HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 07-18Meridian City Council Meeting July 18, 2000
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 7:35 p.m. on Tuesday, July 18, 2000.
Members present: Robert D. Corrie, Tammy deWeerd, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Keith Bird.
Others present: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Bill Gordon, Ken Bowers, Bill Nichols, Tom Kuntz, Will Berg.
( Presentation for formal acknowledgement of Sunnybrook Homeowners Association’s donation to the City of Meridian of 2.1 acres contiguous to Chateau Park:
Corrie: First thank you for coming tonight, it’s kind of stormy out, I hope the lights stay on and we don’t have that tornado come on through from Kuna that was reported coming this
way. Thank you for being here. Tom, we have a presentation for the acknowledgment of the Sunnybrook Homeowners Association.
Kuntz: Mayor and Council, approximately four weeks ago, Sunnybrook Farm Homeowners Association due to the 1.2 acres of property that was there neighborhood park and it lies contiguous
with 4 acres of park land that we have. Both pieces are on Chateau Drive between Linder Road and Ten Mile, and I thought it would be appropriate to officially thank Sunnybrook Homeowners
Association for that 2.1 acres that will make about a 7-acre neighborhood park. Hopefully we’ll start developing it this fall, and we have representatives tonight from the Sunnybrook
Homeowners Association. Sue Shehan, and Sue , I don’t know if you brought anybody with you, but why don’t you come up and the Mayor has a little gift for you. Thank you Mayor and Council.
Item A. Approve minutes of June 6, 2000, special Pre-Council meeting:
Item B. Approve minutes of June 6, 2000, regular City Council meeting:
Item C. Approve minutes of June 20, 2000, special Pre-Council meeting:
Item D. Approve minutes of July 5, 2000, special Pre-Council meeting:
Item E. Tabled from July 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision
by Gem Star Properties, LLC – southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Item F. Tabled from July 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 78.4 acres with 263 building lots and 12 other lots
for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC – southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Item G. Modified Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: Ada County Development Services 00-10PDR / 00-05 ZC – Preliminary Plat for Edinburgh Subdivision – 53 lots and 5 other lots
on 17.76 acres by Steve Smith – ½ mile east of Eagle Road on McMillan Road:
Item H. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-010 Request for a reduction in the required landscaping setbacks for Centennial Motors to allow 20 feet instead of 36 feet along
Franklin Road and 10 feet instead of 20 feet along the Rose Park Mobile Home Park by Sam Fishel – 225 West Franklin Road:
Item I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-032 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 6.36 acres for a proposed Park-and-Ride lot for 100 vehicles by Ada County Highway
District currently in a C-G zone – southwest corner of Meridian Road and northeast corner of Overland Road:
Item J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-034 Request for amendment to Conditional Use Permit for a proposal of a larger sign and additional pylon sign to the site
at Oakbrook Plaza currently in a C-G zone by Dan Conlin, Idaho Electric Signs – 2100 through 2180 Fairview Avenue:
Item K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-031 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct two office / warehouse buildings on 4.13 acres currently in an I-L zone
by H & W, Inc. – northwest corner of Franklin Road and 10th Street:
Item L. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-013 Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed modifications to include an additional pole sign for Chevron / McDonalds
in a C-G zone – 603 South Eagle Road:
Item M. Decision of Order Denying Appeal: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Administrator’s Decision to Require a Conditional Use Permit by Eagle Concrete Pumping – Baltic Street in The
Meridian Business and Industrial Park:
Item N. Resolution No. 331: Amendment to Personnel Policy Manual – sick leave donated to terminally ill employee:
Item O. Development Agreement: RZ 00-003 Rezone of 37.64 acres from an R-4 to an L-O zone for proposed Resolution Business Park by G.L. Voigt / Overland, LLC – south of Overland Road
and east of Locust Grove Road:
Item P. Beer and Wine License: Beer Transfer from Godfather’s Pizza to Round Table Pizza, 499 SE 1st Street and New wine license for Round Table Pizza, 499 SE 1st Street:
Item Q. Development Agreement: AZ 00-004 Public Hearing: AZ 00-004 Request for annexation and zoning of 16.119 acres from R-T to C-G for proposed Resolution Business Park by G.L.
Voigt / Overland, LLC – south of Overland Road and east of Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: Council, you have the Consent Agenda in front of you, any changes that you would like to see on that?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, we would like to pull Items E, F, I and L to make it 1E, 1F, 1I and 1L on the Regular Agenda and with that I move that we approve the Consent Agenda with those changes.
Anderson: Second that.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with Items I, E, F and L to be moved to the first part of the Regular Agenda and that the resolution No. on the
personnel policy manual sick leave donated to terminally ill patients is resolution No. 331. Any further discussion? If none, roll-call vote, please, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-032 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 6.36 acres for a proposed Park-and-Ride lot for 100 vehicles by Ada County Highway
District currently in a C-G zone – southwest corner of Meridian Road and northeast corner of Overland Road:
Corrie: With the Regular Agenda now, Item 1, 1I, I believe that is the Findings request for reducing landscaping setbacks for Centennial Motors to allow 20 ft., instead of 36 ft. long,
Franklin Road, and 10 ft. instead of 20 ft. along Rose Park
Mobile Home Park. Is that the wrong zoning people had approved it with them doing the complete sidewalks, curb and gutter. I feel the Council needs to re-think this when they vote
on this and deny this as it’s written, the Findings and Facts and Conclusion of Law.
Corrie: Any other comments from Council?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to state my position, I agree with Councilman Bird that it seems a little bit unjust that the agency that normally is putting all the requirements
on the developers would ask for a variance and I agree with that part of it, but from the testimony that I heard, it made sense to me that this is a Park-and-Ride Lot, then there are
not going to be a lot of foot traffic going to this and that’s why, in my opinion, it seemed reasonable and prudent to me to grant the variance in this case for the curbs and sidewalks.
Bird: But when the rest of the land is developed, you’ll expect the developer to put it in, right?
Anderson: Depends on what goes in there next to that I guess, but I’m assuming that whatever project that is it will probably (inaudible) sidewalks.
Bird: That wasn’t a public hearing, was it?
Anderson: No
Bird: No, I didn’t think so.
Corrie: Any other comments from Council?
deWeerd: I guess I have a question since I don’t have it hear in front of me , the project itself, but the area that wasn’t going to be curbed and provided sidewalks, was that there
property or were they just putting in the roads so that you could get to the Park-and-Ride? This is not a for profit and it is a service to our citizens in our community and I think
that lended to the decision (inaudible)
Corrie: Shari, can you shed any light on that?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I believe the recommendation of the staff was that they only be required on one side of the property to provide a curb, gutter and sidewalk and when that
property to the West developed they would be responsible for that portion of it. One of the problems that we had with them not providing the sidewalk, besides it being to an alternative
form of transportation system in the Park-and-Ride was that the property is going to need to be subdivided. They have determined that it’s a public road that’s going to be extended
back there. We have had some problem with Ada County Highway District in accepting dedications of roadways that the Council and her staff has
never seen and I don’t think there’s any doubt that had the property owner come in with the request for the same thing. Ada County Highway Districts report reflected the requirement
to have curb, gutter and sidewalk, but probably on both sides.
deWeerd: So, Mr. Mayor, is that road on their property?
Corrie: Yes.
Stiles: But, it’s likely that when the property to the West develops that they could finish the road improvements on there side because it’s doubtful that they would want to have there
only access to be off Overland Road, so they could complete that side of the street whenever that property develops.
deWeerd: And the property to the East is already developed, is that Meridian Ford?
Stiles: Yes, Meridian Ford.
Corrie: Okay, anything else? We need to approve or deny the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the request for Conditional Use Permit. We understand it Keith a denial will
request them to go back and make the-
Bird: (inaudible)
Corrie: Is that correct?
Bird: Yes
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council, I would suggest that you identify what you want inserted into the Findings and then we can simply do that as opposed to coming back with another
one, just simply tell us what you want added to the Findings. The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission was specifically. The Council’s motion was to eliminate this
last time, this is what this recommendation reads: “Staff does not agree with ACHD that the new 480 ft. access road off Overland be constructed as a rural road with no sidewalk, curb
or gutter, serving a commercially zoned parcel it should be constructed as a commercial street section, also, as a Park-and-Ride lot. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the sight from
Overland Road seems important. We recommend the sidewalk be constructed on at least one side of the new access road until such time as parcel 2 is developed.” That was the recommendation
that was diluted.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, just for clarification then, staff did not recommend what side of the road to have the sidewalk put on, they just recommended one side or the other.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council, we would recommend that it be on the east side, because the property to the west is still a rural residence and will probably be redeveloped in future.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, if you choose-I would suggest the first motion would be whether to amend these Findings to include that recommendation, and then you know
if the motion is yes then the next motion is to approve them with the amendment.
Bird: I move that we amend the Findings in regard to the curb, sidewalk and gutter and go back to the Planning and Zoning’s recommendation which went down the east side of the continual
road.
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to amend the Findings and Facts and Conclusion of Law to include the South East side curb and gutters from the Planning and Zoning recommendation.
Any further discussion?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I believe your summarization of the motion said south and east side. Would it not be the east and north side of that?
Corrie: Yes, I was trying to figure out in my head, and I was talking and I should have been thinking, okay. Clear?
Anderson: I did just want to state that as I reflect on that decision from a couple weeks ago and fact that there is a large homeowner group and a lot of residents on the south side
of Overland road I do think we may pick up some pedestrian traffic and maybe even riding a bicycle who want to commute to work and I do believe it’s only fair that Ada Count Highway
District install the sidewalks as they would request of any other developer.
Corrie: That was on the south side of – I’m confused –
Bird: East side, north of Overland.
Corrie: And that’s in the motion?
Bird: Yes, that’s down the length of it down the east side.
deWeerd: I think one other thing that was brought up that night and it might have been the concern that kind of turn the tide, anyway with me ACHD did state that the cost might put
this project in danger of even happening, but in retrospect I would imagine if they set criteria for everyone else to follow they should follow it themselves.
Corrie: Any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay, I entertain a motion to accept the new Findings and Facts as stated in the –
Bird: I move that we approve the CUP and have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law and Decision of Order, showing a new amended Finding of Facts for CUP
of 63.6 acres for proposed Park-and-Ride lot for 100 vehicles in a C-G zone southwest of Meridian Road and northeast corner of Overland Road.
Anderson: I second that.
Corrie: Okay, motion has been made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the new Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law incorporating the changes. Any further discussion? Then
all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, how will this change then be communicated to ACHD?
Corrie: City Clerk will have to do that I would imagine.
deWeerd: So, will he be giving them a call and letting them know that change has been made?
Item 1E. Tabled from July 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision
by Gem Star Properties, LLC – southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Item 1F. Tabled from July 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 78.4 acres with 263 building lots and 12 other lots
for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC – southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Corrie: Okay, Item 1E and F was tabled on the Findings and Facts and Conclusions of Law request for annexation of Autumn Faire Subdivision and F the request Preliminary Plat for Autumn
Faire Subdivision.
deWeerd: I requested that this be moved to the Regular Agenda. These two Items for annexation and zoning as well as the Preliminary Plat lot were denied in
a previous meeting, discussion after we closed public hearing I brought up a question of the park land that was associated with the Subdivision and questioned how could they be giving
us park land if they don’t own the land, and it raised a couple of questions and some discussion. I don’t think we gave the applicant opportunity to respond to that as well in our motion
of denial we were not specific on what it would require to make this application one that would be more acceptable, so, with that in mind I would move that we set a public hearing to
give them the opportunity to respond to thee specific issues that were raised during that discussion and it probably can’t be revisited until August 15th because it have to be public
noticed again. So, I would move to re-open this for public hearing on the annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for the proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision.
Corrie: Is there a second to that?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Bird did whisper to me can he second the motion. I understand the rule correctly, it’s someone who voted in favor of the motion can move to reconsider, but
I believe that the second does not have to be with the majority on that issue.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Corrie: All right, the motion is taken and the second has been accepted. Is there any further discussion?
Anderson: I guess when I look at the applicant’s request for reconsideration of this, I disagree with some of the statements in there. They talked about how the project did provide
many benefits to the citizens of Meridian and went on to talk about the park space and about some of the open areas and the open areas were primarily in my opinion the open areas that
were required for drainage for the property, and again, the piece of property they are talking about for park space is unusable at this point and even well into their final phases of
their project, so, I do disagree with the fact that they are providing any benefits to the citizens of Meridian they’re going to put additional burdens on our waste treatment plant,
they’re going to increase need for water supply in the area, they’re going to add traffic to the roads, they’re going to add students to the school’s. I disagree with the benefits that
are coming with this supposed application, and I think that we clearly stated that and did give our reasons for denial, so, I guess, in my opinion, we should not reconsider this. We
have given our opinions on that and this is just an attempt to avoid the process of going back and redesigning the project and making some needed improvements in it.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I’d ask you to address the issue of whether in the previous motion that informed the applicant whether or what it
would take to have the land-use application approved. That’s my question Mr. Anderson or Councilman Anderson did –
Anderson: I guess I’m saying, I don’t see the benefits to Meridian, and that’s what I’m asking for is a project that shows some benefits instead of increased burdens for the city, and
I don’t see any of the benefits.
deWeerd: Mr. Nichols, the way I understand it though, the motion was to re-open the public hearing on this. At the present time, the Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law states
it was denied. Now, if they vote not to have another public hearing then we would have to go back and either approve the Finding of Facts as they are; correct?
Nichols: Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of Council, you would have to address the proposed Findings at that time.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just to add to it and this is not the appropriate place for a debate on whether it benefits the City with the park and our well site and those kind of things, but
it was just to open it up to give the applicant a chance to respond to the discussion that was made after the public hearing was closed, and then we can vote at that time to uphold the
current Findings, it just gives them a chance and it also gives us a chance to further clarify the intent behind the denial and what would be needed to bring this back for consideration
so that they have something to work with and we can’t do that sitting up here until this is open again and that’s all I was-new things were added that should be responded to and we should
have voted at that time to re-open the public hearing to give them that opportunity so we wouldn’t have to do this, but we didn’t do that and so I’m just saying that it would be fair,
there was no one here in opposition to that application. I think it would be fair to the applicant to give them a fair chance to publicly submit testimony on what it is they would like
to clarify and it also gives us an opportunity to publicly define to them what it would take if they don’t satisfy your concerns, an opportunity to say this is what you need to bring
it back.
Anderson: I guess, still, in my opinion, I disagree with Councilwoman deWeerd that I don’t see where any new information was presented or is presented at any point in there. It looks
like the same project to me.
Bird: Councilman Anderson, I don’t believe that that’s what we’re voting on right now, because I don’t think they have brought back any new deals, We’re just voting on opening it back
up so that some questions - after we closed the public hearing, there was a lot of questions brought up by the Council that they could have answered at that time. Whether it would have
changed the decision of the vote, nobody knows, but, again, they should have the opportunity to at least answer our questions. They were valid questions that the only people that could
answer was the applicant, so I believe that’s why Tammy has brought this forward to be re-opened.
Corrie: Any other comments at this point? The question before the Council is to whether we reconvene the public hearing on August 15th to hear testimony that the Council did not hear
or didn’t have questions for the applicant. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO NAYS
Corrie: I wasn’t here the 5th of July, and I would rather error on the side of the applicant if they had some ideas that you didn’t have a chance to talk about so, well, I agree with
Mr. Anderson that probably the reasons may not be coming to us, I think we need to at least give them a chance to ask the questions to them, so I will vote yes and break the tie to have
a meeting August the 15th. Okay, I guess F now is the request for the Preliminary Plat approval. I suppose it would be in order to have the same motion. Mr. Attorney, is that correct?
Nichols: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES TO TWO NAYES - TIEBREAKER
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we open the request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 78.4 acres that 263 building lots and 12 other lots were proposed, Autumn Faire Subdivision for
public hearing on August 15th.
Corrie: Motion has been made, is there a second?
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to re-open the public hearing on Item No. F, hearing August 15th. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed,
nay.
MOTIONS CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY
Item 1L. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-013 Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed modifications to include an additional pole sign for Chevron / McDonalds
in a C-G zone – 603 South Eagle Road:
Corrie: All right, I guess we have one other one, L, I believe, which is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law request for Conditional Use Permit. Proposed modification includes
an additional pole sign for Chevron/McDonald’s.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, there is one change in here that I would recommend changing, that is on page 9, Item 1.1 on hours of operation, hours at the sign should not be operating, should
be consistent with both the Chevron and McDonald’s signs so I would recommend that they run those from-those are turned off between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Anderson: I would ask that I be excused from participating in the decision on this as my wife works for the sign company that submitted this application and I was also excused from
the debate on this issue at the last Council Meeting.
Corrie: Hearing no objection, the Council will accept your position. Any other comments? The motion before the Council is to change the hours of the sign should not be operating are
as follows: Chevron, 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. and McDonald’s 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, without having the minutes of last minutes, I have a hard time with not taking any discussion (inaudible) we had two weeks ago. I’d like to know what they agreed upon,
I mean we got one and one here, we got 11 to 5 and one 11 to 6, but we don’t have the minutes so we can’t tell, we can’t say what was actually said by the applicant. I have to feel
that that’s probably –Chevron I think is 24 hours, I don’t know if McDonald’s is 24 hours out there or not.
Nichols: Mr. mayor, members of the Council, this was so unique that I do remember it specifically and the rationale from the applicant was to attempt to mitigate the affects on neighbors
who agree to turn the sign off and part of the rationale on the Chevron sign was morning commuter traffic and the station is open, so they wanted the sign on at 5 a.m., but McDonald’s,
they didn’t need it on until 6 a.m. I mean, granite, it’s a unique deal, but that was there testimony. That explains how we got this inconsistency, that was their offer to try to mitigate
the impact on the neighborhood with regard to the illumination from the sign.
Corrie: Not being here (inaudible), was that two different lights?
Bird: No, it’s all on the same pole.
deWeerd: How can you turn one off at 6 and one off at 5?
Bird: They’ve got their own electrical I’m sure. Bill’s right, they did state that because the McDonald’s don’t open until- and Chevron is open 24 hours. Anyway, we got a motion.
Corrie: We have a motion, I know, but I don’t think I have a second yet, so, we had a discussion before the second. Is there a second to the motion?
deWeerd: I don’t know that I made it a motion, I just made it a suggestion as a change.
Corrie: We have a motion; do we have a second?
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay, motion is made and seconded to approve the Final Plat on Item No. 17 and have the attorney prepare the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as amended would be Chevron 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. and McDonald’s 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. I’ll entertain a motion to accept the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law as amended.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Findings and Facts and Conclusions of Law for the request for the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed modification to include an additional
pole sign for Chevron/McDonald’s and a C-G Zone with the modifications to have the Mayor sign and Clerk to attest.
Item 18. FP 00-011 Request for Final Plat of 37 building lots and 3 other lots on 3.98 acres for Heronbrook Townhomes by Pinnacle Engineers – NE corner of Meridian Road and Blue Heron
Lane:
Bird: I move that we approve the final plat for Heronbrook Townhomes of 37 building lots and 3 other lots on 3.98 acres by Pinnacle Engineers, northeast corner of Meridian Road and
Blue Heron Lane and have the attorney prepare the appropriate paperwork.
Corrie: Motion made to approve the Final Plat request for 37 building lots and 3 other building lots on 3.98 acres. Do we have a second:
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to approve the (inaudible) Findings and Facts on Item No. 18. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay, I believe that takes care of the Consent Agenda Items moved. Before we do Item No. 2, I believe we have some scouts here tonight, do we know what’s the troop, Scoutmaster,
Scout leader, I forgot what it’s – Troop 30 from Meridian. Welcome fellows, hope we’re not as boring as we might seem tonight. Welcome anyway.
Item 2. Don Bryan: Discussion of water delivery which has been adversely affected by developers in the surrounding area:
Corrie: Item No. 2 is Don Bryan: Discussion of water delivery which has been adversely affected by developers in the surrounding area.
Bryan: Hello Mr. Mayor, City Council Members. Once again I’m in front of you. I’ve been coming here for 8, 9 years now, every time we have a development in the Locust Grove area where
I reside, I’m here to battle for my water rights. I moved here 14 years ago and I’ve been irrigating my land ever since and I continually press for the ditches to be tiled and water
rights to be enforced and protected and my delivery system, somebody guarding it other than myself, that’s why I spend so much time down here. Why I’m here tonight is two-fold, we’ve
got one item that when they developed Packard Subdivision I came before you, I pleaded my case about having them tile the entire 40 acre parcel all at once when they do their development.
They argued that they couldn’t afford that, it was not feasible. During their planning and zoning in the City Council discussions, some of you new members can check with the old City
Council Members that were here (inaudible), but it was agreed to by a developer that they would tile the ditches in the staff comments that was in the minutes, I believe, do you have
- I sent a copy of this with Will, do they have a packet with the information in it?
Berg: Yes, we do.
Bryan: On the city comments, dated June1996, on Item No.3, it says applicant testified in presentations to City Council that all ditches would be tiled prior to beginning (inaudible)
and not left to be done in phases. We went to another City Council Meeting, July 10th, (inaudible) and they argued the fact that would not be feasible for them to do that. I argued
that it needed to be done to protect the integrity of the water delivery system. At that time, the City Council asked the developer direct if he would have a problem, if that ditch
was not maintained, if he would have a problem of tiling it at that time whenever it became a problem when I had to come back to you guys. They used as a penalty that they would withhold
building permits as a penalty to him to enforce that agreement. That agreement did not get put in the record, I have a copy of the minutes where it was discussed, but the developer
who is sitting in the audience did not get –inaudible on the tape, It got recorded into the minutes. I press the issue after the fact and they assured me here at City Hall that that
had been taken care of , that he had agreed to tile it if there’s a problem. Now there is a problem, nobody’s maintained the ditches, the developing that’s gone in out there on your
map, what this is, is the pictures of what’s going on and what’s been going on, where the developments are, where my water starts, where it ends, the water that I am receiving and how
the ditches are maintained, being maintained. The water that is coming down delivered to me for my use is, might as well be cut off from my
water supply, I cannot use the water, It’s coming in pea soup and that’s not an exaggeration. It’s not only affected me, it has affected the Christian Church property on Fairview Avenue
and it’s affected the (inaudible) development at Fred Meyer Development. They’ve gone through pumps, they can’t use irrigation water, I can’t use irrigation water in my pump and , in
fact (inaudible) ended up drilling a well to protect their investment in their landscaping ‘cause it’s inoperable, there pump system is inoperable the way it is, all there lines are
full of mud, all the collector boxes and head gates are full of dirt and mud and my clean water delivery from my head gate as you can see in those photos dumps into the drain ditch.
Now, the drain ditch, I don’t know where that went before, I don’t know where it came from before, all I know is they moved the drain ditch when they did Doug Meadows property and I
came before you at that time we thought long and hard about what they’re going to do about relocating that ditch. It never got relocated, it got dumped into another ditch and I thought
it had been taken care of. When I moved out there in 1986, all the dirty water came down through the 80-acre parcel to my (inaudible) and entered into my property , half way through
my property line to the South. Now it is coming in clear up by my head gate and I don’t know why, it’s hard for me to believe that after 14 years of irrigating that all of a sudden
it’s a problem that’s always been there, and I just stared noticing it this year, but it started appearing last year toward the end of the irrigation season the mud started flowing and
it was a problem, but it wasn’t as near as bad as it is now. It’s basically left us without water. I guess I’m here to see what we can get it resolved asap, because as you can probably
see you drive by the church property and there landscape is all dying, they can’t water. I can’t water my orchard because it all goes through a pump. I put water on my pasture and
it’s just like a field of mud. So I through myself to the mercy of the Council.
Corrie: Gary, we did talk about this at the staff meeting, did we not look at it or did we get a chance to do that?
Smith: I think that subject did come into our last staff meeting, I did not get a chance to look at it yet. I don’t know whether there’s-I know that years ago there was problems with
silt coming from the east on to John Ewings property, and I don’t know if this is the same ditch water that’s causing problems now with silt or not.
Bryan: To my recollection that is where the drains use to go. Everything used to go to the south of me, now it’s all coming down direct to me. If there’s a problem over on Ewings
property then that’s why, because he is getting what I am getting now. I haven’t been keeping tabs on all the development that’s been going on out there and I don’t know where anything
is, I don’t know if there’s a body here that watches what they do or dictates what they do or approves what they do. We’ve got a live feed, the dirty water dumping into the live feed
that’s been piled. From the point of delivery at the end of the last development it’s all dirty water that’s going through the tile ditch that’s suppose to be delivering clean water.
Eventually, you guys are requiring the pressurized irrigation systems to all these new subdivisions, they’re not going to be able to put in these pressurized irrigation systems if they
don’t have clean water to work with down below me, the new subdivision-centers new development across the street. I don’t know where he’s getting his water. I don’t know if he’s getting
any clean water or not, I don’t know where-why it’s different.
Bird: Mr. Bryan, where’s the dirt seem to be coming, is it the open part or they (inaudible) some stuff into it or - It’s coming off of the agricultural irrigation fields to the East,
from Eagle Road between Eagle Road and - Back on the old JMK Farms?
Bryan: Right. Now, I don’t know if it’s coming off of that on the other side to the East of Eagle Road or to the West of Eagle Road, but there’s still a sizable parcel out there that’s
being irrigated-agricultural fields, where my clean water use to come from.
Bird: Dumping into that drain, that’s picking up for you.
Bryan: Yes, now, somebody in the last year has taken a backhoe through there, and you can see in the picture has opened up that one ditch. Now, I don’t know if that was a process to
eliminate some of the silt or there was some question-I tried to find out if there was at least once,at one time if there was two ditches out there, if there was a clean water ditch
and a dirty water ditch. If there was, there’s nothing we can do about it now, because there’s no place for that dirty water to go, unless you pipe it back down through the development
that there doing now on the Norco on that parcel there on Fairview by the Shosone Building, but that’s all, I mean, they’ve got all there utilities in, it’s a little late for that, so
I don’t know what you’re going to do with that dirty water, but I don’t want it.
Bird: You’ve got your one problem solved, you had some problems out in front where it was flooding, now you can’t get water.
Bryan: I either have too much-
Bird: Or you don’t have enough. What is the solution in your mind.
Bryan: I don’t know what the solution is, it’s going to be a real bear to figure out how you’re going to get clean water with that dirty water away from where it is, because you are
locked in, now the development is there, the ditch is tiled, you’re going to have to find another place for that water to go, and I don’t know what the answer’s going to be. If I knew
the answer, I’d be working on it, ‘cause we’re basically high and dry.
Bird: This is not the Meridian Irrigation district, isn’t it or-
Bryan: Yes it is and they had no (inaudible) once it leaves the lateral (inaudible).
Anderson: Mr. Bryan, is the water clean when it leaves that Nampa-Meridian head gate?
Bryan: Yes, you can see in the photos where it dumps in, there’s clean water coming down that unmaintained ditch, which, that’s what I wanted to get tiled, and you can see where it
dumps into that dirty water. You can see the clean water on the left and the dirty water on the right, but right underneath that board is the clean water coming into that big trench-
Bird: Coming from down here?
Anderson: The dirty water’s draining off these fields here.
Bryan: Right. The developer he’s developed that back parcel of Packard Subdivision, then they put a culvert right in the middle of that open ditch, which is the top left hand corner
picture, you can see where that water disappear into the culvert, I don’t even know where the culvert is, but it disappears there, goes underneath the culvert and then it pops up on
the other side, then it goes into an existing buried line.
Bird: That (inaudible) buried lateral is clean when it comes to the head gate?
Bryan: That’s the clean supply.
Bird: Then when it (inaudible) here, you’re picking up all that stuff from the agricultural to the East of it-
Bryan: I’m picking up at the corner, at the Southeast corner.
Bird: This corner right up here, where it’s, where it’s-this is where it’s all dumping into. So basically, if you tiled this, this was made to be tiled and this tiled you’d keep your
clean.
Bryan: Not unless you found someplace for that dirty water to go. If you tiled my line going to the rest of the tiled ditch we’d have a clean water supply that was untouched by anybody
else. (inaudible) Meadows gets there clean supply straight off of that other shaded line coming straight off to the, would be the west of my ditch. They get there, that’s their clean
water supply for the pressurized irrigation system and there pressurized irrigation is right at that intersection. It also dumps into the line that feeds me.
Bird: They pick up the silt buried lateral down there then.
Bryan: Right
Bird: And that line coming across is clean water.
Bryan: Right, that’s why they’re not affected, and their overflow dumps into my feed.
Bird: Yes, then when this comes down there clean dumps into your dirty.
Bryan: (inaudible) You can see by the pictures, you can’t do anything with that water.
Smith: Tom, can I ask you a question? Is there any responsibility to the farmer that’s operating to the east to not allow his fields to erode like they are and send that silt downstream,
whether it’s drainage water or not? I mean, that’s a pollution - isn’t it that’s -
Kuntz: Well, yes and now the farmer - you get back to the argument that he was there first. I’ve been trying to get with Jim and Leonard both (inaudible), and they haven’t returned
my call, but I think they’re-they don’t want anything to do with it because they’ve done what they’ve done for forty years and I think they feel that everybody’s pointing the finger
at them as they’re making the problem. I don’t think that’s where the problem comes from.
Smith: I think it has been a problem for a lot of years. I know it was a problem when John Ewing was down there on that-when the drain ditch ran along the North boundary, his property
and along the South side of Doug Mills, it was a problem then, ‘cause it came up then, but they were dumping a lot of silt into that area and ‘causing him problems.
Bryan: That’s exactly right and that’s the ditch that got moved.
Smith: But, I guess what I’m saying is that it’s still, since that dirty water is now entering the clean water ditch, it’s causing you problems for irrigation; previously it was causing
other’s problems as a drainage ditch and it was still a problem, they just transferred the problem to a different location.
Bryan: Yes, right previously the problem was somebody else’s problem.
Smith: Right, it was a drain ditch then and now it’s combined as a, they’re putting drainage water into the live water ditch.
Bryan: Was that his (inaudible) for his irrigation?
Smith: Ewings? I don’t recall. It almost seems like it was a feed off of the southeast corner of (inaudible) Meadows that came down south to his property as an irrigation ditch.
Bryan: That was the drain ditch that dissected the (inaudible) property that came into my parcel half way down my property line (inaudible) it by-passed me, and I had a clean feed,
now I don’t.
Anderson: I appreciate the presentation that Don has put together and I realize he has a problem, but none of us on the Council are engineers and it seems like this problem is best
handled at a Staff level and Gary, being an engineer, needs to look at this project and work with Nampa-Meridian and find out if it’s a problem as far as this drainage coming into a
fresh water ditch and things like that and really, to me, this isn’t something that the Council (inaudible). I mean, even if we went back and tell the developer that he has to tile
this ditch, we still have a problem with this drainage coming off this field and that has to go somewhere. So, we’re not going to be able to decide that tonight at this meeting, somebody’s
going to have to explore what the options are a little bit more and it’s going to take someone with more expertise to do that than I, so , we could debate this for three hours tonight
and we’re not going to be able to resolve your issue tonight for you.
Bryan: Well, I agree, and I understand what you’re saying and I have all the respect in the world for the engineer that works for the city, but we’ve been going back and forth on this
for eight years now, this is the same retrace that we always talk about, well we need to look into it, we need to get something done, but here I am eight years later.
Anderson: I can understand and sympathize with you, but there’s no action that we can take as a Council tonight that’s going to solve the problem.
Bryan: Well, I hope you’re aware of it and look at some way to solve it, meanwhile, everything’s dying over there and I guarantee you if the church people and the Fred Meyer people
let their whole landscape die and go to heck then I assure you that your people will be out there writing them citations for not maintaining there property.
deWeerd: Perhaps we can indeed put this in Gary’s lap and if we could get a report on this back on August 1st as to what you find out so we know if there’s any action we can take to
help facilitate that, at least you have a date, Mr. Bryan that we can-
Bryan: Yes, and the water will be out in September and it won’t be a problem until next year. I’m sorry I’m frustrated, but I’ve been through this before.
deWeerd: I know, but this is the first we’ve seen of it, and that’s our next meeting.
Smith: One of the things, Mr. Bryan, I think is the fact that we-if we stop occupancy or building permits, we can’t do that without a proper procedure and going through the courts,
to give them the right to say what’s wrong or what have you, so I think that right now it’s best to just give it to Gary and let (inaudible) see where we can do, I don’t know if this
is coming off that property that’s in the County, I don’t whether we can do anything about that anyway. (inaudible) isn’t that Eagle Road and Fairview. (inaudible)
Anderson: Gary, if you’ll look at it and see where we can go and we can have our legal look at it and see what we can legally do. I think our hands are pretty well tied (inaudible)
somebody that can’t build anymore, but let’s-why don’t you work with Gary until-see what you can do Gary.
Smith: : I’ll get started right away on it.
Anderson: I know it’s frustrating to you , I’ve been here every time you’ve been in here, and we’ve done the same thing and we can’t seem to make heads or tails and the irrigation ditch
people (inaudible) and then we’ve got this other problem so let’s see if we can do something between now and the 1st of August and hopefully we can. I sympathize with you, but I don’t
know what we can do in this case.
Bryan: Well, I appreciate it, but-
Bird: Mr. Mayor, if I could say something and Don has been here numerous times since we’ve been here, Ron and I been on here and it’s-we’re always going to solve the problem, but we
never seem to get the problem solved. I want to know why, if it was in the final Plat, the agreement with that Packard Sub that that was to be tiled, why that hasn’t been tiled? Then
it can be somebody else’s worry I guess, at least (inaudible) clean water that far. That agricultural run off, maybe they’ll have to have a ditch, put some kind of a drain or put a
catch basin out there or something, but, I don’t know, this has been a –
The two years that I’ve sat on the Council this subdivision has been more pains than, I mean, I don’t-they don’t seem to stay up to what they say and if it takes shutting down some building
permits, I’m one in favor of it.
Anderson: Gary, would you look at it and Bill, would you look at it as far as the legal end of it for us, then we’ll know by August 1st what we can or cannot do in that case.
Bryan: Well, my frustration started with Doug Meadows when they moved that ditch and I pointed that out to everybody and everybody seemed to think that it wasn’t that big of a deal,
so, I appreciate you listening to me. Thank you for your time.
Item 3. Ordinance No. 880: RZ 00-003 Rezone of 37.64 acres from an R-4 to an L-O zone for proposed Resolution Business Park by G.L. Voigt / Overland, LLC – south of Overland Road and
east of Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: Okay, Item No. 3 then is an ordinance rezone of 37.64 acres from an R-4 to an L-O zone for proposed Resolution Business Park by G. L. Voigt/Overland, LLC- south of Overland
Road and east of Locust Grove Road. City Clerk, if you will read ordinance-and I believe you need to give us a number on it by title only.
Berg: Yes, thank you Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Ordinance No. 880: An Ordinance finding that owner of certain real property has made a written request for rezone of the Zoning
Classification for property that lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian from R-4, low density residential district to zoning district limited office (L-O) as defined under
Meridian City Code 11-7-2G; repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith in directing the city engineer to add said rezoning designation to the
official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
Corrie: You heard the reading of Ordinance No. 880 by title only. is there any one in the audience would like to have Ordinance No. 880 read in its entirety? None. Entertain a motion
on Ordinance No. 880.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance No. 880 on the rezone at 37.64 acres from R-4 to L-O zone for the proposed Resolution Business Park and to have the Mayor to assign
and the Clerk attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded, what do you want, a suspension of rules?
deWeerd: With the suspension of rules.
Corrie: Motion to amended Ordinance No. 880 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye;
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Continued public hearing: COMPASS 2020 Plan:
Corrie: All ayes, motion carried, ordinance approved. Item No. 4 is a continued public hearing, COMPASS 220 plan.
Item 17. FP 00-012 Request for Final Plat of 2 building lots and 2 other lots on 8.25 acres for Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood / D.W., Inc. - west of Eagle Road between Overland
and East Victory:
Bird: Mr. Mayor, before we go into the public hearing is there any chance that , with your permission, 17 and 18 are just request for final plats, a real fast deal, I think the applicants
are here and it won’t take us long and then they won’t have to wait through a bunch of public hearings.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Bird, I apologize, I (inaudible). Okay, with the Council’s approval we will -- Item No. 17 is request for Final Plat of 2 building lots and 2 other building
lots on 8.25 acres for Woodhaven Subdivision. Staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, we have made our comments on the subdivisions, are you on 17, Woodhaven? The applicant has responded and we recommend approval with staff conditions.
Lee: I’m Gary Lee with J-U-B Engineers in Boise. The site-specific conditions are okay, the only clarification we wanted to make is on Item No. 1 on the sanitary sewer extensions, we’ll
speak to that in our comments after discussions with Bruce Freckleton and Public Works. We’ve determined that it would be appropriate to extend the sewer line out of the development
up to Eagle Road and terminate at that point with a manhole. We’ve also agreed to extend the water along the entire frontage of Woodhaven or along Eagle Road adjacent to Woodhavens
boundary. The way the original site’s-specific was written was that we’re going to extend both sewer and water along the entire frontage of Eagle Road, but we’re just going to bring
the sewer up to the intersection of the Eagle Lane. I guess it’s (inaudible) different street on our subdivision. That’s the only point of clarification I wanted to make. I think the
staff agreed to that public works.
Corrie: Any discussion council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I will entertain a motion on the Final Plat, Item No. 17 (inaudible)
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve a request for Final Plat of 2 building lots and 2 other lots on 8.2 acres for Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood and have the City Attorney
draw up a decision of order.
Corrie: Is there a second?
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay, motion is made and seconded to approve the Final Plat on Item No. 17 and have the attorney draw up the proper orders for the Final Plat. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 18. FP 00-011 Request for Final Plat of 37 building lots and 3 other lots on 3.98 acres for Heron Brook Townhomes by Pinnacle Engineers – NE corner of Meridian Road and Blue Heron
Lane:
Corrie: Item 18 is the Final Plat request for 37 building lots and 3 other building lots on 3.98 acres of Heron Brook Townhomes by Pinnacle Engineers. Staff comments?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and council we have our comments dated July 12th, the applicant has responded to them and they have provided a revised Plat to us to comply with our comments. The
only clarification I should make under the general requirements, we said any irrigation or drainage ditches needed to be tiled. Under the site-specific comments we should have added
that the Jackson stub drain was specifically excluded from that tiling requirement as they would leave it open and have a pathway along it.
Corrie: What Item was that Shari, is that a site-specific, I’m-
Stiles: The general comment No. 1 is just one of our regular comments that any existing ditches or drains need to be tiled and we failed to include in the site-specific comments that
this Jackson Stub drain should be excluded from the tiling from the tiling requirement.
Corrie: Any questions ? Applicant here have anything to add? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on Item No. 18, Final Plat request for Heron Townhomes .
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Final Plat approval for 37 building lots and 3 other lots on 3.98 acres for Heron Brook Townhomes – NE corner of Meridian Road and Blue Heron
Lane and for the attorney to draw up the proper findings and include Shari’s comment from the site-specific.
Corrie: Is there a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Final Plat request on Item No. 18, have the attorney draw up the proper order and include the staff reports, staff comments. Any further
discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Continued public hearing: COMPASS 2020 Plan:
Corrie: Now we are on Item No. 4, continued public hearing COMPASS 2020 Plan. At this time I’ll reopen or continue the public hearing. Do we need to hear from the COMPASS people (inaudible)
not being here last meeting I don’t know what – Staff.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, hopefully you have Brad Hawkins-Clark’s memo dated July 17th, and he’s noted some of our things that were excluded from our Comprehensive Plan that we’ll
need to have included in there. He’d asked for some changes as far as some collectors that we had approved since the draft 2020 Plan. One of the changes that we would request for the
2020 Plan is shown on the table would be that Waltman should be designated as a collector street due to the fact it’s largely undeveloped there and needs to be upgraded. Also, we talked
in the last meeting about the collectors study that J-U-B Engineers is doing with Ada County Highway District. They have completed the study to Eagle Road, and we were in hopes that
we would get a copy at least of that portion of the study, but ACHD will not release that study, and they want it to be acted on by their Commission before they let any of the jurisdictions
even see it, so it seems kind of backwards to me because if we’re not going to enforce their study, it’s useless. So with these other Items, hopefully, you’ll get a chance to look
at those. I know it’s kind of late, but it kind of reinforces what the (inaudible) Transportation Committee had come up with and their recommendations, and we will respond as you ask
us to on the Destination 2020 Plan.
deWeerd: Shari, am I to understand that ACHD is not going to release the study from J-U-B on the collector roadways for our comment?
Stiles: They indicated they are not going to release maps until their Commission acts on the study. So they have no input from any jurisdictions on this.
deWeerd: I believe we had a workshop set up for ACHD that was to be rescheduled; has that been rescheduled?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, no it has not. I have contacted the secretary, and they are having some problems with quorums, making sure people make it to meetings, and so
she was suppose to get me some possible dates. She has not gotten back to me yet.
deWeerd: Ken, you give them a call and let them know that we need those dates by the 24th so we have a chance to check our own schedules.
Bowers: Sure.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other comments from council?
deWeerd: No, I have a couple if Erv is going to come up.
Corrie: Okay, Erv, this is a public hearing so-
Orlan: For the record, my name is Erv Orlan with the Community Planning Association, 413 West Idaho. Mr. Mayor, if you have any questions I’d be more that happy to respond. I’d also
like to make a few quick comments. I’ve reviewed the staff report and I want to commend your staff for their thoughtful review of this and I think the comment they made are quite appropriate.
I would like to make one observation on a couple of their comments, however. The 2020 Plan is intended to be a snapshot in time 20 years out (inaudible) needs for this valley. The
priority setting process is done on annual basis as we look at moving projects into the funding program. Some of the comments in here implied that this was a document where priorities
needed to be set in terms of phasing and timing and typically we don’t do that, and finally, so many years ago we realized that our plan needed to be somewhat flexible in terms of identifying
future collectors. We have no way, really of known where they need to be until the developments come in and negotiations occur between the City’s Ada County Highway District, and because
of that there are foot notes on our maps that allow either local government’s or the ACHD to add, delete or change collectors as the need may be. We simply, when we republish a map,
reflect those changes. If you feel a sense of urgency for the collector study, whenever that does come before you and you see some changes you’d like to make, we can accommodate those
very easily and have over the last number of years. With that I’d be happy to answer any question. I would like to comment that if you do act on this tonight, you’ll be the first one
in Ada County to have taken action then, again, we very much appreciate the staff’s effort on this.
deWeerd: First, what kind of format are you looking for our comments to be in?
Orlan: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman deWeerd, that’s a very good question. Typically, what we ask you to do is to renew this and submit back to us the changes that you would like to see.
Further, we’re really asking you to adopt this as part of your conference and plan, and so that is what I suggest you do. I think the nature of the comments from your staff are quite
appropriate, and I believe, if you’re willing to you could send those to us and also act in incorporating them in your conference and plan. Typically, they’re incorporated by reference.
deWeerd: Do you have Brad Hawkins-Clark’s memo of June 30th?
Orlan: Mr. Mayor, Tammy, yes I do.
deWeerd: He noted several things that need to be addressed in the 2020 Plan, but I also noticed in Table 5-2, it didn’t include a couple of road improvements or it didn’t expand on
it, it wasn’t noted in the project details and so I would like to ask you on the intentions of it; one would be it did not include road improvement’s on Locust Grove from Ustick to Overland,
nor did it include road improvements done on Ten Mile from Ustick to Overland as well. As these changes are also identified they are listed in the five year plan of ACHD, some sections
of these, so they do need to be in the 2020 Plan, but you will also do the appropriate changes in your environmental issues table on 6-4 as well as redefine it in the (inaudible) five
on project details, is that correct? So, do we need to note all those changes or if we say, okay, these things are not on Table 5-2, they’ll be plugged in to all the appropriate spots.
Orlan: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman deWeerd, I believe some of the projects you have identified were left on table 5-2 because they were in the first (inaudible) years of the Highway District
program, I believe, I’ll have to check on those, if that’s the case we wouldn’t include them in the plan because they’re considered committed projects, a done deal.
deWeerd: Unfortunately, I don’t think they are, we would hope they were committed to it, but we haven’t seen much of a commitment, so, we want to make sure they can be in everything
they can absolutely be in.
Orlan: Those kinds of things need to be added if they were omitted. I did notice some omissions on one of the tables that Brad identified for upgrading functional classification and
those were omissions that we can easily add, they’re in one table and aren’t reflected on a map, and those are duly noted.
deWeerd: Now also on Page 2 of that same memo, Item D, Brad brings up the issue on East 1st to Meridian Road improvements and the intent, not to drop them, but to first see how to
use the alternatives that they’ve identified, to see if they work before those road improvements were done. So, we don’t want it dropped off of the plan, but we do want to see if we
ever get the improvements that are needed to see if we don'’ need the one way couplets downtown. We don’t want to totally eliminate it, but we would like to see if the other alternative
will have the impact that they think it will.
Orlan: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman deWeerd, I would suggest that we may want to clarify the language in the Destination 2020 to reflect that direction from the City of Meridian. The task
force clearly set that and if it’s not clear in there, we need to make it clear. I don’t have any problem with that, I think that clearly was the intent.
deWeerd: Does Paragraph D adequately address that or do we need to find a new way to write that?
Orlan: I believe if you would accept the changes in this June 30 memorandum that would give us the direction we need to make that change.
deWeerd: Okay. Mr. Mayor, those are the only questions that I had at this time.
Corrie: Any other questions, Council?
Anderson: What’s the outcome then of Brads comment on (inaudible) on the population forecast with there being a 20,000 people difference in what COMPASS’ forecasting and what the (inaudible)
is forecasting because obviously it would have a big impact on what we would do with some of these roads and what there designations would be.
Orlan: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, that’s a very good comment. I have checked with (inaudible) of our staff about that comment and she suggested to me, first of all we support
the staff’s recommendation. We are going to be getting the Census data hopefully in 2002 and with that data we’re all going to be in the same page. There are three things she identified
that might cause that discrepancy, the first is, the areas that we use verses what you’re now using in your expanded area are different, and that could easily explain the discrepancy.
Second of all, we suspect there might be some (inaudible) provisions in your conferencing plan that would cause a greater population estimate, and third, APA COMPASS has been using
a declining household rate over the years, that’s a national trend and in the monitoring we’ve done, that seems to be the case here. In the City of Meridian, I Believe, we’re using
roughly 21/2 person per household on the average and I believe you’re using something in the order of 2.65. There’s no right or wrong answer to which one to use right now and I think
the 2002 Census results will give us an answer that we can all accept and that’s been an ongoing issue probably between our assumptions and some of the assumptions you are using. We
don’t think it’s a major discrepancy, what we would do is support the staffs recommendation, and work together as we get the 2000 Census information in, you know, get back on the same
page on the population estimates. I’m not sure there’s too much we can do right now to really change that, we just don’t have the data to make an informed decision on what it should
be.
Corrie: That population estimate is a two-edged sword.
Orlan: That’s correct, very much so.
Anderson: I guess - what’s the ramifications if we adopt this plan now and we find out that the numbers are much higher than your projections in 2002 and we get the Census results,
then is the opportunity there to amend this at that point?
Orlan: Absolutely. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, we have a committee that’s going to start meeting reviewing the 2000 Census results and we will update those population estimates
as soon as we have the data base to do it, and, of course, that population estimate could be retroactively revised in the plan and will be used for the next update of the plan, so, we’ll
work together with you on that and once we get the Census we have a basis for coming together on the population estimates.
Corrie: Is there any one else in the public that would like to issue testimony at this time on the COMPASS 2020 plan?
deWeerd: I guess just one comment. As I understand it, any ACHD projects that are not within the next two years should be listed in this report.
Orlan: Mr. Mayor, Tammy, that’s correct. We usually assume that project that’s in the first three years of a program is a committed project and because it’s a committed project we
-- it’s a done deal as far as we’re concerned, and therefore, wouldn’t be included, so your interpretation of that is correct, if it’s not in first three years, it needs to be in the
plan.
deWeerd: But, if it’s not listed in there, these have ramifications in the (inaudible) and those kind of things and funding issues so, it is very important that if we don’t have projects
on here and they are on the five year plan or even on our transportation committee’s plan that we should be stating that now in our recommendation rather than trying to do anything later,
because it does have funding ramifications attached to it, correct?
Orlan: Mr. Mayor, this is the time to do that, I agree totally.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Anything else Council? I entertain a motion to close the public hearing if you so desire.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing without any further discussion. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Gary. Gary, your Transportation Committee does an annual meeting, and you put together a recommendation list.
Have you had a chance to look at the 2020 Plan and the list of the projects to make sure that your recommendations are reflected in this?
Smith: I believe that that is the case. I know that I looked at the 2020 or excuse me , I looked at our recommendations as compared to the (inaudible) Committee recommendations and
they were reflected in the (inaudible) Committee’s list of project as I compared those two. If the (inaudible) Committee recommendations are included in the 2020 Plan then the Transportation
Committee’s project list would be covered.
deWeerd: Shari, did Brad pay attention to that detail that the (inaudible) Committee’s list of priorities are reflected in this 2020 Plan?
Stiles: I couldn’t answer that. Are you talking about the couplet deal that they didn’t want included or-
deWeerd: Well, with the omission of Ten Mile and Locust Grove improvements as well as I haven’t seen the intersection of East 1st Meridian Road and Corporate Park listed on this. You
know, I’m afraid that our projects aren’t on here, we’re fighting a losing battle and the odds are already stacked against us. I want to make sure the projects that are our priorities
are in this document.
Stiles: We’ll make sure that we include those in our recommendations.
deWeerd: If we approve the two memos by Brad tonight can we also instruct him to compare those lists and make sure that all road improvements are noted in our recommendations on the
2020 Plan?
Stiles: Yes.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess I’ll attempt a recommendation here. I move that we consolidate the two memorandums by Brad Hawkins-Clark dated July 17th and June 30th in a recommendation
to COMPASS on the designation 2020 Plan to include and discrepancies that might be omitted from our transportation priority list, from both the (inaudible) committee as well as the transportation
committee in addition to the five year ACHD road improvement plan.
Corrie: I hear a motion, do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion was made by Miss deWeerd and seconded by Mr. Anderson to approve (inaudible) salvation of the two letters of July 17th and June 30th. The recommendation to COMPASS on
the approval of the COMPASS 2020 Plan with the staff conditions. Any further comment? All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Public Hearing: PP 00-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for proposed Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision of 26 building lots and 2 other lots on 7.99 acres in an R-4 zone by
Robert Glenn– north of Ustick Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: Item No. 5 is a public hearing request for a Preliminary Plat approval for proposed Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision of 26 building lots and 2 other lots on 7.99 acres in an R-4 zone
by Robert Glenn-north of Ustick Road and west of Locust Grove Road. At this time, I’ll open the public hearing on Item No. 5 and hear from staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property that’s currently occupied by Ted Hepper's home off Ustick Road, it’s immediately adjacent to property that just previously came
through as a subdivision called The Hollows, would be this property right here. We have made our recommendations and would ask-we have received a revised plat, however, there are still
some minor modifications that need to be made, there are a couple of lots that will need a house direction orientation arrow on them. That would be lot 6 of block 1 and lot 3 of block
3 because they would not meet the minimum 80 ft frontage requirement for both directions, they could probably change that with some minor modifications, but we just wanted to note that.
Also there are some dimensional requirements in ACHD memo that don’t appear to be exact on this Plat and we just want to make sure that they’re going to meet any requirements in order
that they can align the roadway with this subdivision that’s coming in that was previously approved, but they are coming back in since that Plat expired. Staff has no objection to the
project and would recommend approval with staff conditions.
Corrie: Questions, Council, staff? Applicant here this evening?
Pavlacek: Mayor and Council, my name is Richard Pavlacek, I have offices at 2501 Bogus Basin Road. We feel that the issues that staff has raised are minor in nature and can be adjusted
in the final Plat and will-we know of no obstacle for us achieving a Plat that meets all the ordinance standard and engineering standards associated with Plats.
Corrie: Anyone else in the public like to issue testimony at this point on the Preliminary Plat? Council, do you have any other questions at the public hearing?
deWeerd: I have no discussion.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion on closing the public hearing.
Bird: So moved
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 5, Request for Preliminary Plat, Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision. Any further discussion? All those in favor say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Comments, Council.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the Preliminary Plat for the proposed Wanda's Meadows Subdivision of 26 building lots and 2 other lots on 7.99 acres in An R-4 zone by
Robert Glenn subject to staff comments and instruct the City Attorney to draw Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for Preliminary Plat with the corrections of staff and the adjustments and have the attorney draw up the proper orders. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye; deWeerd, aye;
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor, can we have a ten-minute recess?
Corrie: Sure, if you’d like.
Bird: I move that we do.
Corrie: Ten-minute recess, be back at 9:20.
*** End of side 2 ***
(Meeting reconvenes at 9:20 p.m.)
Item 6. Public Hearing: AZ 00-012 Request for annexation and zoning by Opal Farrington of 4.70 acres from R-1 to R-4 for proposed addition of a home – northwest corner of East Pine
Avenue and Adkins Way:
Corrie: I’ll open the public hearing for Item No. 6, request for annexation and zoning by Opal Farrington of 4.70 acres from R-1 to R-4 proposed addition of a home-northwest corner
of East Pine Avenue and Adkins Way. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and we'll have staff's comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is for the property located on Pine and Adkins Lane. This area here has been approved as (inaudible) Subdivision No. 3. They will be constructing
curb, gutter and sidewalk and roadway improvements on their portion of the property. If you may recall the applicant requested she be able to hook up to sewer and water for an additional
structure on the property so they would have another home accessing Pine street, and that was approved by ACDH. Apparently they are building a new structure at this time. There have
been problems in the past with this ditch that runs along the property along Adkins Lane as far as being cleaned out on a regular basis to allow delivery of water to properties to the
north. In the recommendations that you have, the three pages of recommendations, I would like to make some modifications to that. On page one of the recommendation Item 4 says the
property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-4, that should be R-1, No. 5, the applicant request the property be zoned as R-1, that should be R-4. Also on page 2, Item 10 that should
also reflect that they’ve requested the R-4 zoning. On page 3, Item 1.3, staff does not recommend a Development Agreement, those will be handled just by existing ordinance requirement.
Item 1.4, I don’t know-it’s worded a little awkwardly and that may be exactly what they had asked for so the Planning and Zoning Commission further recommended that the irrigation ditch
be tiled by anyway necessary on the property. If that is a requirement of annexation it should be noted, but if it is tiled that the ditch should be tiled out of any future right-of-way
of that Adkins Lane, so it’s not constructed within what should be the public road. I believe that was probably the main objection to the project. I see the Morgan’s are here tonight
and I’m sure they will testify with their concerns, but we would recommend approval of the annexation with the recommendations of Planning and Zoning Commission and would ask that you
further instruct us on the tiling of that irrigation ditch.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Shari, I think 1.3 on the Development Agreement was put in there to assure the ditch situation, it was not clear in reading the minutes that they new if that should
be put under the Development Agreement or if that belonged in some kind of a Subdivision Plating and so, I believe that’s why that one item is on there, because they didn’t know how
to really enforce the Morgan’s concerns about the ditch maintenance to assure that they get water.
Stiles: That may very well be, I’m sorry, I didn’t read the minutes, it just said for future Plating and right-of-way requirements and that would be handled through a Subdivision process,
but if the Council is going to require that that be tiled right away, we would need to insure that the tiling of that ditch was not impacted by a future road construction to a public
street standard.
deWeerd: Mr. Nichols, would you have any advice on what the appropriate place would be to have some assurances on the tiling and the right-of-way requirements? Would that necessitate
a Development Agreement or can that be done just in the conditions or how do you make those assurances?
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, Mayor, members of the Council, typically we do it through a Development Agreement. I would further add that, based upon the recommendations from Planning
and Zoning Commission , the Development Agreement would not have very many conditions in it compared to what we typically see on a regular Subdivision type thing.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Since this is a Public Hearing , would the applicant like to address the Council?
Morgan: I’m Bernadine Morgan, 1187 East Fairview, Meridian, and I think you pretty well summed it up what we do need. We desperately need our water, and I even went to the trouble
of researching the Idaho Codes, so I know I’m right. So, how will this be handled? The sooner we know, that puts our mind at ease a lot more.
Corrie: Thank you. I think that Development Agreement will probably take care of that real quickly. Anyone else like to issue testimony at this time? Council, any questions of any
staff or-
deWeerd: Shari, the applicant wasn’t at the Planning and Zoning meeting either and I don’t know if anyone has talked to her about the timing of this ditch, I would imagine this has
a pretty huge impact financially in tiling that ditch. Has any of your staff talked to her about this?
Stiles: I know that they have been in contact with her, whether the tiling came up in those conversations, I don’t know, I imagine we need to continue this Public Hearing and make sure
that there at the next meeting so that they’re fully aware of what conditions are being placed on them.
deWeerd: I believe this originally came up because granddaughter was going to live nearby so she could take care of her grandmother, and I’m sure they didn’t understand how this could
develop like this, but they do have a responsibility to keep those ditches clean, and if this is the only way we can do it-but, I would think that she should have a chance to comment
too.
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Any other comments? Then, Miss deWeerd, would you like to continue this Public Hearing until the 1st of August?
deWeerd: Well. that would be my recommendation if the rest of Council feels that the applicant should have a chance to respond. I do believe the commitment is there to assure that
the water gets to the Morgan's, like is their responsibility, but I would think that the applicant should have an opportunity during the public process to respond to that.
Bird: I agree with you.
deWeerd: Then I will move to continue the Public Hearing for request for Annexation and Zoning by Opal Farrington of 4.7 acres from R-1 to R-4 to the August 1st Council meeting.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on Item No. 6 for the Public Hearing to be continued to the 1st of August. Any further discussion?
McCandless: I would add that Opal Farrington certainly should have notification of that so that she will be here.
deWeerd: Well, that's the only reason I would suggest continuing it.
Corrie: All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED : ALL AYES
Anderson: I guess I kind of have a question procedurally, it seems like quite often we have items that on our agenda at the Council meeting and there seems to be a lot of confusion
over has those people been notified and whose responsibility it is to notify them, is it the City Clerk or P&Z or whoever. It would seem like a pretty simple matter of accounting that
whoever submits an application for a process that once we make up this agenda that we have the City Clerk's office make sure that they contact everybody who is on the agenda with a phone
call or a letter, then when we ask the question, have these people been notified, it would be a simple answer to say yes they have been contacted or no contact was made, but we always
seem to look around the room and everybody just goes, I don't know. So maybe someone could explain the process to me and how that works.
Corrie: Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, if you notice on the bottom of your Item sheet, there is a line that says -- I'm sorry on your cover packet, there's a line that says
contacted, date and phone, we fill this out when the packets are completed and the last few times it's been on a Monday morning because the packets barely get completed Friday night.
We contact the applicant, write down the name that we contacted, the date and the phone number that we called. On Public Hearings the applicant gets a Public Hearing notice just like
all the other surrounding property owners. We can try to stress that they need to be here, more so, but that's our procedure as far as following up when there on the agenda and we have
there packets so they can pick up the information. Most of the applicants on the big projects are engineers, so they just ask for that information to be faxed to them, and so some of
these individuals that aren't familiar with the process may not know, but we try and tell them that they need to be at the Public Hearings to at least listen to what information is being
gone back and forth with the Council and the staff.
Anderson: So, how do you put together our packets on Friday if you don't know what's on the agenda until Monday, I mean seems like on Friday you must know what's going to be on the
agenda, why are these people getting notified on Monday? We had one person (inaudible) they just got notified today.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I looked on that item sheet and that person was contacted Monday. Just because they didn't pick up their packet or whatever until today at
5 o'clock, that gentleman was not the contact person that we had written down with ACHD, it's a large agency and who knows what was on their application for sure. They are on the agenda,
but we call them and remind them that they are on the agenda, their packet is ready to be picked up by the staff comments and any other agency comments. They're noticed in the mail
if it's a Public Hearing, fifteen days prior to the meeting.
Anderson: Is there a deadline for having things on the agenda?
Berg: Thursday.
Anderson: So, by Thursday we know what the agenda is?
Berg: Somewhat, yes. Maybe not the total arrangement's, but we know who's been requesting to be put on the agenda.
Corrie: Sounds like they're pretty well informed, we can't hand-carry them here, but we'll just keep the same procedure and if they don't show up then I guess we can just close it-the
end of it, sounds like it's been twice now they've done that so, I think we're being very generous, do it one more time.
Berg: We'll try and reinforce that and try to get them here, tell them that it is important or there project will just be discontinued. Sometimes, some projects
aren't controversial and I know that Shari has mentioned a few times that they may not need to show up, it's a pretty easy project if it's a long agenda, but most of them are always
told to be here.
deWeerd: I guess my intention on continuing this is strictly that they really understand that they are going to be asked to be tiled that ditch, if they're not here, they're going to
be asked to tile the ditch and, so, it would just be nice if they were here to respond to that. I wouldn't be in favor of continuing it again, this is there application, if they choose
not to come here, we'll just continue it without there comment, I guess. I guess that's common enough if they don't show up after having staff call them and tell them that they would
like your response to the idea of your lack of maintenance to that ditch and the need to tile it and if they fail to respond, it's just going to be a requirement of Annexation and Zoning.
Item 7. Public Hearing: PP 00-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for proposed Cafarelli Industrial Subdivision of 3 building lots on 5.40 acres in an I-L zone – north side of
Franklin Road west of Linder Road:
Corrie: Let's move on to Item No. 7. Public Hearing request for a Preliminary Plat approval for proposed Cafarelli Industrial Subdivision of 3 building lots on 5.40 acres in an I-L
zone – north side of Franklin Road west of Linder Road. Thank you. I'll open the Public Hearing and I'll have staff give what we're doing here and (inaudible) right to you.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, you may remember this property from a previous action on an appeal. This was the property that they requested a building permit on that we denied due
to the fact we felt this property had been illegally split and the Council approved there getting a one time building permit for the parcel with the understanding that any future action
on this property, we'd need to consider the land lot property behind it. The applicant has stated in their application that there is a possibility of a public road coming from Linder,
I'm not sure if it's in the location of Steve (inaudible) property or up here at Haste, (sic), this is another example of ACHD deciding where roads will be and taking dedication of public
roads that don't go through a Subdivision process, and it's creating a big problem for staff. We had previous conversations with the owners of the property to the east here and we've
also talked to the property owner of this property, there had been some indications that may be a public road in that location, but no applications have been made for a public road and
there doesn't exist any slight plans or anything else that we are aware of that would allow access through to Linder Road. There is an existing easement, in fact, I think there may
be a couple of existing easements, there was one previously over at, I believe, in this location that had been dedicated, they have since dedicated or at least said that they had provided
this 60 ft. wide easement on the east property line to allow access back there. Staff has recommended that that be dedicated as a public
road and that is an item of contention on this application. They are currently constructing the Interstate Battery building, this is the one that came in for the building permit on-at
that time, since there were no approvals being sought through the Council as far as a re-zone or a Conditional Use Permit or a Plat , the only thing we could require as far as the landscape
setback was the 20 ft. planning strip requirement because it is across the street from property that is currently designated as single family residential in our comprehensive plan, therefore,
they came in with there plans to have a 20 ft. landscape strip on this property. I believe the recommendations for Planning and Zoning were to meet our requirements for the (inaudible)
corridor landscape setback of 35 ft., but I believe that would impact this already built building, their site plan and we would not object to the 20 ft. in front of the existing building
and transitioning to the 35 ft. landscape set back for the remainder of the property. This is some pictures of the existing site, and this shows the proposed Subdivision, this would
be the location of either a private road if it's approved by Council or a public roadway. It is 60 ft. so it would meet the commercial road standard of ACHD for 58 ft. ACHD also made
a recommendation, since there is an existing driveway here, that , once this was constructed as a public road , that this driveway would be closed off and the Interstate Batteries would
then access from the public road or approved private road. There is a problem, I don't know if it's a reason to deny this project, this lot here is not a buildable lot at this time,
there is no sewer available to it, it cannot be served by any existing lines, so this would have a sanitary restriction on it until such time as sewer service was available. There's
also the ditches in here that would need to be tiled, they have not requested a variance on piping of this ditch, I would imagine Mr. Beven would like to address that tonight. Staff
would support a variance of that, of tiling of that ditch due to the size provided that there was a non-combustible fence that was constructed along the easement line as a condition
of the Plat. I believe those are the major items, I can't make a recommendation on whether to approve it or not, we still would like to have the public street dedicated regardless of
whether an access is over to Linder Road due to the size of the parcel, I believe it needs something more than just a one way in situation. I believe Ron (inaudible) has purchased some
of this property in here and in the future it may be they have some kind of other access out, but this is what was annexed as the Linder Road Industrial Park with promises that they
would come in with a beautiful Subdivision and we are really struggling with some of the development that's coming in, it's in a piecemeal fashion and there's been no thought to planning
any of this section. The R V Repair is also located in this area, and as you can tell from the lots here, these were three 5 acre lots at one time, they've all been split, they perceived
a one time split, however this looks-this 5 acre parcel here has since illegally split and we're really struggling with all of the development out here and we do believe that a public
road to access this land, lot, parcel needs to be approved as part of this application. Thank you. Do you have any questions?
deWeerd: I guess I have two questions, one would be Lot 1 cannot receive sewer, is that in a different sewer trunk line?
Anderson: Mayor and Council, I think it's primarily a limitation of depth of sewer in Franklin Road. It's extended as far west as it can be extended and still maintain cover over the
sewer line.
deWeerd: I guess my other question, with Franklin being designated, and I understood this was recommended, I don't know what action Council took, but as a loop road to help move traffic,
and I understand on those types of roads that you want to limit the number of accesses directly onto it, so, why in situations like this are we not trying to have just one access and
have them do a frontage road or connect them somehow so you move the traffic from just one point. Does ACHD consider those things, does the city need to articulate that, you know, if
this is going to be a loop road to move traffic that we need them to start paying more attention to restricting the number of accesses out onto that road.
Stiles: I believe in Ada County Highway District's report they did attempt to do that, they have made that recommendation, it's hard to see up here, but, you know, they are proposing
an access here, another access here, and then this would be an access for the property back here . In there report, that's why they ask for the elimination of this driveway, and to
access through here, at such time that would be a public road. I believe, with the elimination of this driveway, it would meet ACHD policies for access onto that roadway. They haven't
done something similar to what they've done on Eagle Road to have some kind of corridor study to actually limit the access, they don't really limit the access on Franklin Road except
for having an offset requirement between driveways. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions? Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Shari, on the possible dedication of that 60-foot strip, what about this development? How is that mandated by this particular development? Why is that
a reasonable relationship to this particular development? I understand the reason for having access across the ditch, but why is that a part of this development? I don't understand
the connection between a 60-foot road on that east piece and what they're proposing to do here with this.
Stiles: The easement is existing and it's for access to that roadway, the easement and the private road, a private road needs to be approved by Council. I mean, if it's going to be
approved by a private road, fine, if it's going to be a public road it needs to be dedicated on the Plat. This property was in single ownership, I mean, it was under single ownership
at one time, it's within a period of less than two weeks it changed ownership and was split. These two parcels here were at one time, one piece of property, and that's what caused the
appeal because it was very confusing from all of the deeds that were recorded in such a short time what had happened, and they do have some other recorded easement
somewhere else on this property. I don't know-I wish-I don't know if the other property owner is here or if they have any problems maybe Tom can answer to that, maybe they have some
agreements as far as that goes, but, if it is to be a public road, it needs to be dedicated on the Plat. If it's an approved private road, I think you need to make stipulations on that-it
just-to me it just didn't seem fair that this property owner, in order to access their property would have to improve a public street and build a bridge all on their own when it would
have some value to this property. Is there nothing that requires you to provide access to a land, lot piece of property?
Nichols: Mayor, Council, Shari, I think the answer is, yes you can require. A person that's land, lot can require access, but it might-the thing I want to make sure of is that by-if
you ask for dedication of this 60 ft. it doesn't constitute a taking, that's why I'm asking the question. If it's already in access to this parcel to the north and so there's already
that access for that parcel there, then that's one thing, but if we're adding this on and the actual development as it's proposed that this is a-I mean there has to be (inaudible), some
sort of connection between this development and why we would require the 60 ft. dedication of that road right away.
Stiles: It is an existing easement and it's really makes no difference to me one way or the other, it's just that this is another instance of a dedication that doesn't go through the
city, that just appears and, you know, the city needs to be aware of-if there's going to be a private road dedicated, it needs to be approved by the city. If the city wants that to
be a public road and you know, the way our ordinance reads is that all lots have to have frontage either through a public road or an approved private road. Staff’s recommendation would
be that it would be a public road, but either way is not really material.
Corrie: Any other questions? (inaudible) This is a public hearing; applicant.
Beven: Tom Beven, 4202 North Marcliff, Boise, Idaho. Guess what we're trying to do is develop the (inaudible) the three lots. There is an easement on the 60 feet to the east end for
access to the back. ACHD and the irrigation district don't really want to have the road there where the easement is, they'd prefer to have the access to that property in the back up
off of Linder. As Councilwoman deWeerd was saying is that they want to keep that as an arterial and they want to keep Linder as the collector, so they would prefer to have-if I could
approach the map, I'd show you what they would prefer.
Nichols: Mr. Bevens, if you do that would you take this microphone when you go to the map so that we can hear you on the tape.
Bevens: This is the map that ACHD when we were down there to speak with them about it. They said that this is the one where the road, they told me that it was all agreed to, they just
haven't done the formal commitment yet. There's
also one here that they have and application for which isn't as far along as this one is, but they prefer to have (inaudible) like this onto the collector and not onto(inaudible). They
said there's about sixty trips a day that this would generate once it's established and they would rather not have it come here, they'd rather have it come here. Now ACHD and the Meridian
Irrigation both said they don't want to have a road here that dead-ends in a canal. It's very fast moving water right here and they're afraid that some kids would come up to the end
of the road and there would be a problem with some safety issues here. This lady back here, owns this has no plans to be develop it, it might be 10 years before she develops it, might
be 2 years, might be 5 years, but to this day there's no plan development there, so this road might lead to nowhere for the next 10 years. ACHD says, this is kind of like building a
road to one lot because it hasn't been split up and they don't really want to do that. What they'd like us to do is go ahead and approve this driveway that we have built now, that was
approved on our building permit and then, if this was ever become a road and this don't go through, and this becomes a road, then we would close this and use this as our access, which
we agreed to do, but if this access comes through here, which it seems like it's going to-what they told us, they'll prefer this road never be built, so that's where we're-what they're
doing now is just keeping their both options open by giving us a temporary here, if the road does get built and this doesn't come in then they have access to the back, but in 4,5 or
10 years when they want to develop it or 2 years from now, then they can better have a look at , you know, what happened there, so they have this available here and they always have
this here if they need it. They would prefer not to have a bridge here, they prefer and access (inaudible) here 'cause there's not bridge they'd have to maintain, so they'd rather not
maintain a bridge if they didn't have to, they'd rather not have the bridge built there, plus there afraid, concerned about, as I said kids going up there on to the bridge, if they didn't
have to have a bridge, they'd just as soon not have one. That's kind of the issue there as far as the easement and the road. I think that was the main objection, I think, was the road
and the easement there. So, Nampa, that Irrigation District and ACHD both said they prefer not to have the road there.
Corrie: The question-how do we know that there's going to be a road in and a road out, I mean, they got the land already dedicated to that or—
Bevens: I don't know if you've got a copy of the June 13th letter, they state in here that there in the process of negotiating that road and they said that they've, matter of fact have
all the terms and conditions agreed by both parties and that they wanted to see if it would become a road. They thought there was no rush to put a road in there because that lady in
the back who has the 14 acres or however many acres it is hasn't asked for any type of development, so they said
why rush it, let's see if this road will go through and keep the easement, our easement available, if the other road doesn't go through. So, basically what they're trying to do is keep
there options open, but they prefer to have it up on Linder.
Corrie: Do you have a copy of that letter?
Stiles: What date is it?
Bevens: June 13th.
Corrie: I'm just curious where they are, they think they have it and they don't have it then-
Bevens: Yes, Your Honor, they don't have it now, well, they don't have it dedicated, but they do have the agreement, they have worked out the agreement's with the current property owner
to do it, but they haven't gone to that stage yet, but , what they were saying to us is we don't really want to rush that because there is no need. The lady in the back she has access
through our easement, if that doesn't work out, then we'll just close our temporary driveway and access through the easement, which is not a problem, but we'd just soon keep it an easement
and not a public road, so they could have that option. If the lady came in and wanted to develop it, there would probably be more of an urgent need to do something, but since she hasn't-her
son was at the meeting at the Planning and Zoning and he said they had no-in the minutes of the meeting he said there was no real rush to develop anything right now. So, we think it's
a good way to keep the option open, if she's land, lot up on Linder, then we'd go ahead with the road on the easement and-but if you don't have to build a road with a bridge-better to
go off the –onto the collector instead of the (inaudible) so the access going on to the (inaudible), that's what they say she would prefer.
Bird: Actually to approve this as long as we keep the easement in there we don't need that road in there at all; this is more for Shari than it is for Mr. Beven, but as long as we keep
the easement there she will not be land, lot, because this letter from ACHD is not a guarantee that there's going to be any roads absolutely there. So, I don't see any problem with
the easement personally myself that would be causing any heartaches , would it , to the staff? As long as we leave the easement there we don't need (inaudible) put the road in now do
we? As long as the easement's there?
Stiles: We just want to get this clarified and despite what ACHD has said, they're going to have to come in with a Subdivision to put a road off to Linder, they just can't accept a
dedication and we call them every single week and let them know that, this property is a subject of an application that's before you right now, that's why we made the recommendation.
You know I've had also the testimony from the Planning and Zoning Commission when Mr. Martin showed up, who is the son of the woman who owns the property back there, and he has related
personally to me that their prices that those property owner's on Linder have placed on the condition of getting a road through there are exorbitant, it's not fair
to them, so, there is no road, there is not going to be a road unless they come through with the dedication through a Subdivision Plating process.
Anderson: My question on that then, would be, whose responsibility would it be to, I guess, to fund building that road. Is that something that we would need to get a letter of credit
for from this developer or would that be the responsibility of the person that builds on the property behind there to pay for the cost of that road, if it is required to put a road in
there.
Bird: Well, I'll give you my idea, It's the person behind as long as we get the easement dedication out of it, the owner of this front property. To develop the back property it's his
responsibility to get a road there. That's my personal opinion, and that would just be in the cost of his land and I would think-as long as we have the easement for him to get there,
then I think it would be up to him to put the road in and get to his property-to and through.
deWeerd: But if they’re going to close off the access to lot 3, it should be a shared cost, at least, because they would both be utilizing it.
Bird: You mean off of Franklin, they're closing that off - that's what he said, wasn't it? Well then, that's true then, it would be a shared cost to the ditch, then he'd take over
from there, but I think it would be a shared cost, it wouldn't just be up to this developer to finance the whole thing. Until that happens, I don't see why we, as long as we got the
easement, we needn't worry about him have to put a road or anything in right now, or a bridge. The other question is, how wide is the easement, what's needed for a public street verses
a private street, are we limiting this right now with the easement to only being private?
Corrie: Anything else?
Bevens: No, we respectfully ask that you approve it as, with the easement in there. Thank you very much.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. What is with your Lot 1 being unsewerable, what are your plans on-
Bevens: Well, we'd just build on lot two and when the Plat (inaudible) Lateral comes down or, you know, we'd just have to work something out on lot 1, but we're not in a big rush to
do that, if we get this Subdivision and lot 2 could be built on now and then we could just wait on lot 1. There is a restriction in Planning and Zoning-said there's a sanitary restriction
on it. so we just live within that.
deWeerd: Do you have any other comments about the recommendation from Planning and Zoning?
Bevens: No, I wrote one , but then I realized that later on in the document, I didn't need to write that, so I apologize for that. That's my presentation then.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bevens: Any other questions? Thank you Sir.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public like to issue testimony on this Item of the Preliminary Plat, Item No. 7? Council, any other questions for Public Hearing?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Entertain a motion for the closing of Public Hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item No. 7 PP 00-012. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTIONS CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Comments, discussion. Hearing none, I'll request a motion on the request for Preliminary Plat.
Bird: I move that we approve the Preliminary Plat for the proposed Cafarelli Industrial Subdivision of 3 building lots on 5.40 acres in a I-L zone – north side of Franklin Road and
west of Linder Road and for the Attorney to draw up the Findings and Facts and Conclusions of Law on decision and order with the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Corrie: Motion has been made, do I hear a second.
Anderson: I second it.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat for Item No. 7, have the Attorney draw up the proper orders and including the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
*** End of Side 3 ***
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, do these recommendations adequately reference the 60 ft. wide roadway and who is to develop it and at what point?
Corrie: 1.9
Bird: 1.8 is the 60-foot easement and it also has the ACHD recommendations which is included in it.
deWeerd: But, do they adequately address whether it should be private or public and who's paying for it?
Anderson: I thought about that to Tammy and I think that issue is going to be between the person that has the property behind there and this developer and that's not something we necessarily
have to address in this because we're just going to keep the easement in this and then at such time as that property develops behind there, and if they use that particular easement ,
then those two property owners are going to have to get together and work out the financial details of who pays for what and decide whether it's going to be a public or private street.
deWeerd: So, we're not necessarily approving with this application, a private road.
Anderson: No, all we're doing is keeping an easement in there.
Corrie: An easement will be removed only when the 60-foot road becomes public.
deWeerd: So, Mr. Attorney, there doesn't need to be anything in there to further clarify roadway development and responsibilities or anything like that?
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, Mayor, members of the Council, you could certainly make a recommendation, but if you're going to make it a requirement of approval that, I don't know
how you would make a requirement of approval with regard to what's the equitable cost of improvement of the road. If the parcel to the north of the ditch is in intensive use, that's
going to require lots of vehicle trips and this lot isn't, and you know on a vehicle trip basis it could be a 95, 5% split.
deWeerd: Does ACHD normally decide that kind of thing?
Nichols: I don't know how they work, and if I did I'd tell you, but I would expect-perhaps Shari can clarify this, but, was it Mrs. Martin that sold this parcel south of the ditch?
Stiles: No.
Nichols: It seems to me that if they're going to develop that parcel (inaudible), they're going to be the ones that bear the primary responsibility for any public improvements to get
it there, and that's-you can require that kind of dedication
and those kind of impositions and conditions because they are directly related to the impact of the development.
deWeerd: Do you have anything to add Stiles:
Stiles: No.
Stiles: I guess I would add one thing, I'm sorry.
Corrie: I'm sorry.
Stiles: We're going to come up with a private road application that will help a little bit, I think, hopefully, by that time, when she wants to develop that property, she'll have to
apply for the private road and you can place any conditions on it at that time, I mean I don't-I guess if she wanted to take that easement and build it as a public road and not have
any driveway accesses to this property, I guess that would be their prerogative, but won't worry about it, until she wants to develop it.
Corrie: (inaudible) called for and the motion has been made, so, we'll have City Clerk call roll on the request for Preliminary Plan of motion
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye; deWeerd, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 00-029 Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed processing of medical claims / insurance billing on property located in an R-15 zone by Sarah O’Neal
– 1447 Sandalwood Drive:
Corrie: Item No. 8 is Public Hearing Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed processing of medical claims/insurance billing on property located in an R-15 zone by Sarah O'Neal.
At this time I'll open the Public Hearing and comments from staff.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is an application for a home occupation in an R-15 zone. Our Ordinance does allow home occupation with an accessory use in the R-4 and R-8 zone,
however, since this is not in either of those zones, they have been required to ask for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is proposing to process medical claims/insurance billing,
something that no one would probably even know that's happening inside the building, but she wants to play by the rules and is going through this process in order to be a legal home
occupation in that zone. We would recommend approval with staff conditions. Thanks.
Corrie: Any questions of staff? Is the applicant here this evening? Sorry to keep that little one up so late.
O'Neal: Sarah O'Neal at 1447 Sandalwood Drive.
Corrie: Do you have anything to add?
O'Neal: No.
Corrie: Okay, very good. Questions from Council?
Stiles: Miss O'Neal, my staff noted a difference between the address that's shown on your warranty deed and we just want to make sure we've got the correct address for the property.
O'Neal: The address on there is in the complex that address is, I believe, upstairs, but my address is in the complex.
Stiles: Okay, so yours is 1447?
O'Neal: Yes.
Stiles: Okay, thank you.
Bird: Miss O'Neal, do you have any problems with any of the conditions from the Planning and Zoning ?
O'Neal: No.
Corrie: Any questions?
Stiles: I have nothing.
Corrie: Anyone else in public like to issue testimony in this request for Conditional Use Permit? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing, all in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
deWeerd: You must be commended though for going through the correct steps. I think you're not in the majority unfortunately.
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion then on the request.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. I recommend approval, we approve, I'm sorry, that P&Z flashback there-that we approve request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed processing of medical claims/insurance
billing on property located in an R-15 zone by Sarah O'Neal, ask the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and decision of order to include staff comments.
McCandless: Second
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to have the Attorney to draw up the Findings and Facts and Conclusions of Law in proper order with recommendation approval with Conditional
Use Permit for Item No. 8. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye; deWeerd, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. Public Hearing: VAR 00-012 Request for Variance allowing a gravel driveway and parking lot rather than paved for Memorial Pet Care by Larry A. Eld., DVM – 654 East King Street:
Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval
Corrie: We are now on Item No. 15, Request for Variance allowing a gravel driveway and parking lot rather than paved for Memorial Pet Care by Larry A. Eld., DVM
Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 00-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC – north of Victory Road and
east of Meridian Road:
Item 10. Public Hearing: PP 00-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 91 building lots and 10 other lots on 40.33 acres for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC,
currently in an RT zone and proposed R-4 zone – north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road:
Item 11. Public Hearing: VAR 00-006 Request for variance of the 1,000-foot block length for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC, currently in an RT zone and proposed
R-4 zone – north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road:
deWeerd: Do we need to officially continue the Public Hearings for 9, 10 ,11, 12, 13 and 14?
Corrie: I'm sorry, I'm just jumping the gun. For Items No. 9, 10, 11 I'll entertain a motion to continue the Public Hearing until August 1st.
Bird: So moved.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue Items No. 9, 10 and 11 on the Public Hearing until the August 1st date. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Public Hearing: AZ 00-006 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.73 acres from R-T to L-O and R-15 zones by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc., for proposed Valeri
Heights Subdivision – northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road:
Item 13. Public Hearing: PP 00-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision with 10 building lots and 2 other lots on 12.73 acres in proposed
L-O and R-15 zones by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc. – northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road:
Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 00-014 Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision for a 128-unit apartment complex, townhouses and office on 12.73 acres
in proposed L-O and R-15 zones by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc. – northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Items No. 12, 13 and 14 I'll entertain a motion to continue a Public Hearing until August the 15th, proper orders be given on the Public Hearing.
Anderson: So moved
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor of motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. Public Hearing: VAR 00-012 Request for Variance allowing a gravel driveway and parking lot rather than paved for Memorial Pet Care by Larry A. Eld., DVM – 654 East King Street:
Corrie: Thank you. Item No. 15 is Public Hearing as I mentioned and I'll now open that Public Hearing and have the staff comments.
Stiles: Could we handle 15 and 16 together, Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: We can open them both, if you'd like. One is for a Variance and the other is a Conditional Use Permit, we'll have testimony all in one, thank you.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, The applicant Dr. Larry Eld is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pet cemetery in the Meridian Business and Industrial Park. He is located
next to Handy Trucking, he has graciously provided an aerial photo of the site. Right here is where the existing Crematorium is located and this area here would be the area he would
propose for the pet cemetery. Dr. Eld has also requested a Variance to the off street parking requirements for the lot to be paved, it is existing gravel at this point. Dr. Eld sites
other uses in the area, particularly the Handy Trucking that has an entirely graveled site. Well, we sympathize with Dr. Eld about the cost of the paving, we do encourage Council to
approve compliance with the Ordinance whenever possible to bring these areas up to meet current Ordinance requirements. The access road here, this is basically a land, lot property,
it has access through this lot here, it's really a part of Handy Trucking is this lot and this is the driveway that's used to access his facility. You can see here where the lot is
located and this is the other lot that comes off King Street. This is showing the existing facility, the trees there, this would be, I believe that's the area where the pet cemetery
is proposed. You can see the gravel drive leading to it and this is gravel going back-I may be getting that wrong-it's hard to see, and this is the site plan of Dr. Eld's lot and this
would be the area he's proposing to remain unpaved. That's it in a nutshell, do you have any questions? Need anymore explanation?
Anderson: I was going to ask where you got that airplane for that aerial photography.
Stiles: Dr Eld brought that in, it's pretty slick, Idaho Air Ships.
Bird: See if something is hidden in the budget for an airplane or something.
Stiles: I think it's those balloons he put up. He brought in the full size photograph of it and also brought in a C D so we could download it into our computer and show it hear tonight,
pretty slick.
Bird: Shari, I've got a question. What about air quality if you leave, I understand that this probably won't have real major traffic, but, leaning it gravel like that what is it going
to do to the air quality, is it going to cause us any problems or heartaches over that?
Stiles: Well, we do have a problem with air quality from the graveled roads, the dust created from them. Granite, the traffic in this area is not very significant created by this facility,
the Handy Truck facility creates a lot of dust. I know, that if they come back in for a building permit and we make that request, you'll probably be looking at an appeal or at least
a Variance application, because that's not going to be a cheap fix to get that entire site paved, but, it is a-you can see dust clouds in there when they get some of those trucks moving
in and out. I don't think there are any standards, maybe the Mayor could address if the Air Quality Board has addressed that, I have asked COMPASS to look at that issue, but there aren't
any specific standard's , but that's what we ask for, I mean that's one of the reasons we want to enforce the paving, not only for the aesthetics of it, but for the possible ground water
contamination and the airborne particles that are created when people drive over it.
Corrie: That would have nothing to do with the Air Quality Board, that's emissions from automobiles.
Stiles: That's it?
Corrie: Yes, you might have some troubles with the PM 10, people from DEQ and EPA, but you won't have anything from the Air Quality Control Board.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I believe that Mr. Alrich (sic) at the AIC Conference touched on dust and the air particulate matter or whatever and I do know that they are trying to start working
on some standardized models for air quality issues and one of those is dust abatement which one of these days I hope we have an Ordinance on. The second one is the gravel, because it's
not the emissions that are the problem in our valley, it's a lot of the issues caused by dust particles in the air.
Bird: Go back to the site deal, okay, let me ask you a question, now coming off the road there, is that paved? It looks like it's paved there. Is that gravel or pave there?
Stiles: I thought it was gravel, but it looks like it's paved.
Corrie: It's paved right to the arrow.
Bird: Right here, and then you've got gravel all the way up to your-boy we're not really solving the problem by just making him pave his. The only way we can solve the problem is get
that whole thing paved. That looked like asphalt, that's what I was-and it's asphalt there to those bushes, huh?
Corrie: Just a short acre in there is all.
deWeerd: Keith, even if that was asphalted along that roadway, every time a big truck comes out on it they drag that dirt and gravel on top of your pavement and it's still an issue.
Bird: But, the same token, if you're going to pave in there, I agree, it does help with the particles, but you're going to get more of them coming off that main road going down there.
Stiles: I understand that, unfortunately, you have to start somewhere.
Bird: Yes, I agree.
Corrie: Any other questions of staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Public hearing, name and address for the record.
Eld: I'm Larry Eld, Dr of Veterinary Medicine, I live at 11085 Thomas Dr., I've owned and operated Memorial Pet Care since it's inception in 1985. Couple comments; I appreciate (inaudible),
it's getting late tonight and lonely so, anyway, a couple things, one is, there is not a pet cemetery in Treasure Valley, okay, and even though we have a cremation service, occasionally
we get requests for burial, and there's no place anybody can bury a pet. This is why I proposed a pet cemetery, because there's a need for it, okay. I don't know if any of you are
pet lovers, but there's a need for it. I'm not sure financially how this thing is going to work out, if I'm required to pave it, I'm going to forget it, because it's going to cost me
$20-25,000 to pave that, to me, it's just not worth it, it's not worth the risk, Okay, I'm going to trash the idea. My concern is, and I appreciate your concern about the dust, but
let me comment on that; if I'm required to asphalt that, I'm an asphalt island with dust, gravel and dirt all around me, and if you're concerned about dust then get on Handy Trucking.
It's not going to do me any good to asphalt and pave my driveway, because it'll be covered in a few days with a ½ inch of dust on it, that's no lie, that cement plant puts out dust.
My trees barely survive because of the amount of dust that is deposited on those trees. Now, understand that that's not your problem right now, but, in all fairness to me, it you would
require Handy Trucking to asphalt at least ½ or more of their working parking lot there or the whole thing, I would be more than happy to asphalt mine
just for aesthetics, I wouldn't even fuss about it, but I think it's unfair to ask me to asphalt that, because asphalt isn't going to do me any good, because I'm going to be covered
with dust within a day or two, because we're putting up with dust and debris and empty sacks and we're picking up our lawn and cleaning up after Handy Trucking all the time, and that's
all I'm asking is that you be fair with me and if you want put in a condition somewhere that if that's required to be asphalted down the line, that I asphalt, hey, I'll do that, because
I'd do it just for the aesthetics of my business, but right now to require me to pave it, I would scrap the idea of a pet cemetery and so that's why I'm asking for that-I-I-I-I just
feel strongly it would be thrown pearls to swine, you know , if I have to pave that with what I'm putting up with there from Handy Trucking. The other question that come up from one
of the Planning and Zoning members was about pollution and I wanted to address that, whether they wanted to hear it or not, they say, how can I be sure that there's not pollution from
burial, well, if you want to see it, I did bring a casket vault, these are acrylic sealed casket that we are going to require for burial so that-and I've got it in the box back there,
that's what's in the box back there-I didn't want to bring it in here carrying a casket with all these people here, but it's an acrylic non-biodegradable sealed vault that these pets
will be put in so that-and traffic, I want to address the issue of traffic, hey, the most traffic we've had out there was the police cars that went out there yesterday, you might of
saw it on television and heard it about it, when we cremated that police dog, okay. Ordinarily, I have two employees, she comes to work at 9 leaves at 2:30, I have someone that goes
around picks up the animals, makes one or two trips a day in there and we'll probably average one or two clients that'll bring a dog in, traffic is (inaudible), and in the event of a
pet cemetery, maybe on memorial day or something, we might have a half-dozen cars that would creep in there, but it's not that much , traffic's not going to be an impact or a problem
with this, I'll assure you of that.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. So, during the P and Z thing I kind of understood that they would have a choice of whether they got the casket or if it was in kind of a-
Eld: No, that's not correct. I assured them that I would put them into a sealed container, however, I did not know at that point what the container was. I had a plastics company in
Caldwell that was going to make containers for us, vaults for us, that did not pan out. Since then, I have found a vault, I'd love to show it to you, it's a-there beautiful vaults,
they're sealed and (inaudible)
deWeerd: I would look at it.
deWeerd: Hate to waste your time. (inaudible, conversation in background). I really appreciate that, you know, I guess, I think that our cities and our county needs to be more conscientious
of it because we're in threat of losing millions of dollars of federal dollars for road improvements and our road improvements will absolutely stop if we don't start taking our air quality
issues seriously and I know you're faced with the air quality issue every day and you're just going to be a little
Band-Aid compared to, if we can get the trucking company next to you, and maybe it is feasible, that would be a question for the City Attorney, can that be put as a stipulation that
once Handy Trucking or whatever it's called is required to do pavement that we have this one paved as well. I don't know if we can ask that or not.
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, Mayor, members of the Council it's still a Public Hearing time, would you like to finish that part of it and then we'll answer with discussion and then
come back to it or do you want me to address it now?
deWeerd: Well, depending on your response, he may want to respond too.
Nichols: The central question is under what circumstances could a neighboring property be required to pave their business and I would except if there was a change in use of that particular
business from what it is now, that change in use would require a Conditional Use Permit, which, then, as one of those conditions for that use, you could require paving. If it continues
to be a batch plan or whatever it is there now, on into the future that's (inaudible) industrial zone, whatever they're operating under now that would be the same. I don't think you
can then add that requirement, unless there's a change in use of that site.
deWeerd: Or an addition or—
Nichols: Some sort of an expansion of the existing use.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Bill, I don't think that-Tammy was asking if there's anyway that we can hook on to his Variance, a condition that if Hadley or whatever their names are, is to that
he has to, he's already stated that he would.
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the Council, yes, I think you can, he's agreeing to it, you can say as such time as the neighbor's required to pay, then he or whoever owns
the property at that time is required to pay.
Bird: An extra condition on the Variance.
Nichols: Yes, I think I would put it in the CUP.
Bird: Conditional Use Permit.
Nichols: Rather than the Variance, is where I would put it.
Bird: Okay
Anderson: Question for Mr. Nichols then, doesn't that become an enforcement nightmare, I mean, if you have a different owner or even the same owner at that point that says, well, I
can't really afford to do that right now, you don't have any
letter of credit or anything else, your only legal recourse is to take them to court to try to get them to do that at that point.
Nichols: That's correct, Councilman Anderson.
Corrie: I don't think, unless that (inaudible) bought for the next 20 years you're going to have (inaudible).
Bird: I think you're right Mayor.
Corrie: The EPA is not going to do a mandate on a grandfather business.
Eld: Is there anything that can be done, this is off the subject, but is there anything that can be done about the pollution that comes from-I'm not here to pick on Handy Trucking,
don't misunderstand me, but it is a nuisance, there's no question about it.
Corrie: There might be from the EPA standpoint, but, that would have to go through a lot of courts, I think.
Eld: See, EPA are on-you know, I mean I have to operate under very strict guidelines, I can't pollute at all (inaudible) they're on my neck and we, believe it or not we pollute absolutely
nothing out of those machines, those are state of the art machines and nothing comes out of them other than heat waves, that's all . It's completely clear.
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council, I think the day has probably coming when they will be particulate regulations that will come down on businesses that have the ability to regulate
that particulate, I mean it 's difficult for a farmer to regulate the dust that comes when they disk up the straw after the harvest of the grain, but a business, such as a cement plant,
trucking company, those sorts of things, I think we can see is probably going to happen down the road, as far as those air quality issues. How you address the issue with regard to Dr.
Eld's business, the total particulate impact from his customers and employees is probably pretty manageable.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Eld: Thank you very much.
Corrie: I'll close the Hearing on the-I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
deWeerd: So moved.
Bird: On both Items?
Corrie: Only one's a Public Hearing, CUP is not a-Is there a second?
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Public Hearing is closed. Request for Variance allowing a gravel driveway and parking lot rather than paved for Memorial Pet Care. Any discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the variance allowing a gravel driveway and parking lot rather than paved for Memorial Pet Care at 654 East King Drive and for the Attorney to
draw up the papers showing this.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the Attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in the proper order for the Variance request and to indicate a favorable
approval. Further discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just to note the comment from the Fire Department that this gravel road needs to withstand 70,000 lbs. emergency truck, that that be noted.
Bird: I think, if you'll look at his note, they got concrete trucks coming down it all the time and-
Corrie: Mr. Clerk, if you'll call a roll, please.
Roll-call: McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye; deWeerd, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. CUP 00-030 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pet cemetery for Memorial Pet Care by Larry Eld, DVM, currently in an I-L zone at the Meridian Business Park –
654 East King Street:
Corrie: Item No. 16 is Request for Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pet cemetery for Memorial Pet Care.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pet cemetery for Memorial Pet Care by Larry Eld, DVM, currently in a1-L zone at
the Meridian Business Park at 654 East King Street with the condition that has been stated for the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to have the Attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and order for the Request for Conditional Use Permit.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, can I ask for clarification, is that so when the neighboring property asphalts their piece that he will then asphalt his?
McCandless: That is correct, yes, that's a condition.
Corrie: Mr. Attorney, do you have enough information at this point?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of Council, we'll find out when I've got the Findings, I think so.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
deWeerd: We'll all be looking forward to that reading I'm sure.
Corrie: Mr. Clerk, roll-call.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 19. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Next is Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies. This is to notify you in writing, that if you chose to you have the right to a predetermine hearing at 7:30 p. m. Tuesday, July
18th before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person be judged of the facts and defend the claim made by City if your Sewer, Water and Trash bill is delinquent. Is there anybody
here that wishes to contest his or her Water, Sewer, Trash delinquency? Hearing none, they are hereby informed that they may appeal to have the decision of the City reviewed by the
Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho Code. The turn-off amount on the list is $30,745.16.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, we all received and yourself received a letter from a young lady, Bonnie Yager. I would sure appreciate it if you would go back and go through her bill, this poor
lady is-can't seem to find out and I guess we can't seem to be able to tell her when all of a sudden this $11.35 started coming past due, was carried over. I would sure appreciate if
you would go back and-
Corrie: I've done that, Mr. Bird and we've taken care of it.
Bird: Okay, thank you. With that, I would move that we approve the delinquency of the turn off scheduled for 7-19-00 to the tune of $30,745.16.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the turn off list. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item B. City Council President – Keith Bird:
Discussion of Monthly Expenditures and Revenue Report by outside auditors:
Corrie: Item B, Mr. Bird discussion (inaudible)
Bird: Yes Sir, I'll be real fast. Council, I would like to , with your permission, ask the Mayor and Janice to talk to our outside accountants. I believe we are a large enough city
that enough money goes through that we need to have a monthly expenditure and revenue report from outside auditors. I didn't realize it wasn't happening until I talked to him, I think
it will save us money, it'll cost us money on the monthly basis, but it'll save us at the year's end, because half of the audit will be done by the end of the fiscal year, and I would
like to see this implemented on October 1st, starting October 1st, 2000, that way if we find a mistake we don't wait 10 or 12 months to find it out.
Corrie: Discussion?
deWeerd: Do we have numbers that really back up what you're telling us?
Bird: Numbers for what?
deWeerd: That it will all come out in the wash, cost wise.
Bird: Cost wise it's not going to-according to Kevin Smith and that's why I've asked with your permission to have the Mayor and Janice look into this and get
some closer costs, but according to the accountant it's you're going to pay more a month, but at the end you'll save money, because they bill on the hourly rate, well , if you're doing
it in a monthly basis, it sure don't take you as long at the end to do the main audit because you've got the books down.
deWeerd: So, we'll see some numbers?
Bird: That's what , yes, I'd like, if they could get back to us by August 1st, I'd appreciate it.
Corrie: I don't think it takes a requirement to do that, if you want me to do that, I'll do that and get-
Bird: Yes, I'd appreciate it if you and Janice would get that taken care of for us.
Corrie: Sure, I will do it, does the Council feel they need a motion or anything on that?
Bird: I don't think so, bring it to us then we'll-I was really shocked that we are about the only deal and one other while I've got the floor, people, we , on the 24th we've got our
workshop, 25th we've got our budget workshops, but, also, I'd like to have a executive session where we can discuss the financing on the Police Building, if at all possible.
deWeerd: Sounds good to me.
Corrie: I've got some questions, things that we need to get done and we can move forward on that.
Bird: We need to just talked about it, I'm tired of-we either get on the pot or we get off from it.
deWeerd: That's not how it goes.
Bird: That's the way I say it.
Corrie: (inaudible). Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I just wanted to comment to. I do not want to get into a situation like we were last year and we need to spend some time and concentrate on this budget, and we're
already talking about having Mr. Nichols come talk to us about Ordinances and now we're throwing Police Station in there and all these other things, we need to concentrate on the budget
and those meetings on Monday and Tuesday. we ought to take care of business first and then if we've got time on Tuesday then we can take care of some of these other things or schedule
another meeting, but I'm opposed to this cramming 50 million
things into one meeting because we don't ever have time to get anything done right.
Bird: I agree 100%, Ron, and I think we've got the numbers, the way we presented this, we ought to all come in here with-and not have to set and go through from item to item, we ought
to all have some ideas where we need to take out stuff. We've got a week to work on it and I agree with you 100%, but, the budget is my primary thing, those two meetings.
McCandless: I agree, with one exception, and that is, we do need to get the financing for the Police Building settled. It's been going on long enough.
deWeerd: It has everything to do with budget.
McCandless: Of course it does.
Corrie: I think there's about three questions we need to answer and that-I don't think it's going to be drawn out, either you're going to have-
Bird: I think the budget, thanks to the order we went in it's already went twice as fast as it ever has for me before.
Corrie: I agree with Ron, we do need to get this-
Bird: We do need to get this settled and taken care of, you're right, put to sleep.
Corrie: Anything else?
Bird: I have nothing, Mayor.
Fire Chief Kenny Bowers:
1. Contract with Idaho Department of Lands:
Corrie: Kenny, you're up.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie, and City Council members, thank you. This contract is between the Department of Lands and local Fire Departments. If there's a fire up around Bergdorf, Idaho
City, McCall, anywhere in that area that is (inaudible) on homes, on expensive buildings, maybe rustic buildings, maybe historical buildings up in the mountains they call us in to help
protect the structures. In the past some of the departments were not able to make money and would lose money by paying over time to their firefighter's, and this contract it gives you
money for the manpower and the trucks now. I will tell you one thing, being short of manpower because of vacations and as busy as we are getting right now, I will not leave our city
or our rule of a skeleton crew, we will not do that. I don't think
it's fair for us to keep a skeleton crew here, and then depend on Nampa to come and bail us out or help us or other departments, and that's what has happened in the past on some department's
they send all their trucks, all their manpower up in the mountains and then they expect us to go help them, but we will not do that so-
Bird: How much are they willing to pay? Are they going by our union scale?
Bowers: Yes.
Bird: I'm looking at this, what I can't figure out is we are bringing people back in, if we send somebody up there, we're probably bringing some people back in on over time and everything
else, why are we just getting the cost of our people out of it? Why aren't we getting a little extra?
Bowers: What we would try and do and what we have done in the past is bring on volunteer, on call people to go up and do it, also, the full time firefighters, we would take that are
on their four days off, so we would not be affecting any of the shifts.
Corrie: (inaudible) time and a half.
Bowers: Yes.
Bird: I don't see any time and a half billed in any of these prices. First place, working their shifts, they'd get twelve hours over time.
Bowers: On the second column to the right, it doesn't have a page number on it , it's this one right here.
Bird: Meridian fire fighter pay scale.
Bowers: Yes.
Bird: That's the one I'm looking at, second one to the right, okay.
Bowers: Okay, from the right, second one from the right, hourly wage, that's $20.56 and without benefits it's $14.68. I received this from Kathy the other day, so, probably, possibly,
it'll be a little higher than that on over time.
Bird: Yearly total with benefits, $56,662, and you're going to charge them $20.56 an hour.
Bowers: We would be go-by page 30 it explains it a little bit under the (inaudible), like I told you, they would be paying for contracts who have chosen to have an agreement with the
Idaho Departments of Lands and the reimbursement
for actual cost, so we would be charging them actual cost, Keith on that, and I will have Kathy go through that some more then, check that out.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Ron, does Nampa enter into an agreement like this?
Anderson: Well, in the past we had gone up and assisted and we'd actually lost money by the time we had paid the overtime cost for the firefighters and so, that was an issue that we
brought up with the Department of Lands at our annual Fire Chief's meeting in Idaho Falls this year and that was the concession that they had made to us is that they would pay what our
actual cost is, so, I'm not sure why exactly this list of what you're salaries are in there, but, what you would do is you'd actually send them a bill for what your actual costs were
at the end of it and if you had to pay-
*** End of Side 4 ***
Anderson: Employees that's on their Fire Department as a volunteer is probably why they are coming to this before we are-
deWeerd: Because we have a quality operation over and above-
Bird: Let me ask you a question, Ron, what do they pay you for the trucks, if you take one of your trucks?
Anderson: I don't know what the current rates are, but, it used to be two hundred and some dollars a day for a truck.
Bird: I don't see anything in here-
Anderson: That's this schedule, Keith, it depends on the type of apparatus.
Bird: Okay, what I'm trying to tell you is that you can't just take the wages, you've got- the guys going to have uniforms, who buys their uniforms, do we buy it, okay.
When you go to a wild land fire, they provide all that to you.
Bird: They provide-we don't take any of our turnouts or anything?
Anderson: No, you don't use your turnouts, you use wild land gear; they give that to you at the scene.
Bowers: By the schedule, a truck with four people gets $1500 a day, a truck with three people gets $1200 a day. We usually send three people, if they are extended for a week or two
it gets pretty tough a shift and rotating four people, so
we just send three. Other departments do send four though. That's unoperated, if you're not working, I believe
Bird: I believe there's only about one time we've ever proceeded with any money and that was in McCall, that year that one of the executive's from one of the companies or grandson of
on of the executive's paid us to sit at his place. Is this a good contract or isn't it?
Bowers: Bill looked it over, didn't see any problems with it. Myself, I think it is pretty hard for us to send a truck up there with the manpower and stuff, because we are getting
some more, so much busier here all the time, vacations, this is our busy season, then we want to get up there, but, a lot of people that live down here also live up there and have homes
and stuff and I feel that we maybe shouldn't have to be able to help them, but we sure can if possible.
Bird: I agree with you Kenneth, but I have a real hard time of thinning our crew down when the percent of overtime that we're paying is quite high.
Bowers: Exactly.
Corrie: Of course, before I would okay you going, (inaudible) sure we got coverage here.
Bowers: Exactly.
Corrie: I would not do that and I think, it's always nice if you can go and do that to save some plan and that, but (inaudible)
Bowers: Our first deal is here, setting the rule here.
Bird: I can't see sending and getting paid at regular time when we're keeping guys here at over time.
Anderson: I think you're confused on that, what Kenny was saying is that we would pay the overtime rate to the people that go to the fire, we would get reimbursed from Department of
Lands at that same rate. The people that would be working the shifts here would be working their normal shifts so they wouldn't be getting overtime. We wouldn't be paying overtime
to cover the shifts here.
Bird: You'd be getting them back in, Ron, you'd have to call them back in like we have been.
Anderson: No, it'd be the normal guys that are working. We'd send the guys that are off on their four days or the volunteers.
Bird: I don't see anything in this contract or anything here, other than emergency Firefighters and there pay rates, which is in this schedule, sure don't cover ours. Is this a contract?
Bowers: Yes.
Bird: I don't see anything in here where they say what they're going to pay us.
Bowers: No, they don't, they don't write that down in the contract.
Bird: None in the contract then?
Bowers: No. They'll just say, on page 30 it just (inaudible) under the exceptions that they will pay the reimbursements for actual costs, including benefits to our employees.
Bird: Certain fire service organizations with salary-who may choose to have agreements with the Idaho Department of Lands are then reimbursed for actual costs, but where is that agreement
that we have with them, this isn't it.
Bowers: The actual (inaudible) agreement something that we could make up from the expenses, like you said the time and a half and send it with the contract as we send it in for each
firefighter-
Bird: That would have to be initialed off field, because, if I read this contract, and maybe I'm reading it wrong, Bill, but to me you're getting paid $10.68, $11.72, $13.32 and $15.
It says down here, the exception, but I don't see any addendum or any addition to this telling what we're getting paid.
Anderson: Did they ask you to submit this pay chart?
Bowers: No.
Anderson: So, why is this pie chart on there?
Bowers: Bill mentioned that we needed that we needed to get the correct-excuse me, Bill, go ahead.
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, members of the Council, what I asked Chief Bowers to do is make sure he knew what those costs were and that in bringing something to you, or in
any discussion with the Department of Lands that they'd know, he knew ahead of time why his costs were including his benefits and all the rest of it per employee that might go out with
the truck, so that 's where that was generated from. I wanted to make sure that you knew what the costs were.
Bowers: Yes, exactly.
Bird: But those costs aren't attached to this contract, are they Bill?
Nichols: Well, it does say actual cost, but, in other words, there had to be some sort of calculation so that when a bill goes out, you know how to bill it. So, in a sense, it's part
of the contract where they (inaudible) pay actual cost, you've got to know what those costs are, but it's not necessarily an addendum to it.
Bird: What do they define as cost?
Bowers: This is the first time we've done a contract, most of the time, they call us up at midnight, tell us to be at a place at 5 o'clock in the morning and that's usually the way
it's happened, but the last few years, there's been so many problems with it that most Fire Chiefs decided they had to have a contract before they went up.
Anderson: I agree with Keith, I think this is a poorly worded contract, this is the first time I've seen this contract, but, it doesn't guarantee you the rates that you're talking about
other than that one little clause in the back which says that certain fire service organization's and there's nothing here that your signing that says that you're one of those certain
fire service organizations that they'll pay that.
Bowers: Exactly.
Bird: I'll guarantee you they wouldn't let me give them a contract like that to go put a store front in for them.
Corrie: The thing to do is write up your own contract and send it to them.
Bird: That's just what I was going to mention, Mayor.
Corrie: Then they can say they accept you or they don't, make sure we have all the costs and I's dotted and send them the contract, they'll either accept it or they'll reject it. You
can work with Bill (inaudible) work, but whatever your costs are and you sit down and figure that out. That seems to (inaudible), Bill.
Nichols: Mayor and members of the Council, seems to me what you're telling us is, that in terms of actual cost, you don't want to be pinned down just to what the actual cost is of that
firefighter that goes up there; that if there's actual costs incurred by the department over and above their normal operating costs as a result of sending a crew up there, that's an
additional cost incurred by the City as a result of this request to go and fight this fire, and therefore that cost ought to be factored into it as well, so that the billing could say:
This number of firefighters, this number of hours on the deal, this much additional overtime in order to cover the absence of those firefighter's on that fire, that's part of the actual
cost.
Anderson: Well, the actual cost is, we may have to pay overtime for some of these individuals and, no where on your pay chart did you even list the overtime rate, I mean, you ought
to add a column and put the overtime rate in there, and, then if we have to pay those people an overtime rate, then there ought to be something too that says we're one of those organization's
that they will pay the actual cost to.
Bird: Another thing, these aren't actual costs, when you're just given the wages, that isn't actual cost. You've got a bookkeeper, you've got a secretary hired that has to fill out
all the time cards, you've got people that has to-like the Fire Chief that lines them out, his cost 's got to be figured in there. You're bookkeeper over here that makes out the checks
has to be-the cost of your building, you're equipment, that's all called overhead and that, so, until you figure out your overhead, you don't have your cost, and it's not fair for the
Federal Government to not have to pay those costs, you should have an overhead cost.
Corrie: That's what I said, you make up your contract, they'll either accept it or reject it.
Bird: That's the way I look at it Mayor.
Bowers: Okay, sounds good.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Bird: I have nothing.
Bowers: Thank you, we'll do that.
Corrie: Nothing else, I'll entertain a motion to close this thing up and go home.
Bird: So moved.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adjourn, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Adjourned at 11:15 p. m.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVE:
MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK