HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 06-06Meridian City Council Meeting June 6, 2000
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 6, 2000.
Members present: Robert D. Corrie, Tammy deWeerd, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Keith Bird.
Others present: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Bill Gordon, Ken Bowers, Bill Nichols, Tom Kuntz, Will Berg.
Corrie: Okay, I’ll open the Meridian City Council meeting for June 6, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. First we’ll have roll-call.
Item A. Approve minutes of May 16, 2000, City Council meeting:
Item B. Approve minutes of May 16, 2000, Special City Pre-Council meeting:
Item C. Approve minutes of May 23, 2000, Special Meeting:
Item D. Tabled May 16, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned unit development including continuing care retirement
community, single- and multi-family residential and office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers - Joseph A. Billig – east of St. Luke’s between Franklin Road and Interstate 84:
Item E. Tabled from May 16, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: PP 99-010 Request for preliminary plat for proposed Bear Creek Subdivision – 326 single-family lots on 150.79
acres by Bear Creek, LLC – east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland:
Item F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-008 Request for parking variance – reduction in required parking spaces for Generations Park Plaza II by Gary Benoit – at East
1st Street and East Pine Avenue:
Item G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-006 Request by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc. for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision for annexation and zoning of
12.73 acres from R-T to L-O and R-15 zones - northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road:
Item H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-005 Request by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc. for proposed Valeri
Heights Subdivision for Preliminary Plat for 12.73 acres with 10 building lots and 2 other lots on 12.73 acres in proposed L-O and R-15 zones - northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten
Mile Road:
Item I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-014 Request by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc. for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision for Conditional Use Permit
for a 128-unit apartment complex, townhouses and office on 12.73 acres in proposed L-O and R-15 zones– northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road:
Item J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct 8 office buildings on 6.68 acres in proposed L-O zone for proposed Carol
Professional Center by J-U-B Engineers, Inc. – west side of Eagle Road between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road:
Item L. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of eight lots on 6.68 acres in proposed L-O zone for proposed Carol Professional Center
by J-U-B Engineers, Inc. – west side of Eagle Road between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road:
Item M. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law VAR 00-009 Request for a variance to defer landscaping and asphalting of the parking lot for up to 24 months to allow applicant to
design and construct a building in an I-L zone by James Aimonetto – 2204 E. Lanark St.:
Item N. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item O. Meridian Rural Fire Protection District Firefighting and Life Preservation Service Contract and Joint Exercise of Power Agreement (Addendum C):
Item P. Approve bills:
Corrie: I want to welcome everyone here tonight. Looks like it’s a good crowd. I like to see the chambers all filled up like this. First on the Consent Agenda, Council, what is the
pleasure for the Consent Agenda?
Bird: We’ve got some items on the Consent Agenda that we need to table, Items D and E we want to table until June 20, 2000; Items G, H and I tabled to June 20th; add Item P which is
to approve bills; then on our regular agenda, we want to table Item 22 to July 5, 2000 as a request from the applicant; Item 24 will be delinquencies for water, sewer and trash bills;
with that, I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda and the regular agenda.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with Items D and E to be tabled to June 20th; Items G, H and I to table to 20th of June; and add Item
P, approval of the bills; and to table Item 22 in the regular agenda, request for Conditional Use Permit for Eagle Partners, LLC.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, with permission of the second, I would also – Item E under the department reports, police night out, add that to our agenda, too.
Anderson: Second agrees to that.
Corrie: And Item E was the Chief’s request for the National Night-Out. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 2. Ordinance No. 875: New proposed Chateau Park Ordinance
Corrie: On the regular agenda, we have Item 1 which was items moved from Consent Agenda. So we’ll move to Item No. 2 which is the ordinance for the new proposed Chateau Park Ordinance.
Mr. Clerk, what’s the Ordinance No. on that one?
Berg: 875.
Corrie: Okay, 875. Mr. Clerk, if you’ll read Ordinance No.875 by title only at this time.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ordinance No. 875: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian enacting a new section of Chapter 7, Title 8, Meridian City Code of the City of Meridian providing
for a name of the park relating to park regulations
providing for the purpose and authority, definitions; and providing an effective date.
Corrie: Okay. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have his ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council, what’s your pleasure on Ordinance 875?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 875 naming of the park to Chateau Park under the suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance 875 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Ordinance No. 846: Amended Ordinance 846
Corrie: Item No. 3 is amended Ordinance No. 846. Mr. Berg, if you’ll read the amended Ordinance on No. 846, please, by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Amended Ordinance No. 846: 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
general retail and service commercial district (C-G); 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: Thank you. Okay, for the audience on this one, the reason we’re changing that is the Ordinance needs to be amended on Page 2, it’s a letter S that has been struck through and
the letter N has been underlined as the corrected direction. It’s a slight change in the north and south there. So is there
anyone in the audience that would like to have 846 amended read in its entirety? Thank you. I’ll entertain a motion on the amended ordinance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the amended Ordinance No. 846 with suspension of rules and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the amended Ordinance 846. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Appeal of Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of the Ordinance by Tim Bever:
Corrie: Item No. 4 is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of the Ordinance by Tim Bever.
Bever: My name is Tim Bever. I live at 6754 Cochrane Drive, Meridian. I have some things for the Council here. We own property at (inaudible – away from mic) The property is at 613
Meridian Road which is down here behind Kentucky Fried Chicken. The area is zoned C-G. The client that wants to rent this from us is Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and we were told that we
need Conditional Use Permit because it is a car lot. At least, that’s what I was told. Then that’s what I was told why you need a Conditional Use Permit. This is the letter from Enterprise
Rent-A-Car which has thousands of locations all over the country. I don’t know if you remember, they’re the ones that bring the car to your house and then come pick the car up, and
you don’t have to go anywhere to get it. That’s kind of their MO. This is the letter from the manger, Dan Adams, who is attending to answer any questions you might have. The sales
office is basically where their sales people come in and they go out and they make sales calls with corporations, car dealerships because they don’t send out loaners anymore, insurance
companies, and then they come back and do their paperwork. Automobiles will be stored in the back of the property in open storage back there. You read the letter with his intent with
what he can use. There is very little traffic going in and out of this location, and it – the lot is 55 x 150. It’s an existing house. The next page is basically just the general retail
and service commercial definition of C-G zoning which I’ve included, and I’m sure you’re pretty privy to that. Also, there is a listing of C-G zoning as we interpret it. It would be
a professional sales office. They are not selling cars, they do rentals. They will not sell any cars here. They do – the licenses can kind of explain - next page indicates what a
professional sales office is per your definition of it, and then the third page is storage facilities outdoor. This is an approved usage of the property there. Then there’s a
definition of what the outdoor-commercial storage will be. If you go – I have some photographs. I took a picture of this property, and you can see it says front, 613 Meridian Road.
It’s a little house that has been re-worked with a handicapped ramp that was already put in. We did go through Ada County P & Z sometime back and had to go through the condemnation
to get the sidewalk in with the Ada County Highway Department when they want to put their sidewalks in, so they have been in there before. It is hooked up to City water and sewer.
If you notice to the immediate left on the picture, this is Republic Storage that does the outside/inside storage, little locker-room storages and that sort of thing. To the right of
the property, you can see a trailer house, this is a camper-top sales place which is immediately to the right. Just past them you come to Corporate Drive which is going to go through
at some time in the future as I’ve been told. The next picture if you look at it, the view of the south, it has the same fence around it that they put around the storage building because
the City required them to because they currently own this piece of property at one time. So it has the same fence that is around the back of this. The privacy (inaudible) you can see
the inside how it’s all boxed in. You can see the storage behind it on the far end of it because Republic Storage wraps around the property on two sides. Immediately to the left is
the office where they check people in and out, and then it kind of wraps around to the back, and then the camper guys have a piece of property that borders Corporate Drive and kicks
back to this piece of property and around, so you can kind of see where it is. We feel that it’s within the definition and the zoning that is on the area. It is open to interpretation,
the zoning is, there’s some ambiguities that we found in there. You can’t have a wholesale warehouse, but you can have an indoor storage and wholesale facilities. You can’t sell ag
equipment, but you can sell farm equipment. These are on the lists in here. So we found a lot of interpretive problems with this. I spent a lot of time with it. I just don’t feel
that this message has any impact on the areas outside of the commercial designation on it. Very low impact. If you have any questions, Dan Adams is the manager. Very clean business.
Somebody we’d very much like to have be there. It’s land-locked, it’s an old house, been there for 42 years. The front of it is all paved, concreted. The back of it isn’t. We wanted
to pave the back of it, but I understand you have to put a tree in. There’s no place in the front – Shari suggested we put the trees in the back behind the 8-foot fence. We would like
to put these Douglas Fir miniature trees in the very front of the building because it would look a lot better. There is just virtually no place on the front of it to tear up the pavement
and put anything without destroying the property. So that’s kind of what we’d like to do, and we’d like to make a suggestion for the small trees in the front because the back will be
paved because it has to be paved to be able to park cars back there. Egress access, you can see on it – you go in one side and out the other. The garage has a garage door on it. It’s
going to have another garage door on the back where they vacuum the cars out. There’s not going to be any car washing there. They go across the street to the Chevron that has a little
drive-thru car wash is what they’ll use. They’ll use that for vacuuming. No cars parked in the front,
everything is kept in the back. So that’s kind of what we think it ought to be. Shari doesn’t agree.
Corrie: It kind of went backwards here. We should have heard from Shari and then you. It’s all right. Shari, can you make comment on this for your staff, and then we’ll –
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, you have my memo dated June 2, 2000. It is still my opinion that this is not a permitted use in the zone. It’s not listed. It may be similar to other
uses that are permitted, but the Ordinance does specify that if it’s not listed, they apply for the Conditional Use Permit and if it is determined that the use is similar and compatible
with listed uses, then it may be permitted as a conditional use.
Bever: May I speak?
Corrie: Are you done, Shari?
Bever: The conditional use process would make this not a viable client in the amount of time that it takes to maybe get a yes or a no. The property is 42 years old. It’s got a history
of commercial use. This is an interpretive issue with this list of stuff that we’re kind of – no wholesale sales, no warehouses, but it’s very ambiguous if you really get into it, and
I have. I have a lot of examples of interpretive things. This is a sales office with outdoor storage is what it is. That’s what it says here, and it’s on the list on two pages, and
I’ve given those to you. Specifics in this are very general, very vague. They use the word et cetera in two of the descriptions. They say cars, autos, et cetera. What is an et cetera?
If they want to say it’s not on the list, has to be specific, well, this is the problem that I’m having. This is just a call. I don’t believe that it’s based on anything.
Corrie: You are aware that she can’t change an ordinance? She has to interpret one. What she has done here, the use is not specifically permitted or listed in the district. That’s
the one that I think she’s going on. There’s nothing in our Ordinance that says this is able to do a (inaudible). That’s why she did one interpretation. You have another. Now the
Council has to determine whether they want to go ahead and do what you are asking or what she’s doing.
Bever: Okay. I think if you read the definitions of sales office that I supplied to them, that’s anything that’s bought and sold, basically. If you look at how (inaudible) storage
is specifically what it is, but the sales office function, if you look at what your definition is in your book, it is doing commerce. Whether it’s leasing or selling or whole bunch
of other things, this is where it gets real vague. It is in there. It’s not specific, and it’s not general, but we think those are the activities that are going to take place on that
piece of property. Again, I think they’d be a good corporate citizen for this town. They’re very limited in where they can go because if they’re now dubbed as a car dealer, they might
have a
hard time coming to Meridian because those areas are quite fringe and kind of hard to come by. Again, if you have any questions on the business, the manger is here.
Corrie: Council, questions?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Does the front of the property need to be used for the storage of cars or is there enough room in the back?
Bever: No, sir. The back is more than ample. It’s 150 feet long by 50 feet wide. I can show you on my plat plan that there’s not much room to meet the requirement of backing up
front. It works now, you put a tree in – well, I can’t meet the so many feet and then back the car up to get them out. They will not store any cars in the front.
Anderson: So is your proposal to landscape that and meet our ordinance?
Bever: The landscaping, in talking with Shari, and if anyone visits the site, they can see that when they put the sidewalk in and did the condemnation on that, they left 40 feet. You
put a car in there, there isn’t – you landlock it to a point you can’t get a car in the parking spots. The landscaping – I’m open for it – to put trees in the back behind an 8-foot
privacy fence with sprinkling system and my enjoyment because you will have a building on both sides when the camper-top guys get built. It will extend above the 8-foot fence, and also
around back. I would like to put the money in front of the building in the drain pit where we could put these pots with these big Douglas Pine miniatures is what they are – they’re
dwarfed so they can take the heat and they don’t go so enormous that you can’t manage them, but they’re very nice. They’re very expensive, but we’ll put them in. Now, I’ve looked at
them a lot what we could do to make it better. You could put a tree in with the irrigation in there and you’ll be pulling it out when it pokes its head up through the pavement. It’s
just an old house that was encroached upon, and now we’ve got the front, the back is wide open. It goes back quite a bit.
Anderson: So you are willing to landscape the property?
Bever: I am willing, but I want to do it smart and I want to do it so the City benefits from it. It talks about the benefits to the City and the citizens, and that would be in the
front of the building in these pots. I can’t put giant trees, but there would be three- or four-foot of these, probably four or five of these out there. There’s a nice spot for them
if you look at the picture where it says front, the handicapped ramp, you’ll see that there’s a bed down below this ramp right here, and it goes over here also, and basically that is
a drainage thing because when they elevated this creating the pond there, we put drainage rock in there and now it drains off really nice. We were going to have this resurfaced, too.
That’s where they would go. It would go the full front of the building and one here on the end. I’m open to suggestions other than destroying the place. That’s
kind of – if you saw it, you’d go, Yeah, there’s no where to go with it other than the back yard or do it someplace else. If they want, I’d have to put in two trees, we’re putting it
on 2900 s.f. of asphalt because there’s some over there, I don’t know how you count it. We could put those in the back, in the corner and put sprinkling systems to it, but I don’t think
that was the intent. I think it was out to be on the corridor where people drive by and see your pad. I understand the reasoning behind it, and I know with new developments, there’s
real opportunity to do that kind of stuff, and I support that. Over developments, you do what you can and you try to be reasonable. That’s all. Do you have any questions?
Corrie: I don’t think so. Thank you. Council, you have the decision to – whether you want to stay with Shari’s interpretation of the – what she’s done and ask that it goes through
a Conditional Use Permit or you can bypass – correct me, Mr. Attorney, if on the vote they can bypass the Conditional Use Permit area here and permit it; is that correct?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, this is an appeal of her decision. If you conclude that this is a permitted use, then they’re allowed to proceed. If you conclude, as Shari
did, that it’s not a permitted use, it falls into that catch-all category and becomes a conditional use. So it’s the Council’s decision whether it’s a permitted use or not, and Council’s
permitted to interpret its own ordinances.
Corrie: Discussion? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on the request of the appeal.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we interpret the ordinance on this property as being within the zone, the planned use of it, that they are going to use. Anybody understand that? I’m
for letting them go ahead and put their building in.
Corrie: Okay, Mr. Bird, do you want to paraphrase that a little better?
Bird: I move that we reverse the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of the ordinance.
McCandless: I’ll second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to reverse the Planning and Zoning’s interpretation of the ordinance at this time. Is there any further discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, the only caution I would have on this is since we do not have it in our definitions, anywhere you have a commercial area, this will be allowed, and it’s probably
one of the businesses that’s not specified. It is listed as conditional use. So be careful what you do because once you do this, it will be permitted anywhere in our commercial areas.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to comment that it would probably be impossible to list every possible type of business that could come to us, and that’s why the term “et cetera”
was probably put in there, and I think listening to Mr. Bever’s explanation of what is going in there that I think it would be a logical assumption that to figure that this would fit
into this type of zoning. I really don’t think that we’re establishing any type of precedent here. I think this would be a good use and probably should be reversed.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to comment that the new construction, I think you can have your rules and regulations, but a lot of times on these older commercial deals it is impossible
and if you can get a good, clean business in like this is going to be, I think it adds to the City instead of takes away from it.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, just a comment that each case should be considered under its own merit, and it isn’t necessarily a blanket decision.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Questions have been called for. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, I would like to point out that the applicant does need to get a Certificate of Occupancy prior to operating and does need to meet the ordinance requirements in regard
to landscaping and trash enclosures unless a variance is obtained.
Bever: Would a variance be necessary to (inaudible) out front?
Corrie: I think you can work that out with the Planning and Zoning Director. Thank you, Shari.
Item 5. Tabled from May 16, 2000: CUP 00-012 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Maple Grove RV for RV sales, RV retail and repair in an I-L zone – 2490 W. Franklin Road:
Corrie: Item No. 5 is tabled from May 16, 2000 for the request for Conditional Use Permit for Maple Grove RV and RV sales, rental, retail and repair in an I-L zone, 2490 West Franklin
Road. So first, Shari, we’ll start this quickly here and we’ll have Mr. Dugan.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, do you have a memo from myself dated June 2, 2000, in your packets? As I recall from the last meeting, the applicant was to get with staff if they had
any questions or needed clarification on any of the items for approval. The Ada County Highway District has revisited this based on a letter
that I wrote them that’s also in your packet. They have been undergoing many staff turn-overs at the Highway District, and overlooked some of the issues with this project. They did
meet again on Friday, and hopefully you have their reports. Do you have their draft report? Their tech-review report? The Highway District is asking for the 48-foot right-of-way dedication,
construction of sidewalk, and another issue that they – I don’t know if any of the items are going to be appealed by the applicant, but they have also asked that one of the driveways
be closed because it does not meet their policy. I think the other main issue that came up, still, was the construction of a firewall in the existing 3600 s.f. building. We have had
no response from the applicant on whether that would be considered what he is planning to do. I guess he can address what his issues are that are remaining. I’ve had a very difficult
time understanding what his issues are. It seems to be a new one every time. We would request that you consider this a favorable recommendation and include staff comments as conditions
of approval.
Corrie: Come back again, Shari. You approve of the Conditional Use Permit based upon your recommendation; is that what you’re saying?
Stiles: I would recommend approval with staff conditions.
Corrie: As long as they meet all the staff conditions?
Stiles: Yeah. One thing that we hadn’t ironed out yet, we would like to tie down the signage that’s permitted out there. There’s stuff out in the right-of-way and all along the fence.
It would be great if we could tie that down with this Conditional Use Permit, what kind of limitations would be on signage.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Shari, the staff conditions are the June 2, 2000, the latest ones?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Any other questions? All right. Your turn. Before you get started, have you seen that letter of June 2nd?
Dugan: I do believe I have, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: All right.
Dugan:: Mr. Mayor, Honorable Council members and distinguished City representatives, my name is Matt Dugan, and I am the President of Maple Grove RV Services at 2490 West Franklin Road.
I would like to apologize in advance for taking more time than normally allotted for verbal comments; however, I do believe once I am finished the City Council will have the material
and information necessary to render a decision. I gave Will all my – this packet that I have in front of me. I, Matt Dugan, stand before you the victim of a bureaucratic
nightmare. It began 20 years ago when the property known as 2490, 2492 and 2494 West Franklin Road was annexed into the City of Meridian. Much to my disappointment, it will not be
completely resolved tonight. What we have here is what comes first: the chicken or the egg. My partners and I own a small piece of land that fronts the two-lane road which everyone
knows will be widened to four lanes some day. The land sits around it on three sides by 100 acres of agricultural and livestock even though the zoning is light industrial in the City
limits. Across the street is hundreds more acres of agricultural zoned residential and County jurisdiction. We are so rural that there are only three human neighbors within the City’s
definition of neighbor to have received notice of this application. There are no city service trunk lines within the mandatory 300 feet to require or allow hook-up and no plan on file
with the City to (inaudible) trunk lines or to find the implication date. Having been a resident of the area for 30 years, I have witnessed this same scenario occur numerous times.
Most recently when a section of Franklin Road between East First and Linder was widened. Being a customer to many of the landowners who were in business prior to road-widening, I am
aware that these sites were allowed to develop as City services became available and to finalize permanent fixtures like an asphalt parking lot when the roadwork was to be completed.
These reasonable accommodations were made for landowners to avoid undue hardship, and we respectfully request the same considerations. The best I can hope for is that the City Council
will understand why I change – excuse me. The best I can hope for is that the City Council will understand what I am about to propose is not undue. Granting a Conditional Use Permit
at this time will not constitute a change in past practice which has been approved and condoned by the City of Meridian and its entities for years. In the interest of justice, equity
and reasonable accommodation, I am requesting that the City Council approve Maple Grove RV’s application for a Conditional Use Permit and submit the following position statement on proposed
property improvement site plan to support this request. The facts are complex, but the crux of the problem is simple: The City annexed without securing a commitment from the applicants
to deviate the City from liability to provide for services that are required by Ordinance. I have tried to quietly point out to the City and its entities that I am willing to be flexible
and wait for the time when the City is able to provide trunk lines necessary for hookup in exchange for reasonable accommodations and timing of property improvements to avoid undue hardship.
It seems that the Planning and Zoning Department does not want to compromise on issues that have direct relationship in the necessity of City services for compliance. Instead, Planning
and Zoning wants to take the strictest interpretation of Ordinance compliance for Maple Grove RV and yet does not apply the same standards of compliance to the City itself. I could
use numerous neighbors and fellow business owners within the City who are also held to the – not held to the latest level of expectation defined as minimum requirements of approval by
the Planning and Zoning. I will not use finger-pointing to make my case. The facts speak for themselves. Let me leave note that providing trunk lines to within 300 feet of said property
is a responsibility of the City whether by design or default unless the City wants to install the trunk
lines for said services immediately, the City must be willing to compromise on requirements that are directly or indirectly related to the installation of City services. Impeding the
process has been the calculated harassment and discrimination by the Planning and Zoning Director who wants to heap the burden of responsibility on me in retaliation for complaints about
her consistent inappropriate behavior and the lack of accurate and up-to-date forms, policies, procedures and publications her department is responsible to administer. Her continued
attempts to influence others with claims that contain innuendo –
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I’m sorry. But I don’t think this is appropriate to attack our staff in a public hearing. Are you going to read this whole –
Dugan: Mrs. deWeerd, she attacked me in a public letter.
Corrie: Let him finish.
deWeerd: Are you going to read these whole six pages?
Dugan: We have time restrictions, do we not, Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Yeah –
deWeerd: I think we need to read this, and if you want us to consider what is written here that maybe we re-visit it at our next public meeting.
Dugan: Well, Mrs. deWeerd, that’s up to the Council members themselves. I don’t have control over this meeting. All I have asked is to come and show what my side of the story is and
what I am supposed to do to meet these requirements. How can I meet the requirements when I’m not the one changing the rules every two minutes when it is a Planning and Zoning Director
who wants to give me different opinions every time I walk in there? From my site-specific plans of the original site-specific plan, I had seven requirements. I now have 19. I have
a letter that is full of lies. The Planning and Zoning Director has lied. Even in my site-specific plan, she has – if you read her letter, the last paragraph, she comments on – excuse
me – she comments on the agenda when I said last year it took me a year and-a-half to get through this process, last meeting, and as the Mayor can attest that I have been trying to do
this for almost two years, and I originally put in my application March of 1999. She put in my site-specific plan that she wanted to clarify this, and I didn’t start until January 2000
which is not the truth.
deWeerd: I think there must be a better way of hashing out the –
Dugan: Mrs. deWeerd, if you have a better way, I’m all for it. I have done everything that I have possibly can do. I have sent official complaints to the
Mayor that I have not received any word back on. Not one. The letter was over a month and-a-half ago.
deWeerd: But I think, Mr. Dugan, we need to spend time on the application and the items that you are contesting, not what has been said or what – how long it’s taken. Let’s try and
resolve those issues and identify with those issues and see what we can do so in her recommendations what do you not agree with?
Dugan: Well, my problem is that I have no City services down there to my place at no fault of my own. So what happens is if I have to develop this piece of property to comply with
City ordinances, I’ll have to pay for a parking lot twice. I don’t have no place to hook up. I have no place to stub my water lines. I have no place to put my sewer lines.
Corrie: Matt, let me clarify something for you. The staff at their meeting with you the last two times, they said rather than having a fire sprinkle system because you don’t have water
there, you have a well, you can put up a firewall in the building where you do your welding, and only do welding in that area. So they would take care of that part of it. That would
be one of the conditions. The other is that you asked for a Conditional Use Permit to sell motor homes. Now what this is that you have now, you’ve got ACHD involved, and technically
speaking, you don’t even have a permit what you’re doing from the City. There’s nothing in our files that says you even have an occupancy permit for what you did. Now that’s the crutch
of the whole thing. Now what Mrs. deWeerd is asking, you have seen this letter on June 2nd. I’m going to reiterate what about this, Item 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and going down this whole
thing, I presume you’ve read it, let’s just take it one at a time, then. Do you object to the section about the Ordinance that says off-street parking?
Dugan: I’m going to have to find it. One second, Mr. Mayor. Do I have the letter?
Anderson: Matt, you can borrow my copy.
Dugan: My problem with the off-street parking is that if I put in my parking lot, and I do it according to Ordinance that I’ll have to dig up the whole parking lot to hook up to City
services when the lines come down to whenever the trunk lines come in. That’s my problem with doing it. So I’m paying twice for a parking lot. That – so that’s why –
Anderson: (inaudible) have to do that?
Dugan: Excuse me?
Anderson: Why would you have to do that?
Dugan: Because I’d have to dig up and hook up to the City lines from my building back to the front.
Anderson: Could you lay a dry line now?
Dugan: Well, the problem is we have no point of where we’re going to put this dry line. There’s no sewer points, how deep it’s supposed to be, how far it’s supposed to be, how end
of the road it’s supposed to be. There’s no drawings, there’s no nothing. Where am I supposed to hook it? How are you supposed to put in a dry line?
Corrie: Have you done a drainage plan?
Dugan: A drainage plan? No, we have not gotten to that drainage plan. The whole parking lot now is all gravel and it has surface drainage. Paving and striping, again, if it comes
down to the issue that I don’t want to tear my parking lot up twice. Outside lighting, I have no problems with. All signage I have no problems with. When we talked about it at the
Planning and Zoning level when the Commission was in, the only sign I asked to keep was the sign over my big, large building out back and I’ll put the sign up out front according to
the City ordinances. Determine the seasonable high-ground elevation, and that –
Corrie: I’d imagine you’d need an engineer for that so you don’t get drowned out on what your drainage and that is. Go ahead.
Dugan: Okay. I have no construction for No. 7.
Corrie: That’s American Disabilities Act. Okay. No. 8 is where you said you can put the wall -
Dugan: No. 8 is where we put the wall up. I just want to state for the fact that we are sitting in there and with this conversation, there was no compromise being met, and they was
like, If you don’t have City water, you’re not going to have it. I said, well, what happens if I shorten the building up or I do take 600 feet off of it or whatever I can do to do it,
how can I do that? Well, Yeah, if you take a section of your building out. I go, well, what happens if I put a wall up? Can I put a wall up? They look at each other and they said,
Well, yeah, you can do that. So I mean, I was the one who was having to come up with the ideas. I feel like the City was trying to say that they’re the ones that are saying that this
was a great idea and we’re trying to compromise with them.
Corrie: But they said you could do that, right?
Dugan: I don’t have a problem with that. What hinders my building is – this building has been there, has been hot works, has been condoned for 10 years.
They’ve been doing maintenance in there. Ms. Stiles calls it a storage shed. It’s not a storage shed. It’s a shop. It was built for a shop.
Corrie: Okay. Your landscaping and paving would be done with a variance request. Do you realize that?
Dugan: Yes, there was, at one time, except for a variance, they did give me the information for a variance request. But I was just going how many applications or how many things do
you have to do to get to this point? As well as a variance request, the landscaping that they want on each side of the property with City ordinances, it requires a zero buffer zone
and low landscaping is required except in the front or the rear unless there’s houses within 300 feet of the property. There’s not houses within 300 feet of the property, so there’s
a zero buffer zone on three sides of it except the front. She wants a 35-foot setback. You know, I have no problem meeting a 35-foot setback. It’s just that right up the street they
were only required to put a 20-foot setback in. With the 48-foot right-of-way of center on Franklin Road, all these things are addressed in my report that I was going to read. The
48-foot setback and the right-of-way at Franklin Road – I have no problems with that. When we bought the property, we –
*** End of Side 1 ***
Dugan: -- 48 feet from the center of railroad, and Ada County Highway District said that they would buy that property. And what I was told in here, she was wanting me to give the 48-foot
right-of-way, 35-foot setback and I told her nobody’s bought that property and everything, and Shari told me that if I want the – if I want my Conditional Use Permit that the City Council
can require me to give up that land and just when Ada County Highway District develops the road, then that’s when you’ll get paid for.
Corrie: ACHD said that they’d buy that property?
Dugan: Yes. ACHD said that they would buy that from me.
Corrie: Then you’ve got the five-foot sidewalk required by ACHD?
Dugan: No, it’s going to be the only thing I have to (inaudible) sidewalk, I have a whole mile stretch. Again, I don’t know if the sidewalks will be tore up because – you know, the
five lanes that are going to come in. I don’t know if they’ve done any drawings on the five lanes that are going to come in. The sidewalks that are going to come in. There’s nothing
that – what we're going to have is 200 feet of sidewalk and a mile stretch.
Anderson: It says you can provide a letter of credit. You don’t have to build the sidewalk. You have an option there.
Dugan: That’s fine.
Corrie: So actually, bring it down to where the river meets the road here, Matt. Are you willing to put in a wall in that building and do the welding behind that, nothing but welding?
In case there’s a fire back there, it will stay there and doesn't get to the other trailers?
Dugan: To get approval, if that’s what I have to do, that’s what I suppose I would – but I am not, because that it is such a hindrance upon my business. It cuts my building in half.
I have no use of the building It’s just a huge hindrance upon this. I have a building permit that says I even conform to all City codes when this building was built.
Corrie: You have a building permit?
Dugan: Yes. For the building that was constructed, yes.
Corrie: That – not as an RV – you don’t have an occupancy permit for the RV repair?
Dugan: I didn’t know I was required to have an occupancy permit because when I bought the property from G2B, they didn’t have no occupancy permit. They’d been there for years. I didn’t
know you had to have an occupancy permit. All I thought is that I’d go in there and meet the industrial light definition.
Corrie: You say you were not aware that you had to have an occupancy permit for an RV repair, that it was not that in the first place; is that what you’re saying?
Dugan: Right. I’m saying that the property that was there before was the same.
Corrie: It’s not the same. It wasn’t an RV repair. It was a (inaudible).
Dugan: But that’s like saying the difference between repairing a Chevy and a Ford for what the building as it’s going on - for what the work that’s going on in there.
Corrie: And then you were aware that you can put a bond or a letter of credit to do those things later within a year or so that’s required in the Ordinance for an RV, CUP, to sell motor
homes.
Dugan: I’m not sure what a letter of credit means.
Corrie: It means whatever it costs to do that, then you could get a letter of credit from the bank that says that we’ve got this amount of money set aside or you can set a bond that
within a year’s period or a year and-a-half it will be done. If it’s
not, then the bond will be used to do it. See what I’m saying? Do you have any objections to that?
Dugan: No, I do not.
Bird: They’re not easy to get.
Corrie: They’re pretty hard to get.
Bird: Just be up-front with you.
Dugan: What is the problem to get a bond?
Bird: As I understand, and I’m not a banker, to get a letter of credit, a bond would be easier to get, but with a letter of credit, you have to be liquid enough – cover all their costs
and stuff. It’s tough.
Dugan: Well, I have no problem. I really feel that it’s the City’s responsibility to bring water and services. I have no problem sprinkling my building right now, putting a sprinkling
system in there and when the water gets there, then I’m in compliance. So if the ordinance says I don’t have to hook up to City services within 300 feet, can I not put a sprinkling
system in there and be in compliance?
Corrie: The sprinkling system has to have the capacity in case you have a fire to put it out. You don’t have enough water, from what I understand.
Dugan: But is that my responsibility, Mr. Mayor?
Bird: Have you asked for City services? Will you ask for sewer and water down there?
Dugan: I have never, and I have always paid taxes on them.
Bird: You haven’t paid taxes on water and sewer.
Corrie: You haven’t paid because you don’t have that.
Bird; Have you ever applied for that? You’re within the City limits. You have applied for it – our ordinance states when we annexed you that we would provide services. Have you ever
asked for it?
Dugan: No, I have not. I’m sorry. I have asked for the City services in a complaint letter addressed to the Mayor. I can get you that letter and date.
Corrie: Well, before the Council right now is the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for use to sell –
Dugan: Mr. mayor, may I say that all I wanted to do is I fix RVs. All I wanted to do was sell a few RVs a year that I refurbish out in the shop out back. I do not want to have a full-blown
RV dealership because my property cannot support it. It’s plain, flat not big enough.
Corrie: Okay. Getting back to the question, the request here is a Conditional Use Permit for the –
Dugan: Can I ask about No. 17, if approved this Conditional Use Permit should be subject to annual review or any time upon 10 days notice to the applicant. Is that an average request?
Is anybody else –
Corrie: (inaudible) conditional use permits. That’s no. We look at other Conditional Use Permits. We just want to make sure that all the things that were requested be done are done.
Dugan: If it was normal, Mr. Mayor, why was it not done in the first site-specific plan?
Corrie: I don’t know. I don’t know.
Dugan: Neither do I, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: I’m just telling you what is the conditions of staff. The Council can throw it out if they want or they can keep it. The Council, any other questions you have for Mr. Dugan
or do you want anymore testimony here on this?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Shari? Okay. Then the question is the CUP for the request to sell motor homes at this point. And the recommendation is to include all staff comments and we’ll go from
there.
Dugan: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Staff, questions, discussion? I’m sorry. Council.
Anderson: Just for clarification, Mr. Mayor. Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denying and staff is recommending approval. Is that correct?
Corrie: With staff comments. That’s correct.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just in response to Councilman Anderson’s comments, I think there’s been a lot of information that’s happened since this was at Planning and Zoning, and I think
the Fire Marshall has met with Mr. Dugan (inaudible) Mr.
Dugan came up with a good idea to compromise. I think that has changed some of the position of staff (inaudible). Is that accurate, Shari?
Stiles: Well, except for the fact that it was not Mr. Dugan’s compromise. It was suggested by the staff.
deWeerd: It doesn’t matter. It’s now satisfactory? With your comments?
Stiles: For the fire code. Yes. The ones that he’s addressed, these are old comments. He hasn’t addressed any of these comments in the new memo.
deWeerd: Well, we just had them addressed. I think – is Council satisfied with what Mr. Dugan’s response was to staff comments? Just one more question to Shari or maybe Gary. In
staff comments here, there’s considerable information that’s needed on a drainage plan and helping Mr. Dugan on where he can lay his dry lines for future hook-up. Is that at a stage
where that information can be given to him? Does further work need to be done with Mr. Dugan so he knows really what is going to be required for him out there?
Smith: Councilwoman deWeerd, are you speaking to the sewer or the on-site drainage?
deWeerd: I’m speaking of both.
Smith: Okay. On-site drainage can be accomplished by them finding where the historical high ground water level is which can be done by a (inaudible) looking at an excavated depth.
The sanitary sewer is more difficult. We have at this time only general elevations for the trunk line that were determined in our facility plan. We do not have any final design elevations
for sanitary sewer. The one thing that could be looked at would be what the elevation of the trunk line that would serve this property versus what the elevation of the sanitary sewer
is leaving the building and see how much grade is required to get to the trunk. Then some expectation or decision could be made whether or not the sewer is deep enough to serve this
property or what elevation they may need to put the sewer service in at. I haven’t looked at the trunk line, so I really don’t know the extent of pipeline to serve this property. I
believe it’s served through the Ten Mile Creek drainage.
deWeerd: So where does that leave him in his need to know where to lay these lines so that he doesn’t have to dig up his parking lot again.
Anderson: Request a variance.
Smith: We don’t have any definitive information on where the invert of the sewer line will be other than what’s been provided to us by the consulting engineer on the facility plan.
Those are approximations. They’re not absolutes. Utilizing the approximated elevation of the trunk line and the elevation of the service line at
the building, a decision could be made without too much effort as to whether or not a minimum grade of a service line leaving the building or leaving the property, however it was to
be served, could flow to the trunk line as designed on a preliminary basis.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Dugan: On the back of my documentation, I wrote on the back page, I wrote a very crude drawing of what I would like to do, and it is actually has 150-foot driveways coming into the
property. I posted where all the water is on the property that I have possible access to. I’m willing to have more than abundant fire extinguishers inside the building and am willing
to post fire extinguishers on the outside of every building, the largest fire extinguisher that can possibly be carried. I’m willing to give the 35-foot right-of-way up-front, and
I’m willing to change my signs.
Corrie: You realize you’re eventually going to have one driveway.
Dugan: I realize that, Mr. Mayor, and I’ll acknowledge that right now in public testimony that because of the 50-mile an hour speed limit is what the reason was out there. I’ll – you
know, I didn’t create this problem, and I’m sorry that I ever even mentioned anything, but I’m not sorry because I believe that this is how progress gets done. All I’ve tried to do
is be a good businessman in the community.
Corrie: I’ll give you that you have cleaned it up a lot.
Dugan: I’ve cleaned it up a lot. I have shown – if you’ll look at the back page, I drew pictures in there how I have brought the property up to beautification levels or however you
guys want to say it and developed the property the best that I can. So there’s proof there that I’m willing to progress this as we go. I just think that it’s an undue hardship upon
myself to make me do all these things when I pose no danger to nobody. I haven’t had one complaint in here that says that nobody wants this. I haven’t had anybody come up and be adverse
to me. So that’s what I’ve got.
Corrie: Thank you, Matt. Well, Council, what do you want to do?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’ll make a motion just to get this thing rolling. I will make a motion that we deny the Conditional Use Permit request for Maple Grove RV.
Corrie: Motion is made to deny the CUP. IS there a second? Dies for lack of second. Let’s try another one.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for RV sales and repair by Maple Grove RV with all staff comments dated June 2, 2000.
Corrie: Motion has been made to approve the CUP with all the conditions of staff dated June 2nd. Is there a second on that? Okay. Dies for lack of second. I don’t know where the
middle is. I can’t break a tie on that one.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, this probably won’t get a second either, but we’ll try. I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit for Maple Grove RV sales and repair with the staff comments
excluding he’s not getting a building permit, as I understand, so I don’t know why No. 7 has to be in there.
deWeerd: You have (inaudible) parking (inaudible).
Bird: You might be right. I’ll leave that in, then. Also he would have to have a bond, not a letter of credit.
deWeerd: On which Item?
Bird: On No. 11.
deWeerd: Okay, so a bond instead of a letter of credit.
Corrie: Are you keeping No. 7 or excluding it?
Bird: We’re keeping No. 7.
deWeerd: Do you want to give him the option of letter of credit or a bond?
Bird: Yeah. We can do that. They’ve already got that in there.
deWeerd: So are you still taking 7 out?
Bird: No, I’m leaving it in. Also on No. 13, change that to a letter of credit or a bond. That should do it.
deWeerd: So your only changes are to 11 and 13? Okay. I’ll second that.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the CUP with staff comments with the changing of Items 11 and 13 that he can also have a letter of credit or a bond be submitted.
Any further discussion?
Anderson: Did we get a second?
Corrie: Yes.
Anderson: Then I won’t pass up the opportunity to make a comment on this. I think this is one of the ugliest and messiest CUPs that we’ve ever put forward for a – there are too many
unresolved issues in this. Don’t believe the applicant still fully understands what the requirements are. I think this is going to come back to bite us big time. The comments that
he made was still is I’m not hearing that he agrees with any of these conditions. It’s “if I have to, I will.” My comment is that this could be a big mistake to approve.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, this is something that I think the City’s going to have to really look at in trying to encourage little businesses to improve and improve their property, we seem to
make it Mount McKinley to climb over to get there for the poor people. I agree with you 100 percent, Ron. I agree with you 100 percent. I don’t think that he’s looked at those. That
he said that he wanted to agree with them. If I had to pencil it out, I’d guarantee that I wouldn’t agree with him.
Dugan: I withdraw my application.
Corrie: That takes care of that one, but Council, we still have a motion before the Council. Now what?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, you do have a motion before the body, however, as the attorney for the City with the withdrawal of the application, I think that would –
I would recommend that the motion be withdrawn and the withdrawal noted on the record.
Bird: I withdraw my motion.
deWeerd: Second agrees.
Corrie: Then I’ll entertain a motion on the counselor’s suggestion. We need a motion to accept his withdrawal.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept Mr. Matt Dugan’s application withdrawal for a CUP for Maple Grove RV sales and service.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve and recognize the applicant’s withdrawal of the CUP for Maple Grove RV. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Tabled from May 16, 2000: FP 00-007 Request for Final Plat approval of 102 lots and 14 other lots on 31.94 acres in an R-4 zone by Projects West, Inc., for English Gardens
Subdivision:
Corrie: Item No. 6, tabled from May 16, 2000, a request for final plat approval of 102 lots and 14 other lots on 31.94 acres in an R-4 zone by Projects West, Inc., for English Gardens
Subdivision. Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property at the southeast corner of Black Cat and Cherry Lane known as English Gardens Subdivision. They are proposing two separate plats.
One is known as English Gardens Subdivision I and also English Gardens Subdivision II. We have our staff comments dated today. The applicant, his representative, has graciously responded
to those comments. They have listed the items that they may have some question or suggestion for something else. Staff would have no problem with – do you have their letter dated June
6?
Bird: I don’t have staff’s. Shari, we don’t have the staff report dated June 6th. These just – they just got these? “I have reviewed your staff report dated June 6, 2000. I have
the following comments.” We just got the staff report to him June 6 for tonight’s deal?
Stiles: Yes, we did.
Bird: We don’t have a copy of yours. Does anybody have them? Do you have our staff comments from June 6? I don’t.
Corrie: Is the applicant here tonight? Why don’t you come up here and answer a couple questions. When did you get our staff comments?
Unger: For the record, Bob Unger, Pinnacle Engineers. We picked those up this morning.
Corrie: You picked them up this morning?
Unger: Yes, that’s correct. We’ve been working with Shari and Bruce on this final plat. As you know, we were tabled twice through the process here on the final plat because we had
some issues, some problems. We were working with staff on this for a month, at least, maybe six weeks to work out all the issues to make sure that the plat was everything we’ve represented
in our preliminary. Also so that it compiled with your requirements on the final. So we have worked with staff, and staff’s been really good to work with. We don’t have any real problems
here as far as we’re concerned. We just listed five items here that we would like to see adjusted from what staff was recommending. I’ve gone over them with Shari. She doesn’t have
any issues with what we’re recommending. We would like to go forward with the plats.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, the only problem is we don’t know what the staff comments were because we don’t have a copy of it. How can we go forward? I mean, we have stated the last two years
that if it doesn’t get here by Friday, don’t bring it on Tuesday. It’s not fair to the applicant, it’s not fair to our staff, and it’s certainly not fair to the Council and Mayor.
We’re getting stuff shoved in front of us that we’ve had no chance to look at, to read or comment. I can look stupid enough without somebody helping me.
Corrie: This final plat, if it’s held off until June 20th, is that going to make any difference as far as timing with you and that – are you still within that year?
Unger: Well, that’s a hard one for me to respond to, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: I understand.
Unger: Your staff is very overworked. I know that because I’ve dealt with them on numerous projects. They are very overworked, understaffed, and having a hard time keeping up. I
appreciate that. They are at this point. To be perfectly honest with you, I don’t want to be tabled again. I have to answer to my client, and I’ve answered to him twice already that
we’ve been tabled, and he’s not a happy camper with that. I think the staff comments, I’m sorry that you don’t have those, haven’t had a chance to review them, but staff comments were
all appropriate staff comments for a final plat. We’ve got a good project. We comply with your codes. We had a couple requests on just some minor changes in the staff comments that
were very minor. Staff doesn’t seem to have a problem with them. It’s unfair for us to ask you folks to approve the final plat based upon comments that you haven’t seen. But then
again, it’s not fair to table us again because of that.
Bird: I agree with you, Bob.
Unger: Now, your approval if you approve it this evening, you were going to direct the attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law based upon incorporating staff comments,
hopefully our comments, and if there is a problem with that, then I guess you can hold the adoption of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, but what we’re asking is that you
don’t hold us up again. Please, we’d like to go forward with the project. Until the final plat’s approved, we can’t get our construction drawings approved. Until we get the construction
drawings approved, I can’t start construction. I’m starting to get to a window where we’re not going to be able to get the project, the infrastructure and everything built and start
drawing and building permits until September if things go well at this point. We might get September. We go much longer, we’re going to get into the season where they’re not going
to be able to get the construction going as far as building, et cetera, and my client has got a substantial amount of
money invested here, and every time we get put off, it costs him more money. So that is an issue with him, and as such, I have to represent that to you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, all issues were – didn’t we have that other little subdivision come up right next to you and some roads were going to be stubbed out and stuff? Is that all taken care
of? Mr. Manship.
Unger: Those issues have been resolved between us and Jeff. Yes. That’s all been taken care of.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, would it be appropriate to ask Shari to run and make a copy of her staff comments if she has those with her? We take a chance to review those?
Corrie: We can. The motion, if you decide to do so, is either accept or reject If you accept, the attorney will prepare the appropriate order, and then it will have to come back on
June 20th and approve.
Bird: Ron, we can do it that way. Then we’ll have it in our packets at that time. So if you want a motion, Mayor, I’ll certainly give that.
Corrie: Let me ask a question. Shari, is there anything in this that you don’t agree with that – I guess it’s Item 10, they’d rather not get – nine lots, 9 and 19 in Block 11 – install
a cedar fencing; any problem with that?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, could I run through his comments?
Corrie: No. 10, I have no problem with their proposal to leave that as it is. On 15, we were not sure that they were proposing landscaping with the Ten Mile Drain easement, and that
was the reason to request the non-combustible because of the weeds that would be left there, but they are proposing landscaping that area, and so we would have no problem with this six-foot
cedar provided that the lattice was used at the top to allow a little visibility for safety reasons back there. The 10-foot wide easement on No. 18, if that’s acceptable to the Public
Works Department and the County Engineer, we have no problem with that. Also as far as the naming of it, that was partly informational that we did want to have to know a new name if
one was going to be required by John Priester at the Ada County Engineer. Other than that, we, as far as site-specific comments, asked for was for them to coordinate the construction
of the pathway with the Parks Director and the Western Ada Recreation District because it will eventually go into their park and the approval agencies. Standard comments on sewer and
water to go to and through the site. Comment on lot frontage, and they understand that. There is an issue on these lots. This lot and this lot and this lot. They do meet the frontage
requirements facing this road that we felt that was a safety issue, and so we had requested that any of the driveways for the houses located on those lots be located off of this street.
And the applicant had
no problem with that. The other, 6 through – all of the rest of the comments through 12 are changes to the notes just for clarification and cleanup. On No. 13, we had asked for detailed
landscape plans for the common areas, and those will also be given to the Parks Director for his approval, especially along the Ten Mile Drain. Ask for a permanent – the one he had
a question on about the non-combustible fencing, and I think that’s agreeable with the landscaping if you agree with that. Six-foot permanent perimeter fencing. That was requested.
A standard note about what’s to be in place prior to building permits being issued. We had asked for evidence of monies deposited with Ada County Highway District for construction
of the bridge over Ten Mile Creek prior to signature on the final plat. Another correction of a note. Then under general requirements we had nine items, and those are all standard
comments that are included on every subdivision that’s before the Council.
Corrie: So your site-specific requirements, these are the ones that you had taken that No. 10, 15 and 18, 21 and you have no objection (inaudible) from staff.
Unger: Nope, we’re fine. Thank you.
Corrie: Council have any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: All right. Then we’ll take a stab at that and make a motion for final plat on English Gardens Subdivision, Item No. 6, FP 00-007.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the final plat of 102 building lots and 14 other lots for English Gardens Subdivision to include staff comments on June 6 as well as the applicant’s
response also dated June 6 and to ask the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: I will second.
Corrie: (inaudible) Findings of Facts on this one.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I may make a point of order. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, in some of Mr. Unger’s comments, they’re essentially disagreements with the staff comments such
as the non-combustible fence requirement, so in order for me to prepare Findings, it would be helpful if you want to override staff’s comments with Mr. Unger’s, to specify which ones
you want and which ones you don't.
deWeerd: Can I – Mr. Attorney, can I do it just with the comment that staff concurs with the response of the applicant and to make the appropriate changes
to their staff comments? Having not seen them, it’s hard to change them. Shari, did you concur with these responses 100 percent?
Stiles: I did provided on the fencing that that top portion was left as an open lattice or something like that, and they have the landscaping that they’ve proposed.
Nichols: I think it’s sufficiently clarified. I understand what your intent is.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Did I get a second here? Okay. Mr. Bird. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Item No. 6, request for final plat approval, English Gardens Subdivision, including
comments of the applicant and the staff and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Tabled from May 16, 2000: FP 00-008 Request for Final Plat approval of 164 building lots and 41 other lots on 50.9 acres with in an R-4 zone for Woodbridge Subdivision by Woodbridge
Community, LLC – east side of South Locust Grove ¼ mile south of Franklin Road:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is a request for final plat approval of 164 building lots and 41 other lots on 50.9 acres with the R-4 zone for Woodbridge Subdivision by Woodbridge Community, LLC,
east side of South Locust Grove ¼ mile south of Franklin Road. Staff comments on Item No. 7?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, hopefully you have our comments dated June 1st and a response from the applicant that’s dated today.
Corrie: Yes.
Stiles: I believe that there are issues that they have that primarily deal with the Public Works Department. We still haven’t quite worked out the easement along Five Mile Creek.
It may be premature, but I think that can be handled by working with the Parks Director for that future pathway along Five Mile Creek. Before I let Gary address those issues particularly
with regard to the water, there is an issue of the name of the road. They have changed the names within these loop roads to comply with Ada County Street Name Committee’s report. They
had initially wanted one name for the entire road on each side, but I believe that issue has been resolved. The only issue remaining for the street name is that they want
this main road through the project to be able to be called Woodbridge Drive. And as the applicant explains in his June 1st letter, there is one 200-foot long private drive in Boise
that is also called Woodbridge. I believe Kenny Bowers, Fire Chief, stated that he doesn’t have a problem with it being duplicated in this case. I don’t know if you have a problem
with that? Police Chief indicates that he does not have a problem with the duplication, and the applicant is just requesting that the City Council approve that name so that they can
have the Street Name Committee approve it and get their plat signed with that name designated on the plat.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council, I’d just like to make a comment concerning the water pressure in the area of this subdivision. We have made, our consultant, several computer runs with
our computerized model of our water system, and they project that the water pressure in this area would be in the low 40s to the
mid 50s PSI range. Fire flow is available at the 1,000 gallons per minute with residual of 20 PSI. That’s all based on computer modeling. We did fire hydrant and – on Central Drive
near Jabil. We had a very good flow there. The applicant’s engineer has done some additional work in determining pressures available at the upstairs shower head of a home located on
the highest ground elevation in the subdivision, and they find that to be acceptable to them. The applicant is aware of our concerns, and as such, they are understanding that a future
connection to the high-pressure zone of this subdivision may be necessary, and that would be at their Phase II, I suspect, portion of their development which would be the properties
to the right-hand side of Five Mile Creek as it crosses the drawing on the screen. In accordance with that understanding, the applicant is willing to install a pressure-reducing valve
station at the west end at Locust Grove Road and their Woodbridge Drive entrance or in that approximate area such that at a future date, this subdivision could be connected to our high-pressure
zone, and it would allow its disconnection, so to speak, from the low-pressure zone, but still allow us an avenue to divert flow from high-pressure into the low-pressure zone. They
are agreeable to provide that facility. I believe in their site-specific comments to our review, Item No. 1, I believe that’s what Derek O'Niell is expressing. The reason that we put
a little emphasis on this issue is that memory of Meridian Greens’ low-pressure situation still exists, and it was necessary at that point in Meridian Greens to install a booster station
to take care of the pressure problem there at a significant expense to the City. A little bit different because it was a little bit lower. We had 42 PSI, I believe, at the pump station
or at the well head, and it went down from there as you went uphill in Meridian Greens to the south. So from that standpoint, we’re a little better off here because these pressures
of the low 40s to the mid 50s are in the subdivision, in this subdivision. I did want everybody to be aware that homeowners are not as understanding as the developers sometimes are.
I’m not willing to take the load of all the phone calls if there are going to be any on low-pressure issues, so that’s the reason I’m raising this flag and making it number 1 in the
site-specific comments. I think Derek O'Niell understands –
*** End of Side 2 ***
Smith: -- the applicant’s been very good to work with, and we appreciate a very quality development. If you have any questions, I’ll be happy to answer them.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, Gary, you talked about we had a high-pressure zone. Is that over by St. Luke's or is that back by Jabil?
Smith: It’s at St. Luke's, yes, sir.
Anderson: So when you say that we could make a connection there, how far of a run would that be that would connect to that area?
Smith: From this project’s eastern boundary, I suspect it’s several hundred feet through the lots on Magic View Subdivision before you get to Magic View Drive, and then you could go
north and east on Magic View and connect at Allen Street which is where it is right now. I don’t know how many feet that is, Councilman.
Anderson: So if that was required, would the City be the one to foot the bill for that?
Smith: Well, I guess I’m not entertaining that as a provision for the City of Meridian to.
Anderson: But you’re offering that as a solution to solve the low water pressure, so somebody has to look at who is going to pay for that.
Smith: That's correct. The reason I brought this up is I don’t want the City to be in a position where we have to install something to increase the pressure in a subdivision similar
to what we had to experience in the Meridian Greens project. I know Derek O'Niell has a different attitude about that, but I just wanted to be sure that everyone understands the situation,
and I’m not willing, as Public Works Director, to say the City of Meridian would extend waterline to make this connection and put this project in a high-pressure zone.
Anderson: Thank you.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, if I could add one more comment, please. Again, this is a computer model. We try to keep that computer model as accurate as possible, and that’s why we flow the
hydrant up on Central Drive near Jabil to get that kind of flow information, pressure information, and the wells that we’re operating, the height of the water in the water tank, all
that information plugged into that water model so that it was giving us the best answer that we could get, but, again, it’s a computer model. It’s not actual flow conditions. It is
based on a maximum bay demand. So it’s pretty restrictive. Thank you.
deWeerd: Gary, just so I understand what you’re saying, are you offering the developer some options if they do have a no-pressure problem out there? You’re giving them these options
that they can do at their expense at a later time?
Smith: I guess the – I’m not sure if I’m offering an option. I’m just trying to make a statement that there’s going to be less than desirable pressure in the subdivision from my standpoint.
deWeerd: And on the 10th call, he has to put something in?
Smith: I guess we can make that a condition. It’s correctable. Can be corrected to making a correction to the high-pressure zone. That’s one alternative. A booster station in the
subdivision can be used too if it was not connected. The pressure could be boosted by a booster station in the subdivision or at the entrance to the subdivision. So I guess that’s
another alternative. A third alternative would be just to deal with the pressures that are there.
Anderson: What would be an approximate cost of a booster station?
Smith: I don’t know, Councilman. I can’t tell you right off-hand.
Anderson: Can you give me a ball-park?
Smith: No, I’m sorry. I don’t have any information on boosters to – it would be less than, much less, extending the main line into the high-pressure zone.
deWeerd: But at this point you’re not requiring it of them even though you know you will take the brunt of the phone calls.
Smith: I just have that gut feeling, and just based on experience.
deWeerd: Not a good feeling. Accurate.
Smith: You’re right. At this point I just want everyone to be aware of what we feel will happen based on the information that we’ve been able to develop.
deWeerd: Can it get worse?
Smith: I don’t think so. I think this is a worst-case scenario like I mentioned to Councilman Anderson. It’s a max-day demand. That’s an August day, 1,000 gallons a minute fire-flow.
Anderson: It can get worse the more homes you add in that area.
Smith: Yes, correct. With this development I don’t think it will, but if there are other subdivisions that connect in this area, you’re right. Yes.
Bird: Also in your comments in Phase II they’re required to do that.
Smith: Our comments do say that, and they are – they have come back and discussed that with us, and we’ve modified just would agree to their request to modify that condition as a requirement
to connect. This proposal does meet the State minimum requirements. It exceeds the minimum requirements, the DEQ requirements for pressure.
deWeerd: Is there any concern for fire protection if development goes in further out there, is this going to hamper our safety services?
Smith: I think that any other development that takes place out there will require the waterline to be extended from Locust Grove to connect at Franklin Road or near Franklin. I believe
there is a developer at the southwest corner of Franklin Road and Locust Grove that’s been approved. I don’t know where it’s in the construction process, but that connection would be
made. That would slightly increase the pressures in this subdivision. Not materially, but it would provide a more reliable flow because it would be a looped line then serving subdivision.
We don’t expect that it will impact the fire-flow requirements.
deWeerd: Thanks.
Corrie: Any other questions of staff? Shari?
O’Niell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Derek O'Niell, 101 North 9th, Suite 300. I’m here representing Woodbridge, LLC. I guess maybe we’ll start with the water since
that seems to be the issue. I want to make sure you have the letter we wrote today with the attachment “A”. I guess we’re suggesting the changes to the original staff report to the
final plat be modified by these conditions. I heard both Gary and Shari say they’re acceptable to these conditions. So we would ask that to do that. In regards to the water, I could
talk to you for a long time. I think Gary did a very good job explaining it. The first time we were aware that this would be an issue was about three weeks ago, and you tabled it the
last hearing we had for us to work with Gary and to review the matter a little further. I want to reiterate that we think it is an issue, and we’re working with Gary, and we think we
have an acceptable solution. That is to put in the pressure-reducing station now so that when it’s needed in the future the system will be able to be hooked up – we’re not sure it’s
necessary immediately. It is necessary in the future. We think we’ll have the system in so that it will be connected and work. As Magic View grows, and you all know it is growing,
we’re going to have to come down Magic View, and at a point, it will connect and we’ll take it and anticipate that happening, we’ll take our water and run it into theirs. So I think
there is a solution. We’re not trying to be a problem. We’re trying to help and work with Gary to provide a solution. I want to reiterate it does meet the state’s water requirements.
We’re aware of it. We’ve suggested in our condition
that we put in our conditions, CC & Rs, the fact that we will disclose the water system as planned so that people are aware of it. We’ll put it in the document we call “The Facts You
Need to Know” so that when people move into homes, the documents that they sign (inaudible). They’ll still probably call Gary, but Gary can refer them to that document and tell them
that they signed that and they knew that when purchasing their home. So we’re taking it very seriously as well. So that’s my answer to the water issue. I think a lot of work has been
done in the last three weeks; not just for our project, but for that general area. It’s something the City’s got to look at. It’s not just our project. There are other projects, a
number of projects that are near us that are going to have an issue with the water eventually. In terms of the street name, I think Shari did a great job of (inaudible) our concerns.
We did write a letter to Shari and hopefully you have that. This is a substantial project, and we think the main street is appropriately named Woodbridge Drive. The fact that there
is a private lane in Boise that is private, not public, located in a portion of town that is never going to be extended, there is a bluff on one side of it and another portion of town
that’s already developed. So the chances of that being extended are very, very – it’s not going to happen. Has very few addresses on it and the fact that the Fire Chief and the Police
Chief have said that they can live with it I think is very important. We think it’s important for the community to connect the name with the street. So we’re asking that you make that
decision. I guess in closing I would ask that you approve the final plat with the modifications attached as Exhibit A in our June 6th letter. I’ll answer any questions you have.
Bird: I have none.
deWeerd: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other discussion, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Any questions for the final plat approval of Woodbridge Subdivision by Woodbridge Community, LLC, Item No. 7?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the final plat of 164 building lots and 41 other lots on 50.9 acres with an R-4 zone for Woodbridge Subdivision by Woodbridge Community, LLC,
and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the modifications to the site-specific comments, Exhibit A dated June 6, 2000.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request of final plat on No. FP 00-007 as stated in the motion.
O’Niell: Can I make just one clarification in the modifications? We didn’t agree with staff on the street-name issue, that wasn’t included in the modifications, so I think if you agree
with us, you need to make an additional comment to that or not. We didn’t include that in the comments.
Bird: I didn’t think that was in the modification.
O’Niell: No. It’s Condition 6. You’ll have to modify the motion. We didn’t make that because we –
Bird: Okay. Exhibit A and B. Second agree to that?
Anderson: Second agrees to that.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make a comment to the developer that we do appreciate you working with staff when they brought up the issue of the water pressure and the offer to
help with the pressure-reducing station. I agree that I think the commercial development that will happen in the Magic View area will soon tie into that area, and I think that will
solve that problem at that point.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from May 16, 2000: CUP 00-006 Request for a 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 No. 8 is the continued public hearing from May 16, 2000, a 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. With that, I’ll continue the public hearing and have staff bring us up to where we
are on this one, please.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, we have had no contact with the applicant. They have not contacted us in wanting to withdraw. I really don’t know where we’re at. This one has been
tabled several times because they had requested more landscaping or the Council had requested more landscaping. They haven’t come back with a new plan. It’s just been dropped off.
Bird: We have a letter stating that they – we had a letter stating at one time that they were in the process of changing it.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, point of order. When this first came up, the applicant wasn’t present to testify, then the Council received a letter asking it be moved
to May 7th which it was. They did not show up again. So the Council had some concerns looking at it. There was nobody from the applicant to say anything.
Corrie: Keep in mind that since it is a continued public hearing, is there anyone here that would like to issue testimony in the request for CUP? Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing.
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
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we deny the 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 at 1005 East Fairview Avenue, and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order showing the denial.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made. Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to deny the CUP and to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with that decision. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess I just have a concern that have we been communicating with them to tell them what’s been going on with their application? I realize that there should have
been somebody here representing them, but I guess I feel better if we communicated with them what we’ve done with their application and that it had been tabled and that they were expected
to be here. Those types of issues, I guess.
Corrie: Mr. Berg, can you answer that? Were they notified each time? Kind of putting you on the spot thinking back, but -
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I know their original letter requested an indefinite period of time from John Moody, L.B. Industries. I can’t answer for sure if my staff or
Shari’s staff has contacted them directly. Originally, they were contacted, and I guess that was the May meeting that their contact was they were running some changes with the landscaping
requirements that the P & Z had made. I can’t tell you if I had any response with that.
Corrie: Ms. Stiles, same question.
Stiles: It’s been some time since we’ve contacted them since it was public prior to that May 7th request. I’d hate to see them start all over again on this. Can there – I know there
was a concern on landscaping along that future driveway or the driveway that is there now. I didn’t –
deWeerd: There wasn’t any concern. It was just a question. You know, I –
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd, you’d like to (inaudible) –
deWeerd: Sorry, Mr. Mayor, but, you know, I keep hearing this that City Council asked them to put in landscaping. We didn’t. Two questions were asked and the applicant wasn’t here.
Has not responded, and we’ve never had an opportunity to even ask the question. So I agree with Councilman Anderson. I hate to deny this before the applicant is even seen in our room
here. I would be opposed to this motion.
Bird: What do you want to do? Keep tabling it every two weeks?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, in the letter written on May 1st, they asked for an indefinite postponement, and they said that they were gathering information that would make an impact on their
application once – can’t remember exactly what it said – they’re in the process of negotiating the purchase of the property with the owners and feel this would make a huge impact on
our application. So they asked for an indefinite time. If we deny it now, they’d have to go through the whole thing again, I think.
Bird: How long are you going to keep (inaudible) it out?
Anderson: Mr. Anderson, I have a very simple solution. Why doesn’t somebody pick up the phone and call them and tell them where we’re at and ask them what they’d like to do with their
application? Then we would have information that we could work on to say that we’re either going to deny it, table it or approve it or what we’re going to do. I would ask that we have
staff do that between now and the next Council meeting.
Corrie: We had a motion before the floor. Let’s see where that one goes. Then we can do that if we need.
Bird: We’ve asked that same question every time we have tabled it. Ask the staff to call somebody. It hasn’t been done. If you want to drag it on every week we table it and keep
it going on the agenda, but we’ve got a question here.
Corrie: Motion has been called for. Motion is to deny the Conditional Use Permit of the existing car dealership. Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, nay; McCandless, nay; Anderson, nay; Bird, aye
MOTION FAILS: ONE AYE TO THREE NAYES
Corrie: Motion to deny has been overruled. Make another motion, Mr. Bird? Well, we’ve got to –
Bird: Do whatever we want. Do you want to pass it or table it?
deWeerd: Well, it’s a closed public hearing. I would like to instruct Shari’s office to please call the applicant and have an answer by June 20th which I will move to table this until
June 20th. We closed the public hearing. We’ll have to open it then, right?
Corrie: You can’t do that because you have to notify again.
deWeerd: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I changed my mind. I’d like to move to open the public hearing.
Anderson: Continue it.
deWeerd: I would like to open it first.
Bird: Re-open the public hearing on this?
deWeerd: Yes.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion – do I hear a second on that to open the public hearing again? Re-open it? Let me get this to you right now. If we open the public hearing again, and we continue
it to table it to have a public hearing, we can do that. We can direct staff to call them. The next meeting, it will be a continued public hearing on the 20th of June; correct? Is
that what you want to do?
deWeerd: That’s correct.
Corrie: Okay. The motion has been made and seconded to re-open the public hearing. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Corrie: Okay. We’ll open the public hearing now. Now a motion to continue.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I would like it to be clear when staff calls the applicant that we will take action on it on June 20th. If we don’t hear from them on their intent that we will
deny it. I move that we continue this public hearing until June 20th.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made to continue the public hearing until June 20th. Any further discussion? Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay, motion is carried. The continued public hearing on Item No. 8, CUP 00-006 will be continued to June 20th. Staff, make sure you call.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would request that we take a 10-minute break.
Bird: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we take a 10-minute break. Show of hands of people that are here for this Resolution Business Park. Okay. All right. All those in favor of
the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(Meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m.)
Corrie: Okay, folks, we’ll call the meeting back to order. What we’re going to have to do here, just let you know ahead of time, is anybody that was here for the Teare Terrace public
hearing, there has been a letter to the owner, a letter rescinding that they don’t want to be annexed or zoned. So that public hearing on 15 and 16 is going to be removed with the consent
of the Council because of the letter of resignation by the application. So there won’t be anymore on that one. Mr. Attorney.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the applicant still wants it, but the owner is the one that has withdrawn their consent on the annexation.
Corrie: The owner is the one that has the right to say whether it’s annexed or not. We’re going to have the public hearing on Items 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. That is the Resolution
Business Park. Conditional Use Permits, preliminary plat, and the rezone and the annexation and zoning. Then the Council has said that we will continue the public hearings on Items
17, 18 and 19 on Autumn Faire Subdivision to June 20, 2000. We may be here fairly late on the Resolution Park, and we don’t want to make the wrong decisions with the others. So we
will be continuing the public hearings on 17, 18 and 19. That’s the daycare. Sorry. It’s still a public hearing. We will take up Item 20, 21. Twenty-two has been tabled at the request
of the applicant until July 5, 2000. So we won’t hear that one. We will do the 23 with the request for Conditional Use Permit by Meridian School District, and then we’ll have the Department
Reports. The ones that – Items 17, 18 and 19 will be heard first on the 20th. They’ll be first on the agenda.
Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 00-004 Request for annexation and zoning of 16.119 acres from R-T to C-G for proposed Resolution Business Park by G.L. Voigt / Overland, LLC – south of Overland
Road and east of Locust Grove Road:
Item 10. Public Hearing: RZ 00-003 Rezone of 37.64 acres from an R-4 to an L-O zone for proposed Resolution Business Park by G.L. Voigt / Overland, LLC – south of Overland Road and
east of Locust Grove Road:
Item 11. Public Hearing: 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:
Item 12. Public Hearing: 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:
Item 13. Public Hearing: 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:
Item 14. Public Hearing: 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:
Corrie: We’ll open the public hearings on Items No. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. All testimony can be done at the same time if you want. You will and can address any one of those that
you wish at that time. The applicant will have five minutes if they want to do each one of those, and if you want to do any testimony on any of the others, you’ll have three minutes
for each one of those. Sounds confusing, and I’ll go through it with you as we get up here. So at this time I’m going to open the public hearing on the request for the annexation and
zoning of Resolution Business Park, the rezone of the 37.64 acres from R-4 to L-O zone. The Conditional Use Permit for proposed planned commercial development consisting of multi-family,
commercial, office and LDS seminary, and also the request for preliminary plat of the 17 building lots in the Resolution Business Park. Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an ice
arena and Conditional Use Permit for 200-unit luxury apartments by Mr. Voigt. So at this time I’ll open the public hearing and have staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I am going to address these in order just to kind of clarify where we’re at. The first public hearing, Item No. 9, is a request for annexation and zoning
to C-G of 16.119 acres. That would be the property right here. It is not currently in the City limits. They are proposing a mixture of office, daycare and some retail on this corner.
The applicant’s representative is aware of our request that they come in later for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development as they did not have the details of that finalized.
They haven’t submitted elevations of these buildings, and they would come back in at a later date. They are requesting the annexation and zoning to C-G. Item No. 10 is a request
for rezoning of 37.64 acres. Some of you may recall that this formerly was a 97-acre subdivision known as Sundance Subdivision. It was approved by the City Council some time ago.
Since that time, some changes in the area, the Cesco, John Deere facility coming in here, the approval of the Freightliner facility. Directly across the street led the owner of the
property to rethink his development options, and he has since sold 55 acres of this property to the Meridian Joint School District for a high-school site leaving this remainder as part
of his request now for a rezone to L-O. Within the L-O, they have proposed under public hearing under Item No. 11 the Commercial Development with the multi-family apartments, 200 units,
some commercial office and an LDS seminary be located in an L-O and C-G zones. Under public hearing Item 12, they had asked for a preliminary plat approval. In this configuration,
they are requesting platting approval for 17 building lots and 2 other lots. Under item 13, they’re requesting the ice arena that wold be located on this lot within this proposed subdivision.
They have presented elevations and detailed plans of that facility. Item 14 would be the 200-unit apartment complex. That would be located in this area here. They have provided all
the information required for a planned development including elevations of the buildings. So although many of the opponents and also the proponents of this development may address all
of their comments at one time, they are separate issues that would need to have separate Findings on them. I just wanted to make that clear.
Corrie: We’ll try to make it less confusing for them when they get up here and what they want to talk about. Later they can, too. Okay. The developer’s representative. Now, Becky,
if this gets – you don’t want to do it all at once, you can do it each time and we’ll have the comments of the public at once. Make their comment on the annexation and zoning and separate
that if they want it as well. I don’t know whether you’re having some difficulty back there.
Bowcutt: I guess at the Planning and Zoning Commission, we did on the annexation and rezones, obviously, need to go into a lot of detail. I don’t want to be repetitive this late in
the hour. But there are issues with each application that should be addressed, and I think if we try to lump them all in – it’s going to get confusing for the Council. I prefer to
take them individually. Like I said, I’ll take the least amount of time possible. Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickorydale, Boise. I’m representing the applicant in this matter. The
first application, as Shari indicated, is the application for annexation and rezone of that corner parcel. As you recall, we came before you here six, eight, ten months ago with the
Comprehensive Plan change. We asked that this be designated mixed-planned use development where all the particular uses will require conditional use approval by the City. We provided
a concept plan for that corner parcel. We do not have any particular users at this time. So the best of our ability, consulting with an architect, we came up with this particular configuration.
We don’t anticipate that happening until we see an overpass go through. This is obviously a three-leg-type intersection. You don’t typically see it in retail users of any substantial
size until you’ve got more traffic than is out in this vicinity at this time. So this is down the road. It’s not something that we anticipate being constructed at this time. We requested
a C-G zoning designation. Your staff recommended a neighborhood commercial, and our response to the staff, we indicated that neighborhood commercial would be acceptable. I guess staff
had some concerns allows some pretty heavy commercial uses as we have found across the street with the Freightliner, Cesco, I think the contractor’s yard. In this vicinity since this
property is at a major two arterials, Overland and Locust Grove, and in considering that we have the C-G zone across the north side of Overland, this is an appropriate use for the property.
Do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Let’s see if the public has something that they want to say on that. Then we’ll go to the next one and kind of keep this is some kind of order. Okay. This is a public hearing.
Is there anyone who would like to issue testimony on the request for annexation and zoning right now? Okay.
Bertell: Actually, I would like permission – my name is Marion Bertell, I live at 2534 South Velvet Falls Way, Salmon Rapids Subdivision, Meridian. I would like my statement to address
all of Items 9 through 14, and I’ll give a copy of it to Mr. Berg. At this time, I would like to reiterate to the members of the Council what
my husband has stated to the Planning Commission at the last meeting. We have 725 signatures from the residents of Salmon Rapids Subdivision, Raven Hills Subdivision, Los Alamitos Subdivision,
Sportsman’s Pointe Subdivision, Hunts Bluff Subdivision, and Meridian Greens Subdivision all respectfully asking the City Council to at least delay approval of the development proposed
for Locust Grove and Overland Road area until such time that Overland Road is widened to five lanes. Those who have signed the petitions are frustrated over having to drive the already
heavily traveled traffic road on a daily basis and agree with the Ada County Highway impact analysis that a development such as this one before the City Council tonight would only intensify
and exacerbate an already existing major traffic problem. My husband parked at the intersection of Locust Grove and Overland Roads on March 23rd from three p.m. until six p.m. and counted
3,137 vehicles using the intersection of Overland and Locust Grove. This coincides with the Ada County Highway District’s Findings of 11,422 vehicle trips per day on Overland Road.
Please bear in mind this is already existing traffic. During that three-hour period, he also saw one rear-end accident and one near accident. As the Ada County Highway District pointed
out in its report, the traffic on Overland Road and Locust Grove will easily double and more than likely triple as a result of this development. That’s the entire development of all
of the proposed. We as residents of the six existing subdivisions directly impacted by this development and a seventh subdivision which is just being developed are especially concerned
since, one, it appears that Ada County Highway District has no plans to widen Overland Road until 2004; number two, no plans to widen Locust Grove south of Overland until way beyond
2005; number three, no plans to even install a traffic light at the intersection of Overland Road and Locust Grove Road until 2004 or until, quote, wanted. The developer hopes to start
the major ice hockey and sports arena before the end of this year. The Meridian School District, pending bond approval, could open the new high school by the fall of 2002. Additionally,
office, retail and residential phases of the development will be completed probably well before 2005. We are not opposed to development, just to the development prior to widening Overland
and Locust Grove Roads. Prior to the beginning of heavy construction vehicles traveling the roads, tying up traffic or lane restrictions. We need to consider the need for emergency
vehicle traversing Overland and Locust Grove Roads to access homes in the area or accidents on Overland which there are many. It would be difficult at best as there is no place for
traffic to move over out of the way. We have very little shoulder there. We ask that Overland and Locust Grove not become another fiasco like the Curtis Road extension. We respectfully
request that you consider the opinion of the 725 residents of Meridian who signed the petitions as well as all of us who live near this development. We ask that the City Council of
Meridian plan wisely, plan carefully, put the horse before the cart, not wait until the mother and father are called by the coroner to identify their child’s body on the road. Please
take action to alleviate traffic and pedestrian problems and potential hazards prior to approval of this project which will create and intensify the already-existing problems. Thank
you. I have one further personal comment I’d like to make that is apart from the petition, and I don’t know if it’s
even legal or it can be done. I would like to recommend also when this is developed after the roads are widened that the development between Locust Grove and Eagle Road south of Overland
that there be a citizens committee with three people from the subdivisions to work with Brad Hawkins-Clark regarding bike paths, the park that is projected, access to the park from Locust
Grove and Eagle Roads be a bike path and landscape berms. Also, in the Planning and Zoning hearing regarding the ice arena and the high school, I believe there is a serious problem
there because there is one ingress and egress road that comes down to the ice arena into the high school, a 600-foot road. There is no emergency access coming from Locust Grove or any
major arterial. The only roads that could even possibly come in there unless one is designated and built in this projection, they would have to be sending fire trucks or EMTs through
subdivision where children sometimes play in streets. This is not a safe condition. You need to have emergency access included somewhere like from Locust Grove into the high school
and the ice arena. It’s just not logical as it stands now. I thank you for your time, and I will give you a copy of my original comments and the petition. I also have a fax sheet
if you like it where my husband got the (inaudible).
Corrie: And do you wish to have your testimony included in all?
Bertell: Yes. Would you please include my testimony on each of the items? Thank you very much.
Corrie: Is there anyone else that would like to issue testimony on the annexation and zoning that’s different that will be heard?
Southerland: Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Ted Southerland, 2365 East Three Bars, Meridian, Idaho. What I have to say is probably going to be an echo of what I said the last time
that I was here and everybody except the Mayor was lucky enough to have not been here the last time. I lived in this area for two and-a-half years, watched a number of homes in that
section that I live in (inaudible) triple, and I can see us double in the next 12 months. It’s that whole mile section of Overland, Victory, Locust Grove and Eagle, there’s going to
be nothing but houses, and you’re going to add 200 more facing Overland. I signed the petition – (inaudible) petition should have included adequate intersection at Meridian and Overland,
and it should have included an overpass over Locust Grove. Until we get those two things – five-lane road going down Overland isn’t going to do us any good at all (inaudible). You’re
still going to have a problem with cars backing up on the Meridian highway on Meridian Road and Meridian-Kuna Road. You’re going to have people coming up on Locust Grove and have them
to get into that mess. If you will consider our part of town Meridian – I don’t. I told you last time that I do not consider –
*** End of Side 3 ***
Southerland: -- Meridian at this point. We don’t have anybody on the City Council from that part of town. We don’t have any access to this part of town to where I live. I can’t make
a left turn off of Locust Grove onto Overland without endangering myself half the time, so I don’t go that way. I go right. Rather than making a left turn I go down to Five Mile and
do my shopping down there. I have no reason to come to Meridian. I have no access to get here. If you want to consider us part of your city, you’re going to have to make yourselves,
make some streets – we are living on country roads right now. That’s all they are. Two-lane, country roads with country intersections, and you’re expecting us enjoy having 200 houses
between us and your city. I would think – (inaudible). But this is just idiotic in my estimation. If I were to be a part of the City Council, you turned one subdivision down one time
down. I was here one other time and you voted it down. To vote this through right now would totally destroy me. I’ve got well property – (inaudible) turn down when you turned the
last one down. I have absolutely no problem with the commercial use that’s going in there. My wife dreams of having an ice skating rink so she can go ice skating. She could have been,
very easily, been an Olympic ice skater with the proper money back when she was a little bit younger. That’s going to be industrial, commercial zoning through – I have no problem with
this. The problem that I have and the problem (inaudible) has is the streets. If we can’t get from our house the way we have to go, you’ve destroyed a whole bunch of attitude (inaudible).
Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else as far as the annexation and zoning is concerned?
Waite: Bruce Waite, I’m a resident of Meridian. 1753 South Labrador Place, Sportsman Pointe Subdivision, Phase V, Meridian, Idaho. I addressed the City Council a year ago. There
are two new faces on it when the Sundance Apartment Complex was being planned on the north side of Overland west of Locust Grove, and there was quite a bit of discussion at that time
on the traffic problems of that one small apartment complex would cause on Overland Road, and the City Council at that time denied the rezoning and the Conditional Use Permit based on
the perceived or anticipated traffic problems. This is ten-fold times worse than that. At the time, the City Council also discussed no more commercial or no more retail development
on Overland Road until the problems were fixed. So I guess I would like to restate that from your actions a year ago. Just a couple of questions for you, I’d like to know how this
project is going to affect my home value as we have heard previously. The traffic problems tie (inaudible) sell my home in the future and potential folks come to look at it and they
see the disaster of the road problem, my home value’s down the tubes. There’s a need for no more business parks. If you drive down Overland to Maple Grove, down Emerald, they have
a zillion half-completed business parks. How many more do we need? It’s just not compatible to subdivisions. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Got something new to talk about other than traffic?
Shepherd: My name is Dave Shepherd, and I live next to Bruce here at 1791 South Labrador Place. I’d like to show you what happens to me on the map here. This is my house right here.
Straight up the street (inaudible). So you can see what that’s going to do to me. Some of us are brand new in this town, moved here from Seattle about a year and-a-half ago. This
gentleman just came in from Portland. He wasn’t aware of anything. We have no impact statements to tell us what’s going on. That’s all I have to say (inaudible).
Shipley: John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove Road. Resident there for 28 years. I’ve watched a lot of growth in our valley. I think some of the things that are proposed here are
going to be a real positive thing for the community. But the impact of the traffic and everything needs to be looked at. If there’s no law stating that we can’t build this stuff before
the roads are appropriate, there should be a law. If there’s not common sense between you folks stating that you know there’s a problem and we need to hold it up until ACHD corrects
the problem, I understand that the subdivider’s going to put up a good share of the money for their road improvement. I don’t think five lanes is even close to enough. I spent over
an hour the other night coming from Wal-Mart up Overland Road the other night to make a left turn onto Locust Grove and watched as two and three traffic lights changed each time. It
was five o’clock, and I had made it with the mistake of going over to Wal-Mart during the traffic time. I don’t shop in Meridian anymore. I go to Kuna. Kuna is about 15 minutes drive,
and there’s no hassle. The prices are the same out there. I come to Meridian, and it’s quite evident the main street of Meridian – beautify it instead of making extra lanes there,
they got little cul-de-sac places for cars to park. They made it pretty instead of practical. It goes on and on. Everybody can be critical about anything. Just look at it. But if
you know there’s a problem ahead of time, don’t cause it to get worse. Fix it before the problem gets any worse. That’s what I’m asking.
White: My name is Lisa White, and I just moved here from Jackson, Wyoming. I live at 2512 Meadowwood Court, and I’m not against widening the roads; I think that’s good. But like she
said, it might take – you guys (inaudible), but by the time you wait that long, something smaller that won’t cause as much traffic would go in there, and there would be no place for
the ice rink. I’m pretty sure that the other rinks excluding the Idaho Ice Rink, but they’re not for public use. They’re all hockey and based upon the Steelheads. Driving all the
way out to the rink every morning takes a long time and it’s, like, really tiring to go all the way out there. An ice rink and all the other little businesses aren’t going to bring
so much traffic that it’s going to cause that big of a problem because if you drive Fairview, that’s only, like, two lanes, and there are businesses all over it. No matter where you
go there’s going to be traffic. NO matter where you go things are going to grow and get bigger whether it’d be a Wal-Mart, an ice rink or something like that. I think that you should
make the roads wider, but I think that should happen in time instead of waiting so long (inaudible) until something else is proposed in this building site. Thank you.
Gale: Mayor Corrie and City Council members, I’m Norma Gale, and I reside at 299 East Spinosa Drive in Meridian. I would be very much in favor of the ice arena. It’s needed by the
youth of our community, and selfishly, I know it would help my grandchildren who go out to Ice World out by the outlet mall and also downtown Boise. So I would think it’d be wonderful
to have this facility in Meridian. I realize the problem with traffic, but I think historically the Ada County Highway District has responded after development when they see it is indeed
going to take place, and I assume that the developer would help with the costs of the road. So I ask that you would approve the Resolution Business Park. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else?
Barren: Good evening, my name is Michelle Barren, and I reside at 2512 East Meadowwood Court in Meridian. I’m the mother of the daughter who just came up here to speak. We just,
as she said, moved here from Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where development there is a lot harder than here. I am in agreement for the ice rink being built. She is an ice skater as well
as I have two children who are hockey players. The commute here is much longer than what we used to make, and it’s very hard when you have two full-time parents that are working to
be able to also get your children to their activities whereas with my children, it’s hockey and ice skating. They’ve been doing it for many years, and I would hate for them to just
discontinue that because with working where we have to work, any families – both parents have to work to bring in an income, and I hate to do that because of my schedule and how far
the rink is right now going to the Idaho Ice World. I can understand the situation with the traffic, but I see that everywhere I go now. I see that on Franklin Road. I see it in other
areas, and as I would hope that it eventually would take action (inaudible) but I'd hate to see this delayed any longer for the children of the community here in Meridian. I do notice
that they do need some more things here in Meridian for the children, and it’s very good to have something for the children. The needs, the sport – they need to be involved so that
they stay out of trouble. I think it’s a big reason why – my daughter hasn’t been in as much trouble as she probably could have if she didn’t have this to fall back on and keep her
attention. So I would like to see this approved that they can at least get working on the developments over there and hopefully the situation with the roads will come when it’s needed.
Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else at this time? Okay. Becky.
Bowcutt: I’d like to remind you that this particular application just involves that corner for the annexation and the rezone to that neighborhood commercial. As I stated before, all
those uses are in concept only. We would have to come back before you, go back through the Ada County Highway District, public notice would be sent again for any specific uses. So
although we’re here asking for annexation and zoning and a conceptual approval, we do not have any particular user on this southeast corner. So really, technically, we don’t have anything
going in there at this time. There have been a lot of comments about traffic and the apartments, and I’d like to hold my comments until I get to that one.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I just have a question. Becky, what is your phasing idea? I mean, when do you think that you’re going to bring anything back to the Council on this?
Bowcutt: On the corner? There’s nothing scheduled at this time or has even been really discussed in any detail. We were thinking five years. Probably five years out.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Do you want to address the request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed planned commercial development? That’s part of that. Okay. How about the preliminary plat
on the building lots and 2 other lots on 107.5 acres? Do you have anything – actually on No. 12. Kind of –
Bowcutt: Didn’t you skip the rezone?
Corrie: Did I? Well, that’s sorry. That’s a planned commercial development. (inaudible) Item 11. That’s right.
Bowcutt: The remainder of the property there that is cross-hatched is currently zoned R-4. It’s annexed into the City. When that property was zoned and annexed, there was a preliminary
plat as Shari indicated called Sundance Subdivision. It was all single-family dwelling lots. The Meridian School District approached the applicant and asked if they would be willing
to sell 55 acres of this parcel for a future high school. They were in dire need of a site south of the freeway. They had monies that needed to be spent within a certain period of
time. They had another site that they thought they were going to close, and it fell through at the last moment. My client agreed to sell that to him, but one of the things that we
discussed when we met with the School District was they wanted our assurance that we would not put any single-family dwellings north of that school. We do not want to create another
Borah High School situation where we have substantial cut-through traffic through single-family neighborhoods. They said office, multi-family, some limited retail, any uses like that
would be acceptable. And we agreed. When the Council zoned the property north across Overland to C-G for the Freightliner, I came before this body and testified that it would be difficult
to put single-family across the street from that type of intensive commercial use. That we would probably have to change the use. At that time, the designation on the Comp Plan was
single-family residential. As I stated before, we came back through and asked for mixed-planned use development, and that was granted. We chose the L-O zone because it’s kind of a
nice umbrella zone, and with the planned commercial development, it would allow different uses within that L-O. But it was not intensive as, say, the C-G. The
School District has looked at our site plan. We’ve discussed our collector roadway system to them. As you may recall, Mr. Voigt and some of the other property owners in the area have
spent a lot of money getting the sewer across the freeway. They worked with the City in conjunction with boring water and taking water north and taking sewer south. Sewer has been
extended up to Overland over here on the corner. Water has been extended down and across the freeway so those facilities are available. As far as the roadway system, the way Ada County
Highway District works is these roads are paid for in arrears through impact fees. That’s how we do it. We have worked closely with the Highway District. We went before the Commission
and talked in depth about what we’d like to see out there. They’ve got Overland Road targeted for five lanes in 2004; however, if the bond issues pass this fall, the School District
indicates they’ll begin construction Spring 2001 and have the high school occupied by the Fall 2002. So we urge the Highway District Commissioners to accelerate their plan and rebuild
that to five lanes since that high school will most likely be coming on line within a couple of years. The other thing we brought up with them, they have set forth the requirements
for us to build a third lane all along Overland Road to trust fund for 75 percent of a signal at the collector roadway which will come out of the high school site. To trust fund for
25 percent of the signal at the intersection of Locust Grove and Overland. Then install, obviously, sidewalks along Overland and Locust Grove. The point that I made before that Commission
was – I’d hate to spend a considerable amount of money on that roadway if in 12 or 18 months they’re going to come in and tear it out and build the five lanes. If the monies are going
to be spent, let’s do it right. So we’ve been working closely with them and going over ideas. Now the problem that arises is that we have impact fee money. They said they’ve got –
I think their staff member indicated a million dollars that they can allocate to the roadway, but they’ve got to find matching funds within the budget because they can’t rebuild the
existing lanes with impact fee money. So they have to re-budget to accelerate that building of Overland Road. But if need be, we will build the third lane because that is the added
capacity that would be necessary, and when they look at our projects, they look at it from the worst-case scenario, the maximum build-out, and this is a phased project. I think I stated
in the application the first one to come on line would be the ice arena. They would like to begin construction this year if at all possible. They want to be located next to that high
school. They think it’s an appropriate area. They like the Meridian area. Easy access to the interchange at Eagle Road. The apartments would like to begin construction of their first
phase in Spring of 2001. Other than that, the only other user we have is the LDS Seminary. They’ll have to come back before you with a Conditional Use Permit application. So as far
as the first phasing, it’s quite limited. But the commercial alone will generate, according to Ada County Highway District, a million dollars in impact fees just with the commercial
on the corner. Not including any of the commercial or the office or apartments on the other side. We feel we’ve got a really good project. We want to get that collector roadway.
We’ve got to get the sewer and the water down to the school site, and we feel this will compliment the City. We also feel it will provide necessary
services out to this suburban area, and if you can capture some of these trips, then we decrease the number of trips on the interstate as they go to Ice World. On all the other roadway
systems, the further they’ve got to travel to have necessary services, then the more impact we have on our transportation system. So if we can provide some of these neighborhood commercial
services out in the suburban areas, we will cut down on the traffic. We feel this is a good project. We would hope that you would support it, and we think the L-O zone is appropriate.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions at this point? Thank you, Becky.
Shepherd: Dave Shepherd, 1791 South Labrador. We’re wondering about the impact in our area and who cares about us. We’re putting our names on paper. We’ll send them out here, but
we’re not getting any recognition. This is going to really affect us. It’s five years down the line for that piece of property. Then come back in five years when you’ve got something
on paper. You know, I’ll look up the street (inaudible) just like I’m looking at you, and I have to see what’s up there. It affects my property rights as well as everybody else. So
we need a fair shake.
Corrie: Any new testimony, please. If you have been up here before, you’ve already had your say, and if you’re going to say it again, we don’t want to hear it because you’re already
on the record with that testimony. If you’ve got something new that you want to add on this part of it, you’re welcome to come up.
Bertell: I just wanted to clarify one thing that I was concerned about. I’m sorry – Marion Bertell, 2534 South Velvet Falls Way, Meridian. On the lower part of site A, there is no
provision, the only ingress and egress road is that one road that comes down to the high school site and to the ice arena site. A 600-foot road. If there is an event at the ice arena
that lets out for the evening and, say, a basketball game lets out at the high school, and someone is hurt in there, and that road is blocked with traffic leaving, there is no provision
for an emergency access road for a vehicle to get in there to help someone that’s hurt. I truly feel that on Site A at the lower end there should be an ingress and egress emergency
road to facilitate help for people that might be hurt when they can’t get in there because of traffic. Thank you.
Barren: My name is Michelle Barren, 2512 Meadowwood Court. I wanted to just add in regards to the high school that I was very shocked when I moved here to find out that my daughter’s
high school was Eagle High because our nearest crossroad is Eagle and Fairview. Eagle High is farther than Centennial High; it is farther than Meridian High for her. The reason I was
told this was the other two school districts are overcrowded. So she does have to travel much farther. I hope she gets her driver’s license this year, and that’s going to be farther
for her to drive. I’m sure being a new driver, too, I would prefer she went to the other
school as well to be closer as well as the ice rink being closer to her. It’ll be a shorter distance for her. In regards to the roads, Ada County coming in and widening the roads,
if – what better way to get them in there to start widening the roads than to start building some businesses down there, and then maybe they will get in there much quicker, then if we
don’t, they probably will push it back and take care of some other roads. This will be a good way to get them in to start building the roads if we start building down there.
Corrie: Thank you. Any one else here on the Item No. 11, the L-O and C-G zones? Okay. Becky, on the preliminary plat, 17 building lots and 2 other lots on 107 acres; do you want
to address that now? We’re on 11 now, sorry. Item 11. I’m one step ahead of you. Rezone – Sorry. We’re on 11 now. Oh, you’re done with 11 now? So we’re on 12.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickorydale, Boise. This is the subdivision plat which we have submitted as one of the applications with this property. The first phase of this
subdivision will encompass this area here. This is not part of the first phase. Obviously, we wouldn’t plat that at this time until we know what’s going to happen down the road. The
roadway network system street you see here is a big collector roadway. This will be a signalized intersection here. Ada County Highway District has indicated that they would not allow
this high school to go in there without that light. The School District has assured me that they wouldn’t go in there without that light. One of the things that’s going to happen is
you’re going to have these peak hours for the high school. The District likes the fact that they’ll be platooning these cars right here, and then they’ll have the signalized left-hand
turn. The advantage of putting a signal here is it causes the cars to platoon at this point here heading west which then allows breaks in the traffic for this particular intersection
to make a left-hand turn at Locust Grove. Locust Grove at this time is a level of service A. Overland Road is a level of service D at this time. This roadway network here, there were
comments about the ice arena which will be located on this Lot 2, Block 1, here that this is the only access. That is not correct. This is a public street. It’s built to collector
standards. This is a public street stubbed over to the east. That will be built to collector standards also. This is a little, what we call, round-about here with landscaping in the
middle. We have one, two, three, four accesses on Overland in alignment with the access points to the north of Overland, and then we have two access points on Locust Grove and the Highway
District made this align with Peacock, and then they made us offset from the new LDS church’s driveway here. So we did have to change our approaches at this location. When I met with
your staff, they indicated that they thought it would be preferable that the School District lot be platted at this part of our application. The reason being is at one time this was
all one parcel. If you recall, the City of Meridian owns this 4.2 acres in the corner, so there was a division that took place when this property was – when I think the subdivision
was approved, the residential, then the School District purchased this, and then an easement was granted for access out to Overland. So staff said basically there’s been multiple divisions,
and we want
that included. So that is why we have included the School District lot. They are not part of the planned-unit development. They are only part of the plat. That’s what they consented
to. We have to take sewer and water, extend it down Overland and down this collector roadway to get to the school site and (inaudible) power. That’s where their primary access will
be. There is a stub street here at Raven Hills. There’s a stub street here at Los Alamitos. Now, obviously, those are located at the time when it was anticipated when there was a
subdivision, residential subdivision, that was going to take place here, and these matched up with that layout. I talked with the School District’s architect today. They only have
what they call a rough sketch of their site plan, and would not even give me a copy of their rough sketch because the School Board has not endorsed it, nor have they put it out for public
comment. Within 30 days they feel they would have more detailed information. At this time it’s conceptual, bubble-concept only. So as far as the primary access to the school, it will
be here. The Highway District has indicated that these roadways would not be used for vehicular access with the school. They would be used only for emergency- vehicle access to provide
secondary means in the event that there was blockage here. So we do have multiple points of access if we – when they get their site plans solidified, then we’ll be able to see how they’re
going to be able to make these interconnections at this time. I can’t tell you. But Mr. Carberry and the School District has received copies of our site plan and our plat. We work
with them all through this process. There are a couple things I need to go through on the conditions. As you know, it states on the staff report, unless expressly modified by the Council,
these conditions shall apply. Under the preliminary plat requirements, there is Item A. We would like to have our landscaped lots along our perimeter to be in easements versus separate
lots. I believe staff’s comment was they could live with that as long as we did provide them with CC & Rs that set forth responsibility of maintenance by the Association and not by
each individual lot owner so that you would have consistency in landscaping and maintenance. Item 10 under the preliminary plat, staff indicated that they would like the western boundary
which would be the multi-family parcel not to have a fence. The applicants for the multi-family have stated that they would like to have a fence for security purposes especially if
this were to develop retail or office in the future. Then that would give them some privacy, and, obviously, some buffer from those uses there. So our preference would be to allow
some type of fencing along this Hunter Lateral. The staff has asked that we pipe the Hunter Lateral. First we thought about trying to leave it open. We have agreed to pipe it. We
are in agreement there. Item 13 deals with this roadway here. We gave it a name, the technician put a name on it. Staff thought that would be like a private road. It’s just an access
drive. Just the same that we have through this parcel here for access behind this building. This is a retail building so they’ll have some access here. So we did not intend for that
to be a private road; therefore, requiring curb, gutter and sidewalk built to ACHD standards. It’s just an access, kind of alleyway. So we want to make sure that that is on the record.
Now, staff has put a note on here stating that the final plat must be required prior to the issuance of any building permits or Certificates of Zoning Compliance.
With the high school going in, I’m not sure how that’s going to impact them. Obviously, if we were able to process the construction plans and the plat in a timely fashion, hopefully
it wouldn’t impact them. But if they’ve got a schedule and the plat’s not recorded, I do see some problems arising. So I don’t know if the Council has any ideas or staff has any ideas.
But that was one concern that we did have. Other than that, that’s all I have under preliminary plat comments.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, Becky, why in your planning on this plat do you not have emergency access over to the west from Site B and C through Site A?
Bowcutt: We – the Planning and Zoning Commission asked us to make some interconnection between Site A and Site B since this parcel was long and large, spanning one-half mile, we broke
it up into A, B and Cs. This is B here, I believe. We provided access out this direction into this traffic circle here. That would obviously eliminate some of the trips out on the
exterior roadways for the residents of the multi-family area to come into this retail area. Then there’s interconnections between the multi-family and Site C. They have an approach
there on the collector roadway. It’s difficult to see on that drawing. It’s easier to see here. So there’s an access to the multi-family off of the collector. They’ve also got an
independent access here at Overland Road. I believe that is in alignment with Cesco. Then this is where we’re making that interconnection here. Now, one of the things that we talked
about with the Commission was how to keep the high-school kids from finding these other routes out of the site. We want to concentrate the most there at these signals. One of the things
that the Commission talked about was possibly some type of a combination keypad gate at these locations here to keep kids from possibly wanting to wind their way through. There’s also
speed bumps which the Fire Departments don’t like.
deWeerd: Has the Fire Department seen that? Can they maneuver that little circle there? The traffic circle?
Bowcutt: That would be designed to meet their standards as far as the ratings, yes. It would have to meet all Uniform Fire Standards. All of the radiuses within the complex would
have to meet their standards so that you can easily maneuver a fire truck around any medians or any parking areas. Now, in my past discussions with Mr. Bowers, he’s indicated that
if you were to gate something that he would want to the opticom gates. So I did indicate to the applicant that that would be a requirement of the Fire Department if the Council allowed
this to be gated.
Corrie: Okay. Public testimony on that one? Okay.
Waite: Again, my name is Bruce Waite, 1753 South Labrador Place. I’ve got a couple of comments. One of them specifically. It seems like there are a lot of pretty pictures and a lot
of sweet-talk about this development providing a lot of access and all the things for the high school. I would like to remind you that that
bond has not been developed. It’s not been put to a vote. We don’t know if the high school is eventually going in there or not. There’s a lot of basis for this development, a lot
of sweet-talk based on access and providing things for the high school. That’s a whole separate issue. The community and especially the residents in that area need to address that
when that bond issue comes up. I would hope that doesn’t influence you (inaudible) project. The second item on Site A, having an access out on Locust Grove directly across from the
street where I come out on Locust Grove, if any of you live on Maple Grove and Overland, there’s a similar short cut. Any time there is a short cut around a stoplight, there’s a tremendous
amount of traffic that uses those short cuts around stoplights. Originally, when some of us went to Planning and Zoning, there were to be no accesses out from the western Site A on
Locust Grove. I think that would create a fiasco in itself. I do want to remind you that the school bond has not been voted on. Don’t let that influence you on how you vote on this.
Southerland: Ted Southerland, 2365 East Three Bars. I don’t know, you probably don’t know if the LDS Church is already well into construction on that building out there. I don’t know
if they’ve got easements or approvals or whatever the comment was made, but they would have to do something before they got done. The other thing is if you read the Boise paper today,
APA is talking very seriously about some work cutting down on some road construction in Ada and Canyon County, and I think that should be taken into consideration in your decision tonight,
also. There is no way in the world that if they’re going to shut down part of the construction on the Flying WYE that they’re going to come out and do anything on Overland Road.
Corrie: That’s a whole different thing. Okay. Anybody else?
Southerland: (inaudible)
Corrie: It does, but it doesn’t have to do with this right now. It does on the Flying WYE; you’re right.
Bertell: I’m Marion Bertell, 2534 South Velvet Falls, Meridian. Regarding impact fees. Everyone’s talking about we have to build to get impact fees. All along the north side of Overland,
there are huge commercial development. They’ve already paid impact fees. This hasn’t developed Overland. I rest my case.
Corrie: Anyone else? I guess we’re on 13 on the Conditional Use Permit for ice arena, pro shop, fitness center, restaurant and locker room and storage.
McKeegan: My name is Patrick McKeegan representing the applicant on this. My address is 419 South 8th Street, Suite B in Boise, Idaho. I’m the architect on the project. I don’t know
how much information you’d like to have, and because of the lateness of the hour, I could give you a very brief description of the
information; an overview, and then you can ask me questions. The testimony and our application was relatively complete as to what the use of the facility is going to be. It’s going
to be approximately 90,000 s.f. Two sheets of ice, one of which is going to be an Olympic sheet of ice which will be the only Olympic sheet of ice between Salt Lake and Seattle area
when it is completed. That’s important because contrary to what everybody thinks, the rest of the world skates on Olympic ice sheets. The United States and Canada are the only ones
that use NHL-size hockey rinks. The reason we’re putting in the Olympic sheet is so we can get some venues in that normally aren’t coming to Boise because you don’t have the larger
ice. In the application, the figures that we have used for seating are the maximum for a venue. That includes – that would be if we happen to have venues in both of the arenas going
on at the same time. That would very seldom occur that we would have packed house on both sides. In most cases, the usual case for this is going to be two teams practicing on each
sheet of ice which would be 16 people per team, referees, coaches and such. During that time period and teams waiting to come on the ice or going off of the ice, you’d have between
120 to 150 people within the facility. We have parking way in excess of that. The – for the shows and stuff, we’d probably only run one sheet of ice. It doesn’t make sense to have
a special show on one side and then have something competing on the other side. We might have tournaments, but again, during tournaments, you can only have four teams on the ice playing,
and they’d be rotating through. So you might have people waiting, but you’re not – the figures that we have showing for the seating would very seldom be maxed out. Usually that would
happen when the office and retail portions were not in business. If we were going to bring in an Ice Capades or something like that, we wouldn’t do that during the day when the businesses
were going. We would do that in the evening to attract people. At that point in time, the office and the retail parking would become available for overflow parking for our use. Becky
addressed the issue of access to the site. There are two roads coming in off of Overland directly contiguous to our site. There’s also the stub road going to the east which we anticipate
there will be some development to the east that we would tie into which would give a third access point to Overland Road for our ice facility. We chose Meridian, we chose this location
for the reason that the young ladies earlier spoke to. All the other venues for ice skating are on the other end of the valley, and if you’re driving from Meridian or from Nampa or
Caldwell to skate, it’s a pretty long drive. We also knew that in the City of Meridian there’s a great need for additional facilities for youth to have a place to skate or for them
to – we’re going to have a fitness center for them to participate in that. We’ll have – anticipate some kind of a restaurant in location, and then also a pro shop in conjunction with
the theme. The owners of the property are working on some synergistic-type uses with Raging Waters to maybe do some passes to where you could go during the summer. You could go to
Raging Waters for two or three hours and just bake yourselves crazy, and then you could come down to the ice rink two or three hours and skate and cool off. Putting together some things
like that to give us some recreational opportunities in this end of the valley. The obvious connection with the high school is one that we’ve tried to do. It’s our
understanding that within two to three years the State Board of Education is going to be considering hockey as a letter sport in the state which is going to increase the need for this
type of facility. We’ve also been approached by other communities in the state to duplicate this facility in their communities to try to get – ice skating is really coming to this part
of the country, and it’s coming very quickly. All of the participants in the project except for me with my bad old knee are skaters and hockey players and associated with ice sports
and are bringing that load to the project. The design of facility is we’re placing the main sheets of ice and the locker rooms and everything –
*** End of Side 4 ***
McKeegan: -- building would be lower. In relationship to the structures around it, the high school auditorium and gymnasium being (inaudible) actually be higher than our facility.
On the main level, we’re going to have the fitness area in front. The fitness center and the interior’s going to be set up with a clear span of courtyard, mall-type of a look so we
can figure the spaces inside without having to figure any bearing walls or anything like that. All of the mechanical equipment is going to be housed into an interior mechanical rooms
above the fitness room of the offices on the south side so you won’t have any rooftop equipment showing except for whatever explosion hatches or emergency smoke venting or whatever the
Fire Department or the Fire Code requires out in the perimeter of it. The ice machines and everything are going to be on the south side of the facility. The actual machines are going
to be in enclosed rooms with cooling power, again, facing the school away from any residences or any buildings like that. We placed the building in the corner of the site with the parking
around the front so not knowing what was going to be new developing on the east side and the south side. We wanted to use the building as a buffer for the parking uses. The parking
lot will obviously be lit for events, but we’ll have the lights on a timer so that later in the evening when there’s not as much traffic on the site we can lower the light level and
lower the impact on any of the uses. One other item. I’d like to have a formal correction to the recommendation. I think somebody’s word processor – because in Item 1.2 in the recommendations,
it states that the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and it should state a minimum of seven handicapped accessible spaces should be provided to serve this facility.
Appears like something from a previous report was entered on the tail-end of it about pavement and Overland and Locust Grove, and we don’t have any access to those streets and aren’t
contiguous to those streets. I believe that that last portion of that sentence is applicable to the development as a whole rather than our specific project. With that I will open myself
for any questions or comments that the Council may have.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, what did you say the seating capacity of the ice rink was?
McKeegan: According to my notes, 1080 is the seating capacity of the total facility. That’s both sides of the rink. Of that there are probably only fixed
seating in the range of 300 to 500. Most of it is going to be portable seating to be brought in for special events so that the portions off-rink can be used for dry skating and dry
training.
Anderson: Which was the condition that you said didn’t apply?
McKeegan: On my – it’s 1.2 on Page 2 of the Recommendations to City Council at the bottom of the page. It applies, but it’s just the only portion it applies to is the handicapped spaces
which we don’t have any problem with that. I just wanted to make sure that since this was the official record that it reflected the text of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
McKeegan: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Testimony on the ice rink’s Conditional Use Permit? Okay. Another request for Conditional Use Permit for a 200-unit luxury apartment complex, proposed L-O zone for Resolution
Business Park.
Day: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Daman Day. I’m representing Desert West Properties as the applicant for the Conditional Use Permit for the 200-unit luxury apartment
complex that’s been part of this commercial development. My address for Desert West Properties is 100 West Overland Road in Meridian, Suite 201. As has been previously explained and
see on the map, the location of the 200-unit apartment complex will be fronting Overland Road and would have frontage on Millennial Way which would be the access point to the area with
the proposed high school. We are proposing a 200-unit complex which would be 20 buildings of (inaudible) that’s per building. The (inaudible) drawings here that I can show to the Council,
and they would be available for the Council and any of the residents that are here at the hearing this evening. Here is a site plan for the multi-family portion of the complex presenting
the layout for the buildings as well as including the buildings, the 20 buildings that would be here, each housing 10 units for a total of 200. (inaudible) plans for a clubhouse that
would include exercise facilities, a business center for use for the residents of the apartment complex as well as a pool and other amenities for the residents. One thing I would like
to clarify is this is a – this concept is a patented concept. We went to some architects out of Dallas that specialize in projects that are specifically designed to blend well with
upper-end residential applications. These complexes you will find in some of the more exclusive areas of the country. You will see, as I show you, the elevations and explain some of
the things that are provided in with the apartment complex that are apartments designed for renters by choice. People who are either down-sizing, do not want the maintenance issues
that go along with the single-family home or those who
are choosing to rent based on the surroundings and the type of development that we are providing with this complex. As I mentioned, the concept is referred to as “The Big House” Concept.
The reason being is that the elevation that (inaudible) each building proves to be a large single-family home, so it gives the appearance as opposed to a traditional garden-style apartments
where you share accesses and entries. These complexes provide a privately-issued garages, private access to the units. Again, a very nice curb appeal for each of the exposed areas
of the building. So we will see that it doesn’t really look like any apartment complex that we normally think of when we talk multi-family housing. It is certainly not like anything
that we have here in the Treasure Valley. We believe that this will be the nicest apartment complex in the state of Idaho. Our proposal to bring (inaudible) overall conventional development
use that we are not only lessen (inaudible) impact of vehicular trips, it is – (inaudible) 200-unit complex as recognized by the Highway District in their traffic report, it actually
produces less trips than other commercial and retail. So we feel like it’s a good mixed use development and a good use for the 14.7 acres which we are proposing to put the apartments.
As I mentioned, it’s 14.7 acres (inaudible) density of about 13.70 units per acre. The (inaudible) arranged for a mixture of (inaudible) proposing about 40 percent will be one-bedroom,
40 percent will be two-bedroom, and the remaining 20 percent will be three-bedroom units. With that there are either single-car garages or two-car garages that are provided with the
units. Square footage would range from about 750 s.f. for a dwelling up to the high end of about 1348 s.f. per dwelling unit. High ceilings, amenities you would find in the upper end
homes that would allow us to command rates that would be – I don’t recall the exact average, but it’s up there. It would be pretty high end of the market. I would be happy to entertain
questions. I do have both of these elevation drawings that, obviously, (inaudible) leave them here for anybody to look at. I do have some floorplans for the units as well as the clubhouse
or any other portions of the development.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Public testimony on the request for Conditional Use Permit for the luxury apartments? Becky, do you have anything that you want to say as far as the development is concerned
on the items that have come up?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Under the conceptual planned-unit development application, on Item 4, you guys in the Code you have your standard requirements that ask that maintenance buildings
be provided, areas be provided for recreational vehicles. In my comments to staff, we indicated that recreational vehicles will be prohibited in this apartment facility. They will
not allow any RVs; therefore, we don’t have a need for that. As far as maintenance, nowadays we contract with
landscape companies that bring their own equipment off site, so there’s no need to have any storage of a maintenance buildings around. The most important thing was staff’s recommendation
on the parking. Your Ordinance calls for two units per dwelling unit for multi-family buildings three units or above. That has always been the standardized number; it’s consistent
with other jurisdictions in this area for multi-family. In this particular project, they have the one- and two-car garages. They also have some open parking. Each unit would at least
have a minimum of one enclosed garage that is attached to the dwellings. Staff indicated that they wanted to see 2.3 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Under the PD section, there is
an obscure comment that this is – my experience with it being implied – it says “one additional parking space beyond that which is required by Zoning Title may be required for every
three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking.” Well, the nice thing with this facility with having a lot of these enclosed, attached garages is you don’t have all that hard-surface
parking asphalt area. It allows you to have more landscaped areas and less parking. We have 401 parking spaces, and that would include the garages and any of the open parking. In
addition to that, there is parking in front of the garages which is consistent with some of the other complexes that I’ve dealt with: Renaissance Apartments out at Boise Research Center
on Chinden. I was involved in that application. Those units had enclosed garages and when people go to visit, I’ve been over in that vicinity, I see that there are cars parked in front
of the garages. Obviously, if there’s a husband and wife, they only have a one-car garage. So we feel that with that – even though that doesn’t count for the two spaces per unit, we
have met the intent with 401 spaces of the Code, plus we feel that we’ve gone beyond that to impose the point three, I don’t think it’s practical. All that’s going to do is take away
from landscaping and put more asphalt down. It’s a really good site plan with a good concept. I would hate to add more parking. So I’d like to ask you to please take that into consideration.
Oh, the other thing was a limitation on 30 units.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Becky, I just had a question. Are you referring to staff’s comments or to the recommendation by Planning and Zoning? We don’t have staff’s recommendations. We
only have the recommendations from P & Z.
Bowcutt: it was in staff’s recommendation.
deWeerd: Are you referring to 1.1 on Page 2 or the staff recommendation for the 200-unit apartment complex?
Bowcutt: What does it state the parking requirement is (inaudible) matrix, doesn’t it?
deWeerd: No. It just says our requirements provided in the PD-C section shall apply to Site B. Apartment complex shall be incorporated here. Is that what you’re referring to?
Bowcutt: Yes. Part of that PD section is these provisions dealing with RV parking, maintenance building, and then the additional point three.
deWeerd: So P & Z –
Bowcutt: So it’s Section 12-6-8, Design Standards in the PD.
deWeerd: So P & Z is supporting staff’s recommendation, or did they modify it?
Bowcutt: We went for four or five hours. I’d thought that they had concurred with us. I believe that’s what I came away. I’m not sure how the attorneys viewed it when they wrote
up the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission. I believe Steve was at that hearing. Shari was out.
deWeerd: Mr. Borup’s here.
Bowcutt: Maybe Keith can enlighten us.
Borup: Yes, we did concur. Becky, just to reiterate, you have 400 parking places now plus an additional 200, so you’ve got room for 600 cars?
Bowcutt: I’ve got, I believe, 553 if you counted the tandem. The requirement is for 400.
Borup: That was what I think persuaded P & Z is they – similar to a single-family residence; the space in front of a garage is used for parking in a single-family residence, and that’s
the same aspect of the plat here.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Bowcutt: Yes, the .3, the Ordinance says “may,” and it talks about visitor parking, not for the resident parking. So we have met the requirement as the Ordinance for two plus additional
tandem.
Corrie: Any questions at this point? Okay. Thank you.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: All right. Thank you.
Bowcutt: One other issue. In the recommendation by the P & Z, there was discussion in there about the five-lane roadway.
Corrie: In which one?
Bowcutt: I can’t remember. There are six of them. In the motion in the minutes when I read through just to refresh my memory, there was discussion about the road improvements and
at what point in time would these road improvements be required. I believe the Commission on their recommendation stated that no building permits would be issued until such time as
Overland Road was rebuilt to five lanes. Obviously, the public hearing was closed at that time so we could not comment; however, I’d like to state for the record in working with Ada
County Highway District, I obviously can’t insist that they build those five lanes. We can do what we can to encourage them and try to get them to participate with us with the argument
that it’s public funds will be saved in the long run and that is necessary improvement in that area. But to state that no building permits could be issued, that I believe is harsh.
That would obviously impact the high school. That was one of the discussions, I think, in the minutes that Mr. Barbeiro brought up was if they limited these building permits, the high
school as part of this plat would also be restricted. We only need the third lane to accommodate this development. Capacity does exist. With the phasing of this project, the Highway
District was satisfied the lower traffic generators are the first couple phases of this project. The retail will contribute 65 to 70 percent of traffic. The apartments generate just
a little over five trips per dwelling unit. A single-family dwelling generates 10 trips per dwelling unit. So the Commission did approve this based on the fact that there is capacity
that with the improvements they have requested of us, the additional capacity will be created to accommodate us at build-out. They are extracting a considerable amount of money for
trust funds on these signals that they indicated they will put in as they feel they are warranted. Like at Locust Grove and Overland. Do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, Becky, you keep talking about a third lane, and you guys are going to put that in?
Bowcutt: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman McCandless, yes, the Highway District has stated that they want us to install a third center turn lane along the half-mile of Overland Road frontage.
They’ve asked that we install center turn lanes that coincide with the Locust Grove approaches. It’s kind of allowing that traffic to get out – that free-flowing to make that turn
into a particular project. Then they’ve asked for 75 percent trust fund which I believe is $112,000 for the signal at the new collector that would provide access to the high school.
School District would be a participant in that light. They imposed the requirement upon us because the City does not require a Conditional Use Permit for the high school. So the Highway
District would have no opportunity to impose a requirement, so they did it through the plat and through us. The District has stated that they will pay their proportionate share. Then
we’ve got a trust fund for $37,000 for 25 percent of a light at Overland and Locust Grove. Plus we’ll be installing sidewalk on Locust Grove. They asked for $52,000 in trust fund for
sidewalk on Locust Grove and Overland; however, we did request that we be allowed to install that. Especially
with the school going in shortly. Our idea was we wanted to keep it in our landscaping so we didn’t have any conflicts. They don’t like to go in and tear sidewalk out, so they didn’t
want us to put it in a right-of-way. They wanted us to give a trust fund. The City has always been of the City that they wanted the sidewalks to go in when the projects go in. So
they thought they could work with us if they could meander it through our landscaping. That’s what we show on our site plan. We show that coming in right here on this landscaping.
Then we’ve got it meandering down here.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, what did ACHD say about when the installation was on the line on Locust Grove and Overland would be going in?
Bowcutt: I brought to their attention the concerns of the residents. I’ve talked to I think the President of the Meridian Greens Association and I talked to some residents that live
in Sportsman Pointe. They said that it’s not warranted at this time. The intersection operates at the level of service A, and the left-hand turning movement, I think, is a level of
service D or F. You’ve got 3500 vehicles on Locust Grove. That was as of 1999, the vehicle count. With the intersection that we’re creating at the collector roadway, there will be
5000 trips. Three thousand of those will be generated by this high school. They would not give me any time table. They just stated in this staff report that they will install it when
warranted. But by putting the light in the collector will create a tuning effect which will alleviate some of the problems that you’ve got that they’re trying to make that left-hand
turn because you’ve got a full mile of traffic that’s free-flowing in both directions. You don’t have intermittent areas like you find where you want a signal a half-mile mark or the
quarter-mile mark where it creates those gaps in traffic. So that does help the situation. ACHD is also installing free turn lanes at the intersection of Eagle Road and Overland.
In fact, they stated that they will begin construction on that within just a couple of months. That will enhance that intersections’ capacity. Then they’ve got Meridian Road and Overland
intersection listed on their critical intersection list, and they hope to get that one improved too. So they’re trying to get aggressive in this area. We are doing what we can to pay
our proportionate share and encourage them to accelerate their plans.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. Okay. Council, any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I hate to let you down. There were a number of comments that Becky had on some staff comments in one of these, and she’s referring to the staff comments rather
than the Planning and Zoning recommendations. I don’t know if any of the other --
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bowcutt: If I could make it easier, I have my written responses. Do you have that? Those items are bolded.
deWeerd: But those are in response to staff’s comments.
Bowcutt: The staff report does say that all of their requirements and suggestions apply unless expressly modified by the Council. So we have always had a two-leg system where even if
the Commission concurred with us, we also had to make sure the Council did.
Anderson: Were there quite a few of them that you disagreed with?
Bowcutt: No, sir. (inaudible).
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: So does Council have any other questions that require any public testimony? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on closing the public hearing.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearings for Items 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Public hearings are closed. So I assume Council wants to take these one at a time; correct?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Item 9, this is a request for annexation and zoning of 16.119 acres from RT to C-G for proposed Resolution Business Park by G.L. Voigt / Overland, LLC, south of Overland Road
and east of Locust Grove Road. Discussion? No discussion, then we’ll take a motion.
Anderson: Well, I’ll throw out some discussion first, then. Just a comment to the residents and some people fully understand this and other don’t, but the City of Meridian does not
build roads. Ada County Highway District would be the ones who actually build these roads. This has been a continuing problem for the City Council that we agree with a lot of the comments
that were made out there. We would love to have the roads widened prior to development coming. Unfortunately, as Ms. Bowcutt pointed out, the impact fees are collected as
buildings are built, and we try as we may to try to get the Highway District to build these roads, but they build them on their time tables, and they build them usually when something
is more of a crisis situation than what we would like to see them built. Not a good situation for us. If we were to wait until the roads were widened, we’d probably just shut down
all building completely in Meridian, and there would never be any new growth. I’m not sure that that’s a realistic approach to that situation. I would also make the comment that this
project will probably have less of an impact on overall traffic than several other projects that could go in there including R-4 and residential. I think this, with the proximity that
this has at the interchange at Eagle Road and the freeway that this type of a mixed-use would be very well suited for that area. Those are some of my comments for now.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I agree with what Ron said. I think in some ways that this is a really, really nice concept. I think it will be an asset to Meridian. I do, however, resent
the fact that the developers come in here and almost without exception, they put the cart before the horse. You’ve still got two-lane highways out there. I was out there today, and
the traffic is horrendous without any of this coming on. I sympathize with the guy who is looking at a vacant lot now out his front window. But you can’t expect the growth that we’re
having in Meridian that you can’t expect it to stay a vacant lot. You’re going to have to accept that there is going to be growth out there. I think it’s – the project is great, but
we need to look at things like traffic where there’s all kinds of accidents and people being killed and everything else. I just don’t agree with it. You’ve got two lanes on Overland
and two lanes on Locust Grove. I have seen projects that Ada County Highway District has put us on the five-year plan, and all of a sudden it disappears. Well, where did it go? Well,
it’s on the ten-year plan. I’ve seen it over and over again. I don’t know about the overpass. We need it and badly. When is it going to be built? Nobody seems to know. We get the
excuse from Ada County Highway District that we need the access before we can get it built before the Transportation Department will build it, but we haven’t seen anything done on it
yet. That’s all I have to say right now.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, on this first item, the request for annexation on Item No. 9, as Ms. Bowcutt points out, there is no plan right now for development. All they’re simply doing is
asking for annexation at this time, and they’ll still have to come before the City Council with a CUP to build something there. In light of that, at this time I would make a motion
that we approve the request for annexation and zoning for the 16.119 acres for RT and – was that the one that you were wanting to go to what was the zoning on that? C-N for the proposed
Resolution Business Park for G.L. Voigt / Overland, LLC, and request that the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law be drawn up by the attorney.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for annexation and zoning of the 16.119 acres from RT to C-N. Any further discussion?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I will vote for this motion but for the simple reason that what Ms. Bowcutt said. They will have to come back to us before they will do any building on it, and
I can see where it should be annexed.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Bird: I have none.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: On Item 10, this is a rezone of 37.64 acres from R-4 to an L-O zone, the proposed Resolution Business Park.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’ll throw the motion out and see where it goes here. I would make a motion that we approve the rezone of the 37.64 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for the proposed
Resolution Business Park for G.L. Voigt / Overland, LLC, and instruct the city attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to rezone the 37.64 acres from the R-4 to L-O zones for proposed Resolution Business Park. 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: Item 11, this is a request for a 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 Overland LLC, south of Overland Road and east of Locust Grove Road.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I will again make the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed Resolution Business Park for a planned commercial development consisting of
multi-family, commercial, office and LDS seminary in the proposed L-O and C-G zones by G.L. Voigt and Overland, LLC, and instruct the city attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings
of Facts.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Item 11 is motion made and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit for planned commercial development consisting of multi-family, commercial, office and LDS seminary
in proposed L-O and C-G zones and to direct the attorney to draw up the Findings. Any further discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, there were a couple of items on this that the applicant challenged, and that was the parking issue, storage areas which is 1.9 on Page 5. The parking is 1.5 on Page
3. That’s under the conditional use.
Anderson: (inaudible)
deWeerd: Do you have the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning? Then 1.10 which is on Page 6.
Corrie: This is the one about the boats, campers and motorhomes?
Bird: Yes.
McCandless: That’s on 14, isn’t it?
Nichols: Mayor and Council, if I may be of some assistance. On Page 5 of the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, 1.9 deals with storage areas. 1.10 is the maintenance
building or landscape maintenance-type things.
deWeerd: 1.5 deals with the parking. Shari is not here – it – I needs time to read these again. Does it mention in here about the emergency-access road? I know that was something
that was put on.
Anderson: Emergency-access roads from A to B to C?
deWeerd: From B to A on that low area that Becky pointed out.
Bird: On 1.7 it says their access (inaudible) determined.
deWeerd: Shari, does 1.7 address the issue with the emergency access on the CUP 00-017?
Corrie: Talking about No. 11, Shari.
Stiles: The applicant’s representative did submit a new plan today that shows access – help me, Becky, if it’s not right –
*** End of Side 5 ***
Stiles: -- this area, somewhere in this area that would go through, and that would serve as emergency access. There will be a bridge or a crossing over the Hunter Lateral there into
this site.
deWeerd: So that should just be noted in the motion? The reference to the emergency access as shown in the revision.
Anderson: As shown in the revised –
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council, point of order. In Site A, this is merely a concept. Site A is not a plat, it’s not been formalized. What you can do in your motion if you’re
inclined to is indicate that will be emergency-vehicle access between this area that’s covered by this CUP and the area that’s covered in the annexation and zoning – you can figure out
how to word that, but at such time that Site A that there’s some development for that, a CUP, a plat, whatever, there would be a place to connect to and follow up through that process
then for that connectivity. But even following this particular plan, that’s what is shown because Site A is not platted. I don’t think it would be appropriate to mandate that that’s
where it should be. You can mandate that one exists, but not necessarily that that’s where it is.
deWeerd: So emergency access to the west from Site B to Locust Grove.
Anderson: I would amend my motion if the second would agree to require the developer to provide cross-access from Site A, B and C, provide access at such time as Site A is platted.
Bird: Second agrees.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, did you want to include in your motion, Councilman Anderson, 1.5, 1.9 and 1.10?
Anderson: Actually, we want to delete those, right?
deWeerd: Well, don’t delete 1.5 totally.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, the City Clerk is pointing out to me that in the CUP for the apartments that those maintenance building and the storage areas and the parking are waived – the parking’s
not waived, but the other two are waived for the CUP for 14, so do we need to take it out of the CUP, too? This one’s for the entire development.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols. It’s on the CUP for the apartments.
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, members of the Council, that could be done by stating specifically with regard to Item 1.9 and 1.0 by (inaudible) except
for the multi-residential development, comma, and then I would also add that since the applicant has made the statement that there would be no RV parking that we simply, on Item 14 when
we get there, if you’re inclined to agree with that one, to say that the CC & Rs shall provide that there shall be no RV parking, boats, trailers, campers, motorhomes.
Anderson: That would be item –
Nichols: Well, whatever it is on the next one under Item 14 on your agenda.
Anderson: Okay. So Mr. Mayor, I would make the amendment to take – delete Items 1.9 and 1.10 from the staff comments and on Item 1.5 allow the applicant’s 401 spaces that were presented
to suffice for the parking. Do you have anymore amendments that you would like to make to my motion?
deWeerd: Just keeping you on your toes.
Bird: Second agrees.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, nay; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY
Item 12. Public Hearing: 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:
Corrie: Item No. 12 is a request for the preliminary plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 other lots on 107.06 acres for proposed Resolution Business Park.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I think the only thing on here is 1.6 on Page 5. If other Council would like to discuss that, it would be really nice to the residents that have toughed it out
and are still here, I know you’ve heard from the other Council members, but it’s really frustrating dealing with ACHD, and we’re trying to get our priorities – as a priority for them,
they have been using our impact fees to improve our roads, and that’s all their using. So unfortunately, that forces us to look at developments that would have a lower impact so that
you can pay for the road improvements. As much as you disagree with it, as much as we disagree with it, it’s the only way that we can get our roads paid for unless anyone has influence
on the Curtis extension, perhaps we can get the funding over here for
that, but that’s not going to happen. So the condition that Planning and Zoning put in that the applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the ACHD that coordinates and synchronizes
construction completion of the five-lane Overland improvement prior to the completion of Phase I occupancy, I would suggest that we strike that, so I would go ahead and make a motion.
I move that we ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law to approve the request for preliminary plat of 17 building lots and 2 other lots on 107.06 acres
for the proposed Resolution Business Park and to delete Item 1.16 from the Planning and Zoning recommendations.
Corrie: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for preliminary plat with the deletion of 1.16, Page 5, and the other items as mentioned in the motion. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, nay; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY
Item 13. Public Hearing: 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:
Corrie: Item 13, request for Conditional Use Permit for an ice arena consisting of office, pro shop, fitness center, restaurant, locker and equipment storage for proposed Resolution
Business Park / Lee Smith Ice Arena by Pat McKeegan. This is the one that they requested the deletion of 1.2 – (inaudible) Locust Grove and Overland Road (inaudible) –
Bird: With a minimum of seven handicapped-accessible.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we ask the City Attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for an ice arena, et
cetera, by Resolution Business Park and Lee Smith Ice Arena and to amend 1.2 on Page 2 of the recommendations from Planning and Zoning to read “a minimum of seven handicapped-accessible
spaces must be provided to directly serve this facility.”
Corrie: Any others? I need a second.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for an ice arena for the changing of 1.2 to read the minimum of seven handicapped-accessible spaces
must be provided to directly serve this facility. Any other comments? Mr. Clerk, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, nay; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY
Item 14. Public Hearing: 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:
Corrie: Item 14 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 200-unit luxury apartment complex for Resolution Business Park.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of the request for a CUP for a 200-unit luxury apartment
complex by Resolution Business Park to note on 1.1, Page 2 of the 401 spaces would be approved with the 553 including the tandem parking and the CC & Rs should say no RV parking.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for the 200-unit luxury apartments as stated in the motion including the CC & Rs to provide and remove
– no boat, campers or trailers.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move to discuss 1.5 as well.
Corrie: Okay.
deWeerd: I would recommend that 1.5 also be deleted in my motion.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Also with the condition of removing 1.5 of the condition on Page 3. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, nay; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY
Item 15. Public Hearing: 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: Continue Public Hearing to June 20, 2000
Item 16. Public Hearing: 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: Okay. Now, we need to have the Council on the public hearing – Mr. Attorney, what is the procedure on this again?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, as I understand it, we have a letter form an attorney for the owner which states that the owner is withdrawing consent to the annexation.
That letter should be placed in the public record. If there’s anybody here to testify, I suppose they can, but basically with this information, there’s no way you can annex the property
unless it’s completely surrounding the enclave.
Corrie: Is there anyone here that came to testify on Items 15 and 16? Is that what happened? Okay.
Abbott: Mayor and Council, my name is Leroy Abbott. I’m one of the partners.
Corrie: Have you seen this letter?
Abbott: We have seen that letter. We were also notified that was rescinded. We are under a contractual agreement with Mr. Curtis to develop this property with conditions of Planning
and Zoning approval, City Council approval, preliminary plat, and is one of the conditions of the contract. Until we accomplish that, our contract, in our opinion is not with Mr. Curtis.
(inaudible) We were notified by phone today that that had been rescinded. So I’m a little surprised. We would not have wasted your time with the hours if that had not been the case.
Corrie: I don’t think we’ve done anything on it other than – Mr. Attorney, in that case, do we need to continue the public hearing on those two until we find out what’s going on?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my recommendation would be that you continue this hearing because at this point, all the Council has in writing is this withdrawal. So if
that has been rescinded, there will need to be something from either Mr. Dillon or Mr. Curtis that states that this letter is withdrawn so that we can proceed. If you continue the public
hearing, we get that letter, then we can do it next time.
Abbott: Mr. Mayor, Council, Mr. Attorney, is there any possible way that we can because of the typical month between hearings that we could address this subject of that being rescinded
being that we’ve been here this long tonight? Address the annexation with your approval or denial based on this rescintion given to City Attorney and properly (inaudible) avoid a month’s
delay?
Corrie: Your delay would only be until the 20th of June. Two weeks.
Abbott: Two weeks?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I believe that there were public that left after you made this announcement.
Corrie: There was some, yes. Would the two weeks be a hardship? We’ve got to do something. It might be a month, but we’ve got to be something because people did leave.
Abbott: If there’s no possible way that we can proceed, then we can be – we will be agreeable. We want to proceed with this development. It was obvious today, and our attorneys (inaudible).
His comment to us was that they had conversation and they had rescinded.
Corrie: I would recommend to the Council that we continue the public hearing on Item 15 and 16 on the 20th of June to get this situation cleared up. That way in the meantime if we
need something from Mr. Curtis or Mr. Dillon, (inaudible) to us.
Abbott: Thank you very much.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, would this need to be re-noticed because the public did leave?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I would suggest that I would try to send out first-class mailings just to notify them that the hearing was continued until June 20th because
my concern is the impression that they had when they left that it was going to be withdrawn. I don’t know what the attorney would advise, but my concern would be first-class would get
there and they wouldn’t have to try to come to the post office and try to get a certified mailing, it would take longer.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, it would be my recommendation that the clerk does has he suggested, and that should provide sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard.
We don’t know the people that left were opposed or in favor, and so to presume that they were opposed may be premature. Certainly if they happen to sign any of the sheets that we asked
them to sign in the back
and indicated that they were going to testify on this particular matter, a letter could be specifically be sent to them what has happened.
Corrie: That’s probably the best thing we can do. We have to continue it, though.
Abbott: Mr. Mayor, so I understand that we would be heard on the 20th.
Corrie: That was the suggestion that was made by City Attorney. Thank you.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing for request for annexation and zoning of 23.6 acres for proposed Teare Terrace as well as the request for preliminary
plat for the same project to June 20th.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Bird: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the public hearing on Items 15 and 16 to June 20, 2000 and the clerk needs to send a letter letting those people know. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 17. Public Hearing: AZ 00-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC – southwest corner
of Black Cat and Ustick Roads: Continue Public Hearing to June 20, 2000
Item 18. Public Hearing: PP 00-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 78.4 acres with 263 building lots and 12 other lots for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties,
LLC – southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads: Continue Public Hearing to June 20, 2000
Item 19. Public Hearing: CUP 00-021 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a group, in-home daycare by Deanne Young – 2176 East Lochmeadow Court: Continue Public Hearing to June 20,
2000
Corrie: Now, we did mention that we will continue 17, 18 and 19 also to the 20th of the month. Any body here that’s on that one? Okay. Then I’ll need a motion to continue the public
hearing on Items 17, 18 and 19.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing on 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, SW corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads; also public hearing for PP 00-009, request for preliminary plat approval of 78.4 acres with 263 building lots and 12 other lots
for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC, SW corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads; and also the public hearing to be continued for CUP 00-021, request for Conditional
Use Permit for a group, in-home daycare by Deanne Young, 2176 East Lochmeadow Court.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue Items 17, 18 and 19 as stated in the motion. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 20. 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:
Corrie: Item No. 20, Keith, would you do this for me?
Bird: Okay, Council, Item 20 is a 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. They want to redo the old Mangum building.
deWeerd: Can we do 20 and 21 together?
Bird: Can we do them together? Oh. They’re different buildings. Okay, staff.
Stiles: There’s been a little change that they’ve come up with since the application was originally submitted. They have decided that they are going to tear down the building and construct
a new building there. But apparently they came into some problems and decided that it would be better for them to demolish – they have already received a variance for the off-street
parking requirement. They’ve also been working extensively with Tom Kuntz on the proposed lease area next to Generations Plaza, and I believe I’ll just let Tom cover his issues on that.
Kuntz: You should have in your packets tonight a memo sent to Gary Benoit of Stewart, Laney and Benoit. It addresses issues that the Parks and Recreation Commission has with adjacent
sidewalks and landscaping buffers. It also addresses the lease amount and any concern about future increased
maintenance as a result of the restaurant adjacent to Generations Plaza as far as litter and addition trash and that type of thing.
Anderson: Where’s the restroom?
Kuntz: The restroom was not able to be negotiated within the current floorplan of this building. We do have porta-potties ready to be moved in at a moment’s notice, however.
Corrie: There might be a need for that.
Bird: Mayor, the staff report’s (inaudible), excuse me. It’s getting late. Do you have anything that you want to say on that? (inaudible).
Cole: Good evening, Mayor Corrie and City Council. My name is Stan Cole, Cole Associates Architects. I’m at 960 Broadway, Boise, Idaho. I represent Stewart, Laney and Benoit developers
for this project. We’ve been working very hard with Mayor Corrie and Meridian City Council, Parks and Recreation and Planning and Zoning. We feel that this is a nice amenity for the
downtown core of the Old Town in Meridian. We’ve got a few issues. We dealt with Mr. Kuntz regarding the park. I understand with conversation with the landscape architect who is working
with Tom that there’s still not complete with the conceptual design; that’s still in the works. We intend to work with them until that is complete and coordinate our projects with that.
We have two buildings that face the park. Both are intended to have amenities with terraces and plaza and that one area that we’re leasing from the City to (inaudible) for each building.
I’ll provide some documentation for the Council to look at that shows the former park concept and what’s proposed. I’ll let Gary Benoit finish, wrap up what our intentions are for
this.
Benoit: Good morning, Mayor and City Council. I’m Gary Benoit, Stewart, Laney and Benoit, 910 Main Street in Boise. We’re the developers of the Generation Plaza building. Stan has
handed you some handouts there depicting two things. One is called the former concept which is the original parks idea of what they were going to do with the remainder of Generation
Park before we came along, and the other one is called the Concept No. 1. The purpose of my addressing you at this point is we do take exception to some of Tom’s good work on the park.
We appreciate everything that has gone into it, but there are some extenuating circumstances and some elements that we would like to explain. I would start out by pointing out a former
concept drawing down there. You can see the – what that was they basically were accessing the alleyway before it was vacated, and there would be some parking with some shrubbery and
four-foot stone wall or a brick wall separating the cars or screening the cars, actually, from the park. Then along the existing Mangum building or the Idaho Street building would be
some ornamental trees planted, then two sidewalks traversing the lane of the park area. After our conversation with Mayor Corrie and Tom and our
investors, and we got all fired up, we decided that we wanted to buy both buildings and work out a plaza concept and get together a miniature Center on the Grove. We feel like we came
up with really a great win-win situation that everybody is going to come out with a better product. If you’ll take a look at concept No. 1, there are some color coding on there, and
I’ll explain those in just a minute, but one of the things that we get by doing the vacation of the alley, we remove the wall that was we felt obtrusive and kind of blocking off, cutting
off the park. In doing so, we increased the overall size of the park by 23 percent. That 23-percent figure takes into consideration the fact that we’re asking to lease a patio that
now is 16 by 80 or 65 feet it is now. So even after we deduct the patio, there is still a net gain of 23 percent of the size of the park. Probably one of the biggest things that we’ve
done in doing this is by closing off that alley, we’ve also made that a safer park. Now we’ve got little kids that run out to grab the ball and they’re not running out into an alley
where some unsuspecting or unconscious driver is coming along and can cause a serious injury. We feel that we’ve added a lot. We hope that we’ve jumpstarted the downtown core, that
we’ve gotten a new project off. We’ve wondered about it, the Statesman editorial said that they were pleased that developers were willing to risk coming to Meridian and to pioneer coming
to the downtown area. That made us a little bit nervous. We got a little bit nervous when our banker told us on the project, the first comment was he said that we spent too much money
for the land. We knew. We acknowledged that before, but it was financially not the strongest deal we ever put together for a variety of reasons. Primarily because we were somewhat
enamored with this concept of creating this nice little park area, but our banker’s looking at it and saying, well, you spent too much money on your land. Then he said an interesting
thing. He said his biggest concern was the neighborhood, the downtown Meridian area is a risky place to be building a property. I don’t know how our Board’s going to look at that.
So we become a little more financially conscious as we move along through this project. Of course, as Shari just eluded, now we’re finding that the Mangum building structurally is
not the building we thought it was and it has problems. So we’re tearing that down and we’re going to have to start all over again. We really didn’t come out very well financially
on this deal at all. Which probably makes us a little more sensitive to Tom’s request. We feel that the items that they’re asking for us to do, if you’ll look at your concept one,
the blue sidewalk is a sidewalk that parallels – I should say is paralleling the existing alley. The way that is set up, the alley is 16 feet wide, and we’re proposing to take eight
feet of the alley, the remaining eight feet of the alley was to have been originally – the park had agreed that they were going to put in a sidewalk, and there was a change of attitude
at kind of the last minute. We took the issue before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and they agreed with us that the park needed to build the sidewalk. We thought the issue was
taken care of, and apparently it’s not. It’s still an issue. I guess that’s what a public forum is all about to express our ideas on them. So we’re looking at this sidewalk and we’re
saying, gosh sakes, haven’t we done enough for the City? Haven’t we brought you 23 percent greater area to the park? Haven’t we brought you a much nicer concept that will give the
City a gathering area, a place
for people to be, and hopefully a proud new entrance to a new Old Town section. The sidewalk area as you can see on the original map, if you look at the former concept, the sidewalk
was already planned is going in a different direction. Now it’s just been turned and gone down parallel to the park. Tom’s Item No. 2 about the new sidewalk highlighted in yellow on
the former on the – on the Concept No. 1, he wanted us to pay for that as well which we’re saying, well, wait a minute. You already had that sidewalk in before we ever came along.
The Parks Department had planned on putting the sidewalk in. What is the difference that we decide to build a project next to it and bring more people in to use your park and enjoy
the facility? We don’t feel that that’s something that should be assigned to our side. It just doesn’t seem fair. I think that’s probably the underlying tone of all of these points.
We don’t think they’re fair. Item No. 3, they want us to landscape the east end of the building. We, in our negotiations, already conceded to do two things with the patio. The first
one was to landscape the perimeter of the patio. The second one, and that’s actually park land, but then we were asked, okay, if you’re going to landscape that, then you might as well
lease that. So you’ve got to pay for it now. What we’d originally talked about was a 15 by 60 foot patio, and that’s what they were going to lease and use for the restaurant. We really
hadn’t anticipated having to landscape that for the park, and we really hadn’t anticipated having to pay for it. But in spirit of conciliation, okay, we’ll do that. That’s not a problem.
One thing that we do have a problem with, though, is landscaping the rest of the site of our building. If you look on the original format concept and see that the City had a series
of trees already planned down that side. So they changed the look of the landscaping a little bit. We’ve already done half that side around our patio. It would seem that the Parks
Commission would be able to do the remaining half. Again, we probably wouldn’t be fighting for these points except we now have a financially struggling project. If we were to take
this building and put it somewhere else, we could probably double our return. This is not a strong, financial investment for us. This is more of a heart-felt-we-want-to-do-it-type
of a project, and we do have investors in it that we need to answer to, and we need to be able to provide them a certain amount of return. So at this point, an element that hasn’t entered
into it yet, there’s a new $5000 sewer line that was just added to this last week. So you start adding all of these up plus tearing down a building, pretty soon these pennies are adding
up and we’ve got a project that financially could be in a bit of trouble. It’s hard to convince our investors that they should keep their money in it. One of the items that Tom mentioned
here is on the patio, you know, we agreed we’ll do the landscaping, we’ll even trim the bushes which we found a little bit interesting, but we’ll do that. One item on the cost of the
lease itself, our original negotiations, Tom has calculated us at 1.5 percent per month, and I had written down a comment from our discussion, 1.25 percent. I don’t know if that was
– I think that might be an oversight or something that we need to talk about. We didn’t have a chance to discuss today. That falls into the category of lease negotiations which we
would like to get the lease taken care of. We’ve been patiently waiting three months now for the lease. Haven’t received that. The final item, Item No. 5, they’re anticipating that
we’re going to increase
the area of the use of the area, and in doing so we’re going to leave more trash and debris and food drinks. The patios that you see there, these are patios that are served by servers.
The food and the debris are going to be on the patios and the waitperson’s going to take that away. I don’t really foresee people throwing things over the edge. But even if they did,
I think the concept that the whole downtown is trying to accomplish is you want more people downtown. You want more usage. Quite frankly, if we spill a little ice cream or some coke
on your patio, our taxes which are going to be 8 to 10 times what you’re collecting now on that land will surely clear that off. So again, we look at this and say we’re kind of nit-picking
at all of these things. We want to see that downtown core developed. Quite frankly, I think future developers will take a look at it and say, you know, if they’re going to get nit-picked
to death, why take the risk? Why go out there and do those things if everybody’s going to split hairs on it? It’s – I think it’s conducive to the City for your Old Town to be developed
correctly. Quit splitting hairs. We ask that you quit splitting hairs with us and disregard the additional charges that we’re faced with here. The rest of the City’s been real cooperative.
We appreciate your support, and we’ve had good support on it, but this is one issue that we’re just having a little trouble swallowing. Thank you.
Corrie: Council, any questions? Okay.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just wanted to give you some input behind the recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission. They reviewed this. Mr. Benoit had made a presentation to
them at a real preliminary stage, and at that time it was all conceptual that, so they did have a change to review it at this last meeting as well as a recent gathering. They feel that
definitely these two businesses will impact this park. There’s no doubt that the people would go into the businesses suggested and number two, as well as number one, would take their
pizzas or their mochas and sit in the park. That’s what parks are for, to be utilized, and they believe that the park is an amenity to these businesses, and with Generations Park Plaza
II, they were using the full alleyway, and they meet the Park’s alley-half to provide the sidewalk for them and do not feel it was an unreasonable request to say that we’ll maintain
that, but your patrons will be utilizing it because they will not be able to walk --
*** End of Side 6 ***
deWeerd: -- construction is done, they won’t have the maintenance costs that the park will assume that. It was also felt that on the other side as well will benefit the Smokey Mountain
Pizza restaurant that’s being proposed there, and didn’t feel it unreasonable to request that landscaping go on the perimeter of their building. One thing that Tom didn’t mention in
there, you know, the Commission did further than that, and I think that Tom felt that he was already pushing the dime. They felt that he should further develop the property clear to
the sidewalk that they were putting in place, and I see that he’s left that out. The Commission does believe that this will add more people to the parks, and that is a good thing.
But they also felt that the use of that, the developer should contribute to some of the development of that sidewalk that will benefit their properties.
Corrie: We’re trying to work something out here.
Mayor and City Council, Gary Benoit, 910 Main Street. Granted, the sidewalks are going to be used by our patrons, but addressing the two different situations, the sidewalk along the
alley, for instance, we view that from two perspectives. First of all, I don’t know how people are going to get to the City parking lot if you don’t have a sidewalk to get back and
forth on. Granted, our people might walk on it, but we see other people using it as well. The second point I’d like to make is this is what we get for our tax dollars. We get a front
sidewalk on Main Street someplace or on Idaho Street. We’re already replacing 25 percent of the sidewalks around the Pine Street building, the Generations II building. We’re paying
for 25 percent of the street sidewalks. We’re replacing those. It would seem like at some point, our tax dollars or something ought to allow us to use a public thoroughfare, a walkway.
I don’t think we should be asked to pay for all of these. As an example, when Tom and I were putting this together, we weren’t sure how to do this. We contracted through CCDC in Boise
to ask them how they assess their merchants along 8th Street in Boise. Tom was surprised, and I wasn’t surprised to find out that they don’t charge them a stinking thing. They gave
them – they built the regular sidewalk and then they added 15 feet on both sides of the sidewalk and brick pavers. They don’t charge them any rent. They don’t charge them any maintenance.
They said it was worth our time to encourage merchants because look what we did. Look at 8th Street. And they have. They’ve filled 8th Street up. It is now – 8th Street is so powerful
they even moved the City Center of Boise one block east. They’ve moved it over from 9th Street to 8th Street just by the foresight. That’s the foresight that we’d like to see the City
of Meridian have. Don’t nail us on these small things because in the end we’re going to fill up the buildings, we’re going to bring more development to your downtown area. As far as
the sidewalk parallel to the Smokey Mountain building, that one was already on your plan. I can’t see – again, it’s kind of a City sidewalk that everybody ought to be able to use.
It’s not the main entrance to the restaurant, particularly. The main entrance is over on Idaho Street. Even if it were, I think in the spirit of cooperation and the spirit of hoping
that our project succeeds so that your downtown succeeds, I think that the sidewalk should be provided. Thank you
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Benoit. If the park were to build their grass clear up to their property line and the alley, you would have to be putting in a sidewalk.
So you would be losing square footage off of your building which we all understand that is one cost that you cannot afford. This is a one-time cost; reducing your square footage is
a permanent cost. So it would seem by the Commission as the compromise by putting in the sidewalk that would allow you that patio space for your outdoor amenity.
Benoit: Granted, you could do that. You could put grass all the way up to our patios. But we go back to the word cooperation. We’re trying to cooperate with the City to give you
a better project. Our concept is already enlarging the Generations park by 23 percent. What else do you want? We gave you 23 percent more grass. Twenty-three more than anything else
and a much safer concept. Much more viable showpiece for the whole City. We think that we’re getting nickel-and-dimed to death to have somebody pour a little concrete patio brick paver
or sidewalk along there and, furthermore, to maintain it. That was one of the requests that Tom has is to maintain the sidewalk. Now, why should we maintain the City sidewalk? I don’t
understand it. Any other questions?
Cole: Stan Cole, Cole Associates, 960 Broadway, Boise. Now that we vacated the alley, our property line actually adjusts to the center of the alley. We could potentially actually
build our building to the centerline of the alley and not provide any of the sidewalk at all if we wanted to. We’re, in the spirit of cooperation, we want that (inaudible) pedestrian
plaza (inaudible) access way. We think the best use is for both parties to provide paving that matches (inaudible) corridor.
Bird: Mr. Cole, I believe, I agree that when we vacated that we go to the centerline, but our ground also goes out to the centerline too when you vacate the alley because we own up
to it.
Cole: That’s correct.
Bird: So actually, the ground that we’re getting, we’re putting the sidewalk down and it is our ground anyway in the right-of-way of the alley where the sidewalk is going if I look
at this map right.
Cole: We could actually build –
Bird: You can build your building over there, but we still have the half deal there. You can build it within five foot of your property line.
Cole: We can build it to zero.
deWeerd: There’s an easement there.
Bird: Zero allowance? Okay. I’m not arguing that, but actually, and I –
deWeerd: That’s an easement. He can’t build there.
Bird: That isn’t an easement when they vacate it, is it?
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Cole: If the sewer’s in the center line. It may or may not be.
Bird: So that’s – I know where you guys are coming from, too, but I just want people to understand that that sidewalk ground that you’re given that you say you’re giving us, you’re
not giving us. When you vacate that alley, our property line which we own up to on the south side goes to the middle of the alley, too, the same as yours does. I realize that you can
bring your building out to there. I want to cooperate, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t want people saying that you’re giving us this extra square footage.
Cole: We’re not required to have any sidewalk along that side.
Bird: No, we can put the sidewalk in. That sidewalk is no argument. I have no problem with your patio. I have no problems. But don’t come tell me that you’re giving us this extra
ground. We could have vacated this square footage and had it done ourselves a long time ago. We’ve got to be joint venturers and we’ve got to get along. But don’t tell me that you’re
giving us this amount more when it’s being put on my ground. See what I mean?
Cole: Not in total because we’re both buying (inaudible) of that parcel of alley.
Corrie: I guess what I’m looking at is where we had parking over there is if we move that parking out, that’s – we’re not giving anything to anybody. That’s still our property. So
the centerline is irrelevant. I understand what he’s trying to say is we want to cooperate as much as possible, but you’re not giving us anymore land.
Cole: No. You’re just encroaching more on – you’re increasing your land by taking (inaudible)
Bird: Yeah. Your project is beautiful for downtown. I appreciate Gary and his partners coming down here and doing it. It will definitely be an asset to Generations Plaza. Asset to
the whole City. So I think we can work some things out.
Cole: We think with just a little cooperation and negotiation –
Bird: I have no problem with that at all. Absolutely no problem at all. But I don’t – I kind of get riled up when you tell me that you’re giving me this extra ground when it’s actually
ours anyway. So, anyway.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess I’m kind of a numbers guy. When I look at the little bit of sidewalks that we’re asking your guys to help participate, we feel that we’ve made a sizeable
investment in property and development in that park, and we have the parking lot that was built behind your building which will be utilized in that, too. We’ve created quite an amenity
there that you guys wouldn’t be looking at that project if that park wasn’t sitting there. I guess when I look at it, we’re going to have better than $300,000, maybe $400,000 in this
thing to ask
you to foot the bill for $10 or $15,000 in sidewalks. I’m not sure, maybe you know what the numbers are, what we’re asking for. I hate to get into a pissing match over penny-anty things
because we’re not looking at the big picture there, but we feel that we have made an investment there and the investment that we make is what is going to make your project fly. We appreciate
the fact that you’re willing to start that, but if it’s not you, someone else is going to pick up on that amenity and Meridian will get revitalized at some point.
Benoit: Gary Benoit. Yes, you’ve made an investment there. I guess our point is that those, the sidewalks, the landscaping, the brick wall, the parking stalls, all that, that was
all budgeted. That was all planned for. We came along, we didn’t change any of that. We were going to spend about the same or less money than you were before. The pressure, the piece
I’m not telling you, I guess you’ll have to decide for yourself, there are three partners in our group. We had a meeting this morning. It'’ a point of ethical conduct for the other
two. They’re backing out if this doesn’t – if we have to pay for it. I’m not trying to threaten you, but I’ve got to tell you what you’re up against. You’re right. You’ll find someone
else to develop it, but you know, timing is everything. You’ve got to hit the market when it’s right. The market is right right now. In another couple of years, if you’ve missed that
time, who knows what’s going to happen. Point No. 1. Point No. 2 is when somebody comes to us and says why didn’t you guys do it? We relate the stories. I know developers are going
to go Oh my God, we don’t want to deal with that. You’re going to get the wrong reputation out there, and you’re going to have trouble downtown. Again, I’m not saying this to threaten
you. I’m saying it to tell you the facts of the way they are. When I go back tomorrow, if we’re doing (inaudible) I’ve got a battle because I’ve got two partners that say huh-uh, we’re
not going with it. Part of it is we’ve got to spend an extra $200,000 to tear down a building and re-build it. That makes a difference. We paid too much for the land to begin with.
That makes a difference. The bottom line is we’ve got bankers, and the bankers are going to come along and say, we don’t care how much you’ve paid for the land, and we don’t care what
it cost for the building. How much rent can you generate? That’s what dictates where it is. If we can’t generate enough rent to justify the amount that we paid for the buildings,
we’re out of luck. We either come out of pocket more or we just don’t get the land. That’s the way the bank works. They just have their perimeters. I just want to lay all the cards
out on the table so that everybody can make a good decision. WE want to move forward. WE think it’s a great project, too. I think it would be a shame to let it slip at this point
of really what is a piddly amount. It’s probably $10, $12,000 worth of amenities. Right now, the way our budget is, that $10- or $12,000 works and the partners are looking at it and
saying is there a spirit of cooperation or isn’t there?
Anderson: Thought there was.
deWeerd: We’re giving you a piece of a park land to lease. Without your outdoor dining, we’ve reduced your parking requirements. You’re using one of
our lots that is really benefiting the two businesses you’re putting in there. I don’t see how that can take away from the spirit of cooperation that the City is doing. There are a
lot of businesses who would go in and build a building and put in a fountain as an amenity. We already have that there for you.
Benoit: Not in Meridian Idaho. You can’t get the rents here for that. You can’t afford those kinds of amenities in this (inaudible).
deWeerd: We have tried to be very cooperative. This is something that has come up – it does benefit you and it seems logical to me. I don’t think it’s –
Benoit: What’s the difference? Had we not come along you would have put in the sidewalks and the landscaping and the parking. You would have spent x-number of dollars.
deWeerd: And we would have built it clear up to that building and there wouldn’t be outdoor dining. There wouldn’t –
Benoit: That’s right.
deWeerd: -- be a nice walkway next to an outdoor patio type of thing. It would be designed differently.
Benoit: It would function differently. It wouldn’t have the ambiance, the creativity, the synergy that’s going to be created there by having patios and people and restaurants.
deWeerd: And that’s what attracted you there.
Benoit: It’s not going to have the look, the bang that you’re looking for for that downtown core. I understand where you’re coming from. Probably I know you’re on the Parks Commission.
It’s prudent to ask, but what I’m telling you is we can’t go anymore. I’ve got two partners that aren’t going to go anymore. Like it or not, that’s the way it was told to me.
Corrie: So we’re talking about $12,000 and they’re going to throw this whole project down the tubes?
Benoit: Well, it’s not just that, Mayor. It’s the rest of it. It’s not penciling out well. We need to give our investors a 16 percent return on their money. This is 8-1/2 percent.
They can go into the stock market and do better than that.
Bird: Not right now.
Benoit: These guys are standing back and saying what’s the City going to do? They going to do this? They going to do that? They’ve magnified all of this out
of perception. But it doesn’t make any difference because they’re the money behind it, and if we lose them –
Bird: Now you’re telling me that this is also – you can’t pencil out on Generations Plaza II at the VanPapagan side, I take it. If we have this kind of a deal – you’re actually looking
at two buildings, Gary, that’s going to be that $12,000 is charged against because you’ve got the new one coming up and the old one, and you’re going to charge it against the renters,
the leasers, that $12,000 over or whatever it is, but you’ve got two buildings there as far as the parking – no problem. We’re going to interchange our parking lots, I’m sure, after
hours. The City will be using your parking lot with your blessings, and you’re more than welcome to use ours. That’s what it’s there for. So I think that with the variances and stuff
that we’ve got, that we’ve given you for Generations Plaza II, you’re going to have a nice building, and I don’t know what you have to have a square foot to pencil out. It’s none of
my dang business. But I would think when you’re talking about with two buildings, I don’t know how many square foot you’re going to need on either one of them, but $12,000 isn’t going
to add up to much. I don’t think that we’re hung on $12,000. I think you could probably go back and talk to the Commission and get – my recommendation as a Councilman is if you go
back and talk to them and sit down and cut it in half, that’s fine. Something like that. Go negotiate with them. I don’t want to lose your project. I think it’s a very – it’s a start
for downtown Meridian. We know that. Meridian needs a shot in the arm. Downtown Meridian needs a shot in the arm. You guys are giving it to us. You’ve got two nice projects. I
didn’t realize that Mangum’s building had to come down. How many square foot building (inaudible) two-story?
Benoit: Six thousand feet at Mangum’s and 12,000 on the other one. See, we’ve already averaged, to get it to pencil out, we’re taking the good building, the Generations II building
that doesn’t have quite the problems and rolling that together with the Generations I building to try to get the figures to come out. We’re still not coming out. We’re not even close.
Bird: Now you’re going to have basement and two stories at Mangum’s or just two stories?
Benoit: Two stories.
Bird: Not a basement?
Benoit: No. I agree, $12,000 is not a whole lot. But in this case, it’s starting to be a whole lot. It’s also the nervous-Nelly investors that’s sitting back there and looking at
this and saying this isn’t’ going to work. The bank’s only going to loan x-number of dollars because you can only generate x-number of dollars in revenues. It’s a catapulting thing.
I guess I’m here as a messenger to tell you that the project is in grave jeopardy if we nickel-and-dime it to death. I’m asking you to not to do that. It just isn’t worth it. The
City stands to gain a whole lot
more. I can agree with you, and if it were my money, I’d say to the heck with it. $12,000 doesn’t make that much difference. In this particular case, under the circumstances, it’s
going to make a difference.
Bird: The thing I look at, too, and from the City’s standpoint, from the Councilman standpoint, Mayor, I look at every year that we don’t have those buildings up, we’re losing tax dollars.
So, you know, that building can pay more than $12,000. We’re kind of both sitting here fighting over something that really isn’t a matter on the overall project. It matters to us
on our Generations Plaza. It matters to you on your two buildings. That’s why I think we could probably reach a center point of where we have to be. I don’t know where the Parks and
Recreation if they’ve thrown some numbers together or if they went back and looked at what the actual costs are going to go and from there. I don’t know how they did it. I know they’re
very good people, and I would think they would. I for one don’t want to see – I think we’re also helping you guys out by a variance in parking and stuff like that. You’re helping us
with the downtown development.
Benoit: We will all like to continue to work together on it.
Bird: I thought we were getting along great.
Benoit: And we were. We have been up until this last go around with this last list of items. The timing was just bad, you know, and it came back that we thought we had it all put
to rest. We’re having to tell the investors that we’ve got to do this, we’ve got to do that. These guys are already getting squirmish and saying why do we have to do that? So, you
know, we lose them we lose the project. I’ve got to tell you. I’ve had the two investors from our standpoint that we have other opportunities. We’ve got a building we could buy in
Boise right now that’s going to return about 21 percent. From a financial standpoint those guys are saying, well, let’s put up over there. Let’s go do that. Those are the things that
we’re fighting with. Again, it’s (inaudible). It’s $12,000 and not a big deal. I’m not the sole decision-maker. That’s all I can tell you. Help us. Please.
Bird: I’ve got a question. How do we have a CUP on an existing building when it’s not going to be an existing building?
Stiles: That was what the application had.
Bird: Oh, okay. Now do you have to reapply when you come in with a new one? There’s a big difference between remodeling one and what they’re going to have in it or what it’s going
to be new.
Unidentified: (inaudible)
Bird: We don’t know that tonight.
Stiles: The elevations they proposed would be the same. They did present it to the Planning and Zoning Commission as having to be demolished and start over. So they haven’t changed
anything from when they went from the first public hearing for at Planning and Zoning Commission.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Tom, what’s your cut on this?
Kuntz: I guess my recommendation on the compromise would be that the developer be responsible for the improvements to our eight feet of alleyway because the Planning and Zoning, at
the meeting, Shari Stiles’ recommendations were there be a five-foot sidewalk there. The Planning and Zoning Commission left that up to Gary and myself to come to some kind of understanding
on how that would happen. We’ve already reached a compromise in that we’re allowing them to use their half of the alleyway for their tables and chairs and retractable awning. So we’re
giving them our half of the alleyway to be used as a sidewalk that was a requirement of their building. So I think a fair compromise would be for them to pay for the improvements of
our eight feet of the alleyway. We could certainly maintain that area. I don’t think that’s an issue. I think the other compromise would be that we would pay for the sidewalk from
Idaho to the alleyway, but they pay for the landscaping along side of their building that would be contiguous with the patio. Those would be my two recommendations.
Anderson: And we would maintain that landscaping?
Kuntz: We could certainly do that.
Anderson: I mean, we’re going to be out there trimming our shrubs. It wouldn’t be that much harder to trim those.
Kuntz: I think the reason that we recommended that they maintain the shrubbery on the patio is, one, we wanted to make the lease all one, tight package. Two, we may not maintain that
shrubbery in the way that the restaurant leasing the property wants it maintained because they may want a certain vegetation blockage for privacy in the patio. So we felt the cleanest
way to handle that is to have them maintain that vegetation around the patio as part of the lease much cleaner.
Anderson: If we’re going to pay for the haircut, they’re going to wear their hair the way we like it.
Kuntz: Right. But I don’t mind, as a compromise, for them to – if they pay for the improvements of the landscaping around the rest of the building, it’s going to be contiguous with
those picnic tables there, a further compromise, I don’t mind if we maintain that. But I would still like to see in the lease that they maintain the area immediately adjacent to their
patio. I think that’s a good way to go. That would be my recommendation.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Tom, I’ve got one question. I think Gary hit up on it. Being familiar with restaurants and stuff, I think the biggest trash that’s going to incur around that patio
is going to be coming from Generations Plaza at it instead of it going to Generations Plaza. They will keep that pretty clean and stuff. I think that most of the trash will be generated
by the Generations Plaza.
Kuntz: That’s why, if you read No. 5, we’re not – the statement that we reserve the right to review the maintenance costs. We’re not saying that it’s going to happen. But we wanted
to put that in as a safeguard. I think what the Commission envisioned was that someone, and I’ve eaten at Smokey Mountain Pizza, and a lot of people call orders in and then they go
pick them up or they walk in a restaurant and order it to go, and they go out into the Plaza or the Starbucks people go out in the Plaza with their coffee, and they’re welcome in there.
It’s a public place. We want that. But if those restaurants and those other places at a great deal of maintenance as far as little, double, triple garbage pickup, so forth and so
on, then we want to be reasonable to be able to go back and say, you know, can you help us with these costs. We hope it doesn’t happen, and 90 percent of the restaurant business is
going to be inside the patio, not outside. But we wanted to leave that clause in there so that we’ve got an open door in case we need to use it.
Bird: Yeah, because you know, there’s nothing saying that we can’t go to Pizza Hut or we can’t go anyplace else and bring our food up there. In fact, that’s what I envisioned once
we get it done is people doing that whether they go to Smokey Mountain or walk across to the Sunrise and get a sandwich and take it to the Plaza.
Anderson: What Tom talked about, is that agreeable with you guys or not agreeable?
Benoit: It gives me something to go back and say, well, (inaudible)
deWeerd: Sir, can you say that officially? We want it on tape.
Benoit: It does give me something to go back and say we met each other half-way. I’ve still got a debate on my hands. I think the other partners are probably looking for a reason
why they don’t have to do this because they look at the returns and say, oh, this isn’t so good. Let’s go do something else. So, it shows a spirit of cooperation. We can certainly
agree to that. If we can’t –
Bird: I think what Tom said, too, also, Gary, is that they’ll look at it and if they don’t have to have that, they don’t have to have that much. They’re – we’re going to be fair with
you. You’re doing a service to the City by bringing these buildings. There’s no doubt about it. Nobody’s going to sit here and tell you
you’re not. You’re helping downtown Meridian when downtown Meridian needs help.
Benoit: We hope we can do it.
Bird: I hope you can, too.
Benoit: That would be agreeable to us.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, does staff have any further questions before we do anything here? Comments?
Stiles: I know we were addressing all of these comments in both projects, but aren’t we still on just 20? The Idaho Street. Okay. I was just getting clear.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess we didn’t ask the applicant if there was anything in the CUP other than what the Parks Commission said. If he had any issue with. Okay.
Bird: The off-street parking, you agree with on this?
Benoit: Yes.
Bird: Everything on the recommendation you agree with? Okay. We got so sidetracked.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval on the request for Conditional Use Permit for Generations
Plaza I by Cole Associates Architects to include the memo of June 6, 2000, from Tom Kuntz with a suggested compromise by our Parks Director to be noted. Do I need to be specific, Mr.
Attorney? Okay.
Nichols: At 1:00 in the morning, please, yes.
deWeerd: Oh no. That the applicant and that compromise was that the applicant would construct the sidewalk that – oh. We’re doing Generations Plaza I, right? That the applicant would
install the landscaping – no. This isn’t one. Yeah, but that’s two. That would be in two. Okay. That the applicant would landscape the area on the side of their building, the west
side; that the Parks Department would maintain the strip from the back of the patio to the alleyway; and that the applicant would maintain the landscaping surrounding their patio area.
I believe that was all. And that the City would install the sidewalk.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded as on record. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 21. 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:
Corrie: Now we’re on Item 21. 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 office/retail in an OT zone. Staff. Comments? Let us know what you’re thinking.
Stiles: We would both like to incorporate our testimony from the previous public hearing, Tom Kuntz and I. Excuse me. Incorporate from the previous proceedings.
Kuntz: I do have one additional comment. I know there was some discussion about the naming of these two buildings as far as confusion with Generations Plaza. Did that ever get resolved?
Any discussion held on it?
(Inaudible response from the audience)
Kuntz: I think that’s something we can work toward.
Corrie: Okay.
deWeerd: Just for the record, the applicant said the name is being changed, but he doesn’t know to what because it’s 1:10 in the morning.
Corrie: Any comments on that?
Bird: You agree with everything?
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on CUP 00-023.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have the Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval for the CUP for Generations Park Plaza II for the demolition of the
old existing auto garage structure and construction of a new two-story office/retail building in Old Town, East 1st Street, and include the
agreement that they would install the sidewalk along the north side of the – south side of their building, the north side of Generations Plaza.
Corrie: Okay. Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for CUP 00-023, as stated. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just a point of clarification. On – I don’t think in the CUP motion did we properly address the lease? We talked about Tom’s memo that – okay. I just clarified
the changes.
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd and Mayor, members of the Council, the lease has to be approved by the Council anyway.
deWeerd: Okay.
Item 22. CUP 00-013 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Eagle Partner, LLC for proposed modifications to include an additional pole sign for Chevron / McDonalds in a C-G zone - 603
South Eagle Road:
Corrie: The Item 22 has been tabled to July 5th, 2000, upon the applicant’s request.
Item 23. 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:
Corrie: Item No. 23 is a request for Conditional Use Permit by Meridian Joint School District No. 2. Council, staff, what’s going on here? Everybody?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for some property in the – which one is this? Honor Park? Honor Park Subdivision, and the School District is proposing classes there. Staff
has no objections. They did have a recommendation that no more than four parking spaces for the facility be allocated for the school since they don’t have adequate parking for the kids
to come and park there, but the School District has indicated that they are going to bus the students there. I’m really sorry that you waited all night for this. If I had known that
you were here, I would have told you that we would take care of it.
Corrie: Okay.
Stiles: The reason that this had to come for a Conditional Use Permit is because public schools would be a required conditional use.
Corrie: In agreement with all this? Okay. Let the record show that the applicant said yes. Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on Item 23.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order for a CUP for marketing education classrooms to accommodate
two non-concurrent classrooms of 25 to 30 students each currently in a C-G zone at 357 Watertower Lane and staff recommendations.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for Meridian Joint School District No. 2, marketing education classrooms for two non-concurrent
classes of 25 to 30 students each in a C-G zone. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Delinquency Turn-Off Schedule for 6/14/00. This is to inform you in writing, if you choose to, have the right to a predetermined hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June the 6th,
before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may
retain counsel. This service will be discontinued on June 14, 2000, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer and trash
delinquency? Hearing none, you are hereby informed that you may appeal or have this decision of the City reviewed by the 4th Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even
though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is $44,356.52. I’ll entertain a motion to approve the delinquency turn-off list.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the delinquency turn-off list for water, sewer and trash.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the delinquency list. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
25. Department Reports
A. Mayor Robert Corrie:
Appointment to Planning and Zoning Commission:
Corrie: Okay. Item 25, A, 1. Appointment of Planning and Zoning Commission. I appreciate your staying with us. The other night, Keith and I did interviews and we both felt that
William L.M. Nary was the good replacement for the new Planning and Zoning seat to be taken. Keith, do you have anything you’d like to say on that as well?
Borup: Not really. I didn’t know this was going to be the last item on the agenda. I will – we interviewed two very good candidates and felt that Mr. Nary probably would be a great
asset. He’s got a lot of expertise, I think, and will add a lot to the Commission.
Corrie: Any other questions, Council? Nominations for the Planning and Zoning seat, Mr. William L.M. Nary.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve William L.M. Nary as your appointee to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have Mr. William L.M. Nary appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
2. Web Page:
Corrie: I don’t know what I did with my web page there. (inaudible) called us and gave us information, and his estimated cost was $17,500.
Bird: was that the guy that came and saw us, Mayor?
Corrie: This is another one. He came and saw us and his bid was $18,000. The other guy was $17,500. That was an estimate. Not –
Bird: Was the server the same, Mayor? With both proposals?
Corrie: Yes. The other proposal was $85 an hour and they use a different server. $85 an hour and they estimated about 150 or 200 hours. Anyway, the one that’s doing all of our computers
now is Troy, and that was the $18,500. This other one was $17,500 and estimated.
Bird: Was that an estimate or a firm bid?
Corrie: That was an estimate, not a firm bid.
Bird: And the $18,000 was a firm bid, wasn’t it?
Corrie: This was the (inaudible). This was – one of the things that they have to purchase and install a visual 3D on the master (inaudible). He said that it is our estimation $16,500.
$10,500 plus $5,000 software and six to eight weeks. The other one we didn’t get back at all (inaudible)
Bird: Is that one kid, the Troy, is he the one that works on our computers in the City now? But he’s about $500 higher? --
*** End of Side 7 ***
Bird: That’s considered professional services. You don’t have to take the low bid on that, do you? Have we had good luck with him? Has he – very competent?
Corrie: Yes. WE can them and they’re here in 20 minutes. WE go down or come up and whatever the case may be. (inaudible) real good. Troy, and he’s done our computers. He knows
our server, he knows how to do it. (inaudible).
Bird: Empire Computer Consultants? That’s for $18,000?
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: Council, to me I don’t know anything about web sites or anything else, but it doesn’t sound outrageous or anything. Originally someone told us $30,000. I think we need it.
What do you think, Ron? Mr. Mayor, with that I would move that we – you instruct the Empire Computer Consultants to proceed with our web page for $18,000.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have Empire do our web page at the cost of $18,000. Any further discussion?
deWeerd: Does it come out of your budget?
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
B. City Engineer – Gary Smith:
WWTP – Digester/Clarifier Project, Change Order No. 3:
Corrie: Gary, you’re up.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council members. This is Change Order No. 3 for the Digester/Clarifier Project. It’s for some granular backfill material required under the building because
of the moisture condition problems. It was felt that the existing material could not be compacted to adequately support the building, so the import material was ordered to replace it.
We’d recommend approval of the Change Order.
Bird: Is that the $8511.00?
Smith: Yes, sir. $8,511, and there’s also an increase in the contract time of 63 days. Again, that was because of the weather.
Bird: This is with Turnkey, right?
Smith: Yes, sir.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Change Order with Turnkey, Inc., for $8,511 and add 63 days to the back end of the contract for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for the digester/clarifier project. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Police Chief – Bill Gordon:
1. NNO Parade:
Corrie: I think the only thing we had left was the Chief’s request he had about the City sponsoring the National Night-Out.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move that the City sponsor the National Night-Out; to facilitate the insurance for the parade, and have the Mayor sign and Clerk attest.
Bird: You want to put a date on that?
McCandless: July 29.
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded for the City to sponsor a night-out on July 29th. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird; Mr. Mayor, may I say one thing? I know it’s late, guys. We looked – I’m glad there’s no public here. We looked like a bunch of clowns tonight because information not getting
to us until the day of the thing and then half the time it not getting here. I think we need to go back as a Council said a year ago, that if you can’t get it here by the Friday before,
don’t bring it to the agenda. We looked – I was embarrassed. I can embarrass myself easily enough, and I don’t need any help. I think that all the departments should be instructed
that if we don’t have the things back from the departments or the applicants, tell the applicant to stay home because they’re not going to be on it until the next week. Do you all feel
that way?
deWeerd: Amen.
Corrie: Put a motion – I’ll take care of it. Memo put out – do I need to converse with you?
Berg: Yes. Mr. Mayor, the concern that I have is we prepare the packets on Friday. Well, the applicants sometimes can’t respond until Monday or Tuesday. What you’re telling me is
forget about putting – giving you that information. Tell then sorry.
Bird: I’m not talking about that.
Anderson: If they haven’t –
Bird: When you should have all that stuff when you’re putting the packets together. What I’m saying is when our staff sends on June 6th to the applicant and then he gets back here
and we haven’t seen it, and we sit here with nothing to even look at when the applicant has to bring us up on the recommendations. We look like a bunch of idiots.
Berg: I understand what you had said, but what you said before was we get information from the staff and the applicant, and sometimes the applicants don’t get the information to respond.
Sometimes they bring them to the public hearing.
Bird: Then they’ll – you know what will happen? They’ll only get shut down once, and I’ll bet you that they’ll have the stuff here on Friday.
Corrie: Our staff has to get the questions to them.
Bird: Our staff has to get the questions out. It’s no different than what we demand of them to get the stuff here by Friday. We’ve told the law firm that we needed them by Friday.
We’re got to have some time to read over them and study them. We were an absolute joke tonight.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Staff, don’t get me wrong. I’m saying Council. I’m not (inaudible). Don’t get me wrong. We’re just going to have to stay with our rules. I’m sure other cities have their
rules.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Shari, he acknowledged that, but at the same token, Becky has a whole bunch of stuff out here that we haven’t seen of the staff recommendations and she has to bring it up here
and for us to make our motions, we have to sit here to get the things right, we’ve got to sit here and do that.
deWeerd: No, Keith, on that one, the applicant is supposed to look at the recommendation from Planning and Zoning and that is what she should have been making her comments on.
Bird: We didn’t have the recommendations from Planning and Zoning.
deWeerd: Yes, we did.
Bird: Anyway, let’s have them here Friday so I can read them over the weekend.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to close the meeting.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:33 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK