HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 12-19Meridian City Council Meeting December 19, 2000
The Meridian City Council meeting was called to order on Tuesday, December 19, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Robert Corrie, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird
Others Present: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Bill Gordon, Bill Nichols, Will Berg
Corrie: I want to welcome all of you here tonight especially Troupe 166. Glad to have you fellows here. Hopefully you can get a civic lesson. We will have the Consent Agenda, and
I will tell everyone in the audience what has taken place tonight. Some of the items are going to be tabled, and I will give you those items and we will begin the regular meeting at
that point. Council, you see the consent agenda what is your pleasure on that?
Item A. Approve minutes of December 5, 2000, Special Pre-Council Meeting:
Item B. Approve minutes of December 5, 2000, City Council Meeting:
Item C. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned unit development including continuing care retirement community, single-
and multi-family residential and office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers – Joseph A. Billig – east of St. Luke's between Franklin Road and Interstate 84:
Item D. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-021 Request for a variance to place a 23’-3” by 10’ internally illuminated electric pylon sign in an undeveloped part of the
industrial technical park by DBSI Industrial – NWC of Stoddard and Overland Roads:
Item E. Beer and Wine License Transfer: Corona Village from 39 East Fairview Avenue to 21 East Fairview Avenue:
Item F. Beer, Wine and/or Liquor Renewals for 2001:
Item G. Waterline Easement from Ed Bews:
Item H. Agreement for hook-up to City Sewer by Dianna Williamson – 2440 South Locust Grove Road:
Item I. Development Agreement: AZ 00-006 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.73 acres from RT to L-O and R-15 zones by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc., for proposed Valeri
Heights Subdivision at the northeast corner of W. Pine Avenue and N. Ten Mile Road:
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On our Consent Agenda the minutes for the December 5 Pre-Council meeting and the December 5 regular City Council meeting should be tabled until January 2, 2001; Item C, which
is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Touchmark Living, they would like that tabled until February 20, 2001. With that taken care of, I move that we pass the Consent Agenda
as stated.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with Items A, B and C. Item A and B to be corrected and voted on the first meeting in January, and Item C tabled
until February 20, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote please.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, roll-call vote.
Anderson: aye; De Weerd: aye; Bird: aye; McCandless: aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 2. Steiner Development and the City of Meridian Land Swap at the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 8 and Cherry Lane Golf Course:
Corrie: Now if you will notice on the regular agenda the correction that will be Item No. 2 which is the ordinance for the Steiner Development and the City of Meridian Land Swap that
will be tabled until January 2 the first meeting in January.
Item 3. Sign Ordinance:
Corrie: Item No. 3 is an ordinance on the Sign Ordinance that will be tabled until the 16 of January.
Item 4. FP 00-020 Final Plat approval of 47 building lots and 3 other lots on 14.93 acres in an R-4 zone for Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 1 by Gem Star Properties, LLC – south of Ustick
Road and west of Black Cat Road:
Corrie: Item No. 4 has asked to be tabled until January 2 first meeting in 2001.
Item 6. RZ-00-005 Request for Rezone of 10.04 acres from R-8 to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Companies and Stubblefield Development – southeast corner of Cherry Lane
and Linder Road:
Item 7. CUP-00-048 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a 58,000 s.f. retail commercial building, four fuel stations with a kiosk and 10,500 s.f. multi-tenant retail commercial
building for the proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Companies and Stubblefield Development – southeast corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road:
Corrie: Item No. 6 and 7, that is the Linder Crossing the rezone and also the conditional use permit. The letter has been sent to the Council asking that to be tabled until February
20, 2001.
Item 11. RZ-00-007 Request for Rezone of 6.95 acres from L-O to C-G for the proposed Mallane Commercial Complex by the Land Group, Inc. – northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and North
Hickory Way:
Corrie: Then we also have a letter from Mallane Commercial Complex that they wish to withdraw by letter for the request for rezone. So that will not be heard; it is being withdrawn.
Corrie: We are adding under department reports Item B. We will have a discussion on the police building and the financing of that as well. With that being said you are all welcome
to stay, if you are here for one of those in particular they will all be tabled.
Item 2. Steiner Development and the City of Meridian Land Swap at the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 8 and Cherry Lane Golf Course:
Corrie: Council, we will be on Item No. 2 this was tabled from December 5, 2000. It was an ordinance of Steiner Development and the City of Meridian Land Swap at The Lakes at Cherry
Lane No. 8 and Cherry Lane Golf Course. As I have stated it has been requested to be tabled until January 2, 2001.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion then that we table this item until January 2, 2001.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and then seconded to table Item No. 2 until January 2, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I abstain from voting on that issue.
Corrie: Let the record show that we have one abstain and three ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED
Item 3. Sign Ordinance:
Corrie: Item No. 3 is tabled from December 5 it was an ordinance of the Sign Ordinance and that has been requested to be tabled until January 16, 2001.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we table Item No. 3 for the Sign Ordinance to January 16.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to table the ordinance of Sign Ordinance until January 16, 2001, meeting. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. FP 00-020 Final Plat approval of 47 building lots and 3 other lots on 14.93 acres in an R-4 zone for Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 1 by Gem Star Properties, LLC – south of Ustick
Road and west of Black Cat Road:
Corrie: Item No. 4 is a table from the December 5 meeting it is a final plat of Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 1, that has also been requested to be tabled until the first meeting in
January, which would be January 2, 2001.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table the final plat for the 47 building lots by Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 1 by Gem Star Properties, LLC until January 2, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to table the Final Plat 00-020 until January 2, 2001, meeting. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5. AZ 00-006 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.73 acres from RT to L-O and R-15 zones by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc., for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision
at the northeast corner of W. Pine Avenue and N. Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Item No. 5 will be Ordinance No. 899. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 12.73 acres from RT to L-O and R-15 zoned by Vicki Welker, Gold River Companies, Inc.,
from proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision at the northeast corner of West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road. At this time I will ask the City Clerk to read Ordinance 899 by title only
at this time.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Ordinance No. 899: An ordinance finding that certain land to be known by Valeri Heights lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits
of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council; and the said land be annexed to the City
of Meridian and zoning designate medium-high density residential district R-15 and limited office district L-O; and declaring that the said land by proper legal description as described
below be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; and repealing all Ordinances, Resolutions, Orders, or parts thereof in conflict herewith; and directing the City
Engineer to add said property the official maps to the City of Meridian, Idaho; and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the
areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: You have heard the reading of the Ordinance No. 899 read by title only is there anyone from the audience that would like to have the entire ordinance read in its entirety.
Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 899.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 899 with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 899 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk if you would give roll call vote please.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6. RZ-00-005 Request for Rezone of 10.04 acres from R-8 to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Companies and Stubblefield Development – southeast corner of Cherry Lane
and Linder Road
Corrie: Item No. 6 is a public hearing it is a request for rezone of 10.04 acres of R-8 to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Company and Stubblefield Development southeast
corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road. As I mentioned before Item No. 6 with a public hearing has been requested to be tabled until February 20, 2001.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table the public hearing on the request for rezone of 10.04 acres from R-8 to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Company and Stubblefield Development until
February 20, 2001.
Corrie: I am going to have to open it then we have to continue since it was scheduled?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, I believe that is correct. It needs to be opened and then continued.
Bird: I withdraw it.
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing on Item No. 6 just mentioned with the understanding that we will continue this public hearing until February 20, 2001, meeting.
Bird: I move that we continue the public hearing on the request for rezone on the 10.04 acres from R-8 to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Company and Stubblefield Development
southeast corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road until February 20, 2001.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to continue the public hearing on Item No. RZ 00-005 the rezone. Any further discussion? All those in favor of continuing the public hearing
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7. CUP-00-048 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a 58,000 s.f. retail commercial building, four fuel stations with a kiosk and 10,500 s.f. multi-tenant retail commercial
building for the proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Companies and Stubblefield Development – southeast corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is a public hearing request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a 58,000 square-foot retail commercial building with four fuel stations with a kiosk and 10,500
square-foot multi-tenant commercial building for the proposed Linder Crossing by Hawkins Companies and Stubblefield Development at the southeast corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road.
At this point I will open the public hearing with the understanding that we will continue the public hearing on February 20, 2001. Is there anyone who wants to testify even at this
point? Hearing none Council, I will entertain a motion for the continuance.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we continue the public hearing on the CUP-00-048 and table that until February 20, 2001.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the public hearing on CUP-00-048 to January 2, 2001. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8. AZ-00-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 34.84 acres to R-8 for a church and vacant land by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene – Meridian Road south of Overland Road
Corrie: Item No. 8 public hearing request for annexation and zoning of 34.84 acres to R-8 for a church and vacant land by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene on Meridian Road south
of Overland Road. At this time I will open the public hearing on annexation and zoning 00-018 and invite staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property on Meridian Road that is south of Elk Run Subdivision. There is a property that is still in the county that separates this from
Elk Run, and the Bear Creek Subdivision would border it to the west. They are request annexation and zoning only at this time. They have presented a concept plan of their future build
out plans. There is an issue of the sewer and where it presently is in Elk Run Subdivision. The needed alignment would be for the sewer to be extended down Meridian Road which would
intersect with a fiber optic cable that apparently is not being constructed in the easement, that was set up for the fiber optic cable. That is going to be one hurdle that needs to
be addressed in order to sewer a portion of this property. The entire property is not sewerable through the Meridian Road Trunk sewer line. Approximately the back half – I am not sure
exactly where that line it maybe Gary can help clarify where that might be will have to go into the ultimate Black Cat Trunk sewer line that is yet to be constructed. At first they
had expressed a desire to be able to sewer back into the Bear Creek lift station and into that existing line. Staff informed them that that was not the desire of the Council, at least
in previous action and I believe that they have decided that that is not what they are going to be proposing at this time. This is a picture of the property, as is it is vacant. This
is a proposed concept for the build out of the site. This is Meridian Road when this direction would be North and they are proposing their facility with a gymnasium and a chapel. They
are proposing a daycare, a senior center. Again this is only conceptual they are showing the baseball fields in the back and possibly in the future when access to that trunk line is
available they would propose some retirement housing. Staff would recommend approval with the conditions that they enter into a development agreement that the development agreement
is somehow tied to that provision of sewer through the Black Cat Trunk line. Also that single-family residential development not be permitted that it somehow be tied to this site plan
to a point. I know they will probably have some modification a church is allowed through a conditional use in the R-8 zone they will need to bring the sewer line down through Meridian
Road. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you Shari. Is the applicant here this evening?
Field: Hello, my name is Scott Field, I am with Roylance and Associates, I am representing the applicant. My address is 391 West State Street, Suite E, Eagle, Idaho. Just to elaborate
a little bit on the comments that Staff has made, when we initially approached the Planning and Zoning Commission with this application, there was some concern raised on part of a few
of the surrounding neighbors as to the possibility by annexing this and rezoning it to R-8 with an idea of a church that ultimately it may become just another subdivision. They were
concerned about having that density adjacent to them when they are on larger acreage tracks. The Commission felt the same, and I feel their concerns were extremely justified, so what
we did was we came back and submitted the conceptual plan that is shown here. I would like to emphasize, right now that the only thing that is immediately planned is the church itself,
or about two-thirds of the church that is shown there right now out on Meridian Road. The remainder of this could have a build out of up to ten years and obviously it is dependant upon
the sewer system serving the backside of it before any of that could possibly happen. What we discussed with Planning and the other council is entering into a Development Agreement
that would essentially restrict or bind the church to the uses shown on this conceptual plan here. The reason that they are requesting the R-8 over some other type of zoning it is the
least dense zoning that permits a church. R-4 is something that was suggested, but a church is not even allowed under a Conditional Use Permit on that and a light office obviously makes
no sense on this property. Hopefully you have had an opportunity to read a letter that was submitted to the P&Z Council and Staff. I think it does a good job of fully explaining the
situation and I just briefly tried to summarize that tonight. The church is eager to expand down to this site. Their location across the street is extremely cramped and this is going
to allow them to create a church and surrounding amenities that are going to be of a great benefit to not just the congregation but the city as a whole. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you have this evening and encourage you to following the recommendations of the Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Corrie: Thank you. Council any questions at this point?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Any one else from the public that would like to issue testimony on this annexation and zoning?
Jewett: My name is Jim Jewett, I reside at 4002 West Teeter in Meridian. I have absolutely no objection to a church going up on the site. I think it is very well suited for it there.
My questions lie with what is going to be left over when the church goes in under the concept plan now it is going to leave a little strip a keyhole above them between Bear Creek and
the proposed site which I am purchasing. There is a supposed stub street coming out of Bear Creek, if you could Shari, right there. One of my questions is was it the intent to have
that as a through street all the way to Meridian Road by the City Council when they
approved Bear Creek and if so how is that going to affect the church site as far as access. In ACHD Staff comments on their recommendation on this plat, they state they there should
not be any additional driveway or access within 600 feet of their access. If you go back to their site plan / conceptual drawing they have an access right up in the northwest corner
that appears to be in a few 100 feet of where that stub street would come out. That appears to be a conflict of ACHD’s recommendation and if that stub street is in fact planned to go
all the way through to Meridian Road would it not be better served if the church also access off the stub street as well and it would be made a residential collector or – what is the
intent when that was proposed for Bear Creek to go all the way out? It proposes a problem for this little piece that is going to be left over that’s barely wide enough to put one row
of houses in more less than two. It is a 190 feet wide what is left there. I would pose the question is that street proposed to go all the way through and if so should the church not
take access off that street instead of Meridian – Kuna Road or Highway 69?
Stiles: I think that is a good question. It may be better dealt with when they come in for a Conditional Use Permit for the site and they actually have conditions attached to a specific
plan. All they are asking for right now is the annexation itself. They will need to come back in an do a Conditional Use Permit where you can get site specific comments for the plan
that will deal with parking and landscaping and all of those issues. The concept plan that they submitted is not in concrete; they just submitted that to give some additional information
to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the Council to make them a little more comfortable with what their plans where. I guess that is my opinion that it should really be dealt
with when they come through with a specific plan. You do have a good point and I can see both sides. If you are left with a piece that is marginal at best to try and develop that cost
effectively and the existing stub street that is proposed to come out of Bear Creek. I can also see the church’s side where they would probably desire to have a self contained facility
without the impact of a lot of high traffic volume coming out.
Jewett: I appreciate those comments. I just want to make sure that when we do a Development Agreement to get the zoning that it will be done (inaudible) church under this conceptual
plan that we not tie us up to a point where their access is going to be on the northeast corner which would prohibit that site for next store from ever putting a road in because you
cannot have a road within 600 feet of it. So I want to make sure that we do not lock the hands of a neighbor because we approve a conceptual drawing on a Development Agreement that
say we got this approved and I think we need to take in consideration all the neighbors and what is best served. When the church originally went in 1997 and received a CU within the
county the ACHD at that time suggested a residential collector around the south boundary, down along this site. The ACHD has since decided that is not necessary under the Bear Creek
plan because there is not stub street over, obviously not under the Bear Creek plan it is up in the north corner. It would certainly be unfair if determines that has to be a residential
collector to make that little strip of land, that five acres pay for the whole construction of a residential collector they cannot take front on access on it. That just would not be
justifiably fair. I ask this Council please take in consideration the neighboring properties and maybe they can draft this development agreement not to tie it in so much to this conceptual
plan but to a conceptual plan that will work for all neighboring properties and the future development of both sides. Bear Creek has been set because it is a Preliminary Plat that
has been approved the property to the south obviously is a large piece yet but the property to the north is just that little sliver. I think you guys probably remember the (inaudible)
plat that come in here this summer that was that little key hole leftover on Locust Grove and he had to go in with those little townhouses to make that work because all that was leftover
and there was no other access, it was one way in and one way out we fought to get some pedestrian access there and did not end up getting it and I hate to see something of the same nature
get left again with the City saying “what do we do” when we do not look at it ahead of time and say “let’s plan it out.”
Corrie: Any questions Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: The property north of yours what is that?
Jewett: That is all Bear Creek. That little triangle is all part of Bear Creek.
De Weerd: It is clear to Bear Creek.
(inaudible discussion amongst members)
De Weerd: Have you talked to ACHD and asked them what their road plan was in that area?
Jewett: It is sketchy at best. They look at each application as it comes in and the church rightfully so as a stand alone entity can have two access off of Meridian Road and does not
need anything additional. Nothing else has been applied for Bear Creek has its approvals and it has the one stub street to the north and so that is all they look at. They do not look
past what is in front of them. They do not look at the neighbors and how are we going to develop this, they simply say well there is a stub street there you will figure it out later
and I think it is just poor planning. But that is how they do things they look at them as they come in and yes, the church can stand on its own and have two accesses but it really hurts
that piece. Again, they stated that we are just looking at
annexation we do not really comment on that when we see an actual application for a CU then we will comment more seriously on it, but I am afraid if we make a Development Agreement based
on a conceptual drawing that we may have locked ourselves into a point where some people are going to get damaged. I do not know if I could be where that would not happen that there
could be some – personally, and I have talked to the church about it, I think that the northern half of their piece should be left residential and they should put that street through
and they can do houses on that side as well that way it is double fronted and not make it a residential collector then you can have front on access but if it is classified as a residential
collector you cannot have front on access and you take that 190 feet strip and you take 50 feet out of it and you try to put a cul-de-sac and lots on it, it does not work. You have
essentially eliminated that piece from being able to be developed in any reasonable manner. Again, I have no objections I think it is a good use for the area, I just think we need to
look at all the parcels around it. The other issue is the issue of sewer out there. I think when I was at Planning and Zoning the recommendation or the statement in the Development
Agreement would be only half the site would be sewered. I have had surveys go out there and had them survey the sewer coming out of Elk Run. I have shot it and I have done the (inaudible)
I pretty much know of that 30 acres I doubt you can sewer 10 acres of it from that existing sewer it is just not deep enough. They cannot get past the Harden Drain there, I do not even
think they can get to the Harden Drain. If you have a Development Agreement that they can sewer half of it, but they can only physically sewer one-forth of it I do not know if that
is a contradiction to what the actual intent is. My understanding talking to Public Works is the intent is everything that can gravity sewer into that sewer should be allowed into it
but not to allow pump stations into it.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Mr. Jewett looking at this map and the way Bear Creek streets are laid out and the stub street it comes right in on the point of the church property as you say you bought
the property, or you are looking at buying it?
Jewett: Looking at buying it.
Anderson: Have you meet with the owners of the church property and discussed some kind of arrangement on providing access –
Jewett: Yes.
Anderson: Has that been fruitful?
Jewett: I am assuming not because they have not contacted me further. They said if they had any additional interest they would contact me. They came up with this conceptual drawing
which would lock it in – I am assuming it locks it into the use that they are proposing on this conceptual drawing. I originally proposed
putting that street through then them taking access where it comes out in Meridian Road putting in three lanes one in, one out, and a left hand turn lane, so that it would provide better
access to the church instead of having one entrance to the church and 100 feet to 150 feet down to the entrance where that cove was. I have not heard from them since the P&Z hearing.
Yes, I had several conversations in the fall with the church on what to do there. Basically, it was do not squeeze me into a situation where it makes that property undevelopable. One
of the proposals I had with them was to do just a little bit of residential on their north side to front on this street and either sell it to me and I will develop it or they can develop
it and pay for half the road and they can take and sell off lots. I just think that something needs to be looked at there instead of just limiting that tiny sliver of ground to either
building a complete road that will be a residential collector or being “undevelopable.”
Anderson: So you asked them to share half the cost of putting the street in?
Jewett: Yes, and at the entrance providing a little ground for the wider road because we were putting in the turn lane because I thought the turn lane would be a benefit. Not only
to them on Sundays and gathering days, but for the Subdivision as well. My assumption is that you put that street through to Meridian Road, that when Bear Creek gets built out you are
going to have a lot of traffic. I think that those people living in Bear Creek are going to find that the most convenient way out. I think you are going to see a lot of traffic on
it. My understanding it they are going to signal the entrance at Elk Run, but this entrance if it got put in would be closer to the half mile mark, in fact it would be within 150 feet
of the half mile mark, which is more suited for another signal other than a quarter mile from Overland Road so you could possibly see a change from the Highway District to signally this
if it went in through as a residential collector because I do believe it would take more traffic out of Bear Creek when it gets fully developed. The other problem with it is because
it is going to exceed the block limit for your ordinance, which is 1,000 feet, and it is currently about 1,500 feet in length with actually no traffic calming whatsoever. So it would
be a (inaudible) in there. If I was doing it and if I was doing the whole site and the church and the other site, I would try to do some traffic calming I would try to do something
to slow traffic down in there. I think that needs to be thought of because I am sure the people of Elk Run would appreciate that put in there too take it out of their subdivision.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Jewett you stated to Mr. Anderson that you would want the church to go half on that road by putting it through. The only thing that road benefits is that property there that
is not developed. It does not benefit the church property at all.
Jewett: Could you hold up the conceptual plan Shari? If the church redesigned their access and did away with that access up at the corner and took it off of that proposed street that
would go through there yes it would serve them, because by allowing that access there you prohibit a road being a put in there.
Bird: I agree that, but the church has their site set out like this and actually that road going through the only one that will benefit is that one little – you say five acres?
Jewett: 5.4 acres yes. If the church went in just like that it would prohibit that 5.4 acres from running that street out to Meridian Road.
Bird: That is true you would have to come back off the stub and back out.
Jewett: You would end up with a cul-de-sac because you could not come out because there is not any other stub streets. I guess one of the questions I have is was the intention when
the City Council approved Bear Creek with that stub street in mind was it intended to go all the way through to Meridian Road?
Bird: Not to my knowledge.
Jewett: Then that could probably be developed without it going out but it would need another entrance other than a cul-de-sac and the sewer for that property is for Meridian Road so
something has to come from Meridian Road. ACHD proposed at one point trying to connect that stub street into the cul-de-sac on the other side of Bear Creek which would require me going
to Greg and asking Greg to extend that street over as a stub street instead of a cul-de-sac in the way that it is currently proposed. Not saying that he would be objectionable to that
but it still would require – what would happen is if that went into ACHD exactly like that, the length of street that would front on the church property would never get built. You’d
have half a street built. ACHD cannot require a property owner to build both sides of the street if you only take frontage on one side. So the church side where the softball and the
soccer field would be would never be built. It would be half a street.
Bird: But the church side doesn’t need any street on their north boundaries.
Jewett: No, not as planned, they don’t. Basically I’m here just to lay out the information so when something comes through on another piece of property, nobody says how’s this happened.
I want it to be fully known that there is a little sliver left there, and we’re not really looking at it when we approve this church site. If it went in exactly as proposed, we would
not be taking into consideration that side at all. I think at the minimum that that entrance coming in at the northeast corner should at the minimum be a shared entrance with that property
to the north. If there’s a 600-foot requirement between driveways, that property
cannot have any access on Meridian Kuna Highway. Now, I think in this case they would grant a variance because you couldn’t just limit it, but from a safety point of view, should it
be? Or should that be a joint entrance? Joint entrance solves the problem.
Bird: I could see where looking at that that you could run that road through and have your entrance and eliminate their north entrance, but really and truthfully, they don’t need that
road after they get down past that berm there, they could come in right there into their parking lot and stuff. Back up, Shari, come to the east. There, right in there. So why should
they have to help finance that road all the way up there when they only need to come in right in there? If they would agree to eliminate that one, you can run your road through if you’re
the owner the property. Maybe they could help pay for an entrance like they’ve got there in the north park down to that point there because that’s all the farther they will probably
want to go with that entrance.
Jewett: I will agree with you if that’s what the City Council decides when that other piece of property comes in that that’s adequate, then that’s fine. I just want it to be known
up front that, one, you’re saying now that the road coming out of Bear Creek doesn’t necessarily need to go anywhere, that it could simply go in there and stop, number one; and number
two, at the north of the – east part of this property should be jointly shared and you could have two ways. The east half of that five acres could service off that joint entrance; the
westerly half could service coming out of Bear Creek.
Bird: I didn’t say that.
Jewett: I said that’s a possibility.
Bird: I said if you want to run that road to Meridian Road from the stub street, the church would only participate in helping you do that if they will agree to close their north entrance
off that conceptual. They should only have to help participate down to right about there. That’s all the farther they have to go down to get to their entrance.
Jewett: But what the option would be at that point would be to take the road, swerve it into that 5.4 acres and take it away from the church site and do something between the church
site and that road. Then that would solve the problem of the joint entrance, and then the rest of it could be used solely to whatever happens to the 5.4 acres.
Bird: Okay, that 5.4 acres, you’re saying not go through with that. The church – what the church is saying, they’re happy to have their entrances just like that.
Jewett: What I’m saying is by doing that, you limit the use of the 5.4 acres access to Meridian Kuna Road because of the requirement to have 600 feet –
Bird: You won’t have an access to Meridian Kuna Road if you do it that way. You’ll have to come back out through the stub street.
Jewett: That’s the other option, but that’s a little bit unjust to that 5.4 acres because they have 192 (inaudible) on Meridian Road, but it’s (inaudible) they can’t use it. So the
question is – I guess the main question I have is approval of the annexation and zoning of the property tonight, if that’s what the Council decides, does that lock in this – by Development
Agreement lock in this conceptual plan to that or is it going to be worded as such as when they come in for the Conditional Use Permit that it’ll be brought up again, these issues, to
best serve the neighbors? I guess that’s really my question is that – are we approving this conceptual plan and that’s it?
Corrie: That’s a conceptual. That’s not a plan. You can’t lock in a conceptual.
Bird: That’s what I understood from Shari.
Jewett: I’m sorry. I wasn’t able to hear Shari’s –
Corrie: All we’re doing at the present time is annexing and zoning the property. We’re going to have a Development Agreement and work out whether they want to have an inside so they
don’t have R-8 houses all through there. That’s what their Development Agreement will consist of. How you handle – if you buy that 5.25 acres in there, that’s something that will come
down later after they decide how they want to do their plat. That will be the time when you bring it up again. This is technically not having anything to do with it right now other
than you getting it to our attention. We know it’s coming –
Jewett: And that’s really what my intent was today: bring it to your attention and make sure we’re not approving that specific entrance and that specific entrance. Make sure that
there is still flexibility and hopefully there will be some cooperation between the property owners so that it works for everybody. I think that’s what needs to happen.
Corrie: But you do understand that there is a possibility that there will not be an entrance on Kuna Road.
Jewett: Well that’s always a possibility.
Corrie: That’s a pretty – that’s a five-lane road. It’s going to have to be signaled if you come out of there. ACHD might be looking – well, that wouldn’t be ACHD, that would be Idaho
Department of Transportation.
Jewett: Well, I think it would be a cooperation –
Corrie: Well, (inaudible) ACHD.
Jewett: Right now ACHD is proposing the signal (inaudible) coming out of the front. So with that theory, they don’t want that to go all the way out. They’d as soon not. I just want
to make sure that everybody understands that I was told that nobody within the City (inaudible) the purpose of that stub street was to get another access. I think those people in Elk
Run told me that. The purpose of that street was to alleviate traffic coming through their subdivision. There’s no – the question of whether or not that would ever go through, and
that’s why I wanted to (inaudible) on it.
Corrie: Stoddard Road’s going to be a main exit.
Jewett: Yes. That’s what appears to be on the drawing is that Stoddard is going to have their main entrance. All right?
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, before we proceed on, for Mr. Jewett’s information seeing how he was late, Shari, would you please explain on the Development Agreement what you had discussed that you
wanted in that on the conceptual drawing or whatever you want to call that up there?
Stiles: I think what we wanted to address, mostly, was the concept of what it is that they want to put there and not this specific plan because we’ll have to address, you know, the
entryway corridor setbacks for landscaping and really get down to detail on the specific plan, but I would envision the Development Agreement addressing more of what they are proposing
that their use would be limited to the church facility and the daycare and the recreation facilities and that type of thing and not pinpoint the exact requirements for it.
Bird: Thank you, Shari.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I had a question, then, for Mr. Field. Maybe he could address the comments that Mr. Jewett made about the negotiations that have gone on between the church and
Mr. Jewett and whether there is any common ground there.
Field: Well, to be perfectly honest, I have not been involved in the discussions personally between the church and Mr. Jewett. I’m aware that there have been some, so I don’t know
that I’m really in a position to give you any specific information. I do have a gentleman here from the church that could maybe shed
a little more light on this. I just – as long as I’m here, just to further reiterate what staff had said regarding the agreement, that was our intentions, too, to purely address some
specific uses and not specific uses and not intend to say that the church is there and this is there and this is there, and for that matter, this is the entrance. Like it was brought
up before, the development – when the Conditional Use Permit comes in for the church, then that’s the time when we envision getting into the specifics of the entrances and locations
and landscaping and everything else. Did you have something –
Bird: Bring him up and get his name. Thank you.
Elburst: Dean Elburst, member of Valley Shepherd. I really have not been involved in any discussions with Mr. Jewett, so I don’t know that I could add any additional light to that,
but I would take it back that we’re having ongoing meetings and I will take it back to the congregation.
Corrie: Is there anybody else in the public that would like to issue testimony on the request? Okay.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would have an additional question of staff. I guess this would be for Gary under the recommendations on 1.12 –
*** End of Side 1 ***
Anderson: -- it talks about that Bear Creek Subdivision, and that is going to be designed at capacity. If they start running into problems, then that’s going to be monitored, and they’ll
be required to re-route the pressure sewer to the Ten Mile Trunk along the eastbound off-ramp of I-84. Gary, you could explain how it is that we’re going to try to sewer this, because
my understanding is with Bear Creek that that was it; there’s no more. I’m concerned about approving anything else that’s going to go to that same line. We already talked about Bear
Creek being two different service areas, and we’re doing a temporary fix with that as it is, and bringing anything else on board that would go through this same area, I’m not sure where
all those lines would run and how that would work.
Smith: Councilman Anderson, Mayor and members of the Council, it’s our – perhaps this isn’t worded clearly enough, but the sewering of this property is to be directed to the gravity
line in Meridian Road as much as can be sewered by gravity. The remainder of the property by elevation would gravity-flow into the Black Cat Trunk drainage. You’re correct that the
lift station for Bear Creek is sized for Bear Creek and that’s all. The reference here on where that pressure line is pumping is the eight-inch line in Overland Road that the Bear Creek
lift station would be pumping into. We don’t know absolutely what the capacity of Bear Creek or the requirements for the Bear Creek sewering will be. The comment that was included
in the Bear Creek approval was that if they exceeded – if the Bear Creek Subdivision exceeded the capacity of the eight-inch line on
Overland Road, then they would need to carry that pressure line onto the east and tie it directly into the Ten Mile Trunk. But there was no inference or should not have been an inference
that any other properties should drain into that Bear Creek lift station.
Anderson: So with this property, then, do we know which parts of it can sewer into Meridian Road?
Smith: No, sir. I don’t know. Specifically we don’t know how much of the property can sewer into Meridian Road.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, that would be more when they came through with their Conditional Use Permit; run the models and know better how much it can be sewered.
Smith: Mayor, Council, Councilwoman de Weerd, they’re required as part of the Development Agreement on the project to develop how much can be sewered, and there’s a schedule requirement
of cover over the upper ends of the sewer lines that they have to meet. So, I don’t know how much engineering has been done on this site. I would assume that their engineer has done
enough how much of the site can sewer by gravity to Meridian Road just by the location of the church, for example.
Anderson: And I guess I point that out because I guess I’m in favor of letting the applicant know at this point, and I would be in favor of some type of a restriction if you (inaudible)
that only allowed building permits for the buildings that could actually be sewered off of Meridian Road and that the church would need to understand that anything that isn’t in the
drainage that would go there is going to have to wait for building permits until they could tie into that Black Cat trunk line.
Smith: Yes, sir. That would be our intent.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Since there’s no one else from the public that would like to testify, Council, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item No. 8, request for annexation
and zoning.
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on the request for annexation and zoning, AZ 00-018. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Council, any further discussion on the request?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’d like some information from Mr. Nichols if we could. This is just a request for annexation and zoning for an R-8 zone so they could have their church and stuff
in that. This other stipulation for putting on that you can only sewer what flows naturally to the Ten Mile or the Meridian Road, should that be part of our comments and stuff in an
annexation and zoning?
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the Council, it would be my recommendation that anything that restricts a development of a property be put into the Development Agreement
so that at such time as they come forth with a Conditional Use Permit application that you’ve essentially laid out the ground rules for how the property can be developed; for example,
if I understood the testimony correctly, the only place that would have any residential development would be that retirement housing portion that’s shown in the southwest corner of the
parcel, which if I also understood the testimony correctly is that a piece of the property that would only gravity-sewer into the Black Cat Trunk at such time that it’s constructed,
so that if the Development Agreement restricted permits only those improvements that could gravity-flow the sewer to the existing line that exists further north on Meridian Road, that
should be in the Development Agreement and then when the design is coming through on the Conditional Use Permit, it ties into the Development Agreement, and they’d have to show on their
concept or their site plan, you know, here’s what we have and this will gravity-flow sewer. Also, in order to address the concerns that were raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission
level with regard that we don’t want a bunch of R-8 houses in this parcel that you can put into the Development Agreement that the uses are restricted to the uses that are specifically
shown on the concept plan without referencing the actual location; in other words, there’s a worship center, commons, gymnasium, classroom areas, prayer chapel, senior center, daycare,
school, bus garage, those are – the RV parking area, the retirement housing, again, is the only thing that really fits into any residential use. So, those things could be delineated
in the Development Agreement that comes from this concept plan. Those are the uses that are going to be allowed when this property is annexed. So then the neighbors know that it’s
not some R-8 housing that is going to be put in on the – where the baseball field is shown or something similar to it. As Councilman Anderson suggested, restricting building permits
– everyone knows what the ground rules are.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nichols, would that include that something be worked so that the property to the north that shares access or a shared access out onto Meridian Kuna Road would
be worked out?
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor, members of the Council, my only reluctance on that is there’s not enough staff input on whether that’s a good idea or not. It may well be that
ACHD says or your planning staff says on this five-acre piece that’s where the stub street is that that should not empty out onto Meridian Kuna Road, State Highway 69; but instead there
might be a limited office space or something in that front part of that, but that back part, if it’s going to have houses on it, goes through Bear Creek to Stoddard in order to get –
so, I would be reluctant to put it in the Development Agreement to say that this particular piece – I don’t know what you would say. Negotiate with them? Well, they’re apparently doing
that anyway. On the Conditional Use Permit side, though, that’s when a lot of these issues can be addressed and looked at more closely. It may be that what’s arrived at is a shared
entrance on the northeast corner of the church property which allows some use on Meridian Road by this parcel, but maybe the back part of it goes through the Johnson development and
Bear Creek. But, at this point it’s all just kind of up in the air.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other discussion or questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Then the question before us is a request for annexation and zoning.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 34.84 acres to R-8 for a church and vacant land by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene, Meridian
Road, south of Overland Road with staff comments including attorney’s to be put into the Development Agreement and for the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law also to show staff
comments and reflect that.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the annexation and zoning with staff comments, attorney’s comments along with the comments for the Development Agreement. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, roll-call vote, please.
Roll call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item No. 9. Public Hearing: RZ-00-006 Request for Rezone of 7.14 acres from I-L to C-G for the Meridian Business Park by Donald Asbell – East Franklin Road and Baltic Place:
Corrie: Item No. 9 is a public hearing, request for rezone of 7.14 acres from I-L to C-G for the Meridian Business Park by Donald Asbell, east Franklin Road and Baltic Place. At this
time I will open the public hearing and invite staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property in the existing Meridian Business Industrial Park on Franklin Road. This would be the fire station site here. These are empty
pad sites currently owned by Mr. Thad Thomas. He has a building that’s been constructed here. This is where the new building is that’s available for lease. Mr. Don Asbell has his
structures – well, he goes all the way to King Street with these structures, but the request is to rezone the property from light-industrial to commercial, and it’s basically due to
the fact that they would like to attract tenants other than straight industrial users. Mr. Asbell and Dave Williams have experienced a market more for some retail and office use along
this corridor, but are prohibited from marketing to that sector just because of the fact that the light-industrial zone. There is a ReMax office in one of these buildings. This is
a little confusing because these lots don’t reflect the lotline adjustment that has been done and the County’s records do not reflect that adjustment yet. The existing Thad Thomas building,
basically, the parking lot goes clear to King Street, and with these two pad sites remaining there, their hope was to market that more toward the retail or office use. That’s the reason
for the request, and staff would recommend approval with the staff and agency conditions and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you, Ms. Stiles. Is the applicant here this evening?
Williams: My name is Dave Williams, Diamond Properties, 4124 North Westview Way, Boise, Idaho. I’m here to represent both of the applicants. Mayor Corrie and City Council members,
Shari is directly correct in stating that we are having a lot of people wanting to lease from us, but they’re leaning more toward the office. A few retail. Primarily office. In Thad
Thomas’ case, he has constructed a building that is a two-story, beautiful brick-block building, and if you’ve been by Franklin Road past these parcels of ground, I’m sure you’ve seen
his project. The core is in place. He’s done a wonderful landscaping and water fountain out front of this complex. He originally was going to occupy this building, but since, he decided
to stay in the present building he’s in. He’s been approached by some large governmental agencies as well as some private corporations. He would like to hold out, get this rezone into
place so that he can lease to one or two tenants. He would really rather have just one tenant in this project of his. He has 4.3 parking spaces to every 1000 square feet, so that puts
him well under 250 square feet for parking space. Then the pad sites that he has that front
Franklin Road, he perceives at a future date those would probably go to additional offices. So that is the purpose in his request that he foresees that that’s the type of tenant that
he would be having wanting to occupy his building. Don Asbell has two buildings in place. One building he has had in place for a couple of years that is horizontal to Franklin Road
and is right on the corner of East Baltic and Franklin. We presently have that building fully occupied; however, and we call that Building 1, however, in Building 4 which sits perpendicular
and is between the corner property and Thad Thomas’ property, that’s correct where the arrow is, that’s the building that the southwest end of it we have ReMax in. Once we put ReMax
in that 20,000 square-foot building, ouch; we can’t put more office in there. We’re very limited office. We’re limited to 25 percent of the square footage in there as office. That
building is a single-story, stucco building, and we have parking scenario for it that equates to about 1:400 with some overflow on both buildings. We’ve been in a position with that
project that because of the height of the eves and so on we don’t have a lot of overhead doors. On the East Side of that building we have no overhead doors at all. All storefront entries.
We've had a lot of call for 12,000 square-foot users that would like to be office users. Very limited on the retail side, but we might end up with a small retail business wanting to
locate in this project. So our purpose in the request this evening is that we feel like we have the frontage, the adequate frontage to be zoned C-G; over 1600 square feet of frontage
between the two applicants, and the need is for the small office users in the Asbell project and the large user in the Thad Thomas project.
Corrie: Have your applicants any objection to the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning as far as the conditions?
Williams: Not at all, Mayor.
Corrie: Council.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, just one question. Why aren’t you going L-O? Why is your request not L-O?
Williams: Well, the C-G allows us to do what we want to get accomplished 100 percent office for Thad Thomas, 100 percent office for Building 4 for Don Asbell, and we understand it would
be limited because of the parking scenario on the corner building for Don Asbell. It does for us what we want to get accomplished. Specifically for Don Asbell, his Building 1, we do
have some users in there that wouldn’t be suited for the L-O. We didn’t want to have to eliminate present tenants that would be in that building.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony in this request for rezone? Okay. Did I see you raise your hand? Okay.
Council, any questions for the record? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item No. 9, request for rezone.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 00-006, request for rezone of Meridian Business Park. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council, further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, this request makes perfectly good sense to me; therefore, I would make a motion that we approve the request for a rezone of 7.14 acres from I-L to a C-G for Meridian
Business Park by Donald Asbell, east Franklin Road and Baltic Place and instruct the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay, motion made and seconded to approve the request for rezone of the Meridian Business Park and have the attorney draw up the proper order and Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law. Any further discussion?
Bird: Mayor, I’ve got one question. Public hearing – Thad Thomas is also included in this, but it’s all under one name? Asbell?
(inaudible comment from the audience)
Bird: Include Thad’s? Okay. Answered my question. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay, any other questions? Discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll, please?
Roll call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Public Hearing: PP-00-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 13 building lots and 3 other lots on 7.88 acres in an R-4 zone for
proposed Meridian Greens No. 4 by Scott-Fuller Investment/Glencoe – northwest corner and northeast corner of SE 5th and Overland Road:
Corrie: Item No. 10, public hearing, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 13 building lots and 3 other lots on 7.88 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Meridian Greens No. 4 by Scott-Fuller
Investments / Glencoe, northwest corner and northeast corner of Southeast 5th and Overland Road. At this point I will open the public hearing and invite the staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the remnant piece of property that fronts Overland Road. It currently serves as the entrance to the Meridian Greens Subdivision from Meridian
Road or from Overland Road – one of the entrances. Do you have the recommendations from Planning and Zoning Commission in your packets? I would like to –
Corrie: I think so. Yes.
Stiles: Brad Hawkins-Clark did review these recommendations and had some requested changes from what he thought was the record. I’ll need you to help me on this. On Page 4, the recommendation
by Planning and Zoning Commission was that the plat – to modify the plat boundary to exclude the 80-foot easement. Now they’re not showing that anywhere on the plat as part of the subdivision.
The boundary just –
Corrie: Excuse me, Shari. What number?
Stiles: It’s probably the very first one, the first paragraph there that is 1.6, but it would be – he’s noted it as on the top of Page 4 there. He’s written the plat boundary was modified
to exclude the 80-foot easement. The boundary description must be amended on Sheet 2 of the Final Plat’s Certificate of Owners to reflect this change. That’s what he felt the motion
was by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission. 1.7 is a moot point because they have moved their pressurized irrigation outside the easement. 1.8, that
comment, their current plan has been modified to address that. 1.10, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the developer be given the option to either place a buffer in
an easement or common lot along East 5th Way. This is where looking into the site, this is where East 5th comes in, Southeast 5th. This is about roughly where the property begins the
southern boundary. Staff had initially made the recommendation that this should – since this is a collector, it should be a 20-foot landscape buffer and include it as a common lot which
we typically do on collectors, and that’s our typical requirement. They are having houses front on the collector which is a diversion from ACHD’s standards, but they really didn’t have
any choice if they were to develop this property residentially. On that same 1.10, the second to the last sentence Brad felt should be modified to say developer to provide the City
with a
landscape plan of all landscaped areas including the landscape easement on the west side prior to approval of the Final Plat. Then, the remainder of that paragraph would be a new separate
condition that’s unrelated to the landscape easement. He added one item on Page 6, and he had written this down as 1.22, Brad Hawkins-Clark, that is, a new recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission that the developer shall enter into an Agreement with the Homeowners Association to specifically address pipe sizing, designing a looped system, increasing pumping
capacity, and other concerns of the pressurized irrigation system addressed in Harmon Averas (sic) October 5th letter to City Council. There was some concern expressed in the Planning
and Zoning Commission meetings that if they hooked this phase of the project onto the existing system. They had already had some pressure problems, and they just wanted to make sure
that that was addressed as part of this approval. One thing that was missed during the review, and this was kind of as a result of the transition of the new landscape ordinance being
in effect now, was that this 20-foot landscaped common area has been increased per Ordinance to 35 feet. So I guess in keeping with the new landscape ordinance, we would request that
landscape buffer be increased to 35 feet. I believe staff could go along with having this 20-foot strip be a landscape setback as long as there is no encroachment of fences in that
and it was landscaped and maintained consistently to provide a nice entrance into the subdivision. All of these lots would share a driveway – well, this one wouldn’t. This one looks
like it has some little hammerhead configuration there. But these two lots would share a driveway. These two lots would share a driveway to help alleviate some of the concerns of Ada
County Highway District of having houses front directly onto a collector. We had initially tried to convince them to try to have some kind of an alley access so that they didn’t have
any garages fronting this street and that their accesses – they’d have one access shared, but that was not accepted by the applicant. The City currently has a well site here; City well
site goes to the centerline of the Eight-Mile Lateral. Typically we would require that the common lots include all of this Eight-Mile Lateral area that is owned by the applicant. Not
entirely sure why the recommendation was made to exclude that from the plat. Currently there is a Nampa Meridian Irrigation District road on the east side of the Eight Mile Lateral,
and because we’d made that comment about making this a common lot, and that their fences would need to be on the easement line unless they received an encroachment agreement with Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District that, I believe that’s part of the reason they’ve taken that out. It is the developer’s intent that these lots would not have fencing along them, they would
like them to be landscaping similar to – I guess I don’t have pictures of that. Some of the other lots within the Subdivision have actually landscaped down to the bank; they do have
a fence there too. Mr. Fuller did have some nice pictures previously of the treatment of that area and what his desire was. Other than that I don’t have any – if you can enlighten
us about what this whole deal was with was the Eight Mile Lateral I’d appreciate that and taking that out of there. Staff would recommend approval with the conditions as noted and amended,
and
would also request consideration of revising the common lot along Overland road to be increased to thirty-five feet to meet the current landscape ordinance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Can I ask Shari a question?
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: Shari on all of these changes on the Planning and Zoning recommendation are they Mr. Clark’s recommendations or are they the Planning and Zoning? Were they misinterpreted or
how come we missed so many complete things? Is that Mr. Clark’s interpretation or was that the will of the Planning and Zoning commission?
Stiles: They were what Mr. Hawkins-Clark believed was the action by the Planning and Zoning Commission after reading the minutes and having attended meetings.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, do these findings then once they’re made --- do they go to your staff Shari, and you guys have a chance to review them before you come to counsel? If you disagree
with them then you meet with the attorney or how does that work?
Stiles: We’ve just recently started reviewing these recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission to make sure that they reflected the motions that were made. Unfortunately
we’re under the same – we have the same restrictions as the city attorney’s office has in the timing of getting the actual minutes from the meeting. It’s real hard to sit through those
long meetings and to catch everything. When you have the actual minutes and can read the minutes and read the actual motion that was made, it’s a lot easier to catch. I don’t know
if these were prepared prior to ever having the minutes or what exactly happened. My staff has not had time with the deadlines we’ve had for other projects to get these reviewed prior
to this.
Bird: Shari you do get a set of the minutes, your staff gets a set of the minutes of the meeting?
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: How soon are they coming out?
Stiles: I couldn’t tell you when they came out.
Bird: After the meeting, are we getting them within one week?
Stiles: It’s probably a couple of weeks. We were on deadline – we did get these comments on December 8th but we had application deadline day. We’ve got applications we’ve got to review,
it’s an excuse – we do what we have to absolutely get done and every minute of every day is filled with what we have to do. It’s not that we tried to put it off till today. The timing
of these meetings –
Bird: I know Shari, we’re all under a time schedule. I have a real problem when we come in on recommendations and our planner is interpreting for Planning and Zoning Commission. I
don’t have a set of minutes here, myself, to read through and see what the actual motion or the discussions were. I have a real problem with it.
Corrie: I guess I feel if there’s that many differences between the findings in what your staff is seeing then this item should be pulled from the agenda on Friday and we shouldn’t
be discussing it until you guys have come to conclusion on that.
Stiles: I don’t think this should be a reflection of either my department or the attorney’s office. Initially when these comments are made, this is right when the application -- when
we initially go through that application and make all our comments based on the application. That’s what goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission. What they’ve put in here is exactly
what our comments were, that’s what these items are that were prepared by the attorney’s office. Those are basically verbatim what staff’s recommendations were. However, the Planning
and Zoning Commission did not accept those exactly as they were written. That’s why Brad is very thorough and took a great deal of time going through this to make sure that what’s in
here reflected what the Planning and Zoning Commission came up with for their recommendation.
Bird: No reflection of any department – it isn’t fair to the applicant or to the Council when there’s that many changes that the staff hasn’t written out and got it to us by Friday
to look at it and even to let the attorney look at it so that he can go back on his notes and maybe find out which one was what the Commission had wanted in their recommendation. That’s
why we had set this time limit on a Friday and if we can’t get hit it (inaudible) we’re just going to have to pull it until the next meeting. That’s nobody’s fault. I just don’t like
having to pass on a motion when you’ve read off all of the things and I can’t sit here and write them fast enough. I can’t remember every word of them so I really don’t know what I’m
passing on. I need to see it in writing.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, then perhaps it needs to go back to how it was awhile back that Planning and Zoning reviews their own motions. This was done – staff was doing a courtesy by cleaning
that up and maybe it needs to be Planning and
Zoning Commissions work that they look at their own recommendations. They don’t see this.
Bird: They don’t see it I agree with you, but if there’s that many changes in the recommendations -- has the developer seen a copy of this? The applicant?
Stiles: No.
Bird: Have we seen a copy of it?
Stiles: No.
Bird: What did we say at our last workshop? If it is not ready by Friday, everything, it gets pulled from the agenda. We’ve sat up here and looked like a bunch of dunces and we don’t
need any help we can do it ourselves.
De Weerd: Whose responsibility, Council member Bird, is it? Should it be Planning and Zoning, staff that has fined these?
Bird: Staff is fine. They should get it so that everybody can look at it so if there’s any disagreement we can see what the differences are. If it’s one item or one letter I have
no problem with that, I can remember that. When you’ve got a list as long as my arm I’m not going to remember it.
De Weerd: I’m just asking, whose responsibility should it be. Should it be the Planning and Zoning Commission, should it be the City Attorney’s office, or should it be Planning and
Zoning Staff? I think Planning and Zoning Staff having to do this is – he actually went an extra step.
Bird: I have no problem with that. I think that if there’s this much disagreement on the recommendation then I think that we take the extra week – after the first of the week we’ll
be meeting every week--
De Weerd: Planning and Zoning twice a week.
Bird: Put Planning and Zoning twice a month. I think that if there was that many the staff should have got back to the attorney, Planning and Zoning Attorney, and go the minutes or
the tapes. There are tapes, they can listen to the tapes and find out what is the recommendation that is coming before us. If it changes then you get it in writing to us.
Anderson: I guess in answer to your question Tammy, it would seem logical that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed their own recommendations. That would be like asking Will
to review our recommendations and decide what our intent was. I would agree that it probably ought to be the Planning and
Zoning Commission themselves once the recommendations are written that they should review them.
Corrie: This is a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. I don’t think they even see it—
De Weerd: No they don’t.
Corrie: -- I’m just repeating what you’re saying and I agree with it. I think that if you have a comment and if this isn’t what you think it is, it should go back to the Planning and
Zoning and they look at their recommendation then they bring it to us so that they get a second shot at it. We’re going to have extra meetings in Planning and Zoning. They can do that
and make sure that we get, that you have it, they have it and they both agree then we get it. I think that would be the ideal situation that we’re going to have to have. However, we
do have a public hearing here and we can continue this and have -- We need to send it back to the Planning and Zoning to give it to us again. I don’t know what the protocol would be
Mr. Attorney. Will we have it to continue at the public hearing, send it back, or what would be the best protocol with the Planning and Zoning Commission?
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council, in my opinion, the way to handle this are I mean the applicant is here and ready to testify. Go ahead and take that testimony, Shari can have
Brad reduce these suggested revisions in a memo form so that the applicant has them. I can take them to Dave Swartley in our office and have him look at them. I don’t find the minutes
in my file here -- they’re probably in the Planning and Zoning minute file instead of that portion of it being put in here – see if Dave missed it when he put the recommendations together,
then he missed it. We can take care of that, come back and say, we missed it and this is what it should be. As far as this particular one, the applicant is here. It may be that when
the applicant sees Brad’s memo he says, yeah that’s it. I will say this though; I want to hear from the applicant with regard to this thirty five-foot setback, landscape setback on
Overland road. I have a question for Shari, what was the landscape setback at the time the application was filed with regard to that Overland road landscape buffer?
Stiles: It would have been twenty feet.
Corrie: Is the applicant here tonight?
Hard: Hello, my name is Matt Hard, I’m with Civil Survey Consultants at 100 South Atkins Way, Suite 101 in Meridian. I represent Fuller-Scott and Glencoe for this application. I might
as well dive right in to what the points that Shari brought up. Originally staff made recommendations after our original submittal, prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting, we revised
the plat to address several of those concerns. That was the revised plat as what we looked at during that
meeting. Some of these comments that Shari has made is in regards to the points that are moot now regarding the irrigation easement and things of that nature. Originally we were going
to (inaudible) the east half of the southeast fifth, those lots one through five there blocks two. We were going to originally plat those to the centerline of the canal but then we
realized we would have to get an encroachment agreement from Nampa Meridian and that might be rather difficult to get. Instead of going through that headache we decided to just move
the (inaudible) lines back to match their existing easement lines so we would not need Nampa Meridian’s permission. There’s several comments like 1.6, 1.7 that are moot now, they’re
not a concern. I got a copy of this report yesterday; I looked at it this morning. The only glaring discrepancy that I had was with Item 1.10. During the Planning and Zoning meeting
we talked about staff -- we discussed that during the meeting. The developer would prefer that both sides be easements, they were still being included in a landscape plan that would
be approved by the city. The developer will still pay and construct the landscape items prior to final acceptance by the city. During the Planning and Zoning meeting, Planning and
Zoning ruled that the West Side of southeast fifth could be an easement instead of a common lot. Staff supported that decision during that meeting. We did decide that the landscape
buffer along Overland road should be a common lot since it was fronting a major arterial in that area. Shari brought up the point tonight that now the city would like to have thirty-five
foot instead of the twenty feet, which was the rule when we originally submitted this application. I would like to state that we would like to stick with the twenty-foot easement being
that was the conditions of when we submitted this application. We touched briefly about having a fence along the inside of the Eight-Mile Lateral there. Other fences of Meridian greens
have not been fenced, the property owner’s been an allowed to plant grasses and landscape up to the water’s edge. The developer would like to again not be required to construct a fence
along that border. Staff report says that they would encourage a fence but would not require one. When you put a fence on the edge of a canal like that the side of the fence that’s
by the canal is just overgrown with weeds and it’s (inaudible). Overall it would be much better for the property owner’s and for the Subdivision to be allowed to utilize that area.
Obviously (inaudible) the lot lines that are building setbacks will still be enforced from that line but they would be able to utilize that area clear to the water’s edge. The shared
access as we’ve showed there on the east side of Southeast 5th were approved by ACHD. It is an exception to their normal policy but there’s really not a real good way to access those
lots unless we do use the shared driveways in that area. The access points shown on there were approved by ACHD and I believe that’s all I have for now. Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, did you understand all the changes in the recommendations that Shari read?
Hard: Yes I did.
Corrie: I guess the next question do you agree?
Hard: Well the exception –
Corrie: The landscaping, yeah I understand now. Anyone else want to (inaudible) testimony? Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, just one more question for staff. Shari, apparently the concerns of the Homeowners Association has been addressed. Since they’re not here, I would assume that
those have been addressed through Planning and Zoning.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council, Councilwoman de Weerd. That was the 1.22 that Brad had added to this that the Planning and Zoning Commission had added in their motion an additional condition
for them to enter into an agreement with Homeowners. Since they made that in their motion that’s probably why they’re not here tonight.
De Weerd: The applicant agreed with that.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Then I presume we better close the public hearing on Item No. 10.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing on the Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 13 building lots and 3 other lots on 7.88 acres in an R-4 zone, Meridian Greens
No. 4 by Scott-Fuller investment/Glencoe.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on PP-00-019 Preliminary Plat, Meridian Greens No. 4. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I believe we have got to work out a better process and I think
That Councilman Anderson or somebody hit up on it that we need – maybe it was the Mayor – we need to get these back and let the Planning and Zoning people take a look at their recommendations
and stuff so that we are getting a little better ones. Adding our extra meetings should help that but with that and understanding the applicant understood all of the recommendations
from the
spiel. I would move that we approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 13 building lots, and 3 other lots on 7.88 acres in an R-4 zone, for proposed Meridian Greens No. 4
by Scott-Fuller investments and Glencoe with staff comments added and 1.22 added to the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. Excuse me I need to add something to that. That the landscape setback would stay at the 20 feet when it was proposed.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat calling the staff comments, adding 1.22 (inaudible) and that the 20-foot setback is standard on that. Other
comments made in the motion. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll call: McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nichols: Shari, if Brad could get that memo upstairs to us as soon as possible so that we can use that in preparing the findings that would be gratefully appreciated.
Item 11. RZ-00-007 Request for Rezone of 6.95 acres from L-O to C-G for the proposed Mallane Commercial Complex by The Land Group, Inc. – northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and North
Hickory Way:
Corrie: Item 11 has been withdrawn for Request for Rezone. Counselor, do we just need a motion to recognize the withdrawal? I’ll entertain a motion to recognize the withdrawal by
letter of the applicant for the commercial complex.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a recommendation that we recognize the request for withdrawal for the Rezone Request for 6.95 acres from L-O to C-G for the proposed Mallane Commercial
Complex by The Land Group.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is seconded to recognize the withdrawal by letter of the applicant for the RZ-00-007, Item 11. Any further discussion? Great, now all those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Public Hearing: VAR 00-022 Request for a variance of Section 12-3-6 (a and b) Time Extension of Preliminary Plat for Gemstone Center No. 4 – west of Eagle Road and south of
Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Item No. 12, is a request for variance in section 12-3-6 (a and b) Time Extension of Preliminary Plat for Gemstone Center No. 4 – west of Eagle Road and south of Fairview Avenue.
At this time we’ll open the public hearing, invite staff to give the comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is for the property out next to the Blue Cross. This would be the Blue Cross property right here, this is where Pine Street – half the street has
been constructed. The applicant came in and was granted a six-month extension in May for the platting of this property. They had requested an extension and Council may grant an extension
up to one year but it was felt that construction of that Pine Street was a priority. The City wanted to see it get done so put the limit of six months of it. The sixth months has expired,
the application is null and void unless this variance is granted. We had hoped it would have worked but Ms. Bowcutt is representing the applicant and I’m not sure if their request is
for a specific time period. I believe she would like the additional six months which would indicate that it would be May 16, 2001, if the variance were granted that they would need
to have the plat recorded.
Corrie: Since this is a public hearing, Becky, welcome back.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickory Dale. As Shari indicated we submitted time extension back in May, it gave us till November. It was one of those items that I kind of lost
track of, it came before you, and I did not attend the hearing. The Council granted a six-month extension, your ordinance does allow for up to one year. We have our construction materials
on the site; sewer and water pipe are out there. We have had some problems with storm drainage because we do have few ground water issues that we’ve been contending with, then dealing
with Nampa Meridian on the overflow from our storm drainage facilities. We resolved that and quickly found ourselves running out of time so that’s why I’m here this evening to ask for
this variance. We’re asking for that additional six months, the ordinance allows up to one year so we felt that it was fair and we would like to proceed. Thank you.
Corrie: So you are requesting six months, by May 16, 2001?
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other persons want to issue testimony in the public hearing. Hearing none, Council (inaudible) gives the questions of applicants?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I entertain the motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing of Variance 022 for Gemtone Center No. 4. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Now, I’ll entertain a motion on the request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve this request for variance of section 12-3-6 (a and b) Time Extension of Preliminary Plat for Gemstone Center No. 4 – west of Eagle Road and south
of Fairview Avenue till May 16, 2001.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the variance request on the Gemstone Center No. 4. Any further discussion? Roll call voted.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 13. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Carrie: Next are the Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies. You can all leave the room now if you would like. I want you to know that the city doesn’t play favorites. This is to inform
you in writing, if you choose to, have the right to a predetermined hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December the 9, 2000, before the mayor at City Council to appear in person to (inaudible)
in the facts and defend the claim made by this City that your water, sewer and trash fill is delinquent. You may retain Council, you got that Bill? This service will be discontinued
on December the 21, 2000 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, or trash delinquency? Hearing none, you are hereby
informed that you may appear or have the decision, decision reviewed by the court, Judicial District Court (inaudible) to the Idaho State code even though they do feel their water will
be shut off. The amount of turnoff lists is $41, 093.21. I entertain a motion out of the delinquency of turnoff scheduled for 2/21/00. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 14. Department Reports:
A. Public Works Director – Gary Smith:
1. Meridian Transportation Task Force Committee Report:
2. Building Lease – Public Works / Building / Planning & Zoning:
3. Change Order No. 4 by Turnkey Construction for the Digester Project:
B. City Attorney – Bill Nichols:
Financing of Police Station:
Smith: Thank you Mayor, the first item I have for you this evening is the Meridian Transportation Task Force Committee Report. I believe you have that report in your packet. That
committee meets annually and we met on November the 16th for about three hours and discussed our transportation related issues in the City of Meridian. Out of that meeting came the
minutes that are attached to the memo that I sent and along with that at the end of the minutes is a prioritized recommendation of the transportation projects that this committee feels
are a priority for the City of Meridian. I might mention also that the membership of this Task Force Committee is pretty diversified. I included a copy of that membership in the memorandum
so that you can see who is on the committee. Representation from the citizens of Meridian, staff of Meridian, Councilperson and Planning and Zoning along with representatives from ITD
and ACHD. It’s a pretty diverse group. The recommendation from, well actually the requirement from the City of Meridian is to submit a prioritization of projects to Compass, ACHD and
ITD. I would recommend that this recommendation, whatever you feel you want to submit to them, goes to all three agencies so that there isn’t a breakdown of communication anywhere along
the line so that this recommendation is received by all agencies that are involved in putting the Transportation Improvement Project program together. Theoretically, I guess actually
Compass is the organization that coordinates the efforts of the Transportation Projects to ACHD and ultimately onto ITD. I guess realistically, and I think it was probably expressed
by either the ACHD representative or the ITD representative, that not all of the priority based listing that we showed will be fundable. I think it was probably a consensus of the committee
that we’re working through maybe the top six items. We established a whole footnote listing at the end of the thirteen items that we wanted to include in the
recommendation to the Compass, ACHD, and ITD that some of these are actually under construction or in final designed phases and ultimate funding. We didn’t want anyone to feel that
these were not critically important items for the City of Meridian even though they are advancing in the design changes toward construction. The Locus for example, the Locust Grove
Road rebuild from Fairview to Ustick is I think 95 percent complete as far as design goes. It will move forward for construction but we didn’t want that to fall off of the list completely.
The committee one that to retain itself as an item on the priority list. The Locust Grove overpass, as you know is progressing in the design stage and you’ll have a memorandum of understanding
or a cooperative agreement to review at the second meeting in January for that project. Do you have any questions concerning the minutes from the meeting or the prioritized listing
of transportation projects?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I did have one comment Gary, on your priority based list. I guess Item 7 to me, and I don’t know – the signalization of that east bound off-ramp road –
Smith: Yes sir.
Anderson: -- to me that is something that’s an existing that’s a hazard. To me that needs to have a very high priority and should be probably number one on the list. Some of these
other roads, I mean they’re not even built yet, yes they’re badly needed but if we don’t put that traffic signal at the interstate up higher on the priority list -- you mentioned that
we’re probably dealing with one through six, that may never happen. They need to understand that that’s a high priority. The traffic lights at the fire stations, if these other projects
that happen – one through six occur, those would be taken care of. If we finish the construction on the ten-mile station for example and there’s enough money left in the budget then
we may have money that we could buy the used equipment from them and install that. I really think that signalization at the interstate needs to have a higher priority in my mind so
that it definitely gets taken care of. That’s an immediate hazard to me.
Smith: I understand that Councilman Anderson and it did receive a lot of discussion. There was some discussion that ACHD had some funds, that they could contribute to the installation
of that signal and I’m not sure that was ever substantiated. You’re right it is a hazard. There was a comment made by one of the committee members, are we going to have to have a fatality
out there before we get a signal lined up. It was a very serious discussion about it. This list is presented to you for your comments and it can be adjusted to your desires. There
are no limitations there.
Anderson: I guess when I look in the total scheme of things these other projects – for each of those projections we’re talking about millions of dollars and several years to take place.
This one is not of the magnitude and we can’t wait three or
four years, in my mind for that to take place. If we move that higher on the priority list, even if there’s x amount of dollars available it still doesn’t mean that on some of these
other projects – design or write away purchase and some of that could go on but it may just delay whatever the build out time would be for whatever difference it would cost, I don’t
know what the signalization out there would be. 150, 000 dollars I don’t know.
Smith: I can’t remember the dollar value for that.
Corrie: Gary where was Pamelo (sic) in that recommendation? How did she react to that?
Smith: She was not in attendance Mayor.
Corrie: Oh, she wasn’t?
Smith: No, they had their planner there.
Corrie: Lard wasn’t there either?
Smith: No, Jonathan Hennings was there from ITD, he’s their planner. I shouldn’t say all of these work items, but I would venture to say that your request as a Mayor in Council for
the City of Meridian will carry a lot of weight as to what projects they move forward with. The pressures are always there for projects to be built everywhere because there are always
a lot of projects and there are limited moneys available.
Corrie: That will be an ITD project and ACHD. Of course Chuck Winder is very aware of that and so is Bonny McClure. I’ve talked to them so much now that they don’t even want to see
me coming but they all agree. I think that if we made that as one of the higher priorities and particularly let ITD know about it then we might be able to get that through there. That’s
a minor thing for ITD as far as cost is concerned, compared to building a new overpass.
Smith: There is work involved in that signal other than just a signal. There is work that will be involved in the off-ramp itself, widening the off-ramp, adding a lane, storage lane
for a turning lane, that sort of thing. There’s also a synchronization of the signal lights then, north south on the Kuna Meridian highway. That’s going to have to be changed. One
of the things that continues to baffle me is that ACHD still hasn’t resolved signal synchronization for the City of Meridian. The last word that I had from that meeting from this meeting
is that they have to add another 20 feet of tower at their base station in Garden City in order for the transmitting device located out here at the Amity, Kuna Meridian intersection,
to see through the trees so that way they can control our signals. That project has been ongoing for four years probably. They still don’t have it resolved. Adding another signal
at the off-ramp is going to compound the flow of
traffic. The Highway District Traffic Engineer said that it’s going to be better coordinated. The signalization needs to be much better coordinated for that to work. There are some
problems in getting that done. Again the prioritization of these projects by you as Mayor in Council sets the stage for what needs to be funded or what we ask to be funded as the City
of Meridian. Along with that I would say any influence that you could put forth to the agencies for the spending of the money, even individually or as a group, written, verbal. I would
assume that all has an impact.
Corrie: I suppose, based upon what you are saying it should be right under one because ITD is involved in this Locust Grove right now. They could be – that signalization of I84 eastbound
off-ramp should be plugged up pretty close up there and then the others are ACHD projects. Just a comment here.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Gary I first I want to commend you and your committee for the nice job you guys did on Shari, Chief Gordon being involved. I also, I think this I84 eastbound ramp
needs, unlike the Mayor, I think it needs to go right up under the Locust Grove overpass. What would you estimate, half a million dollars? There is a lot of roadwork, people just think
you’re going to throw a signal up there but you’re not. There’s quite a bit of roadwork and stuff that’s going to have to be done. I would think, I don’t know what lights cost Ron
said 100, 150. I wouldn’t have any idea but I think the roadwork would probably be a couple 300,000 dollars. I surely think on a safety measure that, if the Mayor – we can put some
pressure on ITD – I’m to the point that I think safety wise that might be number one priority. Coming of f of there, coming from Nampa quite a bit I’m telling you you’re best to just
turn right, go down and swing through JB’s and get onto Overland road and turn. I hate to be saying that especially with the Chief sitting there that that’s what I do. It’s the only
– I’m not too sure you’re actually looking at two different items I feel, but I think that signalization of that eastbound off-ramp should be started immediately. I really firmly believe
that and I think everyone of these are very high priorities but to me that has got to be – safety wise has got to be number one priority.
Corrie: When is the funding coming back to ITD? I know they had their board meetings and they’re pretty tough on everybody but maybe we need to get to their next board meeting and
just make a presentation to them as well as to put this priority in front of them. Get with Monty and push pretty hard. The last time I went to one of their meetings they were pretty
territorial about their money but I think under the circumstances I think you can make our point. This they do listen anyway.
Bird: That is just such a safety issue that – you shouldn’t even have to prioritize that.
Smith: Mayor Council. ITD did an intersection study for a bunch of intersections in; I’m not sure if it was just district three or if it was statewide. They did a big
intersections study of which this intersection was part. I don’t know all of the components of that study but out of that came this recommendation of FY20004 for the construction of
it.
De Weerd: 2004?
Smith: 2004 that’s right. Four years away, well three years away. Which is unacceptable.
Anderson: Everyone was turning right so they figured nobody made left hand turns there.
De Weerd: That is also when the corporate park Walton on east first was late for improvement wasn’t it?
Smith: Yes, I believe.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor I guess I would just make a recommendation and just throw it out on the floor if Gary has to send this on there’s no point setting here all night talking about
this. I make a recommendation that we move this up to our number one priority on the priority list.
Bird: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to move the priority list as a signalization of I84 eastbound off-ramp on the Meridian Road to the number one position. The others follow the
way they have it?
Anderson: I think it’s great work that the committee did.
Corrie: Hearing that is there any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Gary will send all three this letter of priority list. I may just send the letter to each one of them personally that we want some business that was discussed quite a bit
here to Monty and to Chuck as well.
Smith: I agree, I think that would be appropriate. Mr. Mayor do you want me to write that letter and sign it as City Engineer or do you want –
Corrie: Do you want to sign it Engineer and then have myself and all the Council sign it? I don’t think it would make much difference if we do send a separate letter from us. We can
send a separate letter to Chuck and to Monty and everybody can sign it if they want to on that letter.
Smith: Alright.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, Gary does ACHD and COMPASS need some action on this by Council?
Smith: Yes. I don’t know whether that should be a resolution or just an approval of this prioritization.
Corrie: Mr. Counselor we can put this as a resolution you know.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council you can or you can simply pass a motion to take Gary’s committee’s recommendations and move that one to the top and that’s your list.
De Weerd: So do make sure that ACHD and Compass notes that we did act on it.
Smith: Yes, I’ll put that in the letter that it as a formal motion at this meeting. Thank you. The second item I have is the building lease for the Public Works Building Department
Planning and Zoning office area that was prepared by Thornton Oliver Keller, the leasing agent for Mr. William A. Hahn. This is for building office space located at the corner of Stratford
and the Watertower Lane. The address is 660 East Watertower Lane, 6711 square feet of office space. The lease as you have it has been back and forth between my office, City Attorney’s
office, the Leasing Agent’s office, and Mr. Hahn. This lease language has been approved by Mr. Nichols and it has been approved by Mr. Hahn. They’ve been very good to work with as
far as what our requirements are. We can put everybody in the building space that is contained in exhibit b of this lease. It leaves us several offices for expansion beyond the personnel
that we are hiring or have hired recently and are endeavoring to hire for our immediate needs. I guess my request on the behalf of the Public Works building and Planning and Zoning
Department is for you approval of this lease agreement with William A. Hahn. Do you have any questions concerning the lease?
Corrie: When is our present lease up?
Smith: Our present lease ends January 31st of 2001. We will not be ready or the building will not be ready for occupancy until March 1st. We have one month to rent at our existing
location before we can move.
Corrie: We got the okay to do that?
Smith: I have not.
Corrie: What happens if we don’t get it, are you going to have to do outside plumbing and a tent?
Smith: They’ll have to evict us and I think they’ll have to give us notice don’t they Mr. Attorney?
Bird: They can’t get you up running in 80 days.
Smith: I have not talked to the building owners specifically to see what problems, if any there would be. Our anticipation is that we can stay that one month without any severe penalties.
Otherwise we’ll take all of the interior walls partitions and everything with us when we move.
Corrie: Discussion, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Well that’s a quiet Council, okay I’ll entertain a motion then.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we join into this billing lease with William A. Hahn and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Corrie: Okay do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to accept the commercial lease and (inaudible) from William A. Hahn for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest for the contract. Further discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, one thing to point out people we do have a fund out clause and they have agreed to it. It’s all legal; Mr. Nichols made sure of that.
Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Smith: Mr. Mayor, I might also add on this issue, we did investigate four different buildings in the City of Meridian. The costs were very similar, there was very little difference.
The space where we are located right now we did, for Tim’s benefit, we did get – we had a good price on that facility, square footage wise, dollars per square foot. This move allows
us to get our departments together, Planning and Zoning, building and engineering together on the same floor. I think we’ll have better ability to communicate and I think that was the
big incentive was to give us a little room to grow to.
Corrie: We’re getting pretty good size.
Smith: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Smith: The last item I have is a Change Order request. Change Order No. 4 from Turnkey Construction for the Digester Project. I can run through the memo that Brad put together if
you would like.
Corrie: Is the Change Order, Gary, basically just a request for an extension of time?
Smith: There’s an increase of $18,092.22. The items – they did ask for an increase in time but we’re not recommending that at this time. The items for the contract, the $18,092.22
are at the tail end of the packet material that you have with an explanation of what each item involved. There are 12 items I believe to make up – some of them are – well I think the
maximum item was $5694 which was a waste gas burner addition.
Corrie: Would there be that 56 days addition or not?
Smith: Not at this time, no. There’s no recommendation for extension on the contract time. I don’t know whether this – I don’t think that – there will be some additional time approved
ultimately but not anywhere near the 56 days. I guess Brad’s comment was that there maybe a few days that are justified but not anywhere near the 56 days. We’ll be in a wrestling match
with the contractor as this project winds up on a time extension. Right now the request is for approval of these work items, dollar amounts.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none. Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we accept Change Order No. 4 with Turnkey Construction for the amount of $18,092.22 and that no added days to the contract
be allowed.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to that increase of $18,092.22 and no increase in days Change Order. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: You heard we did include the discussion on the financing on the Police building and from the attorney on the certificate of participation, leasing finance, and addition confirmation
proceeding. Are there any further questions before we
decide whether you want the attorney to go ahead with preparing the documents, financing the documents and proceed. Everybody understand?
Bird: You want a motion?
Corrie: If everybody understands what it is and I think we do so yes, I’ll entertain a motion for the –
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the Mayor and attorney to go forward with getting our judicial review, started with First Security Bank and Mr. Skinner financing 3.5
million dollars for the Meridian Police Department’s new building.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to have the attorney and the Mayor proceed with the judicial confirmation proceedings and with the other part of the motion. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(Inaudible discussion between members.)
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded adjourn at ten o’clock all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:58 P.M.
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK