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 15
need to turn, and that relatively with the low flow of traffic in the alley, that they
would probably be the better option. The P & Z passed on the Option B at their
request. Our original Option A, was what we had requested and as Tom has
outlined, one of the neighbors had a problem with the direction of the alley and
so Option B became the resolve to that. The Option C plan is a right out only. It
becomes quite confusing and a little more difficult to work with. ACHD endorsed
the plan A and then we came back with plan B. C would be our least favored for
a variety of reasons. B is the plan that P & Z suggested that we follow.
Corrie: Is there any public that would like to make a testimony on this request for
vacation?
Stiles: I guess my only concern on the direction here is what was approved was
what was sent out to all the neighbors and I don't know if they would have any
objection if they had seen that this was changed. For example, Paisano and
patrons of Paisano's park in that parking lot quite regularly and if they have to
come in one direction and then come back in to park, I still think Option B is not
feasible for safety reasons, also for the fact that the trash enclosure that was
designed and approved by Sanitary Service Company requires that they enter
into the alley the same direction as it exists today. Their trucks are front loaded
and they would come down either through the city's parking lot and down the
alley to take that trash. If the direction was reversed, they would have to change
the location of their trash enclosure so they could access it that direction. B, I
think is still a safety concern. A I think was totally disregarded and as I stated
before, C is what is shown on the approved plan that's recorded as part of the
findings of fact and conclusions of law and it is included as an exhibit to that plan.
deWeerd: Tom, you have been working primarily with ACHD on here. Is your
recommendation for B or C?
Kuntz: B.
Bird: Captain Musser explained why C is very dangerous. I would think B. I
thought we had passed B.
deWeerd: I did too.
Kuntz: The other reason that I am in favor of B is originally when talking about
vacating the alley, ACHD had put a price tag of $10,300 on that vacation.
Originally the developer was going to exchange an easement through his parking
lot in exchanging for the entire vacated alley. With plan B, the easement actually
goes through the City property so that we know can exchange that easement
through our alley in exchange for the entire alleyway. There may be some
financial benefits coming from the developer to the City in that plan.
Corrie: Any questions from council?
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 16
Benoit: Referring to the direction of the alley, the City of Meridian was possible
at the option to pay $5,200 for their half of the alley. Now you receive $5,200 if
we go through your parking lot. That would help financially on things. It is our
understanding that Option B was the approved plan.
Nichols: The questions before you is whether to vacate the alley. There have
been so many B's and C's and A's. There is just one thing I want to make clear,
if B is approved by this Council, is that the one that the proposal met by the
opposition from the neighboring property owner or is that a different one? It's
within the Council's purview to change that traffic flow pattern.
Corrie: They request any other comments on public hearing. Hearing none, I
entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on the request for
vacation Item 7. Any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Bird: I move that we approve the vacation of the alley, intersecting East 1
st
between Pine Avenue and Idaho Street on the east side, currently in an OT zone,
by Gary Benoit and that the traffic flow pattern be noted as Item B on
memorandum from Park Director, Tom Kuntz, dated August 15, 2000 and for the
attorney to draw up the proper findings of fact and conclusions of law and
decision of order.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made to have the attorney draw up the findings of fact
and conclusions of law and the approval of Option B on the memo of Mr. Kuntz.
Is there any further discussion?
McCandless: Can I ask Captain Musser a question? Captain, was it not Option
B that you said was dangerous?
Musser: I made an indication that Option B has some inherent problems that
could be potentially dangerous with two-way traffic coming head on. I also see
problems with all the other options, too.
McCandless: Is this the one that you said if you could post a No Left Turn?
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 17
Musser: The No Left Turn, I believe I was referring more to Option A. My only
major concern was the two-way traffic coming in on a single lane alley to hit the
exit there on the existing lot.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 00-014 Request for annexation and zoning of
2.297 acres from R1 to R-4 for Randy Ware – Franklin and Linder:
Corrie: Item 8, public hearing 00-014, request for annexation and zoning of
2.297 acres from R-1 to R-4 for Randy Ware, Franklin and Linder. I will open the
public hearing on Item 8, request for annexation and zoning. I will start with staff.
Stiles: This is for annexation and zoning for 2.297 acres from R-1 to R-4. The
applicant was requested to apply for annexation as he had requested sewer and
water hook-ups for an additional lot. We did receive something from the
applicant today, I believe, and on the recommendations, he is asking for deletion
of Items 1-3 through 1-19. Staff recommends that none of those conditions be
deleted and all of those remain as a condition of annexation for this property. We
feel that all of those conditions are appropriate and typical conditions of approval.
They are ordinance requirements and in order to be annexed to the City and to
have certain water provided, we request that they be conditions for annexation.
Corrie: Hearing no discussion, I will open the public hearing and will hear from
the applicant.
Ware: My name is Randy Ware. I am opposed to any conditions or requirements
in association with annexing this property.
Corrie: Do you have any reason?
Ware: They are time consuming and costly.
Corrie: Any questions of the Council?
deWeerd: I know that you are going just for annexation and zoning and you are
requesting an R-4, so I am assuming that you will be breaking these into lots.
The conditions that were placed, were conditions for that kind of plan. I guess I
would like to understand a little bit more what your opposition is.
Ware: Last January, I came to you to ask for extension of sewer and water to a
couple of lots I have on Linder Road which the City ordinance allows for. When I
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 18
came to you, what we decided was that we would have an agreement with the
City, that I needed to apply for annexation as a condition to getting that service
and perpetual consent to annexation, meaning that you could annex me at any
time. That was one of Mr. Smith's requests. He was leery that if I was granted
this water and sewer to these lots, that it would end up being an enclave and not
ever being annexed into the City. I agreed to do that. In that agreement, it spells
out very clearly that I would apply for annexation and have perpetual consent to
annexation, which I have done. I think what has happened since then, it has
become more of a burden to me to continue with the requirements of annexation
than necessary. No, I am not developing any property. I have the property that
is currently in the county. I can get building permits on it at any time. I don't
mind being in the City, but to do the requirements they asked for here, would be
costly and time consuming.
deWeerd: So, you do have plans to develop it or you don't have plans to develop
it?
Ware: I have plans to put two houses on the lots that are currently there, but no
plans to develop.
deWeerd: So, the lots that are there have two homes on it?
Ware: No, they are vacant.
deWeerd: So you want to make it 1 acre lots.
Ware: They are already 1 acre lots. I'm just wanting to annex them. They are
currently 1 acre lots. There is no developing or subdivision.
deWeerd: So, currently there is nothing there, but you want to put two homes on
there? So, why are we requesting an R-4?
Ware: Because Meridian doesn't have an R-1 zone and that's what it currently
is.
deWeerd: We have nothing below an R-4?
Stiles: R-2 and R-3.
deWeerd: So there is nothing that says that this can't be an R-2.
Stiles: I don't know what the frontage is on the private road. What happened is,
in order for him to split this property, the county required his to hook-up to City
sewer and water. They don't allow septic and water on this.
Ware: That is not correct.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 19
deWeerd: Then what is the deal?
Ware: In order for me to split it, they require me to put in a private road. There
was no requirement on City water and sewer. It would require me to do that in
order to get a building permit.
Stiles: In order for this property to be split with two legal lots that could be built
on, you had to hook-up to sewer and water. I think what the biggest issue was
the Kennedy lateral that existed on the northern property. That is condition 1.3, it
is City ordinance that it is tiled. I think Randy felt that it would be a big expense
to bear by himself for two lots. Staff would support not piping that unless they
decided to come back in and re-subdivide this in which they would have to plat it
and bond for all those improvements. If there's no wells or septic system on this
system already, I don't see why 1.4 is a problem. 1.5 is a safety issue. 1.6 we
probably already have that. 1.7 they will have to coordinate any fire hydrant
placement that's necessary to meet fire code requirements. 1.8 will have to
comply. The recorded warranty deed was a requirement of Ada County before
they even split the property and that was the sidewalk was already in. I don't feel
any of these, except the 1.3. We would be willing to forego actual installation of
the piping unless or until he decided to subdivide it any further.
Bird: Mr. Ware, other than the 1.3, the rest of these are just standard
requirements. Is 1.3 your issue, or was all of them your main issue?
Ware: Actually 1.3 was the main with along with 1.5 and 1.7. I asked for
clarification on 1.7 at the Planning & Zoning meeting and no one was able to
answer the question. I'm not sure if that is asking me to run a water line for a fire
hydrant or what they're saying. I was very unclear on that. On 1.5, they said
went along with 1.7, because you are suppose to have a street light by a fire
hydrant.
Stiles: In talking with Chief Bowers, that is a fire code issue that you would have
to meet regardless of whether he's in the City or county. If you need additional
hydrants to build, you will need to construct them to meet fire code.
Ware: So who determines that?
Stiles: Fire Marshall and Public Works Department.
Bird: Shari, I understand it then that if there is a fire hydrant within reason, then
he would not be required to put one in. It's a standard thing that's done in all
annexation developments.
Ware: I'm opposed to Item 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7. I can live with the rest.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 20
Corrie: We are giving you 1.3. If you have to have it, you are going to have to
have it.
Corrie: Any other testimony? Council, any other questions for the public hearing
record?
deWeerd: Shari, do we have a R-1 or do we not?
Stiles: We have R-2. If you were to propose R-2, the frontage would be
determined off that private road. The reason he asked for R-4 is that he had just
met the minimum requirements for the frontage on Linder.
deWeerd: And that would increase it with the R-2?
Stiles: It would have to be more, 100 feet minimum.
deWeerd: If he subdivides more than the two lots, he would have to come back
in?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Any comments? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the
public hearing on Item 8.
Bird: Moved.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 8 request
for annexation and zoning of 00-014. Any further discussion? All those in favor,
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: I will entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning.
deWeerd: I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning for
2.297 acres from R-1 to R-4 from Randy Ware to accept the recommendation by
Planning & Zoning with the deletion of 1.3 on page 3 and to ask the attorney to
draw up the findings of fact and conclusions of law and decision of order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: It has been moved and seconded to approve the annexation and zoning
on request of Item 8 and accept the Planning & Zoning recommendation except
for Item 1.3 to be excluded, for the attorney to draw up the findings of fact and
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 21
conclusions of law and the proper order. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 00-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 12 lots on 5.60 acres in an R-3 zone by Bond and Shelli
Campbell for proposed The Hollows – north of Ustick Road ½ mile
east of Meridian Road:
Corrie: Item 9 is a public hearing request for preliminary plat approval of 12 lots
on 5.60 acres in a R-3 zone by Bon and Shelly Campbell, proposed Hollows,
north of Ustick Road and one-half mile east of Meridian Road. I will open the
public hearing on Item 9. Staff comments, first.
Stiles: This is for property of 5.6 acres in a R-3 zone. It's located off of Ustick,
about one-half mile east of Locust Grove. Staff would recommend approval with
conditions noted in our comments, however, I understand that the applicant is
going to be requesting a variance leased on the pressured irrigation. I would
recommend that no action be taken on the plat until those variances have been
applied for and acted on.
Corrie: Other staff comments?
Stiles: Another variance they are requesting, one on the pressurized irrigation
and the other on leaving the ditch on the northern boundary line open because
the property owner on the northern boundary uses that ditch for flood irrigation.
Obviously, those two issues would change the conditions of the preliminary plat
and we would request that this public hearing be continued.
Corrie: Council any questions of staff?
Bird: Mr. Smith, those are awfully large lots to be irrigating off City water, isn't it?
Smith: They are about quarter-acre lots, the smallest one. I don't know what the
options are. Reportedly, they get the water once every seven days, I think it was.
They do have the water rights, it is utilize the water on its availability. I suspect
these lots are similar to Meridian Greens. Wanda's Meadows has similar
irrigation water availability as it has been reported to us. Water resources won't
allow for drilling of a well for irrigation purposes. The only other option is to put in
or investigate a shallow ground water. It can't be over 18 feet deep, so it is not
classified as a well. The only other option is to utilize City water. The other
alternative is for the developer to install dry lines at this time for pressure
irrigation, so distribution would be available at some other time. It does create
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 22
some kind of problem. You would have to a pretty good idea of where the point
of supply is to put in dry lines. The size of the lots are similar to Meridian
Greens. Where you have a flood irrigation pasture right now, and you can
irrigate that once a week, you develop it into a residential lot and can't operate
that way any longer.
Bird: I see this happening quite a bit up north.
Smith: On the smaller property, it will happen more often.
deWeerd: What did we do with Wanda's Meadows?
Smith: We can't recall what happened with that one. I know there was an issue
on the variance for pressurized irrigation system. It was discussed, but I don't
recall the decisions or if the variance has been before you.
Corrie: The applicant come forward. No applicant. Council any questions? Any
other testimony on this public hearing? Hearing none.
deWeerd: I move that we continue this for the reason of wanting to hear from the
applicant but also to be able to delay a decision on this until a variance comes
before us.
Bird: I would second that.
deWeerd: I would like to ask Shari when a variance application, since they have
not filed one yet, would it be beneficial to continue this until the 19
th
of
September.
Stiles: Yes.
deWeerd: I move that we continue this hearing until September 19
th
.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to continue this public hearing on
Item 9 until September 19, 2000. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in
favor, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Public hearing will be continued on this preliminary plat in hopes of the
variance coming in for September 19, 2000.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 23
deWeerd: Can I ask that staff personally contact the applicant, let them know of
the new hearing date, ask that they be present, and inform them that we need a
variance application by then?
Item 10. Public Hearing: PP 00-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 5 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.29 acres for proposed
Waltman Court Subdivision by John and Sandra Goade –
Waltman Lane and SW 5
th
Street:
Corrie: Item 10 is a public hearing request for preliminary plat approval for 5
building lots on 8.29 acres for proposed Whitman Court Subdivision. I will open
the public hearing and invites staff comments first.
Stiles: This is request for preliminary plat for 5 building lots. This is what was
known as the old Waltman House that exists currently down off Waltman Lane
here. Ten Mile Creek runs adjacent to the western boundary of the property.
Troutner Business Park is north and they have a cul-de-sac built at the northern
property line. When Corporate Drive is extended, it will come through this
property and eventually connect back up to the Landing Subdivision and to
Waltman Lane. There's a few issues with this. We had asked prior to the City
Council hearing, that we receive a revised plan. We have not received that.
There's the issue of the Ten Mile Creek pathway that's proposed along here and
is required as condition of the annexation along Ten Mile Creek. When this was
annexed, all proposed uses where required to go through the conditional use
permit process. ACHD has constructed huge drainage ponds with no permits
from the City. They are basically showing the property lines for these lots right at
the top of the bank. That is not going to provide for any pedestrian walkway. I
took some pictures out there, this is showing ACHD very large drainage area. An
irrigation ditch, east of the drainage pits and one of the drainage pits as it exists
today. This is showing, along the creek, the fence ACHD is constructing with no
permit. There is very little room from the fence to the top of the bank for any kind
of pathway. This is showing, looking across Ten Mile Creek, I believe, there's a
lot of blackberry bushes. This is an important part of the Ten Mile Creek pathway
area and I would hate proceed with this tonight without a revised plan and some
answers to some of those questions that we had. It looks like on the plat that
there may be a little more room down by the old Waltman place. With this plat as
proposed, we could not recommend that it be approved. We have asked that
there be a common lot for the pathway and the easement area of the Ten Mile
Creek drain. What we have, doesn't meet that requirement. We need to get with
ACHD to get changes to this site. This is not all zoned, some limited office and
some general commercial. I don't know if that have proposal for this yet. We ask
that you continue this public hearing until September 5
th
if there is time on the
agenda.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 24
Corrie: This might be a good one to put on Thursday night for the trip with
ACHD. We have a meeting with ACHD at night. Any questions? Is the applicant
here tonight?
Hickey: My name is Tony Hickey. We were not aware that the revised plats had
not been delivered. We were under the impression that it had already been
done. As far as the ACHD beautification of the northwest corner of that property,
we are working with ACHD under a licensure agreement in order to do some
landscaping there and the developer will be involved with that. As far as the Ten
Mile drain and the pathway, it has been our impression from the beginning that
the new owners of those lots along the Ten Mile drain, because we have to come
in under a conditional use permit process, that this would be part of their
landscaping process. We did not want to create a common lot there, however,
we would not have any problems with common usage of irrigation, etc. We know
that we have to come back under conditional use, so our feeling is that we
approach the owner in their purchase of the property, and the landscaping
program will have to come under that conditional use permit.
Corrie: Any questions?
Stiles: The bridge crossing, shown under the recommendation of the City
Council, page 5, Item 1.19, I guess we had a little difference of terminology.
Since this property abuts the Ten Mile drain and normally it would be a
requirement for most of the projects that I have ever dealt with, that they at least
deposit into some kind of fund, for future vehicular crossing of this drain. We felt
that the applicant should be required to contribute towards that crossing. I don't
know why David Splatz at ACHD told them they didn't have to contribute
anything, but I certainly don't think it's fair that the property owner on the south
side to pay 100% of vehicular crossing of that drain. We could change our
wording on the recommendation, a bridge to me is a crossing. We definitely
want one of the conditions of this plat to contribute funds toward construction of
that vehicular crossing whether it be with the City of Meridian or ACHD.
Hickey: There is quite a difference between a bridge and vehicular crossing and
we would request that any future notice about that going across Ten Mile would
be changed from a bridge to vehicular crossing in that, a squash pipe and
properly done, would be 20% of the cost of a bridge, actual concrete structure.
We would like that verbiage, vehicular crossing, changed in the recommendation.
ACHD has noted that squash pipe with regular asphalt with a certain amount of
earth between asphalt and squash pipe, is easier to maintain than having a
concrete bridge and less expensive. ACHD has no intention in participating in a
bridge, they feel they do not abut the drainage ditch right-of-way.
Corrie: Other testimony?
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 25
Benoit: I'm not positive of this, I believe there have been some preliminary plans
drafted by the Highway District for accessing Waltman Lane out to Corporate
Drive, eliminating Waltman Lane access into Meridian Road at Central Drive,
right now. It almost seems like Corporate Drive needs to come across Ten Mile
drain and connect to Waltman, and that will be the access to Waltman to
Meridian and East 1
st
. But again, those details are pretty foggy in my memory,
but I think the Highway District has had some preliminary concept type work
done. That's probably why Corporate Drive extending the way it's extending.
The crossing of Ten Mile drain, whether you want to call it a bridge or vehicular
crossing, is still going to have to be sized to pass a certain storm, certain flood, in
Ten Mile drain. Anytime you've got over 20 feet of span, it's considered a bridge.
Less than 20 feet, is considered a culvert. Whether it's a metal corrugated pipe
or reinforced concrete. The bottom line is it is going to have to pass that flood
criteria for Ten Mile drain. It is a hydraulic issue, it's got to pass that storm and
certain elevation to get from one side to the other.
deWeerd: I would agree with staff's original comments, that this should be
continued. There seems to be a number of issues that need to be worked on.
Perhaps if we continue this to September 5
th
, staff and the applicant can come
back and let us know what has been decided. We will need the items that Shari
originally discussed with the new plat and some of the other issues resolved. I
would move that we continue this public hearing for the request for preliminary
plat for Waltman Court Subdivision to September 5
th
.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: The motion has been made and seconded to continue until September
5
th
the public hearing on the preliminary plat on Item 10. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all this in favor of the motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 11. Public Hearing: VAR 00-015 Request for a variance allowing
applicant to lower the finish floor elevation below the Flood Plain
because of the size of the site by Rod or Sheri Eisele / Eagle
Concrete Pumping in an I-L zone - Baltic Place in the Meridian
Business Park:
Corrie: Item 11 is a public hearing for variance request allowing applicant the
lower the finish floor elevation below the flood plane because of the size of the
site by Eagle Concrete Pumping and IL zone. This point, I will open the public
hearing.
Stiles: We had talked about this in Pre-Council and the fact that the conditional
use permit is not before you today. The attorney's office did not have enough
time to turn over those P & Z recommendations and get those to the Council
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 26
tonight. I guess we could go ahead with the public hearing if that's what you
want to do. There is no site plan that we have associated with the finish floor
elevation. What they are proposing, if you will recall, they came and talked to us,
Mr. Larsen, had talked to us about the conditional use permit being required
because it was in the flood plane and we made a commitment to try to expedite
this to help them with their schedule. I apologize that they are sitting here tonight
and they are going to have to come back here for another public hearing. The
conditional use permit will also have to have findings of fact and conclusions of
law prepared. It may be better if they are both addressed at the same meeting.
That will give you a better idea of what they whole entire project is about. The
variance itself, because they would like to build the finish floor elevation one foot
below the flood plane. Part of that reasoning is that if there were a flood, they
would open the doors and let the flood waters to pass through. Either way,
whatever you would like to do.
Bird: Can we proceed on with inter-office working so that the permits and stuff
are being worked upon even while this is going on?
Stiles: I believe that they have submitted and it is being processed now.
Bird: This won't hold anything up by delaying it two weeks? We had promised
them that we would try to expedite this through.
Stiles: It would hold up only the issuance of the actual permit.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to answers some
questions?
Larsen: My name is Cornell Larsen. If it could be heard on the same agenda as
the conditional use permit, that is fine. We can wait until then.
Corrie: Any other testimony?
Bird: I would recommend that we continue the public hearing on the variance
allowing the applicant to lower the finish floor elevation below the flood plane,
Eagle Concrete Pumping, until September 5, 2000.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: It has been moved and seconded to continue the public hearing on Item
11 until September 5
th
meeting. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those
in favor of the motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 27
Item 12. Public Hearing: AZ 00-015 Request for annexation and zoning of
7 (+/-) acres for proposed LDS Church by Quadrant Consulting,
Inc., - south of Overland Road, east of Locust Grove Road on
Charolais Drive:
Corrie: Item 12 is a public hearing request for annexation and zoning of 7 +/-
acres for the proposed LDS Church, Quadrant Consulting Inc., south of Overland
Road and east of Locust Grove road on Charlotte Drive. I will open the public
hearing. Staff comments, first.
Stiles: This is for annexation and zoning of the proposed LDS Church at Locust
Grove. This was the property that was recently annexed and zoned CG and this
is where the apartments would be and this is the new high school site. The
church is nearing completion. They were requested to annex the property to the
City of Meridian in order for sewer and water services to be provided and staff
recommends approval with the recommendations of P & Z.
Corrie: Comments? Is the applicant here this evening?
Stuart: My name is Warren Stuart, Quadrant Consulting. We have no objections
to any of the requests of P & Z. There was one item that came up that we would
maybe like to discuss the timing on or maybe see if we could get the timing dealt
with. This would be the timing of the two ditches on the back of the property.
This is the eastern boundary of the property. There's a 100 lateral and also an
irrigation ditch for this property that run along this eastern side. When this
property was purchased and the building permit was sought, they had no
requirements to tile the ditches at that time, so when the church funded this
project, the funded it based on the construction of the new building and site
improvements on the 2/3 of the property on the west side. They didn't request
enough fund, which was approximately another $40 or $50,000 to tile those two
ditches. Unfortunately, getting that funding is kind of an involved process at this
point for an ongoing project. That's not the only issue. Also, one of the reasons
they would like to postponed those ditches, is that the back 1/3 of this property,
which borders these ditches will not be developed at this time. There will be a
chain link fence, this will be left as pasture. They do intend to develop this
property eventually and the development of this will coincide with the
construction of the new high school. They would like to put a new seminary
building on this lot that would serve the students at the new high school. They
would like, if they could, to get the tiling of the ditches deferred until the
conditional use permit comes before you for the new seminary building. It will
require an additional conditional use permit in order to put the new seminary
building there and then they would go ahead, request the additional funding at
that time as part of the project, and do the whole thing at once when the
seminary is built. They want the ditches tiles. They realize it is in their best
interest, it's just a matter of timing, funding for the first part of this project is
already been given, and giving additional funding at this time would be difficult as
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 28
this will not be developed at this time. They are hoping to defer the timing of
tiling the ditches until the seminary conditional use permit is required.
Corrie: Questions? Any one else to testify?
Bird: Do you have any problems, Shari, with exempting that tiling out of here
until another development is done stating that the ditches will be tiled under any
other development on that property?
Stiles: No.
Benoit: I don't have a problem with it as long as we don't lose track of what's
going on out there.
Bird: Development or improvements on the remaining property.
Benoit: Make improvements on the remaining development of the property, I
have no problems.
Corrie: Any other comments? I entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 12.
All those in favor, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Any further discussion? I entertain a motion on the request for
annexation and zoning with the requested change in Item 1.1 of the
recommendation of P & Z.
deWeerd: I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 7
acres for proposed LDS Church with recommendations for Planning & Zoning to
reflect the discussion on the tiling of the ditches when further improvements are
made on the property. To instruct the city attorney to draw up the findings of fact
and conclusions of law and decision of order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: It has been moved and second to have the Council draw up the findings
of fact and conclusions of law and proper ordinance to approve with conditions of
discussion of staff on request of annexation and zoning on Item 12. Is there any
further discussion? Clerk, roll-call vote.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 29
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent; Bird, aye
Item 13. Public Hearing: AZ 00-016 Request for annexation and zoning of
10.19 acres from RT to R-8 for proposed Wilkins Ranch Village
planned-unit development by Steiner Development, LLC – south of
Ustick Road and east of Black Cat Road:
Item 14. Public Hearing: PP 00-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 48 building lots with 1 existing home and 5 other lots on 10.19
acres for proposed Wilkins Ranch Village planned-unit
development by Steiner Development, LLC – south of Ustick Road
and east of Black Cat Road:
Item 15. Public Hearing: CUP 00-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit
for proposed Wilkins Ranch Village planned-unit development
consisting of 48 single-family lots ranging from 5,252 s.f. to 9,525
s.f., in a proposed R-8 zone by Steiner Development – south of
Ustick Road and east of Black Cat Road:
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Item 13, 14, and 15 is related to the Wilkins Ranch Village, for
annexation and zoning preliminary plat and request for conditional use permit.
So with Council approval, I will open the public hearing on all three of those for
testimony. I will open the public hearing on 13, 14, and 15. I invite staff
comments first.
Stiles: This is for a property that was previously proposed as part as Wilkins
Ranch Subdivision. They had come in with the entire property and proposed an
R-8 zone at that time, which was denied. They have now got a preliminary plat
and a final plat may be on this portion of Wilkins Ranch Subdivision with R-4.
They are now coming in with the remainder of the property, they had initially
requested an R-4, however, it was so far out of compliance with the R-4 zone,
that the P & Z had recommended that they change their request to R-8 to come
closer to the minimums in the R-8 zone. I wanted to clarify a couple of issues.
There's been a request, at lease in their response, that they be allowed to obtain
the existing mobile home they have out at the site to be a sales office. I would
not recommend approval of that until they show where it is located on the
property and some conditions on how long it can remain there are put into place.
They are proposing, as you can see, this would be a private park site within the
development. There would be this connection that would go to Dakota Ridge
Subdivision and the elementary school site would be down here. The majority of
the lots would be 5,500 s.f., they do have a pedestrian walkway. Also sewer
easement through here. We need a clarification on house sizes that they were
proposing because there were some different sizes throughout their submittals.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 30
They had initially shown under recommendations, the minimum residential house
size as 1,400 s.f. on the plat, but all that was crossed out with a pen and showed
1,300 s.f. and the application itself indicates a square footage of 1,100 s.f. In the
response I got today, it shows they're requesting to comply with the R-8
standards, which states no dwellings shall be less than 1,000 s.f., but in order for
them to get this reduction in the square feet, they need to show that on the plat.
It needs to be included in the preliminary plat approval, is actual showing of the
lots that you are proposing to be less than the minimum square footage of 1,300.
The lots in the adjacent subdivision, Dakota Ridge, this has a 1,500 s.f minimum
requirement. All of the surrounding area of Wilkins Ranch has a 1,400 s.f.
minimum. We would not recommend approval of this plat without nailing down
some of those issues and having them actually propose, show the Council what
they are proposing for the lots. We'd also like as part of the conditional use
permit, that they show the actual site of that mobile unit and there be some
definite time frames on removing it.
Corrie: Questions from staff? Developer?
Arnold: My name is Steve Arnold, Briggs Engineering. I am here representing
the client, Steiner Development on Wilkins Ranch Subdivision. Brief description
of the site, we are proposing 48 single family dwelling lots on approximately
10.19 acres. Project's on the south side of Ustick Road, west of Ten Mile Road.
We are adding a center turn lane for this project, because of a former staff
member did not recommend it for the entire project. Going around the site, we
are providing a extensive landscaping on the east, the north boundary on Ustick
Road, we are allowing 25 feet of buffering, the ordinance is requiring 20 feet. We
are providing 20 feet of buffer feet on the internal residential collector roadway.
There is an existing single family dwelling and as the ordinance states now, there
is a set back requirement of 15 feet. We would like a two foot variance so we
can help maintain some of this landscape buffering. We are providing 1.09 acre
pocket park site with a quite a bit of landscaping and playground issues. Around
the development, we've got Wilkins Ranch which was previously approved by P
& Z and the City Council, to the south we've got Lake at Cherry Lane No. 9,
Dakota Ridge to the East, those lots are ranging from 8,000 to nearly ¾ of an
acre down at the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 9. At the previous Council meetings,
we were trying to get approval of R-4 zone. In the R-4 zone, with the density
bonus the way we interpreted it, you are allowed 4 units per acre. This is a ten
acre site, 4 units in a 10 acre site, you get 40 dwelling units. At the last P & Z
meeting, the staff noted that there are some discrepancies in the ordinance as it
pertains to density bonuses. There is also the issue with the reduced lot frontage
from the 80 feet to what we are requesting approval for 52 feet on this site. Also
the minimum house size for the lot is 1,400 s.f. There's no provision in the
ordinance that allows for reducing the size of the home in the R-4 zone. At that
meeting, it was recommended by City staff that we apply for an R-8 zone. The
way the density bonuses were being interpreted was if we applied for a density
bonus, we would be required to request several variances, 1) the frontage, 2) the
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 31
minimum house size and as the City saw it, the minimum lot size as well. We
interpreted that we are at 48 lots, we feel that based on the interpretation of
ordinance, we are allowed 50 dwelling units. So we thought we were only at a
17% density increase while providing a pocket park. It was recommended at the
last P & Z meeting, that we apply for an R-8 zone and also go in for the density
bonus. Under the density bonus for the site, the only variance we would be
requesting is the variance on block length. We felt, under our interpretation, was
that was what we would be allowed. We are recommending that for the smaller
home sizes here, this is a larger development, there's not too many homes at this
size. The development is seeing the demand for smaller homes and smaller lots
based on demand. We are trying to get some mixed density, part of it is
marketing. His other option is to come in here with the R-4 zone, go the 8,000
s.f. minimums and eliminate the pocket park. We didn't like that, the pocket park
allowed for some nice amenities in this development. It also will provide some
amenities to Wilkins Ranch. We are requesting that we are allowed to do some
smaller homes and smaller lot sizes based on the R-8 zone. The R-8 zone is
being requested so that the variances are not required. The only variance would
be on block length. We are not going to put crummy little homes in there to
destroy from the nature of the other parts of the development that we are
spending quite a bit of money on so it looks nice for marketing of the homes. We
would request that the City Council approve the proposed zoning and/ or grant
the variances which they are for. I believe the client will be starting out at
approximately 1,200 s.f. and the ordinance requires 1,000 s.f. The mobile home
will be removed once a building is completed. If this needs to be eliminated, we
request the Council to approve the removal for tonight.
Bird: On the mobile home, you say leave it there until the first home's built.
What happens if that home sells? I think we need to put a time limit on it.
Arnold: There's no problem. If you want to put it in months, we have no problem
with that.
deWeerd: You would build the first home as a sales office. Is that what I hear
you saying?
Arnold: If it's conditioned that we have to eliminate the mobile home, we will. Put
a time limit and then we're forced if that's a concern of the Council.
deWeerd: Then I understand that you need a variance with the existing house
and then a variance on the block length.
Arnold: Correct.
deWeerd: Have you applied for those?
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 32
Arnold: Those have not been applied for. My understanding of the process is
those are applied for and approved prior to final plat.
deWeerd: I think we've been hearing all night that we kind of like to have the
variances at the same time as we move on the CDP and the preliminary plat.
Corrie: Are all your questions answered? Is there anyone else that would like to
issue testimony? Council, questions?
Stiles: If they are proposing less than the 1,300 s.f., I would like to see that
shown on the plat. As far as the existing house set back and the block length,
can't that be approved or not approved as part of the conditional use? It allows
for variances, either way. I would think as part of the conditional use permit,
either you approve the conditional use permit with what they proposed, or you tell
them they've got to put in another stub. I can't see how they can with the south
development. My main concerns would be with house size and the mobile home.
I guess I would recommend that is you want to approve the conditional use
permit as shown, that you don't require a block length and house set back
variance and include that as part of the terms of the conditional use permit.
Bird: On the preliminary plat, do you want all of that included before we approve
it?
Stiles: I would like to see it. The preliminary plat is the plat and there won't be all
these issues to deal with on the final plat.
Bird: We need to approve this as a package, so if it's a preliminary plat hanging
it up, then we would have to continue all three of them. Just bring them in as a
package.
deWeerd: Could you at least give the applicant some direction as to just forget
the mobile home?
Bird: I say we give him two months after development starts. Do you want to
continue these as a public hearing? Continue these until September 5
th
.
Corrie: Does the applicant know what we are asking for?
Arnold: What I think I understand we are doing is we are differing this to show
where we are putting the mobile home and the smaller home sites on the
preliminary plat. We request that we close the public hearing and have the client
and myself work out the exact location, etc. Obviously we would like to put it off
to the final plat approval.
Bird: I think you should work with the staff but I have a problem closing the
public hearing, because if we need to get something out to the public again and it
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 33
needs to be changed, it's not going to take any longer. If there's not going to be
new testimony entered, it will be continued, shut and voted on if the staff says
everything has been worked out to their satisfaction.
Arnold: If it was just the mobile home, I would say get rid of it so we could get
our approval. We will work with the City staff on this.
Corrie: Other discussion?
Stiles: I would ask legal counsel if he had a problem with including the variances
to block length and set back on that one home on the PUD.
Smith: I would have to look at the PUD ordinance. I'm not real familiar with that
one and see if, my guess, probably not. We've got a plat, you've got the CUP
process, and if we can figure out a way to do it given the relatively small size of
this development, I think we can figure out a way to take care of it in one. They
can note everything on the revised preliminary plat.
Bird: With no further testimony, I move that we continue the public hearing for
the annexation and zoning of 10.19 acres from RT to R-8 for the proposed
Wilkins Ranch Subdivision planned unit development by Sterner Corporation and
the public hearing for the request for preliminary plat approval of 48 building lots
with 1 existing home and 5 other lots on 10.19 acres for the proposed Wilkins
Ranch Subdivision and the public hearing for request for conditional use permit
for the proposed Wilkins Ranch Subdivision planned unit consisting of 48 single
family lots ranging from 5,252 s.f. to 9,525 s.f. to September 5, 2000.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been moved and seconded to continue the public hearings
on Items 13, 14, and 15 until September 5
th
. Further discussion? All those in
favor of the motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 16. Public Hearing: VAR 00-016 Request for variance to decrease
the number of 3-inch Caliper trees due to the unplantable area
(irrigation and sewer easements) by Bob L. Albrecht and Wayne
E. McDonald – East 5
th
and King Street:
Corrie: Item 16 a public hearing in request for variance to decrease the number
of 3" caliper trees due to the unplantable area, irrigation, and sewer easements
by Bob Albrecht and Wayne McDonald. I open the public hearing, staff
comments first.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 34
Stiles: The applicant has requested a reduction in the number of 3" caliper trees
required for their site. They are currently being constructed on, but they do have
3" caliper trees on the southern boundary and adjacent to East 5
th
Street. They
do have some trees within there. They have maximized the number of trees they
can have for the area available. There is an irrigation easement running along
the western and southern boundary. I would like to see how they are going to
provide those trees if they get approved for the variance and they have to have
the number of trees that are shown on this plan, where else they might provide
those? This application shows that they have 23,501 s.f. of paved and sidewalk
areas which would require 16 trees and they are showing 19. I guess I don't
know what they are asking for.
Corrie: Why don't we find out what the applicant is asking for and then we can
come back to that?
Stiles: I guess I need the applicant to tell me that can't do any of that on the
southern boundary or what. It doesn't appear with the plan they've submitted
that they require a variance.
Albrecht: My name is Bob Albrecht. What we are trying to do here is what
everyone else does, which is get away with as little as we can. A couple of
things that are not showing up on the 8 ½ X 11's, what we tried to do, with the
easements, we have been in communication with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District and they will not allow us to do any plantings on the easement. They
have a 40 foot easement on the south boundary on the property. In addition to
that, there is a 20 foot sewer easement. Unfortunately they do not lie within each
other, the sewer easement takes 5 more feet of the property than the Nampa-
Meridian. So there is a 45 foot area. Along the back, there's a 40 foot sewer and
irrigation easement there. The problem is that in the back part, the sewer
easement runs in conjunction with the irrigation easement and the Meridian
Sewer District will not allow any tree planting in a sewer easement. On the south
side, the sewer easement is far enough away is that the landscaping in addition
to the deciduous tree shown, shall consist of shrubbery, hibiscus, sod, bark,
irrigation sprinklers. That doesn't sound like anything we have. We have the
trees as shown in front of the property, that would be the 3" caliper trees. We are
9 short, we are seeking landscape curbing and tall growing shrubbery along that
south boundary. Nampa-Meridian will allow shrubbery in their easement, but not
trees.
Bird: Shari, what would be feasible?
Albrecht: We would really like to do the shrubbery on the south boundary as a
buffer. The building adjacent to it, the back is not used for anything, it is weeds.
We are not going to occupy this building, we currently occupy the building two
doors up. This building is going to be for lease. We are interested in the curb
appeal.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 35
Corrie: Anybody else to issue testimony? Any other questions?
Kuntz: The City would be willing to accept those trees as a donation if it would
make the applicant feel better.
deWeerd: I move that we close public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second to close public hearing. Any further
discussion? All those in favor, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
deWeerd: I move that we approve the request for variance to decrease the
number of trees to ten and to provide a shrub border along the south property
line for Item 16.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the variance of
decrease of the number of trees to ten and shrubs along the south side on the
property line on Item 16. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote
please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 17. Public Hearing: AZ 00-013 Request for annexation and zoning of
5.4 acres for proposed Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision for
office and shop in an I-L zone by Chuck Elliot, The Elliot Group –
south of Fairview Avenue and east of Locust Grove Road on
Wilson Lane: Continue public hearing to September 5, 2000
Item 18. Public Hearing: PP 00-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of two building lots on 5.4 acres for proposed Elliot Industrial Park
Subdivision in an I-L zone by Chuck Elliot, The Elliot Group –
south of Fairview Avenue and east of Locust Grove Road on
Wilson Lane:
Corrie: Item 17 and 18 is an annexation and preliminary plat for Elliot Industrial
Park Subdivision and the public hearing, we will open the public hearings at the
same time. I will open the public hearing on Item 17 and 18.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 36
Stiles: This is for a property that would be behind D & B Supply, north of Wilson
Lane. This is the Econo-Lube Subdivision and this would be Chelsea Square, is
how it was approved. I think it's called Elm Park. This is where Wilson Lane
dead ends. The Settlers Canal runs through and there is the Jackson Drain. We
would take exception to the recommendation to City Council for the annexation
and zoning on page 2, Item 11. We would also like the annexation and zoning
conditions of approval to reflect condition to provide easement and construct a
pathway along that Jackson Drain in accordance with our comprehensive plan
recommendations. We do have a letter from Barbara Mile who owns this
property here that she is opposed to zoning the property light industrial with no
grid system other than what Wilson Lane provided. Those are the annexation
and zoning comments that I had.
deWeerd: On the Jackson Drain, doesn't that cover on page 2, 1.1?
Stiles: It's just a recommendation, it's not actually putting any conditions on the
annexation. The applicant have had some preliminary discussions that they
would like to leave the Settler's Canal open. They have some unique users that
they are considering for this property. On the plat, one of the conditions of
approval did ask for some revisions of the plan. I don't think any of those were
significant. There was a request in the recommendation to the City Council from
P & Z to submit a revised plat showing all existing and proposed easements
because they have not seen a revised plat. On the recommendations of the plat,
page 1, Item 5, that sentence needs to be completed. We would like to have the
revised plat submitted as a requested in order for that to go forward. On page 4,
Item 1.12, the applicant can also address this in more detail, I believe they are
opposed to the pathway. In the recommendation to the City Council, page 5, I
have a note from Brad, the last of the paragraph right above 1.14, the P & Z
motion modified this. I don't know how they modified this.
Corrie: Item 17 and 18 is an annexation and preliminary plat for Elliot Industrial
Park Subdivision and the public hearing, we will open the public hearings at the
same time. I will open the public hearing on Item 17 and 18.
Stiles: This is for a property that would be behind D & B Supply, north of Wilson
Lane. This is the Econo-Lube Subdivision and this would be Chelsea Square, is
how it was approved. I think it's called Elm Park. This is where Wilson Lane
dead ends. The Settlers Canal runs through and there is the Jackson Drain. We
would take exception to the recommendation to City Council for the annexation
and zoning on page 2, Item 11. We would also like the annexation and zoning
conditions of approval to reflect condition to provide easement and construct a
pathway along that Jackson Drain in accordance with our comprehensive plan
recommendations. We do have a letter from Barbara Mile who owns this
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 37
property here that she is opposed to zoning the property light industrial with no
grid system other than what Wilson Lane provided. Those are the annexation
and zoning comments that I had.
deWeerd: On the Jackson Drain, doesn't that cover on page 2, 1.1?
Stiles: It's just a recommendation, it's not actually putting any conditions on the
annexation. The applicant have had some preliminary discussions that they
would like to leave the Settler's Canal open. They have some unique users that
they are considering for this property. On the plat, one of the conditions of
approval did ask for some revisions of the plan. I don't think any of those were
significant. There was a request in the recommendation to the City Council from
PLANNING & ZONING to submit a revised plat showing all existing and
proposed easements because they have not seen a revised plat. On the
recommendations of the plat, page 1, Item 5, that sentence needs to be
completed. We would like to have the revised plat submitted as a requested in
order for that to go forward. On page 4, Item 1.12, the applicant can also
address this in more detail, I believe they are opposed to the pathway. In the
recommendation to the City Council, page 5, I have a note from Brad, the last of
the paragraph right above 1.14, the PLANNING & ZONING motion modified this.
I don't know how they modified this. I need some clarification on this, I have one
plan that has 2 lots, and one that has 4 lots. This is showing the conditional user
permit, what they are proposing for landscaping. This would be Wilson Lane
here, they are proposing a public road, no. They have a minimum 30 foot
frontage requirement, so this is just proposed as a flag lot. That doesn't look real
good. This is an elevation of the proposed building. The prospective is a little
hard to get the feeling of that.
Corrie: Any questions? Applicant?
Nickel: My name is Shaun Nickel, Hubble Engineering. I am here tonight
representing Chuck Elliot and the development of this industrial park. I will try to
be brief. I don't have a current report in front of me that you are looking at. This
is an annexation request, a rezone to IL, conditional use permit, and a
preliminary plat application. You did receive recommendation for approval from
both your staff and PLANNING & ZONING commission for the applications in
front of you this evening. Regarding the general requirement No. 1, tiling of the
canal. We have met with the district and we are going to tile that, so we are not
asking for a variance. Under No. 3 on the annexation and zoning regarding the
multi-use pathway and easement dedication, we are not in objection to applying
that to this subdivision, however, a concern that came up was whether that
easement and pathway was going to be on the north or south of that drain.
Some thought it might be on the south side of the drain. I need the staff to
address this. We are under the understanding that the irrigation district would
allow us to provide that within their easement. The other issue that came up was
the requirement for a 20 foot wide landscape strip along the eastern boundary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 38
Since this is not a PUD application, the 10 foot reduction would require a formal
variance application to be submitted to the City Council. The PLANNING &
ZONING shall give some direction to staff and the Council regarding the
requested with reduction and include the variance requirement as part of the
motion to approve the plat. What we are asking for, we are asking for a 10 foot
reduction strip on the eastern boundary. We have met with the adjacent property
owner have come into agreement on the type of trees and the distance the trees
would be planted to help buffer the proposed use from the existing and future
uses on that eastern parcel. Lot one of the subdivision would be the new
location of Butte Fencing. We are asking for the zoning to be light industrial zone
on this subdivision.
deWeerd: Shari said a revised plat was needed and it has not been received. It
has been requested.
Nickel: I was not aware that it was supposed to be turned in prior to this meeting.
We do have that revised and I could submit that to staff tomorrow morning if
necessary.
Stiles: We wanted the new plat because this one doesn't show the easements
and that's required by state code.
Nickel: We would agree to condition of approval for the final plat for that
obviously to be shown. Some of the confusion that might have come up, is that
originally submitted an application for a four lot subdivision, but we then we
resubmitted as a two lot subdivision. So that is where the confusion was with the
highway district.
deWeerd: You mentioned that you were working with the property to the east on
the buffer.
Nickel: That is correct. That was one of the issues that we felt might preclude
the Council from granting a variance would be the effect that lessen that buffer
might have on that property to the east.
deWeerd: P & Z did not want to act on reducing that.
Nickel: They said they didn't want to talk about. They wanted to differ it solely to
your Council.
Corrie: Any one else like to issue testimony?
Baker: My name is Matt Baker, Dennis & Baker Associates. We are the property
owners to the east and to the south, we have approximately 120 acres total in
our land package and we are working on adding some more. We had worked
out an agreement with the applicant. "Trees of 20 feet on center on the east side
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 39
of our property, trees will alternate between 3" caliper deciduous and 8' tall
conifers, either Austrian Pine or Scotch Firs. Most of the deciduous trees will be
shade trees, except some ornamental more toward the front of the property. The
fence will be 6' along the entire east boundary of lot 1, block 1 and same for lot 2,
block 1 when developed." We don't oppose this agreement.
Corrie: Any one else? Counsel, questions?
Bird: Regarding the preliminary plat, without the right plat being in our hands, I
do not want to enact upon it tonight. Not that the people won't do what they
stated they have, I think we are opening ourselves, Council, for a can of worms.
I don't like postponing these things, I personally, until we receive a preliminary
plat with the easements, etc., I don't want to enact upon it.
deWeerd: I would agree with that.
Elliot: My name is Chuck Elliot. We didn't even get notice that we needed that
change in plat until yesterday. I wasn't noticed that I could pick the paperwork up
until yesterday. Therefore, we couldn't get it in time.
Bird: Was that our staff that just notified you yesterday that they needed the new
one?
Elliot: It wasn't this staff. I was informed that it would be available for pickup
yesterday.
deWeerd: I believe, Shari, that it was not in your staff comments dated July 14
th
that that was needed?
Elliot: So when was I suppose to be able to pick up the paperwork if I was not
notified until yesterday?
deWeerd: This would have been submitted to the applicant. This would have
been prior to going to Planning & Zoning Commission that you got these
comments. The easement issue is a state code requirement that we don't know
how it's going to impact this side or your lots, so we would really like to see that.
Stiles: It's noted on page 5 of the July 14
th
staff comments.
Nickel: Yes, number 7 was given to us on July 14
th
, however all it states is
submit a revised plat showing all existing and any proposed easements. No
easements are currently shown for the Settler's Canal and Jackson Drain. It
does not state when those needed to be submitted. That's usually a requirement
prior to final plat. I believe that's all Shari needs for her to move this plat forward.
It is state code that we show those on a final plat and I don't believe those
easements, especially now that we are tiling the Settler's Canal, we have agreed
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 40
to provide the pathway along the Jackson Drain. I don't believe those easements
not being on the plat would affect what we are going to show on the plat we are
going to submit. I would request that we be moved forward tonight and we will
get her that final plat. It's not going to affect the two lots in design or layout at all.
Bird: Also on the landscaping, we haven't filed a variance on that?
Nickel: I think that's why we are here tonight to discuss from what I understand
from reading your agenda. P & Z Commission should give some direction to staff
and Council regarding the request with reduction and include the variance
requirement as part of the motion to approve the plat. The way I read that is that
it would be a requirement that we come back and submit a variance prior to the
final plat being approved. Could we get the preliminary plat approved with the 20
foot requirement and then come back to the Council and request the 10 foot
variance?
Nichols: The 20 foot is the ordinance requirement.
Stiles: I have a problem acting on a variance after they have approved a plat.
You are changing plat requirements, changing development agreement
requirements, changing conditions of annexation, all of those will be included as
part of the approval. That's what makes it cumbersome for us, if you are
changing things after the fact, then you've changed the public hearing comments
and most of the findings would change as a result of the variance you are asking
for.
Nichols: Shari, is it usual process to ask for a variance together with a
preliminary plat?
Stiles: With the plat. Usually we do get the variance with the application for the
plat. Not always, but we ask if they are requesting any variances.
deWeerd: It seems like we've held up several applications tonight because we
didn't have the variance request with the application.
Nickel: When we did submit the original application, we did ask for a waiver to
that requirement. But because we didn't have a PUD, that's why I kicked it to the
variance. We did ask for that originally with our application, the variance of that
requirement.
Stiles: Where would you be requesting that, on the east or the west or both?
Nickel: East.
Stiles: I don't think there's any doubt that that's going to remain residential there.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 41
Nickel: I don't think it was required to do this on the west, just the eastern
boundary because of the compatibility issue.
Stiles: The way that planning strip ordinance is written..
Nickel: We are not reducing the requirement of the 10% open space on that lot.
We've made up for that in other parts of the lot. We need that 10 foot variance
for landscaping.
Stiles: The way that reads in the ordinance it says "planning strips shall be
required to be placed next to incapable features such as highways, railroads,
commercial or industrial uses, to screen the view from residential properties.
Such screening should be a minimum of 20 feet wide and shall not be part of the
normal street right-of-way or utility easement. There are other issues that I still
believe we need a revised plat before acting on this. As far as the 20 foot
planning strip requirement, can we maybe do something similar to what we did
with Observation Point and that if they can get a letter from the property owner
adjacent to them, that they accept the 10 feet with the trees 20 foot on center as
their buffer, we'll forego the variance requirement or am I getting out of line? It
may be residential now, but you don't know what it's going to be. It's for the
adjacent residential use, I don't know.
Nickel: We do have an agreement from the property owner accepting that.
Bird: Mr. Nichols says that we could take care of this variance in the conditional
use, but then it's still the preliminary plat being changed again. There's never
been a formal variance request to us on this. The only hold up tonight is this
preliminary plat that's not showing the easements and stuff. Is that right, Shari?
Nickel: If we brought this back on the 5
th
, would that give us enough time to bring
the variance forward with it?
Stiles: We have a notice requirement for those variances. It would be the 19
th
if
you got something in the next day or two.
Nickel: If that was the case, if you could approve the conditional use permit
tonight, and delay the preliminary plat until the 5
th
, we would be happy to submit
a variance and to resubmit the preliminary plat with easements, get the
comments from the irrigation districts, bring those back to you on the 5
th
and
hopefully we could get that approved tonight. The applicant is more concerned
about getting his conditional use permit approved so he can get his building.
Bird: We need to get the annexation and preliminary plat before we can do the
conditional use. Let's solve it if there's a way to solve it. We do have three
weeks between now and the 5
th
.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 42
Smith: There ought to be a way, if the ordinance doesn't provide for it, then we
need to change the ordinance to allow the applicant to come in and submit a
preliminary plat application, variances with regard to specific aspects of the
zoning ordinance because of the sites specific conditions. We can look at the
zoning ordinance to try to change it, but right now we are saddled with the one
we have. The one we have has a 20 foot buffer strip requirement in it. It would
be my preference that we could do and if it was agreed. I'm not sure you can do
it under the existing ordinance.
Stiles: There are homes right next to that.
Nickel: There is one existing home on the east. It is just a rental. How long do
we need for the notice of the variance?
Stiles: It needs to be fifteen days, but we have a deadline to get it into the paper
that's like a week before it's published. I think we have to have the notices in by
Tuesday for a Friday publication.
Nickel: We have 20 days from tomorrow, that would not be enough time?
Stiles: The deadline's Monday to get them in Friday.
deWeerd: Is there a chance that we could continue this until September 5
th
, and
have the attorney look into this in the morning and let Shari know if we do need
the variance, then Shari can contact the applicant if the variance is required. On
the 5
th
, we'll just continue it until the 19
th
. Is that a possibility?
Smith: It is a possibility. If I understand what you are suggesting, would be that
you continue the hearing until the 5
th
of September, if we can proceed without a
formal variance application, then the matter would be finished on the 5
th
. If I
conclude a formal variance application is required after consultation with Ms.
Stiles, then we would just have a notice prepared to have the hearing on the 19
th
,
which would give enough time for publication of the notice. Then on the 5
th
we
would announce that it is continued to the 19
th
. It would be contingent, the 19
th
would be contingent on the deal.
Corrie: My gut feeling is this is going to be the 19
th
. I think the attorney can look
at it.
Bird: I feel sorry for the applicants that we keep continuing these. If we do it for
one, then we've basically have to do it for all of them. I make a motion to
continue the public hearing for request for annexation and zoning of 5.4 acres for
proposed Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision and the public hearing for the request
for preliminary plat approval of two building lots on 5.4 acres for proposed Elliot
Industrial Park Subdivision until September 5, 2000 and that the attorney and
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 43
Planning & Zoning Director get together, get to the applicants what they need,
and if at possible, see if we can get this all settled on September 5, 2000.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded that we continue the public
hearing until September 5, 2000 with attorney and staff getting together and see
if they can wrap it up on the 5
th
. Any other discussion? All those in favor of that
motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 19. CUP 00-033: Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct
office and shop for proposed Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision in
an I-L zone by Chuck Elliot, The Elliot Group – south of Fairview
Avenue and east of Locust Grove Road on Wilson Lane:
Corrie: Item 19 is a request for conditional use permit for proposed Elliot
Industrial Park Subdivision.
Bird: I move that we table the request for conditional use permit to construct
office and shop for proposed Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision until September 5,
2000.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table the request for conditional use
permit on Item 19 on the Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision conditional use permit
until September 5
th
. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 20. CUP 00-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for construction of
an Arby’s Restaurant with a drive-thru on property in an I-L zone
by The Bailey Company & TFCM Associates, Ltd. – Pad P-2 within
Meridian Crossroads Shopping Center, southeast corner of Eagle
Road and Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Item 20 is a conditional use permit for construction of an Arby's
Restaurant with a drive thru on the property a IL zone, Bailey Company with
TFCM Associates Limited, southeast corner Fairview Avenue. Staff comments
first.
Stiles: This is a proposal for an Arby's on the southeast corner of East
Presidential and Eagle Road and the are also in the process platting a
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 44
subdivision for the property south of Presidential Drive. We have reviewed the
application and would recommend approval with all staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Applicant?
Bonds: My name is Tom Bonds, Dakota Company. It is my understanding that
this is not a public hearing. We’ve read through the staff recommendations and
we are in full agreement with all the conditions of approval. I would like to point
out that a lot of the conditions of the ACHD that are itemized in the
recommendations have already have been completed at this time and they were
part of the original conditional use permit application. We are continuing to go on
the improvements that are required on the Fairview and Eagle intersection and
also the Pine Street extension and traffic light are in design process right now
and hope to start on construction of both of those yet this Fall.
Corrie: Any questions? I will entertain a motion for the conditional use permit
requesting Item 20.
deWeerd: I move that we approve the request for conditional use permit for
construction of an Arby's Restaurant with the drive thru on the property in an IL
zone by the Bailey Company and the TFCM Associates LTD, pad P2 within the
Meridian Crossroads Shopping Center to include all staff comments, ask the
attorney to draw up findings of fact and conclusions of law and decisions of
order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: It has been moved and seconded to approve the conditional use permit
for construction and all items stated in the motion and that the attorney draw up
the findings of fact and conclusions of law of such. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, roll-call vote please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 21. FP 00-014 Request for Final Plat approval of 8 building lots and 1
other lot on 6.68 acres for Carol Professional Center
(Stokesberry Subdivision) by J-U-B Engineers – Eagle Road
between Fairview and Ustick:
Corrie: Item 21 request for final plat approval, 8 building lots and one other lot
with 6.68 acres for Carol Professional Center, JB Engineers, Fairview and Ustick.
Staff comments.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 45
Stiles: This is for the property immediately east of the new elementary school off
of Eagle Road. The applicant has left, but I told him that they would be okay, I
hope. The only thing that we had an issue with is they're accepting dedication of
right-of-way without any kind of approval from the City of Meridian. They did this
entire road, this portion at 250 feet is School District property. They agreed to all
of our conditions. We would ask that you would approve the final plat with the
staff and agency recommendations.
deWeerd: As far as the dedication from the School District, they have dedicated
that ACHD.
Stiles: They say they have.
deWeerd: You can go ahead and sign off on this plat, right?
Stiles: Gary can if all the conditions have been met.
Corrie: Any other questions? I will entertain a motion on the final plat approval.
McCandless: So moved.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the final plat approval Item 21
with staff recommendations and sign off on the final plat afterwards. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 22. FP 00-015 Request for final plat approval of 3 building lots on
20.78 acres for proposed Zaldien Zarua Subdivision by Frank and
Connie Stauts – east of 4280 South Eagle Road:
Corrie: Item 22 is a request for final plat approval of three building lots, on 20.78
acres for proposed Franklin County Stauts.
Stiles: We recommend approval. It is septic and wells, five acre lots in the
county.
Bird: I move that we approve the final plat of three buildings lots on 20.78 acres
for proposed Zaldien Zarua Subdivision, at 4280 South Eagle Road and for the
attorney to draw up the appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law and
decision of order.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 46
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the final request on Item 22 and
the attorney to draw up the proper orders as needed. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 23. Time Extension: Request for a one-year time extension for
Tremont Place Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2 – Broadway and 8
th
Street
(951 West Pine Avenue):
Corrie: Item 23 is a time extension request for one year time extension for
Tremont Place Subdivision, numbers 1 and 2, Broadway and 8
th
Street, 951
West Pine Avenue. Staff.
Stiles: They are trying to schedule a pre-construction conference at this time,
they don't believe the will be able to record the plat within the one year time
frame. The original plat approval was September 21, 1999, so a one year
extension would put them needing to record this at September 21, 2001.
Bird: I move that we approve the request for a one year time extension for
Tremont Place Subdivision, numbers 1 and 2, Broadway and 8
th
Street, 951
West Pine Avenue.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to the request for a one year time extension
on Item 23 be approved. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in
favor of the motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 24. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: This is to inform you in writing if you choose to, to have the right to a
predetermined hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, August 15, 2000 before the Mayor
and City Council to appear in person to be judged in the facts claimed by the
water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may obtain retain counsel, this
service will be discontinued on August 16, 2000 unless payment is received in
full. Anyone present who wishes to contest this water/ sewer delinquency? I
hereby inform that you may appeal to have the decision of the City reviewed by
the 4
th
Judicial District Court, pursuant to Idaho State Code. If you do appeal, the
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 47
water will be shut off, and the total amount listed is $40,215.02. Any discussion?
I will entertain a motion to approve the water, sewer, and trash delinquency.
Bird: I move that we approve the delinquency turn off for water and sewer for the
sum of $40,215.02.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the delinquency turn off list.
Further discussion. Those in favor of the motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 25. Department Reports:
B. City Engineer – Gary Smith:
1. Western Electronics Site – Waterline Easement:
Corrie: Gary you have a Western Electronics site easement we need to vote on.
You've heard his request in Pre-Council Meeting, any questions? I will entertain
a motion to have the water main easement to be signed by the Mayor and
approved.
Bird: I move that we approve the Western Electronics site water line easement
agreement and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Western Electronics site
water line easement. I am here to sign it and the Clerk to attest. Any other
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
D. Parks and Recreation Department – Tom Kuntz:
1. Generations Plaza II:
Corrie: I believe there is a request to approve the Generations Plaza II to go on.
Kuntz: Yes sir.
Corrie: The request is.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 48
Bird: I have no problem. You are taking this before the Parks & Recreation
Commission next Monday, right Tom.
Kuntz: They have seen it already.
Bird: This is in the budget. I will make a motion that we accept this, have the
Mayor sign it. Bring the contract back to be signed.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Generations Plaza II plan as
presented by Tom Kuntz. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the
motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: The ACHD van route, I will put this in your box, but I've got about seven
areas. This will be kind of a loop we are going through. Shari will bring up the
land use planning by ACHD and our concern. Any other comments on the
agenda?
Bird: I want my five year Boise cost thing that I requested six months ago that I
never got. I want to know how much they've got from Boise in the last five years
and how much they've spent over there.
Corrie: Impact fees.
Bird: Total prices like they show us.
Corrie: How would I word this?
Bird: Request costs of income and outgoing for City of Boise for the last five
years.
deWeerd: How they did it for us was cost and impact fees collected and then
what the difference was. They should ours as a running total and showed where
there was a deficit, and a deficit we had to use up.
Corrie: Any thing else?
D. Parks and Recreation Department – Tom Kuntz:
2. Five Mile Drain Pathway:
Bird: Mr. Mayor, we forgot one thing under Tom. He needed approval on that
irrigation pathway district licensing. I would move that we approve that for the
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 49
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest once all conditions are met and re-wording
is done.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the district license after the City
Clerk to have the Mayor sign and the Clerk to attest for the approval. Further
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Any thing else?
Bird: Mr. Musser, we had requested at our budget hearing on Tuesday that the
Police Department would go back and come back with an idea of how many
officers, cars, and stuff that would be utilized that we we’re not spending into
dispatch center. Is there any possible way that we can see that next week?
Musser: I can see what I can put together.
Bird: We would like to see a plan.
deWeerd: How does that work with the SROs? They get the additional monies
from the School District, if we’ve set our cap, that would be income in and …
Bird: It has already been included in.
deWeerd: How about the patrol officer bid? Are you getting grants on those too?
Musser: Those were in conjunction with another hiring program grant. That was
for four full time and two part time officers.
Bird: Do not include the one from last year, the three this year and Norm's
retirement. They have already budgeted.
Musser: They are accounted for currently in the budget.
Corrie: Any thing else?
Bird: This is the draft we got as the City Council and this is the draft we are
handing out to the public. Are we okay handing out that condensed version?
Smith: I'm not sure it's appropriate to distribute a draft.
Bird: We adopted this. We recognized this.
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 50
Smith: I would have to look into it. One appears to be a summary draft and this
is a full report.
Bird: The big one is much more detailed.
Smith: If both of these, both of these go together.
Bird: We want the public to have availability to it.
Smith: What should be distributed?
Musser: The smaller, condensed version of the draft, is the initial draft covering
points which were going to be further expanded upon and covered in the larger
draft. Had a final draft been done, it probably would have been a wee bit larger
than the big copy you have, which is the second copy. There is some
correspondence that did accompany that, which came from the entity that was
contacted to publish it. Basically they looked for a response from us, we
provided that response, we were not able to come to an agreement amongst
ourselves between Meridian Police Department and the WRYCOPS and what
would be contained and whether or not concerns would be addressed.
Smith: I'm a little uncomfortable that there are statements that are named and
some are not named. I have some concerns about distributing this wholesale. If
we've acknowledge the receipt of this report, didn't accept this, it probably
constitutes a public record.
deWeerd: I had never seen that condensed version.
Bill: I haven't either. I have read this one quite a few times.
Musser: That shortened version is the initial draft. The process did consist of
three drafts; the initial draft, much more extensive draft, and the final draft which
would be considered a public document.
Bird: The final was not published.
Musser: Some of those items did include significant issues which were
misrepresentations or erroneous facts that were included in the methodology to
produce the instrument.
deWeerd: Chief Gordon was at odds of what the final report should be and so
WRYCOPS said the most recent draft goes. That is our final report and that's the
only thing that we have seen.
Smith: I can recall a meeting where this was discussed and Chief Gordon
pointed out that there were significant problems with it and so that would have
Meridian City Council Meeting
August 15, 2000
Page 51
been, this was dated October 22, 1999 and the meeting would have had to have
been after December. So this would be more recent.
Musser: I had two copies initially, one was for my review and I do believe that I
have another one unless I passed that on to the Chief. I will get a hold of the
Mayor if I am able to locate it.
McCandless: Didn't we approve getting another evaluation?
Bird: It has been in the paper that we had a WRYCOPS Assessment and now
public people are wanting to look at it.
Corrie: We will see if we have a clean copy and have the City Clerk copy it. Any
thing else?
Bird: I move that we adjourn.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adjourn, all those in favor, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:15 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK