HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 06-20Meridian City Council Meeting June 20, 2000
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. on Tuesday, June 20, 2000, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members present: Robert Corrie, Keith Bird, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Tammy deWeerd.
Others present: Bill Gordon, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Bill Nichols, Will Berg.
Corrie: I’ll open the regular City Council meeting for June 20, 2000 at 7:35 p.m., and we’ll have roll-call with the City Clerk, please. Thank you. I want to welcome all of you here
tonight. It’s such a beautiful night out. I appreciate you spending some time inside here when you could be outside this evening. Before we start, I want to let you know that items
on the agenda for, on the regular agenda, Item 4 and Item 6, the hearing for the Tara L. Gordon, a small childcare center, and also the public hearing on the request for Conditional
Use Permit on Fairview Mini Storage, those have been withdrawn by the applicants, so we will not have those two items on the agenda tonight. They’ve been withdrawn. Also, we will add
an Item Q on the Consent Agenda that we forgot to put on, the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of Tim Bever on the car rental.
Item A. Tabled June 6, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned unit development including continuing care retirement
community, single- and multi-family residential and office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers – Joseph A. Billig – east of St. Luke's between Franklin Road and Interstate 84:
Tabled to July 5, 2000
Item B. Development Agreement: AZ 99-010 Request For Annexation And Zoning Of 150.79 Acres Of Land For R-4 Zoning By Bear Creek, LLC – East Of Stoddard Road & South Of Overland: Approve
– Resolution No. 326
Item C. Tabled June 6, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 99-010 Request for preliminary plat for proposed Bear Creek Subdivision of 326 single-family lots on 150.79
acres by Bear Creek, LLC – east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland Road: Approve
Item D. Tabled June 6, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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: Reconsider – Renotice for July 18, 2000
Item E. Tabled June 6, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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: Reconsider – Renotice
for July 18, 2000
Item F. Tabled June 6, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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: Reconsider
– Renotice for July 18, 2000
Item G. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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: Approve
Item H. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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: Approve
Item I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-017 Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed Resolution Business Park for a planned commercial development consisting
of multi-family, commercial, office and LDS seminary in proposed L-O and C-G zones by G.L. Voigt / Overland, LLC – south of Overland Road and east of Locust Grove Road: Approve
Item J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 other lots on 107.06 acres for proposed Resolution Business
Park by G.L. Voigt / Overland, LLC – south of Overland Road and east of Locust Grove Road: Approve
Item K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-015 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an ice arena consisting of office, pro shop, fitness center, restaurant, locker
room and
equipment storage for proposed Resolution Business Park / Lee Smith Ice Arena by Pat McKeegan – south of Overland Road and east of Locust Grove Road: Approve
Item L. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-016 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 200-unit luxury apartment complex in a proposed L-O zone for proposed Resolution
Business Park by G.L. Voigt / Overland, LLC – south of Overland Road and east of Locust Grove Road: Approve
Item M. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Generations Park Plaza I by Cole Associates Architects for the revitalization
of an existing building to house a restaurant and offices in an OT zone: Approve
Item N. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Generations Park Plaza II by Cole Associates Architects for the demolition of
an existing auto garage structure and construction of a new two-story retail/office building in an OT zone – East 1st and East Pine Avenue: Approve
Item O. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit by Meridian Joint School District No. 2 for a marketing education classroom to accommodate
two non-concurrent classes of 25-30 students each currently in a C-G zone – 357 Watertower Lane: Approve
Item P. Development Agreement: AZ 00-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.68 acres from RT to L-O for proposed Carol Professional Center by J-U-B Engineers, Inc. - west side
of Eagle Road between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road: Approve – Resolution No. 327
Item Q. Order Granting Appeal – Tim Bever: Approve
Corrie: Council, you have the Consent Agenda. What is your pleasure on that?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, on the Consent Agenda, Item A will be tabled to July 5, 2000; Items D, E and F will be moved to the regular agenda as Items 1a, and you’ve already stated that Q was
added. With that, I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with Item A being tabled to July 5, 2000, and Item D, E and F be removed and placed on the first item of the regular
agenda. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
Item 1a. (Item D.) Tabled June 6, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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: Reconsider – Renotice for July 18, 2000
(Item E.) Tabled June 6, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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: Reconsider – Renotice
for July 18, 2000
(Item F.) Tabled June 6, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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: We’ll open the regular agenda, Item 1A which is Item D, E and F of the Consent Agenda. The Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law was D, of the request for annexation and
zoning of Valeri Heights Subdivision; Item E is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, request for preliminary plat of Valeri Heights Subdivision; Item F is the Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law, request for a Conditional Use Permit for Valeri Heights.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would like to rescind my vote on these three items from earlier so that we may hear some additional comments on this project.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Nichols, do you want to explain what we’re doing here? I need a second first on this.
Bird: Second.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Councilman Anderson, if I understand the parliamentary procedure correctly, the right thing to do is for Councilman Anderson to move to reconsider
these applications since he voted with the majority and then to get a second to that motion to reconsider.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would then make a motion to reconsider these particular items.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to hear Items D, E and F, and to have a new public hearing for new testimony on that particular items. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call
vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
Corrie: What’s the date that we can set to notice this for public hearing? July 18th. Then we will send out notices and the public hearing for additional testimony or any new testimony
on those Valeri Heights’ applications will be at 7:30 on July 18, 2000. Mr. Nichols, anything else we need to do on that one, then?
Item 1.b. Ordinance No. 876: RZ 00-002 Request for rezone of 76.24 acres from I-L to R-4 for all phases of Crossroads Subdivision – ¼ mile south of Fairview Avenue on the east side
of Eagle Road:
Corrie: Item 1B is an Ordinance, request for rezone of 76.24 acres from I-L to R-4 on all phases of Crossroads Subdivision, quarter mile south of Fairview Avenue on the east side
of Eagle Road. Mr. Berg, if you will give us the Ordinance No. and read the Ordinance by title only, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ordinance No. 876: An Ordinance changing the zoning classification for certain real property, 76.24 acres, in the commonly known Crossroads Subdivisions
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 that lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian from I-L, Light Industrial zoning district to entirely R-4, low density residential district, as defined
under Meridian City Code 11-7-2C, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith and directing the City Engineer to add said rezoning designation
to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
Corrie: You’ve heard the reading of the Ordinance No. 876 by title only. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance 876 read in its entirety? Hearing none,
I’ll entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 876.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, before I make the motion, I believe this is the one that Shari wanted the change. That was in Findings of No. 1, Section 1, and it was City instead of the owner.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, if the Council would follow along, cross out “owner of the following described property” and insert “City of Meridian.”
Bird: Mr. Mayor, with that change, I move that we approve Ordinance 876, request for rezone of 76.24 acres from I-L to R-4 for all phases of Crossroads Subdivision ¼ mile south of Fairview
Avenue on the east side of Eagle Road and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 876 with the suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 2. Ordinance No. 877: AZ 00-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.68 acres from RT to L-O for proposed Carol Professional Center by J-U-B Engineers, Inc. - west side of
Eagle Road between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road:
Corrie: Item No. 2 is Ordinance No. 877, request for annexation and zoning of 6.68 acres from RT to L-O for proposed Carole Professional Center by J-U-B Engineers. Clerk, if you will
read Ordinance No. 877 by title only, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mayor. Ordinance No. 877: An Ordinance finding that certain land lies contiguous or adjacent to the City limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho;
and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land be annexed into the City of Meridian and zoning designated limited office district
(L-O); and declaring that said land by proper legal description as described below be part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; repealing all ordinances, resolutions,
orders or parts thereof or in conflict herewith; and directing the City Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of
the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and the State Tax Commission
of the State of Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: You’ve heard the reading of the Ordinance 877 by title only. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have the ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll
entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 877.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance No. 877, request for annexation and zoning of 6.68 acres from RT to L-O for the proposed Carole Professional Center by J-U-B Engineers,
and to have the Mayor sign, Clerk attest, with suspension of the rules.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 877 with suspension of the rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Ordinance No. 878: AZ 99-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres of land For R-4 Zoning By Bear Creek, LLC – East Of Stoddard Road & South Of Overland:
Corrie: Item No. 3, Ordinance No. 878, request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres of land for R-4 zoning by Bear Creek, LLC, east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland Road.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Ordinance No. 878: An Ordinance finding that certain land lies contiguous or adjacent to the City limits of the City of Meridian, County of
Ada, State of Idaho; and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land be annexed into the City of Meridian and zoning designated
low density residential district ( R-4); and declaring that said land by proper legal description as described below be part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho;
repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof or in conflict herewith; and directing the City Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian,
Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor
and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: You’ve heard the reading of Ordinance No. 878 read by title only. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance No. 878 read in its entirety? Hearing none,
I’ll entertain a motion on the Ordinance.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance No. 878 for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres for R-4 zoning by Bear Creek, LLC, east
of Stoddard Road and south of Overland and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 878 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
Item 4. Public Hearing: CUP 00-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit by Tara L. Gorton for a small child care center for 12 and over children currently in an R-8 zone – 420 East
Broadway Avenue:
Corrie: Item 4 has been withdrawn by the applicant.
Item 5. Continued public hearing from June 6, 2000: CUP 00-021 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a group, in-home daycare by Deanne Young – 2176 East Lochmeadow Court:
Corrie: Item 5 is a continued public hearing from June 6, 2000. Request for Conditional Use Permit for a group, in-home daycare by Deanne Young, 2176 East Lochmeadow Court. At this
time I’ll open the public hearing and invite staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a group daycare, six to twelve children in Chateau Meadows Subdivision. We’d recommend approval with the recommendations of Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Corrie: Okay, is the applicant here tonight?
Young: Good evening. My name is Deanne Young, and I live at 2176 East Lochmeadow Court, and I am applying for a Conditional Use Permit for the group in-home daycare.
Corrie: Okay. Anything you want to say? All right. Thank you.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask Mrs. Young if she had any objections to P & Z’s recommendations.
Young: There was 1.15; number of children proposed by the daycare, they have to be licensed by Central District Health. They don’t license. Only the State licenses, so I just wanted
to make sure that was clear with the City. Other than that, that was it.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Public hearing is now open. Is there anyone in the public that would like to issue testimony on this request?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, seeing no one come forward, I would make a motion that we close the public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none –
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask Shari on Item 1.15, what was the intent behind that?
Stiles: that was listing that response from Central District Health Department. The only thing I can think of is if meals are served there, they do need to go through some approval
process through them, but that was a direct response from Central District Health Department. That’s why it’s in there.
deWeerd: So the intent is if she serves meals and she has to get licensing –
Stiles: If there’s some kind of a kitchen – I don’t know what it means.
deWeerd: Mr. Attorney, do we need to clarify that in this document?
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, Mayor, members of the Council, I can’t find my copy of the Central District’s recommendation, but if they don’t license daycares, and I don’t believe
that they do, but the State of Idaho does, you just simply – make that correction, but I don’t know that it needs to be clarified in this particular Conditional Use Permit if it’s a
requirement by State Law that she has to have some additional license, she’s going to have to do that as a matter of State Law.
deWeerd: So would we take this condition out?
Anderson: (inaudible) State of Idaho instead of Central District Health.
Nichols: You would correct it to say State of Idaho.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for a group, in-home daycare
by Deanne Young; to note the change on Page 4 of Item 1.15 to strike out CDHD and add the State of Idaho.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorney draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with approval with the changes noted on the form.
deWeerd: And Decision of Order.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Continued public hearing from June 6, 2000: CUP 00-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit for existing car dealership (2 buildings) on front four acres and proposed 72,000
s.f. Fairview Mini-Storage on the back four acres – 1005 East Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Item 6 has been requested to be withdrawn by the applicant.
Item 7. Continued public hearing from June 6, 2000: AZ 00-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 23.6 acres for proposed residential and commercial zones from AP (County zone) to
C-G, C-N, R-15 and R-8, for proposed Teare Terrace by Zambezi Group – SE ¼, SW ¼, Section 6, T3N, R1E:
Item 8. Continued public hearing from June 6, 2000: PP 00-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24.89 acres with 5 lots in R-8, 1 lot in R-15 and 7 lots in C-G zones for proposed
Teare Terrace by Zambezi Group – SE ¼, SW ¼, Section 6, T3N, R1E:
Corrie: Item 7 is continued public hearing from June 6, 2000; request for annexation and zoning of 23.6 acres for a proposed residential and commercial zones from AP, county zone,
to C-G, C-N, R-15 and R-8 for proposed Teare Terrace. We also have Item 8 which is a continued public hearing for request for preliminary plat, and I would ask the Council if you’d
like to open the public hearing on both 7 and 8 and get testimony for both of those at the same time. I think we have a question in mind here anyway.
Bird: I wouldn’t mind that.
Corrie: At this time I'll open the public hearing on Items 7 and 8 and have staff comments first. We had a little bit of (inaudible) last week about if I’m remembering right, about
the applicant withdrawing the annexation – was it the owner? Was it? Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, we had a letter from the attorney for the owner indicating withdrawal of consent on the annexation. At the meeting on the sixth, the applicant
orally informed the Council that they had received word that the attorney’s letter had been rescinded, and I believe we informed the applicant that we needed to have something in writing
to that effect. I do not know whether anything has been received.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments from staff at this time?
Stiles: I did have a conversation with the owner’s attorney, but I – he said that they were working things out, but I have still not received anything in writing. I had specifically
asked him for something in writing or at least for them to be here at the meeting tonight. So I don’t think Will has anything in the file submitted.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I have not received anything.
Corrie; Is the applicant here tonight?
Atwood: Mr. Mayor, City Council, we have (inaudible) the owner’s attorney –
Corrie: Name and address.
Atwood: I’m sorry. Leroy Atwood, I’m a partner with Zambezi Group. – did verify that they did, in fact, mail a letter. I sent our realtor to get a copy of the letter. He did not
bring it with him. So if you want to hear us a little later, that would be fine, but he assured us on the phone that he had, in fact, mailed – and he also said that he had called and
verified the letter had been received.
Corrie: Are they going to bring that letter tonight?
Atwood: Yes. He didn’t have it with him, so we sent him to get it so you’d have it.
Bird: Is it a copy or the original?
Atwood: I’m sure it’ll be a copy because the original should have come here.
Corrie: Mr. Attorney, do we need the original to table this?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, there may be people here that have set aside this evening to testify on this matter. If – I’ll take Mr. Atwood’s representation at face
value that he has a copy of the letter rescinding the withdrawal of consent, then I would say that’s sufficient to go ahead and proceed as long as we have that letter before the hearing’s
done.
Atwood: Mr. Mayor, I sent him to get it. I’m sorry we don’t have it here, but he said that he’d be back very shortly to get it here.
Corrie: There are people here to testify on this subject here tonight? Okay. Why don’t we just table this for right now because there’s nobody here for discussion, and whenever he
gets here, we can enter it in and have a discussion if it’s all right with you.
Bird: You want to continue it?
Corrie: We’ll just move it down on the schedule a little bit because there’s nobody here to testify on 7 and 8. We need that – We won’t close it. We’ll just move it down.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we move Items 7 and 8 to a later time when the realtor gets here with the letter. Then we can take it in after the item we’re on.
Atwood: Thank you.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to move this down to a later time this evening until the realtor gets here with a letter. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Continued public hearing from June 6, 2000: 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 10. Continued public hearing from June 6, 2000: 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: Item No. 9, continued public hearing from June 6, 2000, request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire
Subdivision by Gem Star Properties. Also, I would like to open the public hearing on Item 10 which is a request for a preliminary plat for the same subdivision, and the testimony can
be used for both public hearings. Staff report first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the annexation and zoning of 101 acres at the southwest corner of Ustick Road and Black Cat. They – on this map, what they had initially
proposed was to have these as out-parcels and not to annex them. They were requested by Planning and Zoning to incorporate those into the annexation so they would not be out-parcels.
They have proposed – they have submitted a revised plat based on some of the comments that were made. One in particular that was made was that there was a park that was needed in this
area in the Comprehensive Plan. They have worked with our staff and with the Parks Director to propose an approximate 7-acre park site. This is not sewerable area here at this time,
and this is not being proposed as part of the platting at this time. I believe they’ve talked to Mr. Nichols about the fact that they do not own this property yet, and I didn't know
how that was going to work out, how they would – if the Development Agreement requires this as part of the approval, how they’re going to deed this over to the City if they don’t have
legal ownership of it.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council and Shari, the issue was just raised last week with regard to this, at least as far as I knew, about this parks issue. I asked the owner’s
attorney, Mr. Bradbury, to see if a solution could be worked out with the applicant that would take care of this Parks issue. I wasn’t able to touch base with him until – I can’t recall
if it was Friday or it may have been just yesterday because of the phone-tag problem. So now that – one of the owners, partners and the owner, Mr. Langley, is here, and he can tell
the Council whether that issue has been resolved or not. As it stands now in this first plat, the park isn’t in the first phase. But it’s my understanding that the applicant has at
least contracted to buy, although I don’t know what conditions are in that, but he has negotiated with this other parcel where the park would be, but how that fits into this overall
scheme, I’m not exactly sure how it works. There hasn’t been a lot of time to develop that part of it. So Mr. Langley could answer those questions, I think, better than I can at this
point.
Corrie: Anything else?
Stiles: We have since – even since this was drawn, we have met with the applicant’s representative, and they will be making some changes to the plat to meet our conditions and Ordinance
requirements, and they also will have agreed, at least verbally, to meet the fencing and landscaping requirements that we typically ask for platting purposes and that they would have
to have that fencing in place prior to applying for building permits. Hopefully they have some solutions to the park issue. We appreciate them working with us and working toward a
mutually agreeable project. As you can see, what the proposed park plan is, they’ve shown a future lot all around, and this would be the entire park area that was surrounded by a road.
So it’ll give it a good open feeling to the
project. They have also left this parcel out of the plat, I believe, but that would be a single-family residence that’s existing there, and I believe there’s another single-family residence
on this property here. So provided that the park situation can be worked out, staff would recommend approval with staff conditions.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Shari. Shari, then on the retention areas, will those be usable or landscaped or how exactly have they designed those?
Stiles: They would be landscaped. They will need to submit detailed landscape plans with the final plat submittal. I don’t know if they’re detention ponds or retention ponds, but
we would look at the design of that, and hopefully they will design it so it’s a usable, open area and not have to be fenced off.
deWeerd: Have they increased their landscape buffer, then, from the 22 feet to 30?
Stiles: The latest plat I have shows only 22 feet. Where did you get 30?
deWeerd: In the recommendations.
Stiles: Is that the plat recommendation?
deWeerd: I believe it is. I’ll try and find it.
Bird: One nine in the recommendations, Page 4, Shari.
deWeerd: On the preliminary plat.
Bird: Yeah.
Stiles: I don’t know where the 30 feet came from.
deWeerd: I believe that (inaudible) talking that they would like the same buffer that Ashford Greens has. I believe that is 30 feet. So they asked them to have the same on that side
of the road. That’s a guess.
Stiles: I don’t know that Ashford Greens has 30 feet.
Bird: I said just similar. It’s like berm and (inaudible) they have 30 feet.
deWeerd: Well, it was in your recommendations. I did see in the new plat that it changed. I don’t have any further questions.
Stiles: I think that was in the original plat that they provided, the 30 feet, but the revised that they submitted is 22 feet. I would believe that comment just came
from since that was what they were proposing in the original plat, that’s what we were recommending to be a condition of the plat.
Corrie: Anything else?
Stiles: Maybe Scott can enlighten us on that.
Stanfield: Scott Stanfield with Earl and Associates, 314 Badiola in Caldwell. We’re the engineering and surveying firm representing Gem Star in these two applications. If we could
address park issue and everything tonight, but first I’ll get on to the 22-foot. Ms. Stiles is correct. Originally we proposed a 30-foot. Ashford Greens is a 20, and I brought copies
of Ashford Greens’ plat with me, the recorded copies, to show you that if you’re interested. Our original preliminary plat had the 30. We received ACHD’s comments along with P & Z
staff’s comments. ACHD wanted a total of 48 feet of right-of-way from Black Cat and Ustick, and a 48-foot right-of-way. We had to provide them more than we originally anticipated so
that reduced the 30-foot to a 22-foot. I believe that this City’s minimum is 20, so we’re still above the City’s minimum. We just couldn’t keep it at 30 with ACHD’s requirements.
It will be landscaped. On Friday we submitted to the Clerk’s office a revised preliminary plat as Ms. Stiles indicated since the last tabling two weeks ago. That gave us all an opportunity
to get that together, so we went over things with her and Mr. Freckleton verbally. Made the revisions, and I believe we have notes now on the plat and the states retention loss and
landscape buffer lots. Those are all going to be common lots. Landscaping will be provided, and plans will be submitted to the City for approval as each final plat phase is brought
in. I am sorry for the confusion that may have caused. We just took the opportunity to revise everything before the hearing tonight. If there’s no further questions on that, I’ll
move right into the park. Okay. The park land as Ms. Stiles mentioned, that was a P & Z recommendation for Gem Star to work with the Parks Department on deeding a four- to eight-acre
park site somewhere on this 100 acres. Through negotiations with Mr. Kuntz and myself representing Gem Star, we arrived at just a bit under seven acres. We kind of pencilled this out
with Tom, kind of a new concept: island-approach park with no lots backing it. So its entire perimeter is accessible unless the Parks Department fences portions of it off. So it’s
kind of a new layout as far as parks go in the area. It appears to be well-received by City staff. The issue on ownership on the land, currently Gem Star is under option to purchase
the entire 100-some-odd acres from Langley Farms. We have a closing set for July 20th pending an approval tonight. They will close July 20th, and then the land is their land held in
escrow per the original contract. Within three years of the date of closing, Gem Star has to purchase the entire 100-some-odd acres. They can’t leave any pieces hanging after three
years; furthermore, they have to purchase a minimum of 20 acres at a time and annual installment payments for each of the three years also have to be met. There’s a pretty good contract
set forth in the three-year timeframe for Gem Star to have 100 percent ownership out of the escrow account. That I think should pretty much guarantee that the park will get
their park site in that location recognizing that we are not proposing development on the other side of that drain, because as Shari mentioned, there’s no sewer available. All of our
lots – Autumn Faire Subdivision is limited to all the lots you see on the northerly side of the drain running southbound. We kind of showed our conceptual plan, and when sewer becomes
available around the park – our approach to (inaudible) protecting the City would be to work out a Development Agreement with Mr. Nichols and Gem Star who secures the City’s interest
in it. We’d have other items that the City’s required which is a well lot in the extreme corner near Ustick and Black Cat just west of the existing residential out-parcel. We are proposing
to go ahead and meet the City Engineering requirements and provide a well lot. Nothing in exchange there. The park all backed up (inaudible) will be 248 lots. The park impact fees
will be credited toward the developer as each building permit is brought in. That will not be extended beyond Autumn Faire as you see tonight. That does not include the future lots
around the park. It’s just the Autumn Faire. We’re also contributing greatly to the Black Cat Trunkline; upwards of $375,000. It’s roughly $1500 per lot that they have to contribute.
Based on some (inaudible) numbers, that’ll build about 3700 feet of the Black Cat Trunkline (inaudible) based on I’m assuming dollar amount per foot, so that will help push that project
forward; increase the sewer capacity. If there’s anymore questions – I’m sure your mind is racing right now on the park, but that – I believe through the Development Agreement everything
can be taken care of. We just ask that if it makes you comfortable, we’re willing to have a conditional approval to have that Development Agreement worked out within 30 days. That
will allow Gem Star to close on the project by the week of July 20th.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, Scott, this appears to be a phase development; correct? What’s the timeframe for each of the phases?
Stanfield: There are no timeframes spelled out in writing other than the contract with Langley Farms. Three years it has to be purchased 100 percent. Our client is more than likely
going to have the fifth and final phase start right at that two- to three-year period because, as you can imagine, he can’t afford to purchase the land, make payments once every three
years for three years and not generate revenues through the projects. So he’s just going to build away. We do have builders lined up, if interested, one is here this evening representing
a group of builders. They are writing Gem Star proposal currently to lock in so lots many a year to see that it’s developed within two to three years.
Anderson: On the park itself, is the intent that you guys will pay for development of park or that you will just dedicate land and the City would pay for the development of the park?
Stanfield: Just the land. We would just, in exchange for the impact fees for Autumn Faire, we would donate the land to the City. We started out with Mr. Kuntz on four or five, probably
five acres, because despite P & Z’s recommendation of four to eight, Mr. Kuntz’ minimum was five acres. We started
at five. Tom offered sprinklers for the entire five acres. Gem Star has done that in the past in Canyon County, and it’s been their experience and our experience that those agreements
tend to fall apart. So we upped land being made available to the City and dollar-wise the extra land that the cost the Gem Star has to pay Langley Farms exceeds the amount of the sprinkler
system on the five acres. So in lieu of that we just kept bumping up our end. Acreage.
deWeerd: So, when would that – the park be – would you be able to access to and develop the park?
Stanfield: The park, we have a stub street proposed on our development here that is between Phase IV and V. I’m not going to quibble over which phase will provide access: IV or V.
Honestly, we would prefer V because to fork out that money, you need lots to cover yourself, the construction of (inaudible) sewer construction. Between IV and V is open for discussion.
There is also Turnberry Subdivision to the south. There is an access currently constructed right where the arrow’s at, and that’s to our southerly boundary. That would open up options
to the City if the access between IV and V kind of lags behind. That’s another access. Turnberry Subdivision is also, as I understand it, beginning construction on their next phase
which I believe includes that westerly stub street from the south.
deWeerd: So that would be three years down the road?
Stanfield: Two to three. Again, our client, despite their strong financial backing, you can’t afford to sit on the land at the purchase price for three years and not develop it. It’s
just a matter doing business. Buy it, get your houses built and sell them as quick as you can.
Anderson: So I guess what I’m hearing is that the park land wouldn’t actually be ready for the City to develop it until you make your development around there, these residential lots
around there (inaudible)
Stanfield: No, not around there, Mr. Anderson. Just Phase IV and V was on the drain boundary. Phase IV or V, then it would have to be deeded over to the City at that point whether
or not sewer is available to those non-detailed parcels around the park. We’re not proposing to hold off until sewer’s there; we’re proposing to turn it over to Phase IV and V not knowing
when we can get sewer to these other parcels.
Anderson: But we wouldn’t be able to develop that until you developed those lots around it.
Stanfield: Correct. In the purchase agreement with Langley Farms, it’s set up they take – Gem Star cashes out of the escrow phase by phase. We start with Phase I and work the way
to the final phase. During that time, the remainder will
be farmed, and that’s still up to negotiations whether it will be Mr. Langley’s current farmer. He was to keep it open farm (inaudible) for as long as we can. So we’re under contractual
obligation with Langley to just move to the south and allow the farmer rights to farm the remainder.
Anderson: And what is the problem with sewering that particular piece of property too low?
Stanfield: Too low is part of the problem. The major problem is the facts defined in –
*** End of Side 1 ***
Stanfield: -- and the City sewer studies is going to the McDermott trunk line off to the west toward McDermott, so we will be jumping sewer services and grades. I have reviewed (inaudible)
discussion about, let’s say in two to three years that park’s developed (inaudible) getting sewer there. I reviewed it with Mr. Brad Watson, and he agreed there shouldn’t be a problem
with connecting restrooms up to the sewer because of the peak times and – versus the park and usage in the residential development. That will occur at two different times. So Mr. Watson
was comfortable with (inaudible) detailed lot and a restroom or two for the park.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, does our Parks Director have any comment on the park issue?
Kuntz: First off, I think we came up with a win-win situation as far as the development and the park as far as providing a neighborhood park, minimum of five acres within a half-mile
from this residential development. The only concern I’ve got at this time is that that land is secured by the City so that it doesn’t fall through the cracks in the next two or three
years if the development doesn’t proceed as planned. I would leave that to our City Attorney. That’s my only concern at this point if they don’t technically own the land, be deeded
to the City at this time that there needs to be something worked out so we have that land secured for our future park site. Thank you.
Corrie: Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Show of hands of how many people are going to testify on this one. Okay. This is a public hearing. First one.
Langley: Dean Langley, 3185 North Black Cat Road, partner in Langley Farms Ltd., the owner of the property at this current time. I do back what’s being proposed for the project, and
we’re very comfortable with whatever arrangement that the City feels is necessary in conjunction with the developer for the park property. Obviously, that needs to be secured for City
use however that will take place. We have worked with and have spent time and effort to put together a good purchase agreement, and Scott has eluded to that. We’ve got a pretty short
time frame of three years from the date of closing that it has to be
transferred to the developer. So it’s not stringing out five or six years. We’re comfortable with the Development Agreement or whatever other construct, or as Scott had mentioned previously
about contingent upon an adequate agreement within 30 days to see that that is comfortable with the City. We feel that the park site does add value to the project and is a win-win situation
for everybody. So we want to see that be successful and have no further comment on that. I would make one comment, and Ms. Stiles did reference that in the preliminary comments tonight,
that out of the P & Z the out-parcels which belong to my sister and I are to be included in the City to be annexed per the request of Planning and Zoning. That’s fine. We did have
a discussion on May 9th about that because one of the concerns that my sister and I have is that for the years that we continue to live there as a family residences, we’d like to be
allowed to continue to use our existing wells and septic systems and limited agricultural use that we have. In the P & Z hearing, I think there was some talk about that, and in my notes,
anyway, I think it was Mr. Freckleton of Public Works that indicated that a Development Agreement could be adequately phrased to allow for that so that when the use changes on those
parcels, then the upgrading for sewer, water, so forth, would be done at that time. I just say that by way of additional requests that we be allowed to address that in the Development
Agreement for the property. That’s all I have unless there are some questions.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Dean, would you be receptive to the idea of acquiring the park land that in the first three phases or until it is deeded to us that the park impact fees are assessed,
put in escrow, at the time that we get the deeded seven acres, then we’ll get you back the park fees?
Langley: We’re certainly open to negotiations and particularly with what the City is comfortable with as I mentioned before. You’ll be dealing primarily with the developer, and, of
course, we’re involved because we have the purchase agreement. So we would be open to discussion about that, Councilman. I don’t know if that’s my call to say aye or naye at this point,
but I mean there are a number of angles that can be addressed to have adequate security for the City and still protect our interests as well.
Bird: That would be fair, I think, to both interests. It would secure the property for us; you would get the impact fees returned to you from escrow as soon as we were deeded that
seven acres. That way it’s a win-win for both of us.
Langley: The City Attorney had mentioned that he has had discussion with our attorney, and so we’ve begun some discussions. We haven’t linked with Gem Star yet, but I’m sure that will
obviously be covered. It just would be a question of who pays those impact fees. Gem Star’s purchasing that, so I would (inaudible) but then that would be an acceptable trade-off compared
to the purchase price of the land that we’re talking about. So I wouldn’t want to make a commitment, but I think that’s worth pursuing.
Bird: Thank you.
Langley: Thank you.
Corrie: Let’s have the public and then we’ll let you have the last shot at it. Just keep it on your notes and then you can answer them.
Mortensen: Dave Mortensen, I live here in Meridian at 1328 East Shepherd. Mr. Mayor and Council members, I look like I could be one of the builders. I’ve been assigned the duty of
trying to find five other builders to go in there and take out a two-lot each right off, build specs. We’d start out with taking down ten lots right away and keeping two houses up from
each builder at all times which would be quite – which would probably bring in between the build jobs of taking out that whole five phases within about two and-a-half to three years.
So probably two and-a-half phases a year is what we’d look at keeping that many phases up. So it looks like it’s going to be a pretty good project as far as we’d like to move right
through it on these phases in – they’ve got the other property tied up enough to where it would be worth the – the builders going in there to look at the project as long-term, keeping
it down to five builders is going to keep more control over the conduancy (sic) of the subdivision and keeping it under control as far as ACC rules and things as far as keeping the houses
looking nice and keeping the rules obeyed as far as all the ACC laws. I think that’s all I had.
Corrie: Questions from Council? Thank you. Anyone else from the public like to issue testimony?
Williams: I’m a parent in the Meridian School District. I wonder how this will impact our – Oh, I’m sorry. Lorinda Williams, and I’m at 1456 North Sandlan in the Danbury Faire Subdivision.
I came for another reason tonight, but I just wonder how another subdivision this big will impact our elementary schools. Even with the new schools opening this fall, we’re overcrowded.
That’s my only concern. I wonder with the new schools coming in, we’re just getting where the class sizes are normal. Some of the modular buildings are being moved away. I just wondered
about that impact. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, applicant.
Stanfield: I think I can adequately reiterate and address some of these concerns. Gem Star, I think that is a fair suggestion to hold the escrow for the impact fees to be paid at building
permit time. I think that will work out. The only thing I need to clarify is that will be an agreement between the City of Meridian and Gem Star. Gem Star’s purchasing the land from
Langley Farms at a contracted price. Anything outside of that will be returned to Gem Star. I think that is a fair situation to place the park impact fees in an escrow account. The
– Mrs. Williams, the best schools – I can understand her concerns. I was born and raised in Meridian. I have three kids here now myself. I’m always concerned
with that. I’ll add that during the Planning and Zoning hearing, Mr. Langley was somewhat connected (inaudible) mention that there is an elementary site that is going to be purchased
to the east along Ustick about a half mile. So that will help. Obviously, as growth continues, that’s going to have to keep up (inaudible). So that would be my comments regarding
that matter.
Corrie: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? Okay. Any other discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 9 and 10. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Let’s take the motions one at a time. Item 9, request for annexation and zoning.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, if we’re not going to have any discussion, I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order in favor of the
request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision for Gem Star Properties, LLC, southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads.
Corrie: Do I have a second?
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve and the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the approval for annexation and zoning of the Autumn
Faire Subdivision, 101.4 acres from RT to R-4. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess for discussion’s sake, I still have some very vivid memories of a project south of town where developers know that the City of Meridian is short on park
space, and I think it’s a now pretty well known, and I think if we dangle a carrot out there of “we’ll give you some park space,” that the City of Meridian will jump on there and approve
our project. I think there are still a lot of loose ends with this particular piece of project that would be deeded to the City for park space. I guess I appreciate the developer’s
offer for some park plan. I guess at this point I don’t see why we can’t take the additional 30 days and tie up some of those loose ends, secure some of those things before we approve
the project. Once the project is approved, in my mind, there is no leverage left for clearing up some of these items. The thing that bothers me about this particular piece of ground,
again, is there is no timeframe or immediate
plan to develop the lots around that. So we don’t – six acres out in the middle of the field. We’re not going to build a park in the middle of the field with nothing but dirt and weeds
around that. Until there is some type of plan to develop the rest of that area around that and put in the streets, we just own a piece of land in the middle of the field. We’ve already
talked about some of the issues about the difficulty that there’s going in sewering this particular piece of property, and that’s why it’s in a different sewer zone. So I guess I’m
raising the issue, are we just going to jump on this real quick because it’s free park ground? Are we going to stop and think about what’s the long ramifications, what’s the useable
piece of property going to be? This is an awful big subdivision, 263 lots, to dump a lot of traffic on the roads and kids into the schools. So I raise that issue and ask if there’s
a big hurry on this.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I believe that it’s going to be three to four years before we get the park. It’ll probably be four to five years before the City can develop it anyway, the park land.
I don't believe that this development is being accepted by me because of a park. I don’t see that park for four to five years. We are collecting the fees and stuff. If we don’t get
the park, we’ve at least got the impact fees off of the property if it doesn’t come through.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask the City Attorney. Is this something that is not doable legally through the Development Agreement or can something be made through that Agreement
that is iron-clad?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, Mayor, members of the Council, I think there are ways of getting things done by Agreement. Now, what you mean by “iron-clad” means different things to
different people. The proposal that Mr. Kuntz put forth is in lieu of the park impact fees there would be this seven-acre parcel. Without the seven-acre parcel, there would be the
park-impact fees. Now, that could be secured by a variety of ways. It could be secured by a Letter of Credit. There are a variety of ways of making sure that you’re at least going
to get the park-impact fees. Even if for some reason or another the rest of this property doesn’t get bought because of the developer not completing the purchase agreement on the remainder
of the property. That’s the risk that the developer doesn’t complete the rest of the purchase in addition to the property that’s just platted here. So if that doesn’t happen, as long
as the City has received its park-impact fees or has something like a Letter of Credit so that it gets that, then you’ve at least received what your Ordinance requires as far as those
impact fees go. I don’t know if that answers your question about “iron-clad.” There’s no way to, that I’m aware of, in a Development Agreement, that we could force the developer to
close early on all of Langley Farms property that they have under the Purchase Agreement. If they did close early, then that park land could be
obtained. But it – so I’m fumbling around here, as you can see and hear, but I think that the key is that you’re not going to give up those park-impact fees on a promise. Those park-impact
fees or Letter of Credit – someway that has got to be protected so that at the very least you have that.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess I would agree with Councilman Anderson. We have plenty of development going on in the City, and we have the opportunity to look at developments and see
how they actually benefit our communities without this park land being on this property, it’s really hard to assure that we would have that park land. Yes, we would still have the park-impact
fees, but the desirability of having the land versus the fees is you do actually gain a little bit more heavily in the land. Without the iron-clad assurance, it just makes this another
development that doesn’t add to our community. It does with the park, but without the guarantee that the park will exist at some point, and it’s true. We probably can’t develop it
until it’s on line anyway. But I kind of like the guarantee that the park can exist and I kind of like that iron-clad. My definition is “a sure thing.” So I have reservations with
this project as well.
Anderson: Mr. mayor, I think the attorney and Keith have come with a way that we could guarantee that the deed - the park-impact fees for the park land would be given, but what I’m
still concerned about is we’re talking three to four years to build this particular subdivision through the phases, but we’re not talking about the development of the roads and the other
streets around this particular park. We’ve already been told that that’s another sewer service area. Unless we choose to jump service areas again, we have no immediate plan for probably
at least 10 to 15 years to build a McDermott trunk line. We have several other priority trunk lines that we’re going to be building before that. This piece of property is not going
to develop. We’re going to have a piece of land sitting there for many years that we’re not going to be able to use.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Anderson, too. I kind of like all the ducks in a row before we approve these large developments. I don’t see them all in a row.
I know one lady brought up the school. They said that they were looking at a property on Ustick to build a new elementary school, but is that definite? Okay. But there again, the
sewer issue – excuse me? I agree with Mr. Anderson.
Corrie: Any other comments? We’re all for trying to filter this out, because whether I need to have another secondary motion – okay.
Bird: Question.
Corrie: Okay. Question has been called for. Mr. Berg, will you take vote, please. The motion is to accept the request for annexation and zoning and to have the attorney draw up
the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the approval.
Bird: The main thing is that impact fees in the agreement, the impact fees until we get the deed to the land.
Corrie: Okay, was that part of your original motion?
Bird: Yes, it was.
Roll-call: deWeerd, naye; McCandless, naye; Anderson, naye; Bird, aye
MOTION FAILS: ONE AYE TO THREE NAYES
Corrie: Okay, one aye, three nayes. Motion has been defeated. We have the request for preliminary plat. I guess we don’t need that.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, that was a motion to approve which was denied, but that’s not the same as a motion to deny or to instruct to do something different.
Corrie: We’ll need another motion.
Anderson: I’m not sure where to go with this. I know what I’d like to do, but I don’t know where to go with this. Mr. Mayor, I guess for some discussion, I guess if we could get some
additional agreements worked out and some type of a plan for the development of this piece of property, I’d be willing to table this or bring it up again, but I guess I am just really
concerned that this piece of property isn’t going to be developable for any time in the foreseeable future. I guess if the developers had some offer of a solution to work out, I’d be
willing to listen to that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Ron, are you saying it’s the park thing that you think isn’t going to be developable?
Anderson: Right.
Bird: We’re getting the impact fees on every lot. So whether we get the land or not, we get the money. We’re famous, in the City of Meridian, we’ve only had 56 acres for 10 years
and haven’t developed it. I mean, what’s the big – what are we holding for 10 years? We’re definitely getting the impact fees just like any other development. We have approved whether
they had a park in it or not. They (inaudible) go in escrow until we either get the land or we don’t. I think you can put a time limit on it. I think that as long as we are collecting
the impact fee, we could basically care less if we get that seven acres. We’re getting money to buy seven acres somewhere else if we want it off of the impact fees.
Anderson: I understand that we collect the impact fees, but we (inaudible) impact fees on these subdivisions all over town, but we don’t have any more park space because of that.
Bird: We don’t develop what we’ve got.
deWeerd: We really just (inaudible) disadvantage because the public hearing has been closed, and we don’t have the opportunity to hear from the applicant’s representative to see if
there is an alternative here.
Bird: He stated that that sounded good: hold it in escrow until they deed us the land.
deWeerd: He can’t make a commitment on land he doesn’t own yet.
Bird: But we’ve got the park fees. He gives it to us or we spend the park fees and go buy some land.
deWeerd: I think the land is worth more than the park-impact fees.
Bird: Then we’re wrong with this. Our impact fees aren’t enough.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’ll try this motion, see where it goes. I’ll make a motion that we deny the request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for the proposed Autumn
Faire Subdivision for Gem Star Properties.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to deny the request for annexation and zoning for Autumn Faire Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, naye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES TO ONE NAY
Corrie: We need to have a motion on the preliminary plat.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would also make a motion that we deny the preliminary plat for the 78.4 acres for 263 building lots and 12 other lots for the entire Autumn Faire Subdivision
and Gem Star Properties and instruct the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Corrie: Second?
McCandless: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to request the preliminary plat be denied for the 78.4 acres for Autumn Faire Subdivision and the attorney to draw up the proper order. Any further
discussion?
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
Item 7. Continued public hearing from June 6, 2000: AZ 00-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 23.6 acres for proposed residential and commercial zones from AP (County zone) to
C-G, C-N, R-15 and R-8, for proposed Teare Terrace by Zambezi Group – SE ¼, SW ¼, Section 6, T3N, R1E:
Item 8. Continued public hearing from June 6, 2000: PP 00-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24.89 acres with 5 lots in R-8, 1 lot in R-15 and 7 lots in C-G zones for
proposed Teare Terrace by Zambezi Group – SE ¼, SW ¼, Section 6, T3N, R1E:
(Unidentified): Mr. Mayor, City Council, I apologize. I said that it had been mailed. It had been faxed. If that will be (inaudible). I will personally see that the original is hand-delivered
to the City before the end of the week.
Corrie: This is a public hearing. Staff, any other comment? Anything else you want to say?
(Unidentified): Mr. Mayor, City Council, just addressing staff comments on this, we find very little objection to a staff comment on that whole development. One of the questions that
we had was on the Jackson Drain which is the drain that goes through the back parcel of the property. We – it is our understanding that staff’s recommendation that it be landscaped
(inaudible). It is our understanding that if it’s over 40 inches it had to be tiled, so we had to make some clarification on that. Jackson Drain, on the existing drain, Jackson Drain
is about 12 feet below surface. Once that land is leveled and the build-up bank on both sides is taken down to (inaudible) it will be approximately six to eight feet build-grade. It
is our hope that we could tile it because it could be a better use of the property rather than having a deep drain going through a high-density, multi-family. The only other question
or comment that we have is a comment that Gerald Martin, our engineer made at Planning and Zoning, and that was in addressing the back property piece. Let me tell you – if you’ve got
a plat there. The back boundary of Block 2 where it abuts the subdivision there. I think it was staff’s recommendation that we have a landscape buffer there. We had talked more about
Block 2 – Lot 2, Block 2 down at the bottom. There we go. (inaudible) of a wall buffer there, and Mr. Martin did address the Planning and Zoning. There are some tricky-type of block
that we can get that are sound absorbent. The only reason we felt that way is because we felt that a wall would provide more privacy to the residential subdivisions from headlights
and those
types of things. One of the objections to the wall was a concern about noise, but there are specific types of pumice block and (inaudible) block that is sound-absorbent. So we can
maybe look at that as we go through staff planning and we get this approved. Other than that, I think all staff recommendations are reasonable and we’re ready to move ahead. Thank
you. Any questions?
Corrie: Shari, can you answer that question about the Jackson Drain?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, the Jackson Drain, this is the same drain that the City has ownership of over in Fothergill. (inaudible) property is just right over here. He has 35,
36 acres, and I know that he is – we’ve at least talked about continuing that pathway through his property whenever it’s developed. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan does also make this
a multiple-use pathway which would indicate that it would need to remain open and be an amenity for the project. Since I didn’t get to say something at the beginning here, I just wanted
to address some of the comments that – one of the comments that this would have to come in as a Conditional Use Permit. I think they’re fine with that. This is what they proposed for
the R-8, so it would be single-family homes, apparently. All of these lots they haven’t proposed any uses for those yet. In looking at the Findings on the annexation and the Conditional
Use Permit, I would ask that some of those plat comments be included in the annexation and zoning, particularly as they deal with the setback, the landscape setback. That needs to be
included in the annexation and zoning’s Development Agreement. That 35-foot along Fairview for the entryway corridor. Then I don’t know what your decision will be on that, but we would
see (inaudible) if it had to come back in as a Conditional Use Permit, but they have piped it through. I believe this is Settler’s Village. So this would really be the end of the line
for the pathway. But they would have access by sidewalk back to Fairview Avenue. It is a pretty nice, natural feature in the project. We have some pictures. This would show this
stub street from Teare that’s existing now, and they’re proposing to cut that off. That would be right where it enters here. They’d cut off that access, but it would continue the clearance
street stub that is currently dead-ended here. Don’t have – I don’t think we have a picture of the Jackson Drain in this location, but we would still like that condition to remain –
be constructed as an amenity and it to remain open.
(Unidentified): We certainly wouldn’t have any objection to the Fairview landscaping. I think that’s a good planning – good landscaping in front of commercial properties. Other than
the Jackson Drain which I’m sure we can work that out with staff. We’re not dead-set either way. I’m sure it can be worked out and worked out for the City and us. We’re just concerned
about the depth being deep enough that it could be more of a liability than anything else because it’s (inaudible) deep and fast moving through there. So, any more questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. I’ll ask one more time. Is there anybody else from the public that would like to issue testimony on this request for the annexation and zoning or the preliminary
plat?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Shari. If they come back, they need to get a Conditional Use Permit on each phase or each block? Is that what I understand?
Stiles: I believe the recommendation is only for Lot 1, Block 3 which would be where they proposed the R-15 zone. That would be this piece here. They have – the Planning and Zoning
Commission and staff did not ask for Conditional Use Permits on each of these. Of course, if the zoning ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for any use such as a drive-thru
or something like that, they would need to go through that process. Part of the reason to request a Conditional Use Permit on some of the new annexations that the new Comprehensive
Plan designates those as mixed-planned development and requires that they be developed through a conditional use process as a planned development; however, this property is shown in
the City of Meridian, it was shown as existing urban in the Comprehensive Plan. You certainly can make that recommendation if that’s what you want the approval to be, but otherwise,
the recommendation was only for this lot here to come back through for conditional use.
deWeerd: So your only – the applicant’s issue was the Jackson Drain, but that can be worked out under his Conditional Use Permit, then?
Stiles: Yes. Also, the planting strip requirement, that is an Ordinance requirement for the 20 feet against incompatible uses. I don’t believe that a single, block wall with no landscaping
is going to provide the desired buffer for that residential subdivision. So I would recommend that that remain at the 20 feet.
deWeerd: Did the Commission ask for both the 20 feet and the wall, or was that just a comment that was made?
(Unidentified): Mayor, City Council, no, they did not ask for the wall. It was just a suggestion on our part. We thought that might be a more private situation. Either way it’s fine
with us. We didn’t have a great deal of problem with the landscape buffer if that’s what the City desires.
Corrie: Thank you.
Stiles: The Council could require both. You could require the fence and the planting strip, but there’s going to need to be some kind of a barrier there besides the individual lot
owners having the only fence between the development.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, on Block 4, what is going in there? No, I guess it’s –
(Unidentified): This block here? It was recommended that we do something like single-family or one level townhouse, that kind of thing, as a buffer zone between the residential and
higher-density multi-family. We would love to do higher- density, multi-family, but I think that’s a fairly reasonable request to have a buffer between single-family and higher density.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we close the public hearing.
deWeerd: I would second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning first.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order in favor of the request for annexation and zoning for 23.6
acres for proposed residential and commercial zones from AP zone to C-G, C-N, R-15 and R-8 for proposed Teare Terrace by Zambezi Group.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and the proper order for the annexation and zoning on Item No. 7. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now I’ll entertain a motion on the request for preliminary plat.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we have the City Attorney draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law reflecting favorable approval for preliminary plat for 24.89
acres, five lots R-8, one lot R-15 and seven lots C-G zones for the proposed Teare Terrace by Zambezi Group.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for preliminary plat on Item No. 8. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I would move for a 10-minute recess.
Corrie: How many people are here for the Penn Station Apartments? Thank you. We’ll be back in 10 minutes.
Meeting reconvened
Item 11. Public Hearing: AZ 00-011 Request for annexation and zoning by Pangaea Land Planning of 3.4 acres from RT and R1 (Ada County) to R-15 for proposed Penn Station Apartments
– south of Fairview Avenue on the east side of Stonehenge Way:
Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 00-028 Request for Conditional Use Permit by Pangaea Land Planning to construct 10 four-plexes on 3.4 acres in proposed R-15 zone for proposed Penn Station
Apartments – south of Fairview Avenue on the east side of Stonehenge Way:
Corrie: Okay, I’ll re-open the City Council hearing, and we have Item 11 and 12. Two public hearings. One is a request for annexation and zoning for Penn Station Apartments, south
of Fairview Avenue on the east side of Stonehenge Way, and also a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed Penn Station Apartments. At this time I’ll open the public hearings
on both 11 and 12, and we’ll hear from staff first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a piece of property immediate south of the Intermountain Outdoor facility. They’re proposing the access will be from Fairview Avenue through
Stonehenge Way. They’re proposing 40 apartments to be constructed. The applicant has responded to our comments. They have indicated that they’re driveways. They’re not asking for
a reduction in the driveway width. They stated that their driveway cross-section is dimensioned at 25 feet; the site plat still shows 20 feet. So I just wanted to bring that up that
they had indicated that they would meet the 25-foot driveway requirement. They are asking that the maintenance be done by a professional landscape maintenance company; so, therefore,
no building would be required for the maintenance or storage of equipment. As far as the lighting, that would need to be reviewed by
the Public Works Department so that there is adequate safety lighting and it does not impact the adjacent residential properties. They have also asked that surface irrigation water
be the sole source of water to the landscaped areas. I believe our comment was that they needed to provide a second source so that they would have year-round access to irrigation water.
I am assuming from their comment that they mean that the surface irrigation water will be available year-round. They’re asking that there be no area for storage of boats, campers or
trailers. Staff had indicated that there were adequate storage facilities elsewhere. They will need to include in there maintenance of the property that there are no vehicles, recreational
vehicles, boats, stored on the site. As part of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation, they had indicated that they needed to provide an additional seven parking spaces,
and I believe that the applicant has indicated a willingness to do that. These are the existing – they look like the same ditch, but they are different ones.
*** End of Side 2 ***
Stiles: -- canal, and that’s what they’re proposing, I believe, (inaudible) where they would provide a walkway. The Settler’s Canal, I believe, they are proposing to leave open. They
can indicate whether or not my understanding is wrong on that or not. This is showing the Stonehenge Way access, where the access would be to the site. This shows the Danbury Subdivision
that borders the property. Danbury on the west. To the east there are some agricultural properties currently still in the county. Showing the back of the Intermountain Outdoor facility.
This is the site plan. They’re showing where the (inaudible) would be piped with an access road. They’re also proposing a pathway that would go through the property. This is the
landscape plan. I did not have an 8 ½ by 11 of any revised copy, so if the applicant could indicate any changes from this plan, I would appreciate it in his narrative. It would be
the single access here form Stonehenge. That’s all I have.
Corrie: Thank you, Shari. Okay. This is a public hearing. I’ll invite the applicant to come forward.
Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Daren Fluke of Pangaea Land Planning. My office address is 408 West Idaho in Boise. I represent the developer in this
matter. As your staff stated, this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for 40 apartments on approximately 3.4 acres. The site is located south of Fairview and west of Locust
Grove Road in Meridian. The site is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as mixed use. When we looked at purchasing this property, of course, the first thing we asked ourselves was
what has the Comprehensive Plan designated this Parcel 4 for development. The next question, obviously, comes to mind is why would this parcel be designated for mixed use. Shari, can
we see the vicinity map, please. As you can see, the area surrounding this site, you’ll see that it’s real natural for this type of development. You’ve got two major arterials, specifically
Fairview and Locust Grove. Near the
site you’ve got a good deal of commercial surrounding the site. Then you’ve got single-family dwellings or lower density residential development south and east of the site. You’ll
notice by the configuration of this site that it’s an extremely difficult piece. When we went in to do the design on this property, we looked at doing a number of different things including
attached single-family and detached single-family on the site. The configuration is so problematic that we feel that this is the best land use for this site, and we feel like we’ve
developed a site plan that really fits well with the neighborhood and with the other uses that are around it and really speaks to what the Comprehensive Plan was looking for in this
area. Typically you look for multi-family residential in between single-family residential and commercial which is exactly the case you have here. The idea being that multi-family
residential typically is developed with more bulk and it provides a buffer, particularly a noise buffer between heavy commercial uses and the heavily traveled roadway. The lower intensity
single-family uses around this. We’re asking for an R-15 zoning designation which would allow 15 dwelling units per acre. Our site plan works out to 11 ½ units per acre. The Ada County
Highway District estimates that this will generate 264 trips per day. This is actually quite a low number. We would end up with as many or more trips were we to do single-family dwellings
which generate more like 10 trips per day. Multi-family dwellings generate 6 ½ trips per day, and that’s, of course, all based on the Institute of Transportation’s nearest numbers.
As far as the issues that your staff touched on, we do meet the open-space standards as dictated in the code, and I did provide written documentation to that effect. I’m going to go
through the packet that I handed out here in just a second. We don’t need a maintenance building. We contract with an outside agency to maintain the grounds for us. This developer
operates a number of apartment units in the area and has the same company come in and take care of all the units. The people who rent these units are not typically owners of recreational
vehicles, and we agree with staff that there’s really no need on this three and-a-half acre site to provide an open storage yard. Probably most importantly as far as the code standards
go is the provision of parking. The minimum standard your code requires in two parking spaces per unit. Often times you’ll find in other ordinances in other cities that the parking
for multi-family dwellings ranges between one and one and-a-half parking spaces per unit. Two is actually quite a lot, and it really is what will drive a plan like this is how much
land do we have to throw away on asphalt so that cars can sit there. We would ask the Council to exercise their discretion and not require that we provide an additional seven spaces.
We have provided your staff, and I believe you should have it as well, with site plans that show the additional seven spaces. There in the bottom corner of the site we added five there
and there (inaudible) adjacent to the open space. All it does is eat up more of our open space that could be developed with grass rather than with asphalt. We can fit them on there.
We would prefer to have it landscaped and open space rather than parking. I would stress that your code doesn’t require it. It says that you may require additional parking space for
every three units at your discretion, and there’s been nothing entered into the record to demonstrate that we would need that in the other units that this developer operates works just
fine
with the (inaudible) per unit. Based on our neighborhood meetings and the comments at the Planning and Zoning Commission, really the issues came down to, as they always do with multi-family
developments, and they first, of course, is an issue of traffic. Traffic is an issue with any development because we, of course, have to access the public roadway just like all the
single-family dwellings do that are south and west of us. As I stated, this is a low-traffic generator; only 264 trips. At peak hours, we would agree that it cam be a little problematic
to get onto Fairview, but that’s no worse than other places in the county, and again, I would stress that that’s at peak hours. Not looking at all day long having trouble getting onto
Fairview. The other point we’d like to make is that this subdivision actually has excellent access to the east-west roadway and north-south roadway. There’s an access to Locust Grove
Road and there’s also an access to Pine Avenue, and that’s the map that I provided to you in the back of your packet which shows that the subdivision really does enjoy excellent access
to the public roadway. You do have options for making your trips other than going Fairview Avenue. The other issue which always comes up with multi-family dwellings is the compatibility.
When we looked – designed this layout, the first thing that we had in mind was how can we take care of our neighbors to the west. They have single-family dwellings, their rear yards
back up to our property, and we wanted to stay as far away as we possibly could from those dwellings. So that was our primary objective in designing this site. You’ll notice that we
designed it with the ten-foot landscape buffer, first of all. We’ll also be building a six-foot cedar fence. We then have our 25-foot road section. We then have 20 feet of parking,
another 5 feet of sidewalk before you even get to the front of the building. Those buildings are approximately 24 feet in height. They are two-story. Each one of those buildings,
ten of them, they contain four apartments that are two-bedroom, one-bath apartments. The three buildings there that are facing to the west, toward Danbury Faire Subdivision, those are
the fronts of the buildings. They do have windows on the front which are the bedrooms. The main living area, kitchen and all of that and the balconies all come off the back to our
courtyard area that – that was our second design criteria to sort of create an internal space that could be utilized by the residents. So the buildings are tall, yes. Taller than what’s
in Danbury Faire, but if you look at the rendering that I provided you in your packet, and that’s what this drawing is as well, you see that you have in – you don’t see it from this
rendering, but you see it from the site plan and that front. (inaudible) nearest neighbors in Danbury Faire. You have over 100 feet building to building. We have 70 feet on our property
from the building to our property line alone. So we did consider how we could be a good neighbor, how we could make this compatible. I would stress that this is really not an issue
of compatibility that you’ve got. You’ve got residential use against residential use. It’s really more of how we can make the bulk of our buildings fit more into the character with
the neighborhood, and we think we’ve accomplished that by setting the buildings back as far as we have, putting our internal drive in between them and then utilizing extensive landscaping.
WE have submitted a revised landscape plan which incorporated all of the conditions that the staff asked for. Specifically, we’ve added trees behind each one of those buildings on
our
eastern property line. We’ve added trees along the pathway and then we’ve beefed up the landscaping at that entryway, yes, where the pointer is right there, to further buffer the neighbor
there on the corner. In summary we feel like this is a good project. We’re real proud of this design. We think it fits in well. We think we did a good job with a really difficult
piece of property, and we think this will be an offset to the City of Meridian, and we think this is exactly what the writers of the Comprehensive Plan had in mind when they designated
this as a mixed use area. I’ll stand for any questions if the Council has any.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, was there any concern by the ACHD putting the entryway right on the curve like that on Stonehenge?
Grove: No, in fact, we have excellent site distance being that we’re on the outside of the curve. They’ve checked the site distance and it’s fine in both sections. You can see all
the way to Fairview, and you can see a couple hundred feet to the west. So the site distance is not a problem whatsoever. That is our only road frontage, by the way, which is one of
the difficulties of this piece of property.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, how many parking places are you designating per unit?
Grove: Two.
McCandless: Okay.
Grove: So we originally came in with 80, and the Code says that you may ask us to provide one additional for every three units if you so desire. We don’t see any reason to do that,
so we’d ask that you don’t do that.
McCandless: Okay, another question. You made the remark that there would be access to Pine. Are you suggesting that they go through Danbury Subdivision to get to Pine?
Grove: I’m suggesting that, yes, there’s public right-of-way there, and that Danbury Faire as a subdivision has excellent access to the public road system. They don’t merely dump out
onto Fairview Avenue. They have their options for points east, west, north and south.
McCandless: I know they do, but that’s putting a lot of traffic into a subdivision if they go out to Pine.
Grove: Don’t get me wrong. The bulk of our trips will certainly go to Fairview Avenue. I’m not saying the bulk of our trips will go to Pine, but it’s certainly an option. That’s
why we require 50 feet of right-of-way for those roads. Again, we’re only looking at 264 trips for this entire development. The other question I
had was the canal that is going to remain open, is there any – are you thinking of fencing it or just leaving it open?
Grove: We were going to put a path on there that connects to the parcel to the east. We anticipate the parcel to the east will develop with higher density residential and / or office-type
land uses. Also that would provide a pedestrian connection to Locust Grove Road and the commercial area that you have on the northeast corner of Locust Grove and Fairview.
McCandless: Wouldn’t you think an open canal would be dangerous with the development such as this?
Grove: I don’t find them to be particularly dangerous, no. I think that’s the conventional wisdom, but I have not heard of any problems with those canals. I grew up around canals
all my life as a little kid, and we played in them all of the time. I understand what you’re saying, but (inaudible) I don’t think you’ll find that they’ve created a problem. There
are canals all over in this area that have created a problem.
McCandless: They have created problems in the past; yes, they have.
Grove: If the Irrigation District were amenable to it, we’d certainly do it. It does provide an open amenity for the project, but –
McCandless: Okay, that’s all I have, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other public testimony? Who is for the project? Okay. Seeing none. Okay, now we’ll start with the opposition.
Jones: Hello, my name is Laura Jones. I live at 1294 North Sandlan in the Danbury Faire Subdivision. Could you go back to the map that showed the streets, please. They talked about
other arterials into and out of the subdivision. Unfortunately, if you look at the flow of traffic here, people trying to get out onto Pine are going to have to go completely through
the subdivision. That subdivision has a lot of children in it, a lot of buses going through there, a lot of children waiting on the corners for the bus. It’s not exactly meant to be
a high-traffic area. This little curve right here where the entrance is going to be into the apartments, what is not shown on that map is the island that separates Stonehenge at the
entrance on Fairview. So you don’t have a clear view out to Fairview. There are a bunch of trees and bushes in your way. That didn’t show up in any of the pictures. I can tell you
that Stonehenge now starting at about 1:00 in the afternoon until about 6:00, you can’t make a left-hand turn onto
Fairview. It’s impossible. Fred Meyer is at the corner of Locust Grove and Fairview. That intersection is backed up starting at 5:00 until 6:00. That area is already overflowing
with traffic. There simply is not room for 264 more trips into and out of that one tiny little intersection. That’s really all I have to say.
Glencoe: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Matthew Glencoe. I reside at 1011 North Maple Creek in the Danbury Faire Subdivision. I have to give credit to the developers.
I think they did work – they recognize a lot of the difficulties and problems that we will be facing in this project, and I think they’ve done an admirable job in attempting to reconcile
some of the problems; however, some of the fundamental difficulties that I perceive in this is that it’s still part of our sub because of the ingress and egress being on Stonehenge,
it belongs to our subdivision without having any – really contributing to it. It’s just a load on the subdivision. They will benefit from landscaping that we pay for along that stretch
of Stonehenge. They will certainly have access to and make use of the parks that are in there which are already kind of getting ratty and rough just from other people coming in and
trashing them. That comes out of our homeowners’ dues to pay for the maintenance and the repair. I wouldn’t personally have a problem with this project in any way shape or form if
it were apart; if the ingress and egress were something other than what is basically our road on Stonehenge. The other thing is, as far as the meeting at P & Z which I also happened
to attend, there was an awful lot of banter back and forth. There was really not a clear consensus in support of it. It seemed to me as if they supported it not so much because they
thought it was a great idea, but because there didn’t seem to be a better idea on the table at this time. I would also second the comments about Fairview. Living further back in the
subdivision, I avoid that entrance at Stonehenge almost entirely, and it’s absolutely impossible. We’re not just talking at 1:00 to 5:00 on the weekdays. Weekends. You name it. It’s
an extremely difficult situation also largely because of that street to the west. To the north if you’ve got traffic coming in like this and nose to nose of each other and trying to
turn into that middle lane going left or going west and they’re trying to get into the lane headed east, and you’re ending up nose to nose in there. So it doesn’t need more traffic.
With it being right there at the front of the subdivision, the entire traffic – not the entire traffic load, but a heavy part of it will be focused on that part of it. So those are
my comments. Thank you.
McCarn: My name is Ron McCarn. I live at 1460 N. Penrith Avenue. Mr. Mayor, distinguished members of the Council, I stand before you to express my opposition to the proposed Penn
Station Apartments to be built on approximately 3.4 acres of land behind the Intermountain Outdoor Sports and the Danbury Faire Subdivision. My first point was during the public hearing
on said proposal before the Planning and Zoning it was learned that under Meridian City Comprehensive Plan, this land was designated multi-use. It was also learned that this has been
changed in the new Comprehensive Plan, but that did not apply. As I see it, it has been realized that a designation of multi-use for this area was and is not in the best interest of
the City of Meridian. The land that
said proposal is going to be built upon is much better suited for single-family housing. The buffer that is talked about that the proposed apartments will provide (inaudible) Danbury
Faire Subdivision is already being provided by Intermountain Outdoor and the salvage yard. These two businesses provide a buffer for any housing built in this area. The question is
when asked, would I like to have my home right behind Intermountain? Answer is yes. I would. Intermountain and the salvage yard are excellent neighbors. They operate during the day
and go home at night. They are not noisy, nor do they increase the traffic into the Danbury Faire Subdivision or bring in possible bad elements. My second point involves the entrances
and exits to and from the proposed apartments. The entrance and exit to the Penn Station Apartments is directly off Stonehenge. This is also the entrance to the Danbury Faire Subdivision.
There is also a sign designation where Stonehenge and Fairview meet. I believe it will not take long for Penn Station to be renamed by word of mouth as the Danbury Faire Apartments.
It has also been determined by ACHD that the proposed apartments would cause an increase in traffic by 265 car trips per day. Now to those who do not live here, that does not seem
like a lot. But those of us who live in the Danbury Faire Subdivision, that is a huge increase. Most of the increased traffic will more than likely be in evening and work commutes.
Besides the main entrance and exit out onto Fairview, there is also access through the subdivision on Pine Avenue. It will not take long for the residents of the proposed apartments
to figure out this route. This will increase the traffic through the Danbury Faire Subdivision. This could have possible safety issues due to extra vehicle traffic and the children
that live in the subdivision. Those who do not live in the subdivision are less likely to (inaudible) the posted speeds in the subdivision. Due to the large (inaudible) in our subdivision,
it makes it very easy for people to get where they are at in speed. There is also the issue of the interest in the proposed apartments. The interest is right behind where Stonehenge
makes a fairly hard right-hand turn. This can be a (inaudible) spot where those coming down Stonehenge to enter the apartments as well as a blind spot for those heading up Stonehenge
toward Fairview as vehicles leave the apartments. I can foresee the true possibility of accidents through the location of the apartment complex entrance. The final (inaudible) of the
traffic matter is the entrance and (inaudible) onto Fairview. Due to the high density of traffic on Fairview and the result in accidents that have already occurred at this point, the
addition of a possible 265 car trips through this hazardous area could very well lead to many more accidents and traffic congestion. My next point is back to the proposed apartments
on the property with values (inaudible). The gentleman from Pangaea has asked for proof that our property values will be affected. I do not think that anyone can prove beyond a doubt
with written figures on this. My property will still assess what the assessor deems correct. The reality will be when I try to sell my home. The large majority of possible homebuyers
will not be willing to purchase a home that has that apartment complex approximately 20 yards behind their house. In order to sell my home if I get people who take an interest in it
might have to significantly reduce my selling price. The question you need to ask yourselves is, would I buy a home that had apartments 20 yards
behind the building? I really do not think you would. So I ask the gentleman from Pangaea, can you show me where my property value will not be affected by the proposed apartments?
If I have to prove it one way, the least they can do is prove it the other way. As I sat through the Planning and Zoning Commission’s public hearing, I heard residents of the Meridian
Green’s Subdivision express their concerns for their property values over the proposed building of the Observation Pointe Subdivision. The homes along that portion which border the
two subdivisions are in the upper-200 to 300,000-dollar range. They were concerned about the lots opposed in the Observation Pointe Subdivision along the border which were eight to
ten feet smaller than theirs. That slightly smaller house might negatively impact their property values. (inaudible) Planning and Zoning Commission (inaudible) reduce the number of
lots along the border of this subdivision and to distribute that area amongst the other lots in order to make them of comparable size. This concern for those residents’ property values
is commendable. I think this was only – and to think this was only over a new subdivision being built up against another subdivision. The same concern was not considered when it came
to the proposed apartments and the property value (inaudible) border said proposal. In fact, I did not hear one bit of concern on this from the Commission. I am not making accusations;
just stating the fact that I did not make any less of an investment on my home and my future than those whose homes are in the Meridian Greens. I would really like all of you to consider
this when you make your final decision on this proposal. The question was brought up during the Planning and Zoning hearing (inaudible) most likely be there. I am not against this
land being developed. I knew the reality when I bought my home that the area directly behind my home would be developed. I was raised in a single-family home; good people that cared
about where they lived. It was also stated that a single-family home would be closer to my property line and my home. That is true. The proposed apartments only sit back from my property
as they like to use the larger number of 60 feet. Now that sounds like quite a bit: 60 feet. In reality that is only 20 yards. I’m an archery hunter, and 20 yards is an optimum shot.
Twenty yards –
Corrie: Give you about one more minute.
McCarn: Twenty yards is about one-fifth of a football field which in reality is not all that far. I can stand 60 feet, 20 yards from my back fence and see into my house. Now, having
a two-story apartment 20 yards away looking into my backyard invading my privacy when the big reasons of owning your own home is for privacy. Yes, there’s a (inaudible) of a two-story
house being built right behind my house just like you see in the other subdivision in the area. Homeowners understand privacy and cares about where they live. They take care of the
yards and generally good neighbors. There’s no wondering if someone from the apartments are going to hop over the fence or burglarize the home or look down into your home or backyard.
In conclusions, I’m opposed to the building of the Penn Station Apartments. It is not the right project in the land that they propose to build it on. The proposed area really feasibly
is not really
feasible to go on partly because of its irregular shape and lack of useable building area. The fact that there is only one entrance into and out of the apartments, it takes (inaudible)
from an established subdivision of possibly the subdivision is a safety and traffic issue. This proposed building project is not the right project for this land. The residents of Danbury
Faire Subdivision or the City of Meridian. Please keep in mind that the Planning and Zoning Commission passed this proposal onto you by a vote of three to two. Two of the Planning
and Zoning Commissioners saw that the proposal was not right and voted for that way. You must also keep asking yourselves, is this the right land use or can it better be used? We ask
that you keep all these points in mind that I’ve made here tonight when you make your final decision. Thank you very much for your time.
Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, developer, you have any questions you’d like to ask or answer to before we close the hearing?
Fluke: Please. Let me briefly touch on the issues that were raised by our neighbors. As I stated, traffic is an issue with every development proposal that you see. I take strong
exception with the statement that Stonehenge Way belongs to that subdivision. Actually, it belong to me and everybody else sitting in this room. It’s public right-of-way, and it’s
there for the public to use whether you live in an apartment or whether you live in a single-family dwelling. You have a right to drive on those roads. The Highway District has evaluated
this proposal. 264 trips is an extremely low number. The tier of lots on the north side of the cul-de-sac and then the tier of lots abutting our subdivision, our apartment project,
generate 264 trips alone. You look at how many other lots are in that development. That development is generating however many lots they have times 10. I mean, the cars have to go
somewhere when you develop in this manner when you have land uses sprawled out like this at low densities and everybody has a car, everybody gets to use the roadways. The Highway District
has evaluated the proposal and found that it will not adversely impact traffic. I also strongly disagree that site distances are a problem from the site. If you go from where the hatching
hits the public right-of-way, you can see it’s essentially a straight shot looking down Stonehenge Way and looking up Stonehenge Way. The site distance is excellent from this site on
the outside edge of that curve. The City of Meridian when they adopt their Comprehensive Plan recognizes that there are many different kinds of living situations and that there was
a need for different kinds of housing within the City. You don’t want one kind of housing product in your city. You recognize a need for some people to live in apartments rather than
single-family dwellings. Not everybody wants to take care of a yard. Not everybody wants to live on an 8,000-square-foot lot. Some people want to have homes where they don’t want
to maintain landscaping. If you look at the projects that this developer has done, they’re nice, well-maintained projects, and they enhance the neighborhoods in which they’re built.
It is better than a weed patch sitting there which is what you have now. Again, I would just want to close
here by saying that we think that we’ve designed a project that fits well with what’s there, and it’s also in accord with what the City of Meridian is looking for when they designated
it mixed-use. Are there any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thanks.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess I have a comment to the applicant. Did you not meet with these neighbors ahead of time to – you did? Not just at P & Z?
Fluke: Correct.
deWeerd: The neighborhood meeting? Okay. Did you try to address some of the concerns?
Corrie: We better get you on record.
deWeerd: I think some of this is an education process that, you know, it’s not understood that single-family generates more traffic than apartment dwellers. So I think that’s one
education point that you were not able to get across.
Fluke: I can put it across until I’m blue in the face, but it’s always an issue with every single project that I’ve ever seen. I’ve been at this for almost 10 years. It doesn’t matter
what we put in there. Traffic will be the first issue that is raised. We did meet with the neighbors; short of not developing the site or short of putting in single-family dwellings,
there wasn’t much we could do to make them happy. The one thing they did ask for was for us to take the tier of units that we had on our internal road and make them single-story units.
Just based on the configuration of the site and how we did our layout, we didn’t feel that was the best use of the land, and we felt like the design really did mitigate that concern.
You can see the distance. Again, it’s 100 feet from building to building there. That was our primary concern when we laid out the site was how we could stay away from those backyards,
and we did that as best that we could given the configuration of that parcel.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions, Council?
(inaudible comment from audience member)
Corrie: (inaudible) Is Danbury Faire and R-8?
Stiles: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: If there are no other questions, I’ll hear a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearings for both No. 11 and 12, the annexation and zoning and the Conditional Use Permit.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 11 and 12, request for annexation and zoning and request for Conditional Use Permit. Any further discussion?
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I think that it’s – I like the idea of apartments over there. It is a mixed-use. The one thing that I don’t like, however, is the traffic in the subdivision.
That’s going to be common knowledge pretty soon. They’re just going to all go through there. I don’t know whether it’s feasible to put a light out there on Fairview Avenue or not.
Seems to me that would be a solution.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Any other comments, questions or discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion, then, for the request for annexation and zoning, the Item No. 11, Penn Station Apartments.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, Shari, did you agree with all the applicant’s comments, then? Was that what I was hearing?
Bird: She probably hasn’t seen them. We just got them.
Stiles: In regard to the traffic?
Anderson: No, to the items that were listed on here. The 1.1, 1.4, 18 and 19. Did you get a copy of this?
Bird: We just got handed this tonight, Shari.
Stiles: The one about the driveways, the last plan I had received, maybe the cross section showed 25 feet, but the way it scales on this plan does not equal
25 feet. I don’t know if Gary has any comment on the surface irrigation water being the sole source. He doesn’t? The seven additional spaces, that’s what came from – that was a recommendation
from the Planning and Zoning Commission. I don’t have any particular problems with what he’s asked for or his clarifications.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we have the City Attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law indicating a favorable approval of annexation and zoning
for Pangaea Land Planning for 3.4 acres from RT and R-1, Ada County, to R-15 for proposed Penn Station Apartments, south of Fairview Avenue on the east side of Stonehenge Way.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with a favorable position on annexation and zoning of the Item No. 11, Penn
Station Apartments. Discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, it almost goes against logic that traffic is less in the apartments than in single-family housing, but I look at the patterns that my family generates, and we generate
a lot of trips. Hopefully the management company that will take care of these apartments will have better neighborly attitude than the person that has been the spokesperson on this
project. I really do believe that this piece is a part of your subdivision, and I don’t know if it’s possible that they can be part of your subdivision and help support the costs of
those areas. I don’t know if that’s even something that we can require. This will have a lower impact on your subdivision than an R-4 designation. I know that’s not a popular thing
to say.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Mr. Clerk, would you take a roll-call vote, please, on the motion.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Item No. 12 is a request for Conditional Use Permit for the Penn Station Apartments. Discussion? I’ll entertain a motion on the request for a Conditional Use Permit.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order in favor of the Conditional Use Permit by Pangaea Land Planning
to construct 10 4-plexes on 3.4 acres in
proposed R-15 zone for proposed Penn Station Apartments south of Fairview on the east side of Stonehenge Way.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, clarification. Does that include the staff comments or the applicant’s responses to them?
Bird: With the applicant’s responses as long as the staff felt comfortable with that. Shari and Gary.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the applicant’s – any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote,
Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 13. Public Hearing: VAC 00-004 Request for vacation of a 30-foot, non-exclusive easement for vehicular and pedestrian ingress, egress and utility services by Jeff Manship – Black
Cat and Ten Mile:
Corrie: Item No. 13 is a public hearing, a request for a vacation of a 30-foot, non-exclusive easement for vehicular and pedestrian ingress, egress and utility service by Jeff Manship,
Black Cat Road and Ten Mile. I’ll open the public hearing and invite staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for an existing easement that comes from Cherry Lane along the west property boundary to give access to – vehicular access and utility access
to this five-acre parcel that’s currently landlocked. Mr. Manship has come in with a subdivision called Pintail Pointe Subdivision, and it will be developed when English Gardens Subdivision
is developed. Mr. Manship just showed me a quitclaim deed that he has had recorded that this property owner has signed off on to allow removal of that easement; however, the City is
still required to go through the vacation process and enter into an appropriate ordinance to vacate that easement. Staff recommends approval provided that all the necessary approvals
from the utilities are provided to the Public Works Department.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening?
Manship: Jeff Manship, 4375 West Cherry Lane. I’ve already taken care of this matter. It’s been recorded. Here’s the original copy. Will Berg, do you want to make some copies of
this so they can look at it? It’s already been recorded.
Corrie: Just give it to the Clerk. That’ll be fine.
Manship: Like I said, it’s already been recorded. It’s just a procedure to go through. I have no further comments.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. How is anyone going to access this property now?
Manship: The (inaudible) that has the parcel to the south have the house in (inaudible) and backs up to the property.
Anderson: People that own it are on the other side –
Manship: My plat also stubs out a street to him which will be Item No. 16 if you come to that, too, while I’m up here, and maybe we could kill two birds with one stone. Okay. That’s
the stub street. The utilities.
Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony on this request? Okay. Council, any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll take a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing for the request of vacation of a 30-foot, non-exclusive easement for vehicular and pedestrian ingress/egress and utility service
by Jeff Manship, Black Cat and Ten Mile.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Comments, discussion on the request?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve the vacation of the 30-foot, non-exclusive easement and instruct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for vacation on Item No. 13 and have the attorney draw up the proper orders. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call
vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
Item 14. CUP 00-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit by James L. Aimonetto for a temporary office trailer currently in an I-L zone - 2204 Lanark:
Corrie: Item No. 14 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for James Aimonetto for a temporary office trailer currently in an I-L zone at 2204 Lanark. Staff first, please.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property that you previously looked at; a temporary variance on the landscaping and paving portions of the project. You have the recommendations
from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant has submitted his position statement requesting deletion of some of those conditions. I’ll go over those. He’s asked for deletion
of the tiling requirement, the Evans Drain –
*** End of Side 3 ***
Stiles: -- adjacent to this property and our Ordinance does require piping of those ditches. RC Willey and Wheel City have both submitted bonding or letters of credit for piping of
that drain in the future. The applicant lists as one of the reasons not to pipe was that Jabil was not required to pipe. That was quite a different situation as they did make an amenity
of that lateral and have a pathway along it. So staff would not recommend approval of deleting that Item 1.4. Item 1.5 he has asked for a deletion of that. I think there was a little
confusion when the site – there was a plan that was submitted that does not meet Ordinance requirements, but we thought that was submitted in an attempt to at least provide some paving
and landscaping for the project. It would in no way meet any Ordinance requirements, but I think that is why that landscaping – well, I’m getting ahead of myself. Sorry. The off-street
parking; that is approved temporarily not to be paved. We would not have a problem with deleting that. He has asked for a deletion of Item 1.6, all construction shall conform with
the requirements of Americans with Disabilities Act. Staff cannot remove that condition as it’s a federal requirement. We have no authority to do otherwise. Item 1.9, this is where
the confusion came up because of the plan that was submitted with the Conditional Use Permit, they do show a small, paved area next to the temporary trailer, and also a 15-foot landscape
setback with some trees. I think that because this was submitted with the application, we thought they were proposing at least as a minimum to provide this, but apparently they’re not
proposing to provide anything at this time. We would not approve of deleting
that entire section 1.9 because future construction of the permanent building will need to meet any Ordinance requirements in effect at the time the permit’s applied for. Item 1.10,
he’s asked for deletion of that. We ask that remains there, that it would be subject to review upon 10 days’ notice. This is a typical comment that we add to these Conditional Use
Permits. We did make an error in having some comments from a previous application, so on Item 1.10, the second and third sentences of that paragraph should be stricken because they
don’t apply to this, and the transfer, we would still ask that that needed to be approved. They have asked for a 24-month occupancy, and the recommendation is for a maximum of a 12-month
period and that they would need to be at least under construction with the permanent building at that time and meet all the landscaping and paving and Ordinance requirements at that
time. That’s all I have.
Corrie: Applicant, Mr. Aimonetto, here?
Glencoe: Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Matthew Glencoe; 1011 North Maple Creek Avenue. My office is at 24 South Cole, Suite B in Boise. Yes, as we initially approached
this, it was with a 24-month timeframe to construct and do all the planning. We figured that will be fine and also the reason for the initial proposals on the landscape as it was initially
proposed was within 24 months we could get a little done and then give us the time that we would need to get those done. Obviously, our timeframe that we’ve had to operate has been
substantially crunched, so instead of investing the time to worry about the paving and the landscaping, now, I think we can just delve right into full construction and plus the fact
that we’ve already been given an extension on landscaping and paving anyway. So the idea is, at least for my operation, most circumstances and developments are not useful to the owner
of the property until some development takes place. My situation is unique in that I really only need the lot and a place to run my office, and they ideally need to be on the same spot.
That’s one of the reasons we selected this site. It was because we knew that as we’re getting things up and running it would serve us in this interim period. Again, we were hoping
for 24, but we’re committed to being here and being part of Meridian. Again, you know, as I live here, I was instrumental in selecting Meridian, the site of this; we were looking in
Nampa and in Boise. It made sense in Boise on a business standpoint, but it also made sense personally. So as far as how it was written and hwy, I was asking for 1.5, 1.6 and 1.9 to
be set aside as in relation to the fact that I will just dive in, get a permanent building on site within the next 12 months and then we don’t have to fool around with figuring out how
to get some landscaping in front and pave a little bit of that. As far as the ADA requirement, that was basically – I haven’t seen a single trailer yet that has a ramp up to it. I
even asked the people – we’re working with two different companies who would supply us with the trailer, and I asked them if we could rent some ramps, and they said they hadn’t even
had a request for that. That’s why I included that comment about the ADA requirement that it being a temporary structure that I was thinking we probably would be able
to sidestep that for the time being. Obviously, any permanent thing has got to be in compliance, and that’s not a problem. I’m not asking for any special things. I’m just asking for
an opportunity to kind of get things up and running. I’m open to any questions.
Anderson: I don’t have any questions, but I know ADA, whether it’s temporary or permanent, it’s not a thing you can get around. It has to be done.
Glencoe: How then do other structures that construction sites, trailers and that sort of thing- I’m just going basically off of what I’ve seen in my experience.
Bird: Is yours open to the public?
Glencoe: No.
Bird: It’s strictly for employees?
Glencoe: Yes, just employees.
Bird: That’s how construction trailers get away with it. That’s how my trailer gets away with it.
Glencoe: I don’t have any reason to have customers come to me because that’s not my job. I go and take my stuff to them. The other thing, as far as tiling goes, I guess at least the
issue being it’s many – nobody knows when that thing is actually going to be accomplished. So that’s why I was asking for the (inaudible) or exemption or whatever is the process to
deal with that. Like I said, I noticed the other situation with the fence, staff mentioned that in the case of Jabil they were making a through-way. I think it’s one of the last items
in this, No. 1.14 indicates it’s part of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan to – yes, multiple-use pathway is part of that anyway. It sounds like that’s part of the deal anyway already.
Who knows when that will happen.
DeWeerd: Mr. Mayor, can Shari address that? The other occupants that are not tied in have bonded for it in case it’s in the future required or how is that working?
Stiles: RC Willey and Wheel City USA bonded for it.
DeWeerd: But you don’t know if it will ever be tiled or if it will eventually be improved?
Stiles: I think that’s something the City needs to look at. That’s something that – I’ve gone out there behind Wheel City USA and it looks like ground water is percolating up from
the ground.
DeWeerd: So you can’t –
Stiles: Well, you can still pipe it. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has indicated that you can pipe it with perforated pipe or with open-joint concrete. It’s not that it can’t
be or that they won’t allow it, but I just don’t have the expertise on that to really address whether we should or not, but it’s probably something that we should get somebody that is
knowledgeable about those drains and whether it’s something that we want to be piped.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I agree with you, Shari, and I think that Gary or Charlie Rountree talked to the Corps regarding that deal about – maybe Glenn – that talked to somebody that – they
did not, would not allow any tile if I remember right. Is that right, Gary?
Smith: I don’t recall specifically, Councilman Bird. I think it was either no tile or it had to be tiled such that it would function as a drain.
Bird: Maybe that was it.
Smith: Either perforated pipe or open-joint concrete like Shari says. One way or the other. I just don’t remember for sure how it was exactly. I remember that we ran into this tiling
of Nine Mile Drain through the subdivisions off of Locust Grove, and in that case the Corps would not allow them to be tiled because they still had jurisdiction over that ditch. It
did function as a sub-surface drain.
DeWeerd: Mr. Mayor, so how would you deal with that condition if you don’t know if it can be piped or not? Just put it in the agreement and deal with it when it’s decided or – it doesn’t
seem fair to bond for something that you may not have to do eventually.
Stiles: Well, we won’t have an agreement on this. It’s just Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law that will be prepared. It’s not a Development Agreement or anything like that.
I mean, our Ordinance does require piping of drains and ditches. I guess if you say being fair, is it fair to charge the other people that have been in the City to make them bond
for it and one not? I think it would be better for us to be consistent. Either we need to return the bonding money back to the other people that have put that money up or – we need
to make a decision one way or the other. I guess I wouldn’t support leaving it open if they’re not going to make it an amenity and put landscaping back there, as these conditions call
for, in the future when they come in with their permanent building. I guess that’s not an answer either, is it?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, you don’t have enough (inaudible) to weigh this type of requirement at this time. It may well be that the source of water in that drainage
through agricultural uses that through development may go away. At that time tiling may be appropriate or it might be water that’s always going to be there. You don’t have the facts
in front of you to say that, but,
certainly, if this tiling were bonded for by this conditional use application, then it would be later determined that you’re not going to make them tile it because it’s impossible or
impractical and doesn’t meet the City’s needs, then at that point those bonds can be released. The only thing is, of course, is the applicant has to pay a bond premium now for that.
Bird: And they don’t get that back.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Are we ready to take a motion on the request for a Conditional Use Permit?
DeWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we instruct the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order for the request for Conditional Use Permit
to approve it for a temporary office trailer for 12 months with staff comments to exclude 1.5 and delete 1.10, the second and third sentences.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit on Item 14 with the subject to staff comments and the motion has been made. Any further discussion? Hearing
none –
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, it looked like Ms. Stiles had some comment that she wanted to make.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, how about 1.9? Are you asking him to go ahead and landscape as he’s shown on the plan he submitted or –
DeWeerd: He received a variance for that, right? For 12 months? I was under the impression –
Stiles: I guess what we thought as we were reviewing this was that was his concession to ask for complete compliance with the Ordinance; that they were offering that temporarily and
apparently they’re not. They’re not proposing to put any of that paving or landscaping in at this time. There would be no paving or landscaping is what they’re proposing. So I didn’t
want them to – or anyone to think that that plan they submitted complies with our Ordinance because it doesn’t.
DeWeerd: Right, well, I guess I was under the impression that their variance was for 12 months and then they would comply fully to the City Ordinances at that time. I guess I assumed
that. Was that wrong?
Bird: That’s what we passed on June 6th. As I recall it was a request for a variance for landscaping and asphalting of parking lot for 12 months. It was Item M in our Consent Agenda.
So we passed that.
Stiles: See, the plan that they submitted doesn’t comply with our Ordinance either.
deWeerd: Well –
Stiles: They’re going to use parking areas beyond what they’ve shown as paved area on their plan. They would have vehicles that would be sitting in that space. So I think it can just
be at least the first sentence should be wiped out of that. 1.9.
Anderson: 1.9; the landscaping.
Corrie: Just take the first sentence out of 1.9?
Stiles: Yes.
deWeerd: Okay.
Stiles: Is that a problem?
deWeerd: My motion can include on 1.9 deleting the first sentence and leaving the second.
Bird: The second agrees with that.
Corrie: Okay.
Stiles: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Roll-call vote now, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: All ayes. Mr. Attorney, you’ve got all the –
Nichols: Yes, Mayor, members of the Council, I just want to emphasize to the Council that this is a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary office only for 12 months which means that
at the end of 12 months it’s either gone or there’s a new one going up. So if a new permanent structure goes up, then all the landscape requirements have to be met. Okay. Anyway,
my point is there’s a tendency sometimes with temporary buildings to become permanent. As long as we don’t leave any impressions that there’s anything permanent about this.
DeWeerd: I got the impression that was understood when we did the landscaping and stuff.
Corrie: Thank you.
Item 15. CUP 00-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit by Terrace Plaza, LLC, for a planned-unit development, proposed Terrace Plaza, to construct a second building in an I-L zone –
199 North Linder Road:
Corrie: Item No. 15, request for Conditional Use Permit by Terrace Plaza, LLC, for a planned unit development, proposed Terrace Plaza, to construct a second building in an I-L zone
– 199 North Linder Road. Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a piece of property on Linder Road. The front portion here is currently occupied by TechPac. The property has been split. These were three
5-acre parcels at one time. This is also part of the Linder Road Industrial Park that was annexed back in 1984 that we’ve discussed earlier. They’re proposing to put another building
on this lot. They are not eligible for another split to make it a legal parcel, so they have come in for a Planned Development for two buildings on one lot. We have received – I don’t
know if you have a copy of it. The applicant has brought this in to me today. I don’t have it anywhere in my file. It’s a letter from ACHD telling us to disregard their previous correspondence
of May 9th that they didn’t have any site improvement requirements. And with that, I would ask that the recommendations of Ada County Highway District that appear on the last line of
Page 4, and then Items 1.18 through 1.21 be removed as they have rescinded those requirements. They will have to pay impact fees at the time they come in for a building permit. The
amount that they show in these recommendations would have applied to the previous building that was built. This shows the existing building on Linder Road. I don’t know what this stuff
is back here, but that’s another picture of this site. And then here is a site pattern showing the proposed building and parking areas. We would ask that you would approve it with
staff conditions.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, what is the date on that Ada County Highway District?
Stiles: May 16, 2000.
Bird: When did you get it?
Stiles: The applicant brought it in to me today. She indicated that she had given that to Steve, but it is not in my file.
Bird: Don’t take it personally, but it’s unfair to the Council up here when stuff comes in the night of the hearing.
Wildwood: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Susan Wildwood. I’m an attorney with offices in Boise. My address is 2533 North 26th and I’m here on behalf of
the applicant. The letter in question indicates it was sent to the City. When I originally got this staff report was only this morning. It was faxed to me as soon as I saw the ACHD
comments, I dug through the file. I showed Shari the letter that indicates right on it that it was sent in here – directly in to you folks.
Bird: And you just got our staff reports today?
Wildwood: I received a telephone call yesterday saying the matter was on for hearing. I asked for the reports to be faxed over to me. I got it yesterday afternoon at about 3:00.
That’s why I made sure that the letter was here. I would not normally be quite that tardy. I won’t say that I’m never that tardy, but I am generally not.
Bird: Well, you understand where we are coming from.
Wildwood: Absolutely.
Bird: We don’t see half of these things.
Wildwood: Yes, and I completely understand. That’s why when I saw it, I immediately brought it to Shari’s attention. Even if they were going to apply, I had called ACHD when I got
their letter originally and I said, “Oh this is pretty interesting. We’ve already paid for this,” and the gal that said “I am brand new. I’m sorry. We thought it was going to be
the old building. Don’t worry about it.” Here’s the follow-up letter. In any event, we would – the requirements to donate the right-of-way and all of that would have been taken care
of and so that’s why I requested the follow up letter coming in to you so that there would be no misunderstanding. Many (inaudible). In spite of our better efforts in staff, and it’s
certainly not to fault staff, because they’ve done a great job. Our only comments really, with regard to this application – we concur with all of the staff comments. There was one
that I did want to clarify and that would be paragraph 1.11. At the rear of the building, there was a nine and a half foot gravel bed. Staff had
suggested that – Excuse me – at the west end of the building, staff had suggested that rather than have this graveled area, that we put the additional trees and shrubbery in that area.
We certainly concur with that, which would mean that the statement applicant to consider the west end of the building sited in No. 5 above. No. 5 is referring to the original recommendation
– paragraph five in the original staff report before Planning and Zoning. So it would be our proposal that the only modification to the recommendations is that rather than shifting
the parking lot all over the place, which would be a significant redesign – that we take the nine and half foot gravel bed on the west end and put the additional landscaping there.
That would actually modify paragraph – that same paragraph which refers to the other options, so it would actually be on page 4. About the middle of the top paragraph says “One option
for the applicant to consider is the west end of the building sited in No. 5 above.” I think that that probably should read 1.11 above and then not have to do the option of shifting
the parking rows north. I would like to say that your staff has been really good to work with in this project. They’ve been very helpful with us in the redesign and the consultation.
With that, we have no other proposed changes to those recommendations. I will stand for any questions, Mr. Mayor.
Bird: I have none.
deWeerd: Just for clarification, Mr. Mayor. So, in that first paragraph on page 4, you’re recommending to put – as sited in 1.11 and then delete the next sentence.
Wildwood: Yes.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Wildwood: Thank you.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: Shari, is that recommendation agreeable to you?
Stiles: To add those trees to the end there?
deWeerd: To make those changes to your recommendation.
Stiles: I don’t have any problem with them as long as they meet the rest of the recommendations.
Corrie: Any discussion? Hearing none. I’ll entertain a motion then.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. I move that we instruct the City Attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order to approve the CUP for a PUD for proposed Terrace
Plaza to construct a second building in an I-L zone off of Linder Road and to delete Ada County Highway District’s requirements No. 1.18 through 1.21 and to change 1.12 on page 4 – the
sentence that would say “one option for the application to consider is the west end of the building sited” and instead of No. 5, indicate 1.11 and delete the following sentence that
reads “another option is to shift the parking rows north towards the building three feet and add a narrow planter along the south property boundary to extend the existing landscape planter
to the east end of the site.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in favor with the motion as stated. Further comment? Hearing none. Roll-call
vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16. FP 00-009 Request for Final Plat approval for Pintail Pointe Subdivision of 11 building lots and 1 other lot on 3.68 acres by Jeff Manship – south side of Cherry Lane, east
of Black Cat Road:
Corrie: Item No. 16. Request for Final Plat approval for Pintail Pointe Subdivision of 11 building lots and 1 other lot on 3.68 acres by Jeff Manship. Staff comments?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, we talked a little earlier regarding the vacation of this. This is proposal for 11 single-family lots on Cherry Lane. The lots would have access through
English Gardens Subdivision, and actually, they’ll have to rely on English Gardens Subdivision to be platted and constructed first, prior to any construction because that’s where they’re
going to get their sewer service. This is the existing building on Cherry Lane. They are proposing that they would come through English Gardens Subdivision and then enter in an extension
of one of their Preliminary Plat – The Final Plat has been approved at this time. They would have this hammer-head turnaround to access these two lots. I believe that this would all
be landscaped on Cherry Lane so they would cut off any direct access to Cherry Lane at the time this subdivision is developed. They did proposed 4-foot high temporary fencing on the
perimeter and the staff has asked for permanent six-foot perimeter fencing at least on the south and east sides, prior to applying for building permits. Other than that, I have no further
comments and would ask that you approve this with staff conditions.
Corrie: Okay. Applicant, have you seen the general comments and site specific comments?
Manship: Jeff Manship, 4375 West Cherry. Mayor and Council members, the landscaping that shows up there – All of the vegetation matches English Gardens landscaping plan. That’s not
a problem. The only problem I do have is No. 11 about the six-foot high fence. If you go back to the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law from the Preliminary Plat, it states
that a 2.12 – The first phrase states “if fencing is planned.” I don’t have any planned fencing for this. That’s up to the homeowners to do that. Therefore, even if we did have a
fencing plan, it would have to be approval of the Homeowners Association, which will be part of English Gardens Homeowners Association. We haven’t drawn up any documentation of that
right yet. Back to the Findings of Facts on 2.12, the perimeter fencing shall be constructed along the east and south boundaries during the time of any house construction. To my knowledge,
that means that the fencing will go up when houses are being built to contain construction degrees – not prior to subdivision construction, which doesn’t generate a lot of paper and
stuff blowing around. It’s basically just gravel, dust and materials of that aspect. That’s my only problem with No. 11.
Corrie: It’s on the east and –
Manship: The south. The “X’s” mark the east and south boundaries of the project.
DeWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
DeWeerd: Shari, in English Gardens, they are required to do preliminary fencing, aren’t they?
Stiles: Yes. That’s a condition of their –
DeWeerd: Is that an Ordinance?
Stiles: It’s in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is an ordinance, but we have asked for that permanent perimeter fencing on all subdivision plats. Especially – Such
as this one – where they’re bordering adjacent rural development. It’s not urban development yet. It’s still – They’ve got this five acre piece here and here. It’s more to protect
them.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: As I read this No. 11, and I’m sure Jeff probably – “Permanent six-foot high fencing to be installed along the east and south boundaries prior to applying for building permits.”
What was the four and a half temporary you had for a tie that you were going to put out?
Manship: That was just a plastic construction fence to contain debris, which was also stated in the conditions of the Preliminary Plat. That had to be out to contain debris and that’s
why we’re going to put that on temporary. Once houses got going, the Homeowners Association agreed upon a fence design. The fences would be constructed then.
Bird: This states that “before building permits – prior to applying for building permits, you will have that up.”
Manship: Well, it’s a recommendation.
Bird: Yes. That’s a recommendation.
Manship: I’m going back to the Findings of Fact on the Preliminary Plat. There’s where my discussion comes from.
DeWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
DeWeerd: Are we ready for a motion?
Corrie: Yes. Nobody else has any discussion. Okay. I’m sorry. I don’t want to get ahead of you. I recommend approval for the request for Final Plat for Pintail Pointe Subdivision
and ask the City to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order with staff comments.
McCandless: I’ll second, but I think you should move it rather than recommend it, right?
DeWeerd: To recommend approval.
McCandless: To move that we approve?
DeWeerd: I think that’s what I did.
Corrie: The motion is made to approve the request for Final Plat on Pintail Pointe Subdivision and have the proper order and the Mayor to sign with the staff requirements. Any other
discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17. TE 00-004 Request for time extension on the Preliminary and Final Plats of Scottsdale Subdivision previously approved on June 14, 1999 by Briggs Engineering:
Corrie: There’s a request for a time extension on the Preliminary and Final Plats of Scottsdale Subdivision previously approved on June 14, 1999 by Briggs Engineering. Is a member
of Briggs Engineering here? Staff, what’s the request for a time extension?
Stiles: Well, I don’t have much information on this why they have asked for it. I know they have to have their Final Plat recorded by June 14th of this year and they haven’t done that.
They did make a request for the extension prior to that, so the ordinance does allow for a one time extension of one year. They didn’t say what they needed or why they needed it except
for the fact that it is not recorded yet. I don’t know what the hold-up is. I don’t know if you want to grant a year or six months or –
Bird: Thirty days or whatever. What does staff recommend? A year? Since Ron and I have been on there, we’ve done a couple of them. I think we’ve done a couple of them that I think
we’ve went a year.
Stiles: I don’t have any problem with a year. It’s not helping them to drag it out.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we grant a one-time, 12-month extension for the Preliminary and Final Plat for Scottsdale Subdivision.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I’ll second it, but I think we need to add in one thing on that, Ron.
Anderson: What’s that?
Bird: Note the date of June 2, 2000, was when it was hand delivered. No problem when we’re doing it on the 20th, so we need to note the date that they were asking for the extension
was June 2.
Anderson: So you’re saying that you want 12 months from June 2nd. Is that right?
Bird: Well, we don’t want to be past the 14th. Our ordinance says that they have to do it within a year.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for time extension on the Preliminary and Final Plat – Item No. 17 for 12-month extension beginning June 2, 2000, until June
2, 2001. Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18. Ada County Development Services 00-10PDR / 00-05 ZC – Preliminary Plat for Edinburgh Subdivision
Corrie: Item No. 18 – Preliminary Plat for Edinburgh Subdivision. Shari, do you want to –
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, you looked at this Edinburgh Subdivision some time ago and it showed the entire 40 acres being platted and your decision was to deny it. The applicant
had requested reconsideration. This is not really a reconsideration. It’s actually – Ada County is considering it basically as a new application. I didn’t have an 8 ½ by 11 of the
new proposal, but it’s roughly the same as they showed previously except it didn’t show any of these future lots. They were blank. They proposed 53 buildable lots and 5 other lots
on 17.76 acres. This is for the property south of the Vienna Woods Subdivision. This is the edge of our area of impact here. It’s not a public hearing, but I don’t know if you want
to hear from the applicant and their representative as to why they think conditions have changed to a change of mind.
Corrie: Okay. Council, what’s your pleasure?
Bird: Is the applicant going to come forward?
Corrie: I would suggest that – Mr. Bunderson, if you’d like to come up and kind of give us a run-down of – Oh, we’ve got an attorney for you?
Butler: Joann Butler, 101 South Capitol, representing Bunderson Smith, LLC. I’m going to give you the 81/2 by 11 plat so that you can see that, and also a copy of the staff report.
Bird: Thank you.
Butler: Thank you. As Mrs. Stiles indicated, this is a new application to Ada County and we’re asking for recommendation of approval for the Preliminary Plat for Edinburgh Place to
the County. The County will be reviewing this in the near future. I’ve passed out the last staff report that you received. Gene Smith met with staff earlier this month. Staff indicated
they weren’t going to be preparing a new staff report, so we assume the conditions of approval remain the same and
so this is there for you to review and we’ll just make quick comments on that. Although, in that staff report, staff was recommending denial. We believe that the comments of the staff,
the Conditions of Approval that you’re going to apply to this, and the comments that you made in the last hearing, and the motion that you made will lead you to approve this reapplication
to Ada County. The Preliminary Plat is for 53 buildable lots that we submitted to the County. We did that to accommodate the comments by Meridian and the motion that was made at the
last hearing. As you remember, we had a long discussion with staff as to what the actual capacity was out in this area and we confirmed with Mr. Smith at your last meeting. The City
had developed enough capacity in this area to serve Vienna Woods and something a little bit more. The equivalent capacity was in approximately 50 lots. We did confirm with Gary that
53 lots would fall within that capacity. Just to refresh your memory, on the last hearing that we had – Comments at your last hearing included questions from Councilwoman deWeerd to
the effect “Doesn’t Vienna Woods contradict the past decisions of the City?” Your engineer, Mr. Smith, answered and refreshed the Council’s recollection that the City decided, at the
time of Vienna Woods – In essence to try to eliminate the proliferation of lift stations in the city. The City decided at that time that the lift station at Vienna Woods would be size-such
that it would serve Vienna Woods, and as I said, just a little bit more capacity, which is approximately 50 lots. Mr. Smith noted at the time that there wouldn’t be more development
in the area and into that lift station until the flow could be diverted at a later time to gravity flow. Mr. Smith also reported to the Council that the decision was made at that time
to take the affluent from Vienna Woods and any other additional capacity such as this and put it into another service area. That was a decision of the County, too, as well. The motion
was made by Councilman Anderson to deny the request for a Preliminary Plat and due to the inability of the City to provide sewer service to all of the lots proposed in the Preliminary
Plat. As you remember, the original –
*** End of Side 4 ***
Butler: Meridian is saying that we don’t have that capacity. We do have capacity for 50 some-odd lots and so we revised the Plat and the County excepted our new application. So you
do have the capacity to serve the lots shown in this new application. You’ve previously made the decision to install the lift station to serve not only Vienna Woods, but this additional
capacity. You’ve previously made the decision to put that affluent into another service area until the newly named “White Trunk Line” came into being. Another issue that came up at
your last hearing was whether or not urban services could be extended to this area outside the existing city limits. Reminding you about the Comprehensive Plan Provision that says “No
new developments should be approved outside of the Urban Service Planning Area,” which we’re inside of, “unless it can be shown that urban services can be reasonably provided at the
time of final approval.” So your Comprehensive Plan contemplates that you will serve outside your city limits and even beyond your Urban Service Planning Area, if you can be shown that
services will exist at the time of Final Plat. Of course, we’re inside the Urban
Service Planning Area. We are at an area where the capacity already exists, so we clearly comply with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to that, we comply with this Subdivision Ordinance
requirements. Your staff has set out a number of Conditions of Approval in their staff report to insure that there is compliance and we’ve just noted off to the side, as you can see.
We’re fine with all of those Conditions of Approval. Just a clarification on the school district – We did meet with the school district. They do not want a site in this area and they
are fine with the project. In condition – that’s in Condition No. 2 and Condition No. 8, the staff noted that if you recommended approval, they would ask that we voluntarily agree to
pay park-impact fees. That is the case, we are voluntarily agreeing to do that. Condition No. 10 – just a clarification on common area. The County, unlike the City, refers to all
residential subdivisions as Planned Developments. They did not mean Planned Unit Developments. The staff is referring there, I think to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance where you do require
additional open space, but we are not asking for any changes or flexibility in standards with the County. They are not required. And so, I just wanted to make that clear. We are not
a Planned Unit Development. So that particular Condition of Approval wouldn’t apply. With regard to 11, with the sewer assessment, that’s fine. As most people, I think would agree,
the City’s trying to grapple with sewer. Any sewer assessment that is fairly assessed to all – throughout Meridian City, this applicant has no difficulty with either. Senator Bunderson
is here to address issues of landscaping and design, if you would like to hear that again. I know that he addressed you at the last hearing, which was not that long ago. I’ll just
leave that for you to ask questions of Senator Bunderson if you would like to hear more. So, in conclusion, we are asking for recommendation of approval. This subdivision plat, which
we reapplied to the County for to meet your requirements uses the existing capacity. It meets your Comprehensive Plan. It meets the Subdivision Ordinance. It helps you develop into
the area of impact in a reasonable fashion using the existing capacity. It also helps you provide for parkland through those impact fees. I said the last time, if you’re going to
recommend denial, which we’re hoping that don’t because we think you have everything there to grant approval with this resubmittal. We’re asking the City, of course, to be very clear
in its reasoning tonight for its findings. As I said, we believe you can easily find that this plat complies with your ordinances and plans and you can recommend approval to the County.
I also have with me, Gene Smith here, who can comment on technical issues of the plat and the utilities, if you’d like to ask him questions as well. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Council, questions?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I’d like to hear Gary’s comments on this.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, the planning, I guess, that went into construction of lift station for Vienna Woods did include some additional capacity to provide service to
other properties that could be sewered into drainage other than the north slue. The present situation with the sewering of Vienna Woods by pump station to the south slue provides capacity
of approximately 50 lots -- single-family lots beyond the number of lots that are included within the boundaries of the Vienna Woods Subdivision as approved the Preliminary Plat for
that subdivision. At the time that the City of Meridian had their meetings with the Ada County Commissioners to establish the area of impact boundary between Boise and the City of Meridian,
it was felt that this area east of Locust Grove that could be sewered into a lift station at Vienna Woods should be planned to be sewered into that lift station so that we didn’t have
a series or a proliferation of list stations along Locust Grove for individual developments. I felt, and I think the Mayor and Council at that time felt that once Vienna Woods developed,
others would follow. So that was part of our proposal to the County that we would have a single lift station that would serve the service area between Chinden Boulevard, Locust Grove
and a drainage area that would be bounded somewhere between Ustick and McMillian. I don’t remember exactly where that line is – just north, I think, of the Charter School that’s been
recently constructed out there. And over towards the boundary line – to include to the boundary line between Boise and Meridian as established by the negotiations between Meridian and
Boise at the County Commissioners’ meetings. That’s some of the background, I guess, in a kind of general and somewhat specific way. Councilman Anderson, does that answer your question?
Anderson: What about the water issues? Where would that come from?
Smith: The water is an extension of our existing line at the Charter School on Locust Grove. It would be extended north to the north boundary of Vienna Woods.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary.
Smith: Yes, sir.
Bird: Hopefully in Spring or summer next year, this station will be pumping into the White once it is completed and not going to the south. Am I not right?
Smith: Yes, sir. Correct.
Bird: And at that point – The lift station I realize puts a limit on how many lots you can service because of its size, but the trunk will have plenty of capacity at that point – the
white.
Smith: At that point, yes.
Bird: And that relieves the south slue to carry what it should be carrying from the area it should be carrying from.
Smith: Correct, yes. And actually, the major restriction in pumping to the south slue is not the slue itself, but it’s the eight-inch sewer line in Locust Grove at Summerfield Subdivision.
Anderson: Gary, if we were to approve this and burned up – You said there’s only capacity for an additional 50 and if we put this on there, would there would be any reserve for emergencies
for any homeowners or anybody that was in that area that had a failure of their septic system or something like that they would not be able to hook onto it at that point.
Smith: There would be room for isolated situations for people that needed to connect, yes. We did have a couple of phone calls of people wanting to connect to the pressure line and
we told them that it probably would not be a good idea to connect to that pressure line, because they could get some instead of give some. But, yes, there would be some – If the gravity
pipe existed, there would be some capacity for isolated connections.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I don’t know whether my memory is failing me or not, but it seems to me that I – Well, lets put it this way. I don’t see any difference in this proposal than what we saw
last time. They talked about only approving 52 sites or 53 sites – something like that at that time. Am I right?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I may address that. Councilwoman McCandless, members of the Council, it’s my recollection that they came in with that at the last minute and in fact, what was
in front of you was the whole plat and there was an area drawn around it and said “We won’t develop this other part of it.” But it really wasn’t – It was a last minute thing. Although
it may look similar to this in some respects, it’s different.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari or Gary, on JoAnne’s comments on our recommended conditions, did you have any problems with that – like No. 2 or the school district didn’t want a sign out there. I thought
maybe –
Smith: I don’t have any knowledge of that, Councilman Bird. Shari doesn’t either.
Bird: Okay. The park-impact No. 8 – they agree to pay for that. It’s not a PUD, which you agree to that. The assessment – they agree to pay to that. Everything else was okay.
Corrie: I guess I don’t understand No. 10 about the landscaping buffers and all that. What’s with this, Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, because they submitted it to Ada County as a Planned Residential Development, we applied our conditions for a Planned Development on it as they are suppose
to meet our requirements for zoning, so –
Bird: What do we use?
Stiles: I don’t know. I think that Ada County requires that anything that’s not a rural subdivision, which is all they’re really accustomed to dealing with until now, that they called
them all Planned Residential Developments. For any residential plat – I think any plat that is not the five-acre lot, they require them to submit an application for a Planned Development
at the same time as a plat, even though they don’t even have any criteria to call it a Planned Development. We had asked Ada County the same thing. We said “Why do you call it a Planned
Development when you have no additional requirements.” They didn’t have an answer.
Bird: What would you like to do with that No. 10, Shari. What should we do as a City, to that – stay to that or –
Stiles: Legally, I don’t know what we can do. Of course, we’d always like to have 10 percent.
Bird: Sure.
Stiles: Vienna Woods has 10 percent. In this case – I guess if it were – If you were only approving the 17 acres, then they would have less of a requirement. They’d have to have just
under two acres for 10 percent.
Bird: I understand that’s all we are approving at this time, as the application says: “17.76 acres, 53 lots and 5 other lots.” So what would you suggest on 10, Shari? Just leave
it?
Stiles: If you’re asking my preference, that would be that they have 10 percent open space.
Butler: Mr. Mayor and Council, there is open space in there. Ada County does not require that – remember that you’re in the area of impact so the area of impact agreement says that
the zoning ordinance that applies is Ada County’s. The reference to the 10 percent is contained in your zoning ordinance and it’s not an applicable ordinance. Legally, that why we’re
clarifying for the Council why that is not an acceptable condition, because it just applies to the wrong ordinance.
Corrie: But it can apply later, right?
Butler: At that time, for example, on the next – If we ever get to next phases, and you have annexed us at that time, your ordinance would apply.
Corrie: If this fills up before it’s annexed, then we lose the ten percent.
Butler: Correct, because your zoning ordinance doesn’t apply in the area of impact.
Bird: Mr. Mayor and Joann, seeing how we’re extending and happy to by me – the sewer out there for 53 lots. You as developers wouldn’t be agreeable to 10 percent open? Now Vienna
Woods did do that to cut the meat a little bit. We hope to have you annexed before you get through. If plans go as good as we plan, I wish Bunderson and you guys could work on maybe
coming up with close to a 10 percent, if not a 10 percent so that we can all look alike out there. It is going to be in our city limits in some time or another.
Butler: I appreciate what you’re saying and if I put your foot in my mouth, tell me, but I think that’s something that can be looked in the future phases of the subdivision.
Bird: And we know we can’t hold you to it, but if you would we’d appreciate it.
Butler: I’d appreciate that, too.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Alright. I’ll entertain a motion on the request of Ada County Development Services.
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we give our approval to the Ada County Development Services for the Preliminary Plat of Edinburgh Subdivision – 53 lots and 5 other lots on 17.76 acres by Steve Smith,
one-half mile east of Eagle Road on McMillan Road. Also, to include in that, comments of staff, as we have went through – Shari and Gary’s testimony to be included. Item No. 2 is the
school which Jim Carbury, representing the school district stated publicly here that they did not want a school site. Eight was okay. The applicant said they would pay park-impact
fees. No. 10 – They will try to address our code in as much as they can to the 10 percent of open space and No. 11, they will pay the assessment fees on our water and sewer when we
determine them. And everything else was okay.
Corrie: Is there a second to the motion?
Anderson: I will second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, naye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE.
Item 11. Special Request to Hook into Meridian Waste Water Treatment Center’s Sewer System by Karoly Foldesi:
Corrie: Item No. 19 is a special request to hook into Meridian Waste Water Treatment Center Sewer System by Karoly Foldesi.
Foldesi: My name is Karoly Foldesi. I am a resident of 10950 North Ten Mile Road which is a property backed into a Treatment Center Plant. I shop over there to put our farm equipment
and I want to put a septic in over there because of all of the septic is too far to hook-up to get the line there. So I sold the piping going over there. I called up John at the Treatment
Plant and I said, “John, what’s going on? You guys are laying some sewer line over here.” He said, “ Yes. You’re going to go buy your lot – you know, your property line.” I said,
“Okay, I would like to ask you a favor then. Maybe when we had the meeting over here on expansion of the Treatment Plan to put under the Treatment Tank or septic. City over there looks
like.” We sort of agree with it. I didn’t really like it at that time, but I agreed. I said that’s okay but in the future if maybe you could help us out, if I need it. This was the
time and I asked him and he told me, “I don’t think it would be any problem for you to hook-up into the line because it goes by property over there.” That is only 120 feet from our
shop. (inaudible) I guess I talked to Gary Smith. I called him up because John suggested for me to talk to him. At that time, Mr. Smith said “No. I don’t think we can do it unless
you
are annexed through the City. I said that I didn’t want to do this one because I still do farming and I have animals over there. So I don’t think that I’m ready for this one. I got
sort of disappointed because I said that I go along with certain things with the City. Now the City Line is right next to me. It’s only a few feet from me and I can’t even use the
service. I’ve paid for it just like anybody else, so I don’t see any reason why I cannot tap into it. He asked why I don’t go address the Council and send a letter. I appreciate the
quickness because I send this one just last week over here. I would really appreciate it if I don’t have to put a septic in there and I think it would be much easier for us to keep
it clean. So that’s what I’m asking.
Corrie: Okay. Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Do you have a septic system now?
Foldesi: Yes. I have two of them but it’s too far back to that house. There was one old house that burned down previously. It does have an empty septic and then our home is where
we have the rest of our septic. It would be too far for me to Non-word (sic) so I wanted to put the septic into the shop over there because we have a milking barn over there and a shop.
When I saw them now, I said maybe this would be a good chance to just tap into it. It’s approximately 320 feet back from the west would be where I actually would tap into the line.
Corrie: Council, questions? Gary?
Smith: Yes, sir.
Corrie: How would you rate that? How would you do a charge? It is just based on water.
Smith: Yes. It would just have to be a single-family flat rate. That’s the only thing that we can do if we don’t have a metered service to build a sewer service off of, so we just
charge a minimum – or less than a minimum, but it’s a flat rate based on 7500 gallons per month which is probably a lot more than Carl would use, but that’s what we’ve established is
a policy for an unmetered (sic). The line that he would be connecting to is 30-inch diameter trunk line and until such time as there would be flow from the white drain being generated
and being dumped into that line, there would be practically nothing in there. It could create a bit of a cleaning problem for that big line because it won’t flow very well with just
your connection to it. There will be a connection of – I don’t think even the residential unit that will house the manager for the storage system doesn’t even connect to it – I don’t
believe. I think it connects to our existing main across the Creason Lateral. It would be the only connection on that line for a length of time until it developed east of Ten Mile
Road. I hadn’t thought of that when we talked on the
phone, Carl, but that might get to be a cleaning problem. There would be an odor build-up in there because the solids and so forth just wouldn’t flow. There isn’t enough slope on that
line to work and flow – any flow characteristics.
Foldesi: What you going to use this line for then, actually?
Smith: Well, someday it will continue on to the east. It will be a main collector for sewage all the way to Locust Grove, so it’s going to carry a lot of sewage someday. In the near
future, there won’t be anything in it.
Foldesi: Could you make a tap-out and then close them off? Then I could put in a septic right now. And at the time when it comes – when you’re going to be efficient for it, then we
could just hook into it.
Smith: Could do that. Sure. Just provide a stub off into the property so you wouldn’t have to dig it up. We could do that. Sure.
Foldesi: I guess I just have to put in a septic in – make them at a later date to put a line out there.
Corrie: I would think that nothing else but yours in there would really be a problem for you until we get the line –
Foldesi: Yes. But if you right now, put a tap hole in there and not to connect – just to have – so we’re ready a year or two from now or whatever.
Smith: Right. We could certainly stub a service tab off of it into your property line and cap it off. That wouldn’t be a problem at all.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, is he contiguous to the City right now?
Smith: I believe so. Yes.
Bird: He is.
Smith: His south boundary is contiguous to the north boundary of the Bews Mini-Storage.
Bird: Does his property flow – the natural of his property back to Ten Mile or does it go back to the Five Mile?
Smith: West. The reason why I said what I said to Carl is that the standard operating policy that we’ve used in the past for connection of property outside the city limits has been
that connection agreement that was established by the City Attorney. Some years ago, when we met with Carl concerning expansion of the plant, we didn’t have that provision that we were
using then. At that time, we had a double-connection fee that we were assessing outside city limit users but we didn’t have the annexation issue. So that’s why it didn’t come up at
the time. Carl and his wife were very supportive of out proposed additions at the Waste Water Plant. At that time, we were operating under a Conditional Use Permit with Ada County
and they were requiring us to come in every time we added an element out there. They agreed that our Conditional Use Permit was for a Treatment Facility – not for individual elements
of the treatment facility and they left us alone after that up to that point. We had to go down there every we added on.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: If you decide to allow a stub to this trunk line, you need to also make a statement as to whether – at the time the future connection is made, however many years down the road
that may be – whether you’re going to require annexation at that time or not. I don’t want – there’s the physical engineering side of hooking into the line and whether that’s practical.
There’s the legal issue of whether you require annexation at such time as that connection is used. It would be unfair to Mr. Foldesi if he left here thinking that he could get a stub,
and then at some later date, when there’s enough flow going through there, he simply comes to you and gets permission to connect without having to annex – unless that’s what your decision
is. I don’t want to leave that unsaid.
Corrie: Well, after hearing all of that, Carl, what do you think you want to do?
Foldesi: I think it’s easier to make a tap right now over there for the future. I’m pretty sure sooner or later, we’re going to be forced to go into the City. Although, I really didn’t
want it yet. I’m happy the way I am. I’m pretty sure maybe in a year down, there will be things going over here. I think it’s for practical purposes – I think for the future – I think
it would be. If you’re going to have to annex, maybe we going to think about doing something on our land, too. We have over there almost twenty acres. I think it would be a wise decision.
Corrie: So then, we’ll just – with the understanding if we do a stub into that property, that it will be under the ordinances that we have now of annexation, so you’ll know that. You
might be just coming in to stub in, and whenever there’s a flow like the attorney said. So you’re saying to us that you’ll go ahead and use the septic system now and then you’ll hook
in later, after there is a flow. Like the attorney said, it’s for your protection that you know that.
Foldesi: There’s no other choice, I guess. But like I said, in the future I think it would be good regardless where it’s going to be. It’s just in the right position and the right
place and there’s par enough in there – whichever it’s going to be in the future in this land development or whatever. It’s just right in the center part.
Corrie: Okay. Technically speaking, we wouldn’t really have to give you – your request is not for now.
Foldesi: What Gary says is that it’s safe. We’ve got a problem with the smell and the odor. Do you know what I mean? This has cost me extra money now that –
Corrie: I think in the long run, you’d rather do that than have the smell.
Foldesi: So, are you going to make a tap over there?
Smith: Yes. We’ll just –
Foldesi: At night, I could go over there and open them up and hook them up, huh?
Smith: We’ll just coordinate a place. You let us know where you want it and we can do that.
Foldesi: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Thank you.
Item 20. Water / Sewer / Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Okay. Next is the Water/Sewer/Trash Delinquencies – Turn off scheduled for June 21, 2000. This is to inform you in writing, if you choose to, you have the right to a predetermined
hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 20, 2000 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by the City that your Water/Sewer/Trash
bill is delinquent. I may retain Council that the service will be discontinued on June 21, 2000 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest their
Water/Sewer/Trash delinquencies? Everybody informed, they will appeal to have the decision of the City to reviewed by the 4th judicial court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though
they appeal, there water will be shut off. Now the turn off list is 25,452.96. I entertain a motion on the delinquency turn off schedule.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the delinquency turn-off schedule for June 21, 2000 for the amount of $25,452.96.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the turn-off list. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
21. Department Reports:
Fire Department – Fire Chief Ken Bowers:
1. City of Meridian Demolition Agreement.
Corrie: The City Treasurer – we’ve had. The Fire Department. Chief Bowers, thank you for staying up late.
Bowers: Thank you. Mayor Corrie and City Council members, you’ve had to make some tough decisions tonight, so I hope this is a little easier for you. But anyhow, I got – I was told
to get some bids on demo and the house at 26 East Broadway – the house behind the fire station. We’ve received three written bids and one phone call bid. The high is $4,500. The low
was $2,032. At that time, with my bid – of the low bid, I got in touch with Bill Nichols so that we could come up with an agreement for the City of Meridian and Hansco Excavation.
I don’t know if this is the first one we’ve ever had to do or not, but they’ll spend a little time of going through and working on it. The representative from Hansco Excavation came
in yesterday and looked at the agreement, signed it on the back that he approved the agreement also. He didn’t have any problems. I would recommend that the City Council allow Mayor
Corrie to sign it with Will Berg, City Clerk. Are there any questions from you guys?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none. Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson. I would make a motion that we would approve the demolition contract for the house located at 26 East Broadway in the amount of $2,032 and authorize the mayor
to sign and the clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Mayor: Motion made and seconded to have Hansco Excavating, Inc. to do the excavation have a license agreement in the amount of $2,032 and for me to sign
and the clerk to attest. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bowers: Thank you. He’ll start Monday tearing her down. Do you have the original? Bill or –
Bird: The clerk should.
Parks and Recreation Department – Tom Kuntz
2000 Capital Outlay for Storey Park Irrigation System:
Corrie: Okay. Parks and Recreation Department – Tom Kuntz. Tom had request in about the carry-over for the Sawyer Park Irrigation System and also about using the Plaza money and adding
it to his budge. Any comments, Tammy?
DeWeerd: I would hope to get feedback from you on his memo for the capitol outlay for the irrigation system and answer to his question of the $80,000. Is it Council’s wish to have
him reappropriate that to other non-funded such as design of Bear Creek, design of Chateau and the begin of design for the 56 acres – or I think he had a couple of other ideas in mind,
but no one asked him, so I don’t know what your direction is on that – or just to ask him to carry forward that $80,000.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tammy, are you talking about the $80,000 that was for the construction of the Generation Plaza too?
DeWeerd: This is on an irrigation system that needs to be carried over until next budget as well as adding to it.
Bird: When he left here, he couldn’t find any – and he told me that he would just go ahead and carry that on if we can. He plans on spending some of it. The problem is that he can’t
start that project until almost Fall. He thinks that he will probably be in – have a month or so of it in – that he will be taking some of that and then just carrying over the rest
of it.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I talked to Tom a little bit at the break, too. I told him that I thought this particular request was a little bit premature. Basically he is wanting us to guarantee at
this point that he’ll get $150,000 in his budget for an irrigation system. Until we look at all the department’s budgets, it would be presumptive for me to say, “Yes, we will give you
this.” I don’t have any problem with him spending the 80 or $78,000 that’s still left in his budget, but at this point, until we hear the budget proposals, I don’t feel comfortable
guaranteeing him that he’d get his money in next year’s budget. He indicated that he was comfortable with that and that he could wait until after the budget workshops until we could
see where we were at. The main thing he wanted to get was the Generation Plaza. We’ve got to get on that so we can get Noel going down – getting him scheduled to get those things put
up.
DeWeerd: So we can delay this until after budget considerations. The Generations Plaza one though, needs timely action on it. This was non-budgeted amount. I believe that Tom talked
to Council about this expense originally and it did go above what they had anticipated, but he’s hoping that Council will still approve it. He can take out of Generation Plaza’s budget,
but it is not budgeted. The amount that’s set out this year was just for construction. It did not take this into account, because it wasn’t a factor at the time. He can take it out
of this year’s budget as long as we can assure him that it will be reappropriated in the next budget year. It’s a –
Corrie: Well, he’s got to come up $17,150 dollars short for next year. We’ve got to consider that in the budget, too.
Anderson: So this isn’t going to come out of this year’s budget?
Corrie: It can.
DeWeerd: It can and it’s budgeted, but because of what Benoit is doing, it’s delayed construction of Phase Two of Generations Plaza. That money will need to be carried forward, so
he can take it out of that carried-forward money. Unless it’s actually reappropriated, he won’t have enough for construction – then of Generations Plaza.
Anderson: Everybody else has the additional $78,000 that he’s not using on the irrigation system.
DeWeerd: Maybe. He can use that, but again, he would rather carry it forward if it’s going to be an issue of getting the money that he needs to do that irrigation system because that
is their number one priority.
Corrie: I guess what he’s looking for is whether you want him to spend $17,150 now on this budget. He’s still going to have to come back to you for that amount later.
Anderson: And the timing on these things was that they had to be ordered now.
Bird: Yes. They’ve got a window – and we’ve already in about two weeks. Noel Lever is a very tied up person. Unless you want to wait until – long time to getting that wrong, but
it takes about 8 weeks.
*** End of Side 5 ***
Bird: But really, without having – we don’t have a final – In the first place, I don’t think we’ve got a firm bid on Storey Park Irrigation. I know we don’t have a firm bid on Generations
Plaza because in second phase, we don’t know what we’re going to do.
DeWeerd: We do have a plan. You saw that plan from Benoit.
Bird: That was – I didn’t know it had been approved by anybody. It’s a conceptual drawing as I understood. But anyway, you know what the cost is.
Corrie: I guess the question here is if you wanted to go ahead and do the classing dance – so you’ll be thinking that it’s empty -- $1,150 out of his budget.
Keith: I’ve got one other thing. Council, if you would – actually, two, Mayor. The Meridian City Development Committee which was formed, and that isn’t the official name, this is
going to be like CCDC and the Nampa Urban Renewal Committee to try to get something going downtown here. We’d like, and I believe we’ve got the money, and the administration part would
like a $15,000 seed money. Not that they would use it, but we have an opportunity to bring a couple people that have already, in towns our size, already went down this road. We’d like
it if it’s possible and if the Council sees fit that we’d like $15,000 seed money out of the Administration’s budget which I think we’ve got. I would make that a motion if I could get
a second.
DeWeerd: Without any information other than what you just said?
Bird: It’s the Committee that – what information do you want know, Tammy? We don’t know what we’re going to do with it. They just need some money to come up and do with it. It’ll
be all accounted for. It’s public money.
Corrie: I think they’re going to need some coming in, and they need to at least have something to get started on.
Bird: It’s just, you know –
Corrie: If they don’t need it they won’t use it.
Bird: We can come back every month and ask for five dollars here and five dollars there. We felt that if we just got an up-front, we’d just do it that way.
DeWeerd: Okay.
Bird; What do you want to do?
Corrie: Let’s get a second and then we can discuss it some more.
Bird: I’ll make a motion that we do that for the $15,000.
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Now we can have discussion. Any other discussion? Question has been called for in the amount of $15,000 from the Administration Fund. Motion is $15,000. All those in favor
of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor, you’ll take care of that for us?
Bird: Yeah, I’ll take care of it. I’ve got one other thing, Mayor. We have went about six weeks with the shortage on our Parks and Recreation Board. Could you and the board get that
resolved for the next – so we can have it at the next board meeting?
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: Would you bring us some people forward? Then tomorrow night, for our workshop, Mr. Skinner is going to come in and explain some things on the Police Station to us. Also, we
need to look at the Financial Director – get that going. Gary wants to discuss an item that he gave us tonight. Don’t you want to do that tomorrow night, Gary? Also, we need to talk
to Gary about getting our truck light fee up and running by August. I want that ordinance going. Also, we want to talk about bringing your ideas for the Fiscal Director – Financial
Officer ordinance. Let’s get going on it.
Anderson: What was the original purpose (inaudible)?
Bird: That was going to be – and they couldn’t – either one – Terry or – couldn’t be here. You’re going to be here, aren’t you, Ron?
Anderson: That’s questionable. I have another meeting tomorrow night.
McCandless: Well, who is more important?
Bird: And Mayor, if you don’t have anymore, I’ll move that we adjourn.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED 11:55 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK