HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 03-07Meridian City Council Meeting March 7, 2000
The regularly scheduled City Council Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:45 p.m. on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members present: Robert Corrie, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Tammy deWeerd, Keith Bird
Others present: Eric Rossman, Gary Smith, Brad Watson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Ken Bowers, Joe Silva, Will Berg
Corrie: Okay. I’ll call the meeting of the City Council to order at 7:45, Tuesday, March 7, 2000. At this time, I’ll have the City Clerk call roll-call.
Corrie: Thank you. I’d like to welcome every one here this evening. It’s good to see the crowd and nice to see the Fire Department here; people standing up we’re overcrowded, but
the Fire Marshall’s not here, I don’t think. Also like to welcome the Scout Troop 316, 198 and 5 here this evening. Welcome. I hope you learn a lot about the civics of our city.
At this time, I’d like to have the Fire Chief, Kenny Bowers, come forth, and we have some presentations to the Fire Department members.
Fire Department Presentation
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council members, February 9th of this year there was a family get-together in Meridian here. It was a birthday party, and these people had just moved
from California to this area. Over visiting their brother’s place having a birthday party, and one of the little kids around two years old walked outside, playing in the pond out back
trying to catch the fish in it, throwing balls, throwing rocks, of course, at the fish, and slipped in the pond and presumed drowned at that time. The father went looking for him, found
him in the pond, pulled him out of the water after they called 911 at this time, and we received the emergency call of a drowning in a pond. We had a volunteer firefighter that lives
just a few houses down that was home for some reason that day, and there was a City of Meridian water department personnel that was driving by the house at the same time as the call
came in, so we have a little certificate to give the gentlemen tonight that helped out on the emergency call. Nice little certificate with the Fireman’s Prayer on the front of it with
the seal of Meridian. I would like to have Ren Thompson, Jamie Allen, Captain Jeff Murray, Brian Zimmerman, Nick Corral please come forward. Also I’d like to have Mayor Corrie, President
of the Council Keith Bird, and Ron Anderson, our Council person for Fire come down. Presenting Jamie Allen from the City of Meridian as he was driving by, he heard the call, was able
to stop. Ren Thompson which just lives a couple of houses down was able to come over and help out. This is our engine crew that was on duty at the time that came in about two minutes
later.
Ren and Jamie was really looking for the help and all the equipment they could have in order to do CPR and the whole works. We got Captain Jeff Murray, we’ve got Brian Zimmerman and
Firefighter Nick Corral. We would like to give them the Fireman’s Prayer. Mayor, you can give this to them. The little boy just got out of the hospital the other night, the other
day. He’s doing fine. There will not be any problems with the little boy. Saturday we were able to finish the birthday party for the little boy and his family. We took him in the
fire truck, took him on a tour of the new fire station. Had some balloons, cake and ice cream. We really had a fun time. It brought some tears to your eyes. Appreciate it. Thank
you, guys. I appreciate it, Mayor Corrie and City Council for allowing us to do the certificates tonight. Thank you. Councilman Ron Anderson had a little word to say.
Anderson: I would like to especially thank the two gentlemen that collected their award and left now, but the two that are – the volunteer firefighters. Normally what happens when
a call comes in, the on-duty firefighters will respond to that call, and in this case, they would have had a response time that would have been probably three or four minutes getting
across town and getting there. Those two volunteer firefighters who had been trained in CPR and First Aid procedures normally their assignment would be to report to the station, but
they exercised what I thought was extremely good judgment, and they knew that their involvement would have made a difference, and so they proceeded directly to the scene and started
administering First Aid within a matter of probably less than a minute. I think those valuable minutes made a difference in this case in saving that little child’s life. I think those
two men deserve a big hand.
Corrie: Thank you very much.
Item A. Approve minutes of February 15, 2000, Special Pre-Council meeting:
Item B. Approve minutes of February 15, 2000, City Council meeting:
Item C. Approve minutes of February 22, 2000, Special City Council meeting:
Item D. Approve minutes of February 29, 2000, Special City Council meeting:
Item E. Request for $1000 limit for “City Seal” design by Tammy deWeerd:
Item F. Resolution naming and approving trustees of the City of Meridian, non-qualified deferred Comp Plan:
Item G. Development Agreements: AZ 99-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres to C-G (Walgreen’s) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. – NW corner of Fairview and Locust
Grove:
Brent E. and Luana B. Barris / Hawkins Smith Development Company:
Cheri Mansayon / Hawkins Smith Development Company:
Kevin D. and Lila L. Bates / Hawkins Smith Development Company:
John A. and Cheryl Wardle / Hawkins Smith Development Company:
Item H. Tabled from February 15, 2000: Development Agreement: AZ 99-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 7.25 acres to C-G by Overland Mini Storage, LLC:
Item I. Tabled from February 15, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a single-tenant commercial building with
a drive-thru window (Walgreen’s) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. – NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Item J. Tabled from February 15, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 81,000 s.f. mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland
Mini Storage Subdivision by Overland Mini Storage, LLC – 1230 East Overland Road:
Item K. Tabled from February 15, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 99-022 Request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres to L-O for proposed Magic View Office Complex
by W.H. Moore Company – Eagle Road and Magic View: Apprve
Item L. Tabled from February 15, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an
ancillary restaurant in proposed L-O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company – Eagle Road and Magic View:
Item M. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed temporary parking and product storage on adjacent lots zoned C-G by Gary
Bodily of Bodily RV – Meridian Road between Franklin Road and Gem Street:
Item N. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 99-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres to R-8 for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood / D.W., Inc. – west
of Eagle Road between Overland and east Victory:
Item O. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: RZ 00-001 Request for rezone of 1.761 acres from R-8 and R-15 to entirely R-15 by Lynd Hoover – 1318 E. 4th:
Item P. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-001 Request for annexation and zoning of 7.99 acres to R-4 by Robert Glenn – Ustick Road west of Locust Grove Road:
Item Q. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for commercial expansion of the Meridian Crossroads Shopping Center (Wal-Mart) by Developers
Diversified Realty Corp., c/o the Dakota Company, Inc. – southeast corner of Records Drive and Fairview Avenue:
Item R. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit for expansion of existing church facility in an R-4 zone by Meridian Friends Church
- 1021 West Pine Avenue:
Item S. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: Adult entertainment ordinance relating to zoning schedule:
Item T. Request for connection to City services for the LDS Church by James K. Lystrup:
Item U. Approve bills:
Corrie: Okay. Council, we have the Consent Agenda in front of you. Is there any items that you want to pull or revisit later in the evening?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that we pull Item J, N and S. Move Item J to 23C and combine Item N with Item 16, and move Item S to 23B. Then I would make a motion that
we approve the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made for Item J to be placed on Item 23C, Item N will be going to Item 16 as Item B, and also Item S will be Item 23B. Then also to approve the Consent
Agenda.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. I would just like to know again that my vote would include to abstain from Item Q.
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Hearing none, roll-call vote on all consent items as stated in the agenda except Q. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. All ayes on that. Now let’s have a roll-call vote, please, on Q.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, abstain, Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTENTION.
Corrie: As you can see, we have quite a regular agenda in front of us, ladies and gentlemen. So we’re going to try to get through as many as we can. Hopefully we’re going to get through
all of them by about 10:30, but because of the different department reports we have, so about 9:30, we’ll let you know where we are and we’ll see what we can do there.
Item 1. Ordinance No. 859: AZ 99-019 Request for annexation and zoning by Hawkins Smith (Walgreen’s):
Corrie: Item No. 1 on the regular agenda is Ordinance, AZ 99-019, request for annexation and zoning by Hawkins Smith, Walgreen’s. Mr. Clerk, what Ordinance No. will that be? 859?
Okay. Will the Clerk please read Ordinance No. 859 by title only, please?
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ordinance No. 859: 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 findings that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land be annexed to 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 a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of
Idaho; repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof 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: Okay. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance 859, request for annexation and zoning by Walgreen’s, read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain
a motion by Council on Ordinance No. 859.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 859, a request for annexation and zoning for Hawkins Smith, Walgreen’s, with suspension of the rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. The motion has been made by Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Bird to approve Ordinance No. 859 with the suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr.
Clerk, will you take roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 2. Ordinance No. 860: AZ 99-006 Request for annexation and zoning for Wilkins Ranch Subdivision:
Corrie: Item No. 2 on the agenda is Ordinance No. 860. This is a request for annexation and zoning, is that correct, Mr. Berg? For annexation and zoning for Wilkins Ranch Subdivision.
Mr. Clerk, will you read Ordinance No. 860 by title only, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ordinance No. 860: 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 to the City of Meridian and zoning designated low density
residential district (R-4); and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; repealing
all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof 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 the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor,
and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: You’ve heard the reading of Ordinance No. 860 for request for annexation and zoning for Wilkins Ranch Subdivision. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have
the Ordinance 860 read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion from Council on Ordinance No. 860.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that we pass Ordinance 860, the request for annexation and zoning for Wilkins Ranch Subdivision with a suspension of rules.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mr. Anderson to approve Ordinance No. 860, request for annexation and zoning for Wilkins Ranch Subdivision with the suspension of rules.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Tabled from February 15, 2000: Ordinance No. : AZ 99-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 7.25 acres to C-G by Overland Mini Storage, LLC:
Corrie: Item No. 3 was tabled from February 15, 2000, Ordinance No. – is that 861 or is that a different Ordinance number? That’s what – This is for ordinance on the request for annexation
and zoning of 7.25 acres to C-G by Overland Mini Storage, LLC. Staff, Brad, do we have a problem here?
Hawkins-Clark: Mayor, I would request that since you’ve moved the Item J which is the Findings of Fact for the CUP on this same project to the regular hearing, and since some of the
conditions that are attached to the Development Agreement may change because of moving that to a public hearing, then that Item 3, the annexation and zoning ordinance should also be
held until those conditional use permit is finalized so those conditions could be determined and put into the Development Agreement.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to move Item No. 3 to Item 23CA.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that we take Item No. 3 which is the Ordinance No. for annexation and zoning of 7.25 acres by Overland Mini Storage and place it down on Item No. 23D, I guess.
C. Okay. 23C.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to move Item No. 3 to Item 23CB at this time. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Tabled from February 15, 2000: AZ 99-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres to R-4 by Bear Creek, LLC - east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland:
Item 5. Tabled from February 15, 2000: 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:
Corrie: Item No. 4 was tabled from February 15, 2000, the request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres to R-4 by Bear Creek, LLC, east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland.
Staff, comments here?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, on the screen is the property in question. This is a tabled item, I believe, but you know most of the issues that are involved with
it from the previous staff reports. This is the proposed plat that accompanies the next item on the agenda. I think I’ll just leave it at that in terms of staff since it is a continued
item.
Corrie: Any other staff reports, Gary?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council, I recently transmitted some information to you that I received from a property owner to the south of Kentucky Ridge Estates which is south of the Victory
Road boundary of this subdivision. It concerns conditions that were placed on approval of Kentucky Ridge and Meridian Heights No. 2 Subdivision by Ada County. I don’t know whether
those comments that were received from that landowner and also a letter that was received from Ada County Director of Development Services appropriate for the annexation and rezone or
if it’s more appropriate for the preliminary plat. But there is an issue that needs to be addressed there; primarily the sewering of the Meridian Heights and the Kentucky Ridge Subdivisions.
I think that’s more of a preliminary plat issue, but it’s going to – I think it could affect the sewerage system for Bear Creek.
Corrie: Thank you. Council, discussion?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor. I’m very disturbed about this subdivision. I feel like they’re putting the cart before the horse. They don’t have all their ducks in a row out there, and the
traffic problem that we’ve received letters on is really bad out there. Do we have to have somebody killed or two or three people killed trying to get out on Highway 69 or wherever
they’re coming from? ACHD has said that they’re not prepared at this time to put lights out there. There’s an awful lot of houses going in there and adding to the traffic problem.
I just don’t think they’re ready.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I agree with Cherie to a degree that we’ve probably got our horse before the cart. I think the cart’s done got ahead of us. The thing I’m concerned of, I think that
the developer if, as I understand it, with this new sewage deal, that that’s going to maybe cause our sewer line to run within their development. I’m not sure. That was one proposal
that was brought to me this morning. I’d like Gary to clarify that for a little bit. Him or Brad if they would if that’s a real possibility. IF that will have some outcome on probably,
they’d like
to know if we were going to run a sewer line through their property where they don’t plan on it. So I’d like Gary or Brad to answer to that. It’s probably plat.
Smith: Mayor and Council, the little arrow on the screen is right there – is a lagoon sewage treatment lagoon for the Meridian Heights and the Kentucky Ridge Subdivision which off the
screen you can just barely see the edge of Kentucky Ridge right there. There’s an access road for Kentucky Ridge to get up to it. I can’t recall if that’s the edge of Meridian Heights
or not. It may be. But, anyway, the lagoon that treats the sewage for those two subdivisions is right here. The wastewater facility plan that was prepared by our consulting engineer
shows a 21-inch diameter sewer coming down this line along the west side of Meridian Heights to Victory Road and then east along Victory Road it becomes a 24 at that point, I believe,
east on Victory Road to Kuna-Meridian Road, and then north of Kuna-Meridian to a drainage that would go across diagonally, I think that drainage is called the Harden Drain, and it goes
across diagonally, and eventually gets into the Black Cat drainage as it progresses north and west. We don’t have at the moment enough information, physical, ground elevation information
to tell whether the route that the consulting engineer for our facility plan proposed for this trunk line should go in that direction that I outlined to you previously or if it should
go through Bear Creek generally like this and out to Stoddard and then up to Harden Drain and then northwest. We don’t have that ground information yet to know which would be the most
logical direction to construct that sewer line. Bear Creek will be required to extend a 24-inch line across their property on this Harden Drain anyway to pick up flow. There will be,
eventually, crossing through Bear Creek under Kuna-Meridian Road to the southeast. One of the issues or one of the questions that I had with the correspondence from Ada County that
was provided to us by a gentleman that owns property south of Kentucky Ridge was a statement that Kentucky Ridge and Meridian Heights Subdivision was approved by Ada County with certain
conditions. One of those conditions which is No. 30 in their list of conditions stated, and I’ll paraphrase it, but generally that the sewerage system for treating the waste from Kentucky
Ridge and Meridian Heights was to be discontinued and that system connected to Meridian sewer when it was reasonably available. In talking with the Director of Development Services
at Ada County on Monday morning, he couldn’t tell me what “reasonably available” meant. I don’t know what it means, either. In the County, in the City of Boise and the City of Meridian,
whenever a public sewer is within 300 feet of a piece of City property and it’s developing, then it’s required to connect to the sewer within a certain time period, but I don’t know
what it means in Condition No. 30 that was issued for approval of Kentucky Ridge Estates. Once Bear Creek Subdivision development reaches victory Road, then it will be within 300 feet,
for example, of the lagoon. It will be contiguous, as I understand it, to the boundary of what the lagoon occupies which is part of the Homeowners Association of Meridian Heights and
Kentucky Ridge. So Bear Creek would be contiguous to, as I understand it, the property that is owned and managed by the Homeowners Association of those two subdivisions. Well, if that’s
the case, then I would assume that sewer is
reasonably available, and I don’t know how enforceable that condition is by the County; I don’t know what they do; if DEQ gets involved in it or someone else gets involved in it and
forces the connection, then two things happen. One is that we get 300 dwelling units into our system in a very short period of time which is what the numbers are, I believe, for Meridian
Heights and Kentucky Ridge combined, and secondly, those 300 residences out there pay us $1580 each for that connection. I talked to some time ago, I believe he was or is the President
of Meridian Heights Homeowners Association. He asked that question of me on required connection. At that time, I wasn’t aware of the conditions that Ada County had placed on Kentucky
Ridge. So I told him the only, as far as I understood, the only way they could be required to connect was if an outside agency made that requirement and had that ability to make that
requirement of the City of Meridian to accept those wastes. So I don’t have an answer for you on that one. I just don’t know. I don’t have an answer for you on what the best direction
would be for this trunk line to be extended, in which direction; whether it should go through Bear Creek, out to Stoddard and then up to Harden Drain and then northwest or if it should
follow the alignment that our consulting engineer gave us in the study that they prepared for us and come out to Victory and to Kuna-Meridian Road. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t know
that this is an annexation and zoning issue or if this is a preliminary plat issue, but it certainly is a question right now that I don’t have an answer for and I can’t give you any
guidance on it. I think I would really like to know the legalities of the County’s requirements and just how they enforce it, how they can enforce it, or what they would do to enforce
it. I’ve been told that DEQ has an annual requirement on that lagoon to test the quality of the effluent from the lagoon. I’ve also been told that the effluent is pumped out of that
lagoon periodically. They do have a land-application site. It’s on the west side of Meridian Heights No. 2 Subdivision and they pump the effluent from the pond periodically.
Anderson: Gary, your concern is more with Meridian Heights and Kentucky Ridge and how they would tie into sewer then; not necessarily Bear Creek and their ability to sewer? Where does
their sewer go and are we at capacity? Is there a line in place or is that going to take a lift station or what?
Smith: Bear Creek’s?
Anderson: Yes.
Smith: Bear Creek Subdivision will have to have a lift station to pump into the Ten Mile Creek drainage or the Ten Mile drain sewer, excuse me. That’s been the proposal from the very
beginning. The question that we’ve been wrestling with was whether the lift station should be sized for Bear Creek Subdivision or, as you mentioned, Councilman, at one of the meetings,
was to move it west and size it for a larger service area. Now, even if the lift station stayed at Bear Creek, and if we are required to connect those two other subdivisions, then all
of a sudden, the lift station changes from what it would have been to serve Bear
Creek of 326 units to what would be required to serve 626 units. So there’s a big difference, a big change. There would be a big change on the size of the pipe going through Bear Creek
if that was the logical route or the interceptor that we were planning, the future interceptor.
Anderson: And is capacity on that Ten Mile line, is that an issue?
Smith: Mayor and Council, I don’t remember. Brad Watson is here, and he remembers the numbers better than I do. The Bear Creek Subdivision, as I recall, there was a bottleneck at
the – in our existing interceptor line at Crestwood Subdivision from Crestwood Subdivision at Linder and Franklin north to the railroad tracks on Linder, there was a bottleneck in there
for capacity. The proposal, part of the proposal for Bear Creek was to parallel-pipe that section of our sewer line. They picked it up from Ten Mile Drain, ran it through Crestwood
to Franklin, down Franklin to Linder, and then north on Linder.
(Unidentified): May I make a point of order at this point?
Corrie: Hang on just a minute. We’ll get to you. Go ahead, Gary. We’ll get to you.
Smith: And at that point, they were going to parallel-pipe it, and that changed the available capacity in the sewer line. I don’t remember how many it increased, but it made the capacity
available for Bear Creek and it increased capacity for additional homes south and east on Ten Mile Drainage.
Corrie: This is not a public hearing, but – would you come up and identify yourself and we’ll find out whether or not we’re going to have your point taken or not.
Spink: My name is Michael Spink. I’m the attorney for Bear Creek. I appeared at the last hearing at which time you, the Council, closed the public hearing on both items. The public
hearing has been extended for three months. This testimony is not appropriate. You gave specific directions to the City Attorney and my office to come back with agreed language dealing
with all of these issues which we have done. That has been submitted to you and agreed by the applicant. The public hearing is closed at this point. We have done what you asked us
to do. The City Attorney and my office has agreed to the language for your consideration. We have had no notice of any of the things that the City Engineer who resides in the neighboring
subdivisions has raised tonight without any notification hopefully either to the City Attorney’s office or my office. So we think that the testimony probably is not even appropriately
part of the public record although we would appreciate the City Attorney’s comments on the procedural status of the hearing because we are here prepared tonight only to discuss the language
that we negotiated at your specific request after the public hearing was closed.
Corrie: Mr. Attorney. (inaudible) Court of Law here. Let’s not let it get too long.
Rossman: Yes, Mayor. Mr. Spink is, of course I wasn’t at the last hearing on this project, but it is my understanding as well that all that was going to be addressed today was going
to be the specific issues that were raised after the public hearing was closed at the last public hearing at the last City Council meeting. If this is a new issue that was not raised
at the public hearing, it certainly isn’t appropriately raised after the public hearing’s been closed. Bear Creek hasn’t been given the opportunity to address that issue and certainly
would be deprived of the opportunity to address that issue if the public hearing has been closed. My recommendation would be one of two different things. One would be to disregard
any new information that’s been raised and continue as proposed at the last City Council meeting; the alternative if any City Council is inclined to re-open the public hearing, it certainly
can do that. This hasn’t evolved to the point where they can’t re-open the public hearing, issue proper notice and address any new issues that should be raised.
Corrie: Well, hearing that, I would suggest that the Council not be required to hear what the Council, Mr. Smith has said, and it would be my recommendation to the Council to table
this and – maybe not table it, but remand it back for a public hearing again to take on the new testimony. (inaudible) received by letter.
Bird: How does the Council feel? Cherie?
McCandless: I’m certainly willing to do that. That’s the legal way to proceed. I just have a lot of concerns. I have had all along.
Anderson: My feeling is if there’s new information that’s pertinent to this, we had some real concerns about sewer issues as well as traffic issues prior to this. If there’s additional
information that we need to hear, I would by all means support more public testimony to find out all we can about this project before it is approved.
deWeerd: I don’t know. At this point I’m not sure about how these other subdivisions are influencing this. I guess I would like the definition from the County as to what that actually
means; otherwise, the additional 300 homes really has no bearing on this application. So until we get that defined, I guess I’d be supporting of tabling this. Otherwise, if we do re-open
the public hearing, I would think that it should be specifically for this reason only. We’ve hashed out everything over and over, and I don’t think there’s more that can be said. If
it’s for an additional information as new testimony, I can understand that. But to re-open everything, you know, it’s all been said.
Rossman: Mr. Mayor, that’s perfectly acceptable if I understand Council member deWeerd about re-opening the meeting and having another free-for-all public testimony. The City Council
can certainly if they choose to re-open the public
hearing, can limit the issue to be addressing the public hearing to that which was raised by Mr. Smith.
Bird: I agree with Ron and Tammy that I think that we need to – I have no problem either voting on it or re-opening the public hearing, but I don’t want to sit through and hear the
same concerns that we heard on everything else. I’d like it to be just strictly new testimony. So if the other Council members are for it, I’m in favor of tabling this until I guess
two weeks so we can get the notices out in time. That’s one month.
Corrie: Councilor, it wouldn’t be a table. It’d be a new public hearing for new testimony only.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, at this point, we don’t know if that influences this property or if this has any influence on this application or not, so I would like to get – I don’t know if the
procedure is to go ahead and notice it for public hearing, but if it comes back from the County that this does not affect this application, then we’re re-opening it for no other reason.
So, Gary, would you be able to enlighten us on that?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, the impact that this would have would have to do with the development plans that would be prepared for this subdivision. The development plans for
the sizing of this sewer line within the subdivision and the sizing of the lift station. I don’t know – I guess I just don’t have an answer for you, like I said earlier, is what the
County – how enforceable the County’s requirement is because the subdivisions, those two subdivisions are outside the city limits. It would be a county subdivision. It would impact
the capacity of the Ten Mile drain interceptor by the additional 300 homes, and I won’t say that that would cause an over-capacity situation because I don’t think it would with the 300
homes. It would just decrease whatever reserve capacity or whatever excess capacity there is in that line that is being built up by the parallel pipe. But it would influence the development
plans for the subdivision in terms of lift station size and possibly a sewer line in the subdivision to the south boundary that would be, say, of a 24-inch diameter. I did want to comment
– do want to comment that as soon as I receive this information from the County, I sent it for distribution to all of you and to the representative for the developer and the representative
for the developer has also been in conversation with Ada County’s Development Services on this before I talked to her this morning again after I received the letter from them. It’s
been kicking around for about a week, I think, is all.
deWeerd: So they were aware of it, thought? Okay.
Corrie: Anybody want to –
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I hope I do this right. I move that Item 4, the request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres to R-4 by Bear Creek, LLC, east of
Stoddard Road and south of Overland be continued and a new public meeting be set where only new items will be addressed, existing items have been taken care of, and that – I guess it’ll
have to be the first one in April. April 4th.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to have new testimony given to the City Council in a hearing to hear only new testimony in reference to the annexation and zoning and to be on April
the 4th. Motion made and seconded. Further discussion?
Anderson: On the part of the motion while we’re talking about only new testimony, does that need clarification that we’re only talking about a single issue or are we talking about new
testimony on any topic?
Bird: New testimony on the issue of the sewer. We’ve hashed over the traffic, the other stuff, but when you get into the issue of the new sewer, it impacts the developer because if
what I understand will be 24, 25 feet deep, and if we go this other way with our sewer line so it’s going to have to – it’s going to impact the lift station. That is the only new stuff
that would be bringing forward. That’s what I intended in the motion.
Rossman: Mr. Mayor, so for clarification, a new issue is what?
Bird: Is the impact of the possible addition of 300 to 400 new homes onto this sewer line. The impact of the sewer and the lift station. That’s it.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Attorney, this might be a preliminary plat problem as well, rather than annexation. Should we have Item 4 and 5 both included into that?
deWeerd: If you could just reference Gary’s memo. Would that be most appropriate?
Rossman: Yes. Gary did issue a memo. You could limit it to the issues raised in Gary’s memo and then ensure that the public hearing, that the memo is made a part of the record.
Bird: That’s the memo from March 6th.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor. I have no objection to the motion, and I will vote for it. We may have talked about the traffic problems, and they have been brought out, but they haven’t had
us – I’m still very, very concerned about them. Whether we talk about them in the public hearing or not. That will influence my vote on the annexation and everything else.
Bird: That’s your purrogative. Is everybody clear?
Rossman: Mr. Mayor, if I could summarize --
*** End of Tape 1 ***
-- continue to April 4, 2000, for a re-opening of a public hearing on both Items 4 and 5 for new testimony regarding the issues raised within Gary Smith’s memorandum dated March 6, 2000.
I think that would cover it.
Bird: That’s my motion, Mayor.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: All right. Any further discussion? Hearing none, then all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. April 4th we will have the public hearing for that new testimony only from the memo that was brought out by Mr. Smith on the 6th of March.
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2000: Amendment of Fireworks Ordinance and adoption of new fees:
Corrie: That will move us down to Item No. 6, the continued public hearing from February 1, 2000,the amendment of Fireworks Ordinance and adoption of new fees. At this time, I will
continue the public hearing and invite staff comments first. Chief.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council members, Bill Nichols and myself have only been able to meet one time and go through the testimony that was put before you on the new fireworks
ordinance. We put a draft together. Possibly this afternoon. I have not seen it yet at this time. We would like to continue this on the 21st if possible.
Corrie: All right. Thank you. We’ll consider that. Since this is still a public hearing, is there anybody in the audience that would like to issue testimony on this continued public
hearing at this time with the idea that we will probably table it until the 21st again, you know, have another shot at it. Okay.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Seeing no one came forward, I would make motion that we close the public hearing. Continue it. Sorry.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion by Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Bird to continue the public hearing on the amendment of the fireworks ordinance until March the 21st. Any other comments? All those
in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2000: AZ 00-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 3.68 acres to R-4 for proposed Pintail Pointe Subdivision by Jeff Manship –
south side of Cherry Lane, east of Black Cat Road:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is a continued public hearing from February 15, 2000, request for annexation and zoning of 3.68 acres to an R-4 for proposed Pintail Pointe Subdivision by Jeff Manship,
south side of Cherry Lane, east of Black Cat Road. At this time I’ll invite staff to start the comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Mayor and members of the Council, again, just to reiterate, this is the site here on the screen. Cherry Lane, Black Cat Road. Here to the west is 3.68 acres.
There is a proposed English Gardens which is already an approved subdivision. Phase I here, north of the Ten Mile which runs this way. There has been some discussion between the developer,
Jeff Manship, and the developer of English Gardens regarding a couple of the outstanding issues on – here is a site photo. Here is the plat which is the next item. English Gardens,
again, is here. There was some discussion and concern about this plat more or less being a continuation of English Gardens since the only way to exit the subdivision is through this
stub street here on the south end. It does not take direct access onto Cherry. So the English Gardens is here. There has been an agreement that they will share in terms of Homeowners
Association, they will share responsibility in terms of maintenance of this landscaped lot on Cherry, and in terms of the pressurized irrigation, that will also be a shared agreement
between the two subdivisions. So I think we just requested all staff comments be incorporated, and the Planning and Zoning recommendations be incorporated in your motion. Thanks.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony on the proposed annexation and zoning? Okay. Hearing none, Council?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that we close the public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 7. Any further discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Does Mr. Manship have any further comment?
Corrie: Get a second crack at it, I guess.
Manship: Just to go over what Brad said, we did last Thursday, on my birthday, got together and had a discussion. Everything was approved and no problems came up. I think a letter
was given to Brad on the Development Agreement. I have nothing further.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, that letter is a part of public letter now, correct?
Corrie: This letter is a part of public record now? So it can be put as part of the conditions?
Rossman: If it’s been submitted through the Clerk, then it’s part of the record.
deWeerd: Okay.
Corrie: Has it been submitted?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Oh. There it is. Okay. Yes. To answer your question, that is yes.
deWeerd: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of closing the public hearing, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Public hearing is closed. Council comment?
Bird: I have none.
deWeerd: I have none.
Corrie: Then you have – entertain a motion to accept the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning for the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision of Order in favor of the request of annexation and zoning of 3.68 acres
to R-4 for proposed Pintail Pointe Subdivision by Jeff Manship, south of Cherry Lane and east of Black Cat Road and to include the letters and decision of the Planning and Zoning.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird and seconded by Mrs. deWeerd to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and have the attorney
to draw up the appropriate ordinance for the development. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2000: PP 00-001 Request for preliminary plat for 11 lots on 3.68 acres in proposed R-4 zone for proposed Pintail Pointe Subdivision
by Jeff Manship – south side of Cherry Lane, east of Black Cat Road:
Corrie: Item No. 8 is a continued public hearing from February 15, 2000, request for preliminary plat for 11 lots on 3.68 acres in proposed R-4 zone for proposed Pintail Pointe Subdivision
by Jeff Manship, south side of Cherry Lane and east of Black Cat Road. At this time, I’ll continue the public hearing and have staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: I just ask that we incorporate all testimony from the previous item.
Corrie: Is there anyone from the audience that would like to issue testimony on Item No. 8?
deWeerd: Mr. Unger?
Unger: Mr. Mayor and Council members, my name is Bob Unger with Pinnacle Engineers. We represent the developer of English Gardens. I just want to make sure that the letter of March
3rd, reviewing our understanding on the – between the two developers that those are added into the conditions of approval on this plat. That’s all we would ask. Thank you.
Corrie: Mr. Clerk, if you’ll add those in, please. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this point?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. I move that we close the public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Motion is carried. Public hearing is closed. Further comments?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on the request for preliminary plat.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. I move that we approve the request for preliminary plat for 11 lots on 3.68 acres for Pintail Pointe Subdivision by Jeff Manship and ask that the attorney draw
up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to include all staff comments and the letter of March 3rd and P & Z recommendations.
Bird: Tammy, is it for R-4?
deWeerd: Uh-huh.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded, and it is an R-4, yes. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2000: CUP 00-005 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Papa John’s Pizza in an L-O zone – take-out, delivery and eating establishment
by Cole Associates Architects – 1580 4th Street, Suite 103:
Corrie: Item No. 9 is a continued public hearing from February 15, 2000, it’s a CUP, request for conditional use permit for Papa John’s Pizza in an L-O zone, take-out, delivery and
eating establishment by Cole Associates Architects, 1580 4th Street, Suite 103. At this time I’ll continue the public hearing. Staff, comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Mayor, members of the Council, it’s my understanding that the applicant is to request withdrawal of the application. I do not have in our department files that request
yet. I would ask the City Clerk if they’ve received it. If not, I guess it’s – unless if the applicant is here and something has changed, I’d ask that it be continued until we receive
a letter of withdrawal.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I have not received any other correspondence other than the recommendations from the P & Z.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Continued public hearing, is the representative from Papa John’s here? I guess we don’t know for sure, then, do we? We can continue the public hearing,
I guess, if the Council so desires.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that we continue the public hearing for Papa John’s Pizza in an L-O zone, take-out, delivery and eating establishment by Cole Associates Architects until March
21st.
Corrie: Okay. Do I hear a second?
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to continue the public hearing until March 21st on Papa John’s Pizza. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess I have a question on legal counsel. Is there anything else we can do with this besides just continue the public hearing? I think everybody is pretty clear
that the intent is that this person doesn’t want this anymore, but if they don’t come back, are we going to just keep continuing this, or is there a tabling that we can do and if they
want to re-introduce it?
Rossman: At any point you can choose to open the public hearing. If no one testifies, you can close it and do with it as you choose. I think a continuance at this point to give them
an additional opportunity to come forward with recommendations would be appropriate.
Anderson: This is the second one that –
Rossman: You’re certainly free to do it at this point, too.
Corrie: That’s right. If you want to close it, then you can direct the attorney to draw Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the denial and then certainly (inaudible)
Bird: I will withdraw my motion if the second will withdraw. I’ll make another one.
deWeerd: I sure will.
Corrie: Motion’s been withdrawn.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing regarding Papa John’s Pizza.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 9. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have the attorney draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the request for conditional use permit for Papa John’s Pizza in an L-O zone, take-out,
delivery and eating establishment by Cole Associates Architects with denial.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the recommendation of denial on the Papa John’s Pizza. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2000: AZ 00-002 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.029 acres to L-O and R-8 by Centers Construction, Inc. – west side of Locust
Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview:
Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 00-009 Request for conditional use permit for proposed office building and townhouses in an L-O and R-8 zone of 5 acres by Centers Construction - west
side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview Avenue:
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 00-002 Request for preliminary plat for proposed Wesley Subdivision for 32 townhouse lots and one office lot of 5.029 acres by Centers Construction - west
side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Item No. 10 is a continued public hearing from February 15, 2000, a request for annexation and zoning of 5.029 acres to L-O and R-8 by Centers Construction, Inc., west side
of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview. At this time I’ll continue the public hearing and invite staff comments.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, can we deal with all three of these at the same time?
Corrie: If you want to, you can. As long as you vote.
Bird: we can vote separately, can’t we?
Corrie: Do you want to open up – one is a continued public hearing and the others are regular public hearings. So we can do that if you so desire all at one time. All right. Then
I’ll – we’ve got a continued public hearing and public hearings on Item No. 11 which is a request for a conditional use permit for proposed office building and townhouse and the same
construction company and the same zone and also No. 12, request for preliminary plat for proposed – no. I’m sorry. 10, 11 and 12. Is that the same one? Okay. And Wesley Subdivision
for 32 townhouse lots and one office lot of 5.029 acreage by Centers Construction. So I’ll open the public hearing and we’ll also open the continued public hearing and staff will make
comments for all three.
Hawkins-Clark: Mayor, members of the Council, again, here is the subject site and parcel. Chief Joseph School being situated up here. Locust Grove Road, the proposed other item tonight,
the Walgreen’s down here. Here is a photo of the site as it currently sits. Here is a proposed – the conditional use permit with some landscaping. This does not reflect the Planning
and Zoning’s recommendation for two lots to be no longer townhouse lots but to be converted to open space. Just be aware of that. Elevation of the proposed L-O parcel which actually
fronts on Locust Grove. The office building, again, another perspective of it. Then here is the plat itself. I would – the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission,
there is one item that to my understanding has not been resolved, and there was a recommendation that a pedestrian pathway be constructed here to the south. It would more or less be
a stub easement which would then be continued through the property owner which resides in the Doris Subdivision here. The location of that pedestrian pathway, the purpose being to allow
children access to walk to Chief Joseph up here. There’s also, the developer’s agreed to construct a pedestrian pathway to connect these two cul-de-sacs on the west end of the project.
So that would give continued pedestrian access; however, staff feel that unless the property owner to the south is willing to dedicate a permanent pedestrian easement, the purpose of
this easement is nullified, and there would be really no purpose in it. There is some discussion about relocating this pedestrian pathway which I think I’d like to leave it up to the
applicant to present in terms of where they’re at on that. Mainly, our position in staff would be that unless a permanent pedestrian easement is granted to the south to give access
– depending on what happens with this subdivision down here; that’s the big question. If you just have a gentlemen’s agreement to allow children to access and put a gate, should this
redevelop in the future into some other use where other property owners don’t want the pedestrian access, the point of the this path is moot. So I’ll leave it at that.
Corrie: Okay. Since we’re taking in Items 10, 11 and 12, I’d invite the public testimony. Anybody that would like to testify on Items 10, 11 and 12? Yes, sir.
Canning: Yes, Mayor, members of the Council, my name’s Joe Canning employed by B & A Engineers in Boise. My address is 5505 West Franklin. I’m
here tonight with the applicant regarding this project. It might be helpful just to give a few specifics. But before I do, I do have some handouts I’d like to present. Just to cover
this briefly, it’s just a compilation of several items I think are pertinent to the project. The cover sheet I think is quite important. There are some renderings there of the proposed
townhouses that we’re looking at constructing within this project. The next sheet is a floor plan of the proposed townhouses. The next sheet after that’s the original site plan that
was submitted to the City. The next sheet is a floor plan of the proposed office in the front portion of the project. There were some elevation views that are up on the projector a
few minutes ago of the office. The next couple are some possibilities for signage, and the loose pages in the back, number 1 is a revised site plan based upon some of the discussions
that occurred at the Planning and Zoning Commission. We have included a copy of the Ada County Highway District approval regarding this project, and then there is a – the last item
is a letter regarding a pedestrian pathway on the west side of the project connecting the two cul-de-sacs is included in the handout. This entire project is five acres. Actually, it’s
4.8 acres if you exclude the Locust Grove right-of-way. We are proposing two particular uses in this project. The front – approximately one acre, nine-tenths of an acre, for a limited
office zoning with the office that’s shown on the site plan. Originally there were 32 single-family townhouses on about 3.9 or 4 acres. There were originally three common-area lots
proposed with the development. This is an in-fill site. It’s entirely surrounded by development. Subdivisions to the north and to the west and an older Ada County subdivision to the
south. To the east, of course, is a development, and then to the southeast is a storage facilities, mini-storage and Fred Meyers site. All these adjoining properties are zoned R-8,
in particular, to the northwest and the south. Across Locust Grove there is a parcel that’s R-4, and then, of course, to the southeast Fred Meyer and the mini-storage is commercial
zone. The dimensions of this site make it a little bit difficult to work with. It’s approximately 240 feet in our south dimension, and 980 in east-west dimension. There were no stubs
provided to this particular property regarding a transportation network. Its only access is to Locust Grove Road and this is essentially what we have left after development. It’s an
undeveloped parcel that’s completely surrounded by existing developments. We are proposing the office building toward the front of the project right next to Locust Grove essentially
as a buffer (inaudible) proposed townhouse development (inaudible) west park the project. Also, I’d like to direct your attention to those renderings again on the cover sheet. I think
it’s very important to point out that we are proposing single-story structures in this project. There will be no two-story buildings. We feel that’s quite important as an asset to
the area. The Jackson stub drain runs north of this project. Actually, it’s adjacent to the north property line through the Gem Park Subdivision. I just mention that because it is
a Nampa Meridian facility, drainage facility. There is an existing 50-foot easement in the Gem Park Subdivision that is adjoining this site. Of course, all homes placed in that Gem
Park development must be at least 50 feet from our north property line because of that easement. We have proposed several open areas with this project, essentially in the extreme
northwest corner. On the entry road as it comes in from Locust Grove, there is a triangular area there that we’re proposing for an open area. The applicant is proposing to entirely
fence this property with 6-foot vinyl, and, of course, also contained in the handout was the ACHD approval letter. I think it’s appropriate to spend just a moment on how that entry
location was chosen. Actually, it was the Highway District’s recommendation to place it there. There are existing driveway and road approaches up and down Locust Grove, and in particular
on the east side of the road. They’re interested in getting as much separation as they could from roadways on the east side of Locust Grove to the entry into this particular project.
So their recommendation, of course, was to slide that entry road clear up against our south boundary where it could function as two things, actually. Number one as an access to this
particular property, but also provide access in the future to a portion of Doris Subdivision should that redevelop. So there is some potential for joint access through there. Regarding
the staff report for this, I’ll just touch on this briefly. I will certainly concur with the report with a few minor exceptions. I think there will be a gentleman speaking in a moment
regarding specifics of that report. I just wanted to touch on a couple of things. Number one, we have, since the original concept was submitted, proposed or included, a public pedestrian
bicycle pathway on the west end of the project. You’ll see that in the handout that I provided in one of the last sheets. It’s in yellow in that particular handout. Open areas, of
course, are shown in green on that same handout. That is a revised site plan. There is a slight difference in that. We have taken one lot out on the north side. That did increase
the amount of open space in the project. The Planning and Zoning’s recommendation was for approval for this project. We obviously request that the City Council also approve this project.
It did include some specific items which I just wanted to point out that had been included in that small revised site plan (inaudible). One request was to take the lots on the north
side of the project, shift them five feet to the east, basically encroach slightly into the L-O building area. We originally had a 25-foot setback from the back of that L-O or the office
building to the property line. So we just shifted that five feet to the east to provide more open space on the west end up there on the north side. That was one request that they had
made. Another request was to construct the entry road, particularly the south side of the entry road, with sidewalk. We showed a small – right there – small area of landscaping. The
request was to delete that landscaping, extend the sidewalk entirely along that south side out Locust Grove. We certainly would intend to do that. There is no issue with that. There
was a neighbor that was concerned to the south about an irrigation facility, a well, a shallow well, for irrigation water that was in the open area just off Locust Grove. It was going
to be right in this area. We were going to – the suggestion was to relocate that to the north side of the road which we certainly can do. That’s no problem. The original request from
P & Z was to reduce the amount of lots in this development by two, and the intent of that, at least we believe, of course, was to increase the amount of open space in the project. The
site plan submitted with the packet I just gave you actually reduces the layout by one. Also, of course, increase the open area. We would request that be approved. Regarding that
open area, with
that revised site plan on that land-use table on the bottom of that handout that just making those minor adjustments (inaudible) recommend by Planning and Zoning Commission actually
increased out percent of common area to 1.4 percent if you exclude the right-of-way for Locust Grove Road, or, of course, 10.8 percent if you include the right-of-way if you include
the right-of-way on Locust Grove. I wanted to give you both of those numbers. Once again, we are proposing to provide this pedestrian pathway to the west. We feel that’s an asset
to the neighborhood. The gentleman that was just west of us that signed that letter has been a pleasure to work with, and he’s willing to provide an easement for that to be permanent.
Regarding the pedestrian pathway to the south as staff had pointed out a few minutes ago, we can certainly incorporate that into the project. We didn’t include it on that revised site
plan that you have before you because we were still uncertain as to whether it will occur or not. It depends on the gentleman to the south of whether that goes in or not. We certainly
can incorporate that. I think with that, I’ll probably end my comments. I wanted to give basically an overview of the site, some of the surroundings, et cetera. We are requesting
this as a PUD, and I guess with that, I’d open it up for questions unless Mr. Spink would like to address right now.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I had one question. Refresh my memory. Why is it, if we have a cul-de-sac right on the other side of this one, why are we not connecting those two streets?
Canning: Well, there is no right-of-way to the west to connect the streets. Currently, there are two lots there that have I think 30 feet of separation between our west property line
and where the cul-de-sac is. So there is an area there that’s not owned as right-of-way. It’s not public right-of-way. Same thing to the north in Gem Park.
Anderson: Both streets will be named the same street name, just have to know which – what the last number is on each street?
Canning: That’s what we’re proposing, yes.
Corrie: Any other comments? Questions? Thank you.
Canning: Thank you.
Spink: Mayor, Council, my name is Mike Spink. I reside at 101 South Capitol Boulevard in Boise. As you can tell from Mr. Canning’s comments, there’s really very little disagreement
with the staff recommendation to the City Council. We have prepared a redline copy that incorporates some of the changes that have already been discussed both by staff and by Mr. Canning
if I may distribute these. I really have very few comments to add except as you look at the recommendations, one thing that we would like to point out that you can see from
the elevations that are contained in the handout that Mr. Canning gave to you is that these homes have been designed all as single-story (inaudible) some interest in the elevation, but
basically single-story homes with the intent to make this infill project which is a fairly difficult five-acre parcel to fill more compatible with, a little more acceptable to the neighboring
properties. With respect to recommendation 1.2, we would not that what the applicant is asking for is one deletion of a lot as Mr. Canning indicated which would change the wording on
the ten percent open space requirement. With respect to paragraph 1.3, the language as originally drafted on bonus density would indicate that the necessary amenities wasn’t required,
but with the addition of the bike path and to the west, the necessary amenity and the extra open space, both of those would help qualify that for the bonus density. I’ve changed the
language accordingly. In paragraph 1.6, the language is somewhat confusing, and I would simply note that the road alignment as you get to Locust Grove and the sidewalk alignment is
as recommended by ACHD. With respect to the proposed pedestrian easement to the south, the applicant is requesting that it not be required at this time as part of the approval since
we have not been able to negotiate or obtain an easement from the neighbor to the south as staff suggested in staff comments. Final two comments are in paragraphs 1.17 and 1.18. Storage
areas and maintenance; I should point out that this was a fairly small project, and in terms of storage areas for RVs and that type of thing, the CC and R’s for the subdivision will
require that storage be off-site, and keeping in mind that immediately across Locust Grove from this site is a storage facility. People would be able to store there. But they’re not
going to be given the ability under the CC and R’s to store vehicles on their property or boats and that type of thing. Finally, with respect to the maintenance area, it’s also under
the CC and R’s, the intent of the developer to have the Homeowners Association hire professional lawn care maintenance so that storage sheds and separate facilities on site wouldn’t
necessarily be required. The maintenance company would typically bring their lawnmowers and whatever equipment they needed in trailers as they did the work, and that would be it. So
other than questions, those are the only brief comments that we have with respect to the staff recommendations.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Spink, has our staff had a chance to look at these, or did they just get out?
Spink: No. I did these late this afternoon, but Mr. Rossman hasn’t seen them, staff hasn’t seen them. We’re not proposing them as final because at the time that I drafted these, I
wasn’t aware that the applicant was requesting a reduction of one lot rather than two.
Bird: I like the idea, the way that you did these. I do like that.
Spink: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other comments or questions? Okay. Anyone else that would like to issue testimony?
Mortenson: My name is Tina Mortenson, and I live at 2092 North Sapphire Place. We are located on the north side of where these townhouses are located. We will have five townhouses
butted up against the back of our fence. My concern being is our property sets approximately three-and-a-half feet higher than what the property is where they want to build the townhouses.
If they put a six-foot fence along that property line, I’m going to be able to sit in my backyard and view what these people are doing in their homes. I’ll be able to look in their
back windows. That’s the concern of mine. Also, I have a question regarding from where the property line is to where the back of the house is, it’s my understanding that there’s 11
feet. Isn’t it supposed to be 15 feet, the distance? I don’t know what that is for sure. Can somebody help me there?
Hawkins-Smith: Yes. That’s true. The type of project that they’re doing is planning and development, so they can request reductions in those kinds of instances if they provide other
open space.
Mortenson: Okay. I just wanted to bring that to your guys’ attention, because that’s a concern. That puts them even closer to me now. Okay?
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else that would like to issue testimony?
Powell: I’m Julie Powell, I live at 2089 North Sapphire. I live next door to Tina. We’ll have three new neighbors against our back fence. I’m a little confused on the issue of what
our subdivision’s going to be called now. This seems to be the third name change, and we still don’t see good proposals to us. I would prefer to see it go L-O and R-4, put bigger lots
in there so we don’t have as many neighbors. It sounds like we’re going to get new neighbors no matter what which is no big deal, but first they presented that it was going to be professional
people or retirement. Retirement sounds more reasonable if you’re going to have somebody that close and that many neighbors. At one point they had also said something about the traffic
issues. I know that’s been brought up. If we’re going to have this many neighbors times two cars, probably, for the place, we already have X-amount of wrecks on Fairview in front of
Fred Meyer as it is. So this is going to cause more traffic problems. I’m not as concerned on Locust Grove itself, but on Fairview.
Weaver: Good evening. My name’s Bill Weaver. I live at Sapphire also; 2137. I’ve voiced my concern about this project last week. Again, my concern is while indeed the property
surrounding this is all zoned R-8, it has the density of R-4. We’ve seen the plat. I wish we had the two together so you could see how badly those townhouses look when they’re stuffed
into that small area. I think it’s just too many homes in a small area. According to ACHD, you’re talking about an additional 400 cars coming out of one entry coming onto Locust Grove.
Also,
we’ve got the new store going in on the corner of Fairview and Locust Grove, Wal-Mart additional traffic. The traffic in that area is going to be horrendous, quote, unquote, because
the plan is to widen Locust Grove. We know how that works, folks. I mean, you know, next year, next year turning into two years down the road, three years down the road. We have an
additional 1500 cars on that road. You have trouble getting in and out of there early in the morning as it is now let alone adding an additional 400 cars on there. (inaudible) said
we would really like to see it zoned R-4. I would prefer to see the L-O dropped, but I’ll work with the (inaudible) and say, okay, put your building in, but let’s make sure we do have
professionals in there. Make sure that it fits with the community that exists now. I mean, there are other concerns we have. Water pressure is one thing. In the summer time, we don’t
have any. Okay? Now we’re putting in 32 more homes? What’s going to happen to our water pressure? So there’s a lot of concerns with this. My big concern is with the L-O, he can’t
get the doctors, he can’t get the eye doctors, he’s going to ask for a special to come in and have his conditional use permit dropped or even ask to have a conditional use permit to
have a bar put in there. That’s not something that we need in that area. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else?
Powell: Wes Powell, 2089 North Sapphire Place. I’m agreeing on the density. I’d like to see if it’s going to be an R-8, I want the same density as the existing area. The houses are
already on – quite a few of them are on quarter-acre lots. We’re going to have three new neighbors. It’s kind of – it’s hard enough to get along with some neighbors let along you’re
having three more that you’re unsure about. I know concerns of neighbors as it is now, they’re talking about already selling if it’s townhouses. The ones that you do like are talking
about moving. I’d rather see houses can go in like a new subdivision, not townhouses. The white vinyl fence, that’s nice and dandy, because we’re the ones that have the white vinyl
fence. So if that’s the case, I want – they can either, they’re not adding on my fence. They’re going to have to build in front or by mine. I bought it because we wanted to make it
nice. But I’m not making it nice for three more people or six more neighbors or whatever. The density of the houses being lowered to 11 feet rather than 15, I disagree on that one.
I hope that they can keep it at 15 and not try to cram us even tighter, but that’s my feelings. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Jones: Good evening. You guys are doing great. This is a nice long evening. My name is Jay Jones, and I live at 1426 North Carol. I am the person you talked about on the south of
this property in regards to the pedestrian pathway and the easement through there. What I’d like to say, I have met with the neighbors in my subdivision, that’s the Doris Subdivision,
and they had a real concern that they have is access for the children to get to school. (inaudible) get to school, there were some concessions made on my part. I have worked with
the developer’s son, and (inaudible) in just a minute. I like the fact that they’re proposing 124,000’s what they mentioned in their paperwork with nice reviews of these townhomes.
I like the fact that it would be more of a (inaudible) group, if you would, rather than a first-time homebuyer that would come into this particular subdivision. That should help our
property values maintain as well as I like the single-story. From my house you’ll see (inaudible) we do have openness in our subdivision. Most of our lots are on – I own the two lots,
the small lots on the north end of the Carol Circle. I have (inaudible) yes. Those two. I have a house on the right one right now. My intent now (inaudible) my parents will buy that
from me, and I will build on the neighboring lot. It’s a vacant lot at this time, and in order to do so, I’d like to maintain openness between those properties where the developer’s
proposed to have a bike path come through. I have agreed that if we can line up on the west end of the lot I haven’t built on, that we can create some kind of an easement through there.
At this point, the developer – it doesn’t fit in his plans for a lot line currently about 14 feet – 145 to 164 (inaudible). Anyway, we’re a little ways away on that. Here’s the reasons
I’m concerned about having that easement come between the two properties. Pictures of my backyard. Also a picture here of the front of the property looking down (inaudible – away from
mic) Originally I talked to the developer about this project. He liked the idea of having a way for the kids to get to school which did the people in our subdivision. Also, within
this proposal I think you have comments from P & Z that there’s potential that he can allow stub line for sewer for these two properties. So this would serve as a joint purpose where
I could apply later for sewer connection through this easement, that ten-foot easement that could go through his side of the property. But because of how it would effect, as you can
see in front of you there, it would take out part of that (inaudible) retaining wall in front of my property, it would go down right between the telephone poles as well as there’s a
tree there in the backyard that you can see it would take out as well. I would like to remove the fence there, combine the two properties (inaudible) would adjoin my folks’ place and
my place –
*** End of Side 2 ***
(inaudible) to Mr. Centers’ property and on into where the easement is going to go on the west end of his property where the kids walk to school. I would like to have something in effect
that maybe there is an easement that they can get to and from school during those hours that require you to get to and from school. I would really not like to have that as an easement
where people can get through the back of my property in the middle of the night or any other time. There could be some kind of a chain fence there that could be closed on the off-times
that they wouldn’t need access to the school. Any questions?
Corrie: Council?
Jones: Thank you.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. I guess I’d have a question for staff. If that was not a permanent easement and that is county property, how does that all work? It can’t, can it?
Hawkins-Clark: Can you please clarify?
deWeerd: The fact that the property owner wanting to give permanent easement to that and we’re annexing, so we’d be creating a city pathway into a non-permanent county use of property.
We would have any enforcement or continuity that – how would that work? How would the agreement even work?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner deWeerd, it would more or less be a plat issue. You’re correct. It is technically Ada County jurisdiction, so any calls for children, graffiti on there
or leaving trash or whatever, I guess technically it is outside our jurisdiction. Our thinking is long-term. It’s more or less an infill section there. At some point it’s going to
become City. At either rate, the County or us, you’ve got an issue of just providing accessibility and really no way to enforce the purpose of the easement which is permanent accessibility.
At any point, whether this property owner chooses to move or something happens, the next one comes in, maybe they’re not so kind. So you’ve got that question.
deWeerd: Even if we were to put a condition that that pathway existed and the developer would have to maybe move Lot 34 and do some adjustments so they can go along his property line
unless the property owner’s willing to grant the easement, we still couldn’t really do it in a temporary manner, could we? And we couldn’t close it off since it’d be public at certain
hours.
Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct. That’s my understanding.
deWeerd: Okay.
Corrie: Okay.
Tron: I’m Corliss Tron, and I live at 2153 North Sapphire Place, and besides (inaudible) mentioned, I have one particular concern about the value of the neighborhood homes and that
conditions be put on this property so that we will not – the value, the units that are built look like the (inaudible) of the homes in the neighborhood and approximate square footage
and double or triple garages.
Colter: I’m Kathleen Colter. I live at 2085 North Amethyst Place. I live to the north, the first cul-de-sac in, and I own property that abuts this. I, too, will be looking at new
neighbors 11 feet away from my fence line. I can sit on my deck or I can look at them. My property is 3 ½ feet higher than the property that’s going to be developed. I can also look
into the new neighbors’ houses. That kind of concerns me. I’m concerned about the density. If you go back to the other slide that – no. that shows a roof (inaudible) subdivision.
True, our
subdivision is zoned R-8 but it is not developed R-8. If you take a look at even the first cul-de-sac in, flip those houses – there’s 11 in there and (inaudible) feels that one space
that you’re trying to develop. So we can see that there are 11 houses in the first cul-de-sac right there, I think there are about 11. If you kind of flip it, it almost covers that
lot. So you can kind of see that if you put in 32 houses plus an office building, it’s going to be almost two-for-one. I think it’s too dense. I’d like to see it filled because I
don’t like looking at weeds, but I’d like to see it (inaudible) less. Less people coming out onto Locust Grove because as it is now, I go to work at 7:00 in the morning just to avoid
the 8:00 traffic onto Locust Grove turning left onto Fairview.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else?
Brian: I just have a question. Are we – my name is Don Brian. I reside at 2070 North Locust Grove Road which is just directly east of the development. I have a question of whether
we – are we addressing the annexation or the CUP? All at once? We can talk about the conditional use without getting yelled at? Okay. I have a few questions with the CUP and the
office building that’s going out front on what would be the traffic alignment on the proposed subdivision going in that road that goes full length. As we’re coming out, those headlights
would be directly in front of my living room window, and I was wondering if we could put some kind of a berm or a dumpster enclosure or a fencing or trees or something that deflects
that lighting down that long street from the cul-de-sac. Right along side of that office building it shines right into my property. Pressurized irrigation? Does this property have
pressurized irrigation? Does anybody know? Are they required to have it and if they do have it, and if they do make the improvements to require it, is it coming off of my feed? I
don’t know where the feed is for that property on the irrigation, but I don’t want to be responsible for turning on my water and giving any problems across the street with 32 families
that are running water. I’m also concerned about hours of operation and how you define that in your conditional use. You just have a list in the conditional use on what they can and
can’t do and how that exactly works. As far as the subdivision itself goes, as you’re all aware, Ada County Highway District traffic report states that we’re dumping another 400 vehicle
trips per day off the end of that lane right across the street from my driveway. Everybody knows how bad traffic is now and it’s going to make it worse. That’s just something to think
about. As far as anything else, that’s probably all that I had.
Corrie: Don, how many lanes are out there in front of your house now? Lanes of traffic –
Brian: There’s two lanes and one turnlane going into Oakcrest. There should be an additional turnlane with this project, I believe, on their side. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else? Okay. Hearing none, developer, you’ve got a list of questions here if you were taking notes.
Canning: I was taking some notes, yes. Joe Canning, again. I’ll probably make some general statements; I think I’ll cover most of the questions that were addressed. Number one, I
do want to point out again to the Council, and, as a matter of fact, I do have the area slide up on the screen. There it is. I just want to point out again that the size of those Gem
Park lots are large, once again, right in that area, because of that Jackson Drain easement. All the homes are set back a considerable distance from that north property line. If you
look to the north up in these lots, those are considerably smaller, and their purpose, or the reason for that, is because of that Jackson stub drain. I agree there are several townhouses
that are going to front on the back of those large lots on the ends of those cul-de-sacs, but there’s a lot of frontage. There’s a lot of rearage, I guess, on those particular lots
right there at Gem Park. So I think that’s important to point out. We personally think that’s a setback – an asset for both. Agreed, we’re getting darn close to that north property
line, and we feel that somewhat of an offset to that is those large backyards to the Gem Park development to the north. It’s quite important to point out. Once again, it’s an infill
project; this is what we’ve got left. That gray area there is what we’re looking at developing. There were some possibilities or suggestions that perhaps in doing some single-lot homes
in there. The problem with that is essentially you’re constructing a public road along that extreme south boundary all the way back in the project. Essentially you’re creating double-frontage
lots on Doris Subdivision to the south and not to speak of the large infrastructure costs of installing that public road. It just doesn’t work. We’re trying to do the best we can,
at least in my opinion, with the property we’ve got there. I think it’s also important to point out, we really went into this trying to think of the neighborhood, and perhaps they don’t
think so, but we’re not proposing apartments. We’re proposing single-family homes although they are townhouses. They are attached. And we feel it’s an appropriate use in this area;
it is developing. There is commercial area out there, and we hope that these pedestrian connections we’re proposing will actually encourage foot traffic and help reduce vehicle traffic
a little bit. Obviously, the connection on the west side’s important even to this development for kids to get out to the elementary school. Also, we’re hoping to encourage traffic,
foot-traffic, through the project even from the neighbors from the west through the project going to perhaps Fred Meyer and the commercial areas. Agreed, we have to go down into probably
Fairview to cross, but we still feel that this would help encourage foot-traffic in the area. There was a question regarding water pressure. I’d essentially refer that to the City
Engineer; however, I do know that there were some recording devices put on at least one of the homes in Gem Park development after the original annexation meeting before the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Actually, it’s a high pressurized zone. I think the recording on the meter was anywhere from 90 to 100 psi. There’s actually quite a high pressure for water
in this area. As I understand from talking to the staff, there may be some partially corroded valving in the meter casing that may be causing some of the problem. I’m just guessing.
I’ll direct that answer to Gary. I believe he knows more about that than we do. Regarding uses within the L-O zone, as
far as we’re concerned, it’s what’s permitted in that L-O zone. I don’t believe bars and other commercial establishments such as that are permitted in that L-O zone. That would probably
require a rezone. At the very least another conditional use process to come through to do something for in there. We are really looking. The idea is for professional office buildings
to go in that area. Regarding the pedestrian path to the south, we certainly entertain what we can do there. The issue is what we can do. We know we can get the one to the west side,
and, of course, most happy with that one that is working out. But we’re certainly open to options on that path to the south. We do have an issue with that extreme west property line
of Mr. Jones’ who spoke a little earlier. The problem is the spacing with our lot sizes that are on our side. It just doesn’t work. Hands up it is his – property line is right in
the middle of two of those units. I guess the last thing that I’d point out, and maybe it’s an odd number, but I think it might be helpful. Even though we’re looking at density as
in dwelling units per acre that is fairly high, we actually look at the structure in this facility. In my opinion, it is somewhat comparable to the adjoining development other than
Doris. Doris Subdivision is a county sub; those are one-acre lots. But we just did some quick counts of structures in the area, and if you except, and I have to admit without excepted,
if you take those rural lots out right there in Gem Park and look at all these lots up in there, that’s approximately six acres, and you’ll see that it is larger than our project, but
not much. There’s approximately six acres up there, and in that area, the actual lot count works out to about four buildings per acre, four lots per acre, also, but four buildings per
acre, and if you look at a similar count for our project, we’re actually at about 3.6 buildings per acre. Now, agreed, the lot density is considerably different, but that lot coverage,
we feel, is somewhat comparable. Now, we add garages and et cetera, looking larger structures because there’s two homes in one of those buildings, but that footprint is a good-size
area. I think it’s an important thing to point out. It’s somewhat comparable, at least in my opinion, for an infill site. We’re trying to develop this property in a way we can afford
to do it. I think with that, I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Couple of the people testified about a difference in elevation and looking down. Could you address that?
Canning: I’m not sure what to say. We’re proposing single-story structures. I guess most of the opposition you run into is when our development’s higher. That was part of the reason
for that single-story to prevent two-story windows looking back onto those lots. I guess most of the objections I hear is when people from our proposed development looks onto adjoining
neighbors rather than neighbors looking into our project. Being lower, it’s just going, to me, help accent those roof lines rather than those windows. It will be lower. I’m not quite
sure what the issue there is.
Anderson: The issue was visibility, it sounds like to me, and if something could be done to maybe fill, bring the grade up closer to where one side or the other isn’t looking down or
up at the other one.
Canning: That could be done. As far as the people to the north, that’s just going to put more structure in their view. Most people don’t like that, but – it’s just going to raise
the roof line is all that’s going to do. We’re trying to keep it low.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Would you be able to raise the backyard so where your fence – where just the area where your fence line is rather than elevating the structure?
Canning: Well, I think so, yes. Of course, there will be some fill placed in that development just because of the compact size with that road going in. By the time you essentially
cut your roads out, you’re going to generate some material, and those will be placed on the property. We’re not planning on hauling it off. And it is a low area. You know, I’ll admit.
That Jackson stub drain went through there for a reason. It was a low area. We’ll be using whatever materials we can generate to fill.
deWeerd: So you’re not talking about bringing any fill in at this point?
Canning: We don’t – not at this particular point in time. We’d projected our grades for the infrastructure improvements. The issue was sewer. Sanitary sewer is the issue on this
particular site as you’re extending from the west toward Locust Grove which is where the sanitary sewer is available. It does get fairly shallow, so when we originally projected grades
on the project, it fit, but not with a lot of extra cover. So when we first ran through it, it worked, but if it’s just elevated (inaudible) going to help. But that was the criteria
to make sure the sanitary sewer would get into the project.
deWeerd: One other question. The pathway you’re been talking about with Mr. Jones about, was your intent to develop that through to his south property line?
Canning: His north boundary – oh. You mean clear down to the south property line? Actually, I’d probably have to have the applicant come up. The applicant himself is the one who’s
had the discussions with Mr. Jones, and not myself. We have –
deWeerd: That would be my first question, and then, I guess, any other questions would be directed to Mr. Jones.
Centers: Lee Centers, 325 Meridian Street. What was your question?
deWeerd: My question was if you did get the pedestrian pathway on the south side of your development, would you be developing that path on your side of the development as well as on
the other side?
Centers: No. The agreement I have with him is we’d bring it up to the property line; we’ll take it from there.
deWeerd: So he would have to make the improvements himself?
Centers: We never talked about that on his side. I just said I’d bring it up to his side. We would create a common lot between two lots, run the sewer and a pathway to that property
line, and then he would take it from there. Now, going to the cul-de-sac to Mr. Shin, going to the west, I plan to improve that all the way to the asphalt.
deWeerd: I don’t follow what you’re saying.
Centers: Cul-de-sac, right there, to the west. I’ll improve that all the way. Mr. Shin, I’ve got to point out, he has no interest in this. He just cooperated and said he’d do it.
He said the kids come through there anyway. So we plan to fully develop that.
deWeerd: And will you be fencing that?
Centers: Yes. Both sides. There was a limited amount of people that come through Doris going to the west. That’s very important. What I’m trying to do is help out Mr. Jones a little
and anybody else that wants to come and use it coming from Doris. You’re not going to have the kind of traffic going through there like you would that west connection.
deWeerd: Unless you open it up and they’re going to Walgreen’s and anything else once you do open that up. There could be increased traffic.
Centers: Yes. The opportunity is there if Mr. Jones can work it out.
deWeerd: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Do you have the private irrigation rights there? Are you using (inaudible) city water for irrigation?
Centers: No, we are planning a pressurized system.
Corrie: Pressurized irrigation? Where are you getting the water?
Centers: Nampa Meridian delivery ditch comes in at the extreme, southeast corner of the property.
Corrie: On Locust Grove?
Centers: Correct. I guess that was one of the items I missed.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. I just have another question. If you were able to work with Mr. Jones and get the westerly property line that he suggesting, I know that P & Z had asked you to
dedicate two lots to open space, and you’ve dedicated one on the north. If you were to open up one on the south, you could do some lot adjustments to accommodate that; could you not?
Centers: I agree, we could. We had actually done a quick sketch trying to utilize that property line, and I’ll be honest. It can be done. The issue that came up was we were concerned
about the amount of usable open space that was on the west, so to speak, to make those adjustments work, we have to basically put a lot line right on that west property line, and then
by the time you swung over to the west from there, it left an unusual shaped open space. It still counts as open space, I presume, but that was the issue. Whether it’s large enough
to be functional, I’m not sure.
deWeerd: If what piece was large enough to be functional?
Centers: If you look at the handout and the sketch, you’ll see basically on the south side that lot 22, just to the south of there, there’s a little line that stubs across. That’s
Mr. Jones’ extreme northwest corner. So you can see, because that comes right in the middle of the Lot 22, you have to basically take 21 and 22 and shift them over to the west. Then
you might end up with a single unit with 20, but what it does is it leaves that 19 area as open, so to speak. It’s slightly larger than that; it’s about one and-a-half lots, and whether
that’s a functional area, I guess, is questionable. We looked at it and we didn’t think it was.
deWeerd: Well, could you not broaden the area where your pathway is and dedicate – and with the adjustment there?
Centers: Instead of ten feet, go wider?
deWeerd: Yes.
Centers: I presume we could. It’s still (inaudible) –
deWeerd: Then you wouldn’t have that awkward piece.
Centers: I still think it’ll be there one way or the other. There is one other issue that I think is somewhat important to point out that because of that Jackson stub drain that runs
along the north property line, we are planning on using that parcel 18 for a shallow storm water detention facility. We’re not retaining the water, but we proposing to detain it. The
idea is to make that as shallow as possible. Any
open space we do move over to the other side of the road is on the high side, so to speak, and it’s very difficult to use as a detention facility.
deWeerd: I’m not talking about loosing the lot that you use to gain more on 18. I’m talking about loosing a lot then on the south end of that. So just bring me back to the original
intent of the P & Z, our recommendation.
Centers: And, of course, their original recommendation is actually two on the south. We would obviously prefer not to do that.
deWeerd: Okay.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, could we ask Mr. Jones to come back up for a moment?
Jones: Jay Jones, 1426 North Carol.
deWeerd: Thank you, Mr. Jones. I guess my question to you would be if they could work with you to get it on your westerly property line, would you be willing to give a permanent easement
to that, and would you be willing to do the improvements necessary to make that a pathway? Would your Homeowners Association help you with that? The primary question would be would
you be willing to dedicate a permanent easement?
Jones: For that primary question, I think we would be able to do it on that western property line. In the middle it just doesn’t work, and essentially, our understanding was we could
have the access and not disrupt any of the usable part of my property. Just so the 8 or 9 children in our subdivision can get to school. Basically the primary purpose, you know, to
satisfy the request in the neighborhood. There is not a Homeowners Association associated with our subdivision, and with our discussions in funding, the concerns of the Walgreen’s store,
I don’t see too many people wanting to cough up anything for that, but I think we could go in – if it was required, okay, rather than just an easement, you know, across a driveway on
that end of the property, if it was required to have a dedicated pathway, I would entertain a split cost with the developer, but I would first maybe request an easement that across a
gravel driveway that – you know, under my proposed new structure (inaudible) property that would be the access rather than the full ten-foot width which I understand by staff in speaking
to them today that that is a requirement on any pathway that it is ten feet. Initially I’d hoped for maybe six feet, but something like that that would, you know, not take up quite
so much length.
DeWeerd: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Council, any other questions that you have? Let’s – you have the last crack. If you have questions or answers – question?
Canning: I have a proposal. I just chatted with the applicant, and what we could do is perhaps switch – I guess the concern we’ve got is having two single units in the project makes
it a little bit difficult. Perhaps if we could take one off the south side and then put it back into the east end of that lot 18, that would work fine. That would put a two-unit structure
back on the north side which is the way it was originally submitted.
Corrie: In other words, you’re taking 22 and putting it over there next to 17?
Canning: Essentially, yes. Thank you.
Deweerd: Joe, then you would open up 21 and 22?
Canning: Just 22, essentially.
Corrie: Twenty-two would just flip over and be 17 and (inaudible).
Canning: With the one loss, we’re actually exceeding the open space requirement, so the idea being keeping the number the same, it’s just putting it in a different location.
DeWeerd: So you would still have that kind of width, then? Then you would just – you’ll have a single unit there, then?
Canning: Somewhere along there.
DeWeerd: Okay. Well, when this is all over, I guess I’d like to get staff’s reaction to all of this. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions that staff has? I don’t want to get into this.
Unidentified Audience Member: I just want to clear up one point on property sizes. They implied to property in Gem Park are small. I have one of the smallest lots in Gem Park, and
it’s over a quarter of an acre.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions? Staff, for the record? Okay. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on 10, 11 and 12.
Bird: So moved.
DeWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Do I –
Corrie: Is there a second?
Anderson: I will second it.
Corrie: Okay. Now, Mrs. deWeerd.
DeWeerd: I just – Brad, did you have any comments on the proposed path and how that would all work?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner deWeerd, I guess in terms of the goal of the common space is to be usable. The whole idea is probably very few people are going to make much use out of
an 18-foot deep front yard and an 11-foot back yard. I think, obviously, usable open space is always up for interpretation, but I think, to me, you keep contiguous, larger open space
area, you can fit your volleyball courts, you can fit a horseshoe – it’s more usable. So as compared to putting a single open-space lot on the south, I think it would in terms of getting
that goal of planned unit development achieved, it would be better to keep them contiguous.
DeWeerd: Rather than getting the connectivity to other neighborhoods?
Hawkins-Clark: I think so. If I could point out there, Item 1.4 on the annexation recommendation from legal regarding the Development Agreement, it does need a decision from the Council.
It was left rather open in terms of whether a Development Agreement would be required or not. That’s Page 3 of the legal recommendation on the annexation.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
DeWeerd: I have none.
Corrie: We have a motion before the Council to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Comments from staff for Council?
Bird: Are we going to take them one at a time? The annexation and zoning first?
Corrie: Correct. So if there’s no further discussion, Item No. 10 is a request for annexation and zoning. I’ll entertain a motion for the annexation and zoning.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision of Order regarding the annexation and zoning of 5.29 acres to L-O and
R-8 by Centers Construction, Inc., with all staff
comments included; also, on 1.4 staff on the – we will have a Development Agreement.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the proper Ordinance for the annexation and zoning and also the Development Agreement at the same time. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Let’s do the request for conditional use permit for the proposed office building and townhouse, L-O and R-8 zone, five acres. I’ll entertain a motionon the conditional
use permit.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Discussion on that. That is the one that they have –
Corrie: Let’s entertain a motion first and then we’ll do the discussion.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: I hate to cut you like that, but if we need to have the discussion – Do I hear a motion on the conditional use permit?
Anderson: I’ll make a motion that we approve the conditional use permit for proposed office building and townhouses in an L-O and R-8 zone on five acres by Centers Construction and
instruct the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: With the Planning and Zoning’s recommendations?
Anderson: With staff’s recommendations; yes.
Bird: I’ll second that, then.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the conditional use permit for proposed office building and townhouses and instruct the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and include staff recommendations. Discussion? Now, Mr. Bird.
Bird: My discussion is on this proposal that their attorney presented to us with all this marked out stuff and without the staff having it, I – kind of looking it over
which we just got. I just didn’t know if we wanted to charge ahead and do it or let them look at it. But Ron made the motion to the fact that’s inclusive. So go for it.
DeWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Planning and Zoning’s recommendation included two lots to be dedicated to that open space. So that would be the intent?
Anderson: I’d like to discuss that because I guess I favor the proposal you were working on or the angle you were working is to get the interconnectivity into the other subdivision
rather than having the lots together there in the northwest corner, I would prefer to have that Lot 22 opened up so it would have a pathway into the other subdivision. Is it your intent
to have two of the lots given up? That’s not what I heard the developer offer up as a proposal.
DeWeerd: No, but that doesn’t mean we can’t require it as a condition. If having a usable open space as staff mentioned, and I agree with that argument, that I would also like to see
that connectivity as well.
Corrie: The motion is to –
Bird: You’d have to amend the motion. The motion is to go with the staff’s comments and that stuff, so they have to come up with two? It doesn’t say anything about taking 22 up.
They have to come up with two. That’s what the staff –
DeWeerd: And they only have one. (inaudible); although they suggesting 17 and 18.
Anderson: One more comment I’ll offer, then. I think that the discussion here and what’s going on in this meeting is all stuff that ought to be handled at staff level and we shouldn’t
be deciding these issues or debating these issues at a Council meeting, and I guess I would be in favor of tabling this particular issue and have staff try to work out some of these
items as far as the connectivity to the subdivision to the south and whether we want two lots or one lot and give them some direction on how to go on it instead of us debating that and
trying to negotiate in the middle of a City Council meeting.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I agree with you 100 percent, Ron, and I think that’s why – I mean, we get this change from the owner, developer wanted in here tonight, and that’s why I was asking
you if we were going to use that or not. I don’t think it’s fair to the developer or to our staff at all without the both of them getting to look at it. That’s why I’d be for tabling.
Corrie: What I need is for you to make a motion – withdraw and a motion to table.
DeWeerd: We still have a little bit of discussion.
Corrie: You can discuss anything you want. I hear options here.
DeWeerd: Well, Mr. Mayor, I agree with Councilman Anderson that I think we should give staff what our desire would be and my opion would be that the desire would be to have still those
two lots and where you put them would be for your discussion with the applicant and perhaps the adjoining property owner. And I would also like to see how they could work out the back,
the north property line so we could get it a lower – elevation back there.
Bird: I withdraw my second.
Anderson: I’ll withdraw my motion. I will make a new motion that we table this request for a conditional use permit for Centers Construction subject to staff going back and working
out the details on what Councilwoman deWeerd has stated as the Council’s desire.
Corrie: March 21st or April 4th?
Anderson: That be brought back on March 21st.
DeWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to have the Item No. 11 tabled to March 21st, have staff work with the recommendations of the Council with the developer on the conditional use permit.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now we have the preliminary plat. Do you want to table that as well? I’ll entertain a motion on that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we table the preliminary plat proposal for Wesley Subdivision until March 21st, 2000.
DeWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table the request for preliminary plat until March 21st. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. It looks like most – raise your hands for who is here for the next one. The hour, we may have a little longer than 10:30, so I would like to take a
five-minute break and have a discussion with Council and see what they would like to do with the public hearings after 13. We may table those until the 21st. So stick around for just
a minute and we’ll find out. I’ll entertain a motion for a five-minute break.
Bird: So moved.
DeWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to take a five-minute break. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(Meeting reconvened at 10:23 p.m.)
Corrie: Okay. I’ll call the meeting back to order. Let me see a show of hands – anyone here for Item No. 18 on the public hearing? That’s the Records East Subdivision. Other than
one. Okay. Council, we’re going to hear the requests 13, 14, 15, and we’re going to hold public hearing 16 and B and 17 until the 21st because those are going to be rather lengthy.
Council has a lot of questions on those. Then we’ll finish up the others very quickly so we’re not here until three o’clock in the morning. So anybody that was here for 16 and 17,
we’ll hold those the 21st. Okay.
Item 13. Public Hearing: CUP 00-008 Request for conditional use permit for time extension of temporary clubhouse by Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc. – 4100 W. Talamore:
Corrie: Okay. We’re on No. 13 now, the public hearing on the request for conditional use permit for time extension of temporary clubhouse by Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., 4100 W. Talamore.
At this time I’ll open the public hearing and hear from staff.
Hawkins-Clark: Mayor and Council, I’ll simply refer you again to the site here on the screen. I believe you’re all familiar with this one. Actually directly apply to the issue of
extending the issue of the time extension on this, but I believe there has been submitted for the record a memo from the City Clerk, Will Berg, regarding some of the financing issues.
Again, here is the location of the temporary clubhouse and the permanent clubhouse. Temporary being here and permanent here. We can’t resist showing you the sewer truck either. Thank
you.
Corrie: Okay. Since this is a public hearing, let me make a comment first. Have you got all the –
*** End of Side 3 ***
-- three parties, Will?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I have that agreement in our hands. We are getting it recorded, but all three parties have signed the agreement as of last – whatever the date
of my memo was. Thursday or Friday.
Corrie: Good. That will cut the time considerably. Okay. It’s a public hearing. The developer first.
Spink: Mayor, Council, Michael Spink, 101 South Capital Boulevard, Boise, for the applicant. I couldn’t possibly know as much about this application as any member on the Council, but
I do know that all we’re talking about was a request for a change to condition 1.20 in the conditional use permit that was granted lsat summer for an extension for six months. Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended approval. The only comment I would have is that we would ask that the extension commence at the point that the Council entered any formal order to
that effect.
Corrie: Okay.
Spink: Any quiestions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony for this conditional use permit request? Okay.
Margulieux: My name’s Gordon Margulieux. I live at 2040 Interlachen. I guess I want to say a little bit longer, I could say good morning, but it’s still good evening. I just want
to come out right oft the bat and say I am for this extension, I am for the new clubhouse. I would like to see it completed, and so I just want to make that clear. I’d also like to
ask what we’re voting on, because I’m kind of confused. The letter I received in the mail said that we’re voting on the application that was submitted. It was submitted on Decembe
29th of 1999, and although what we’re talking about is an extension, what the application is asking for is an extension of six months as soon as the agreement, the letter of credit,
the developer has already conceded that he’ll accept the letter – the six-month extension from the time of your approval which is actually the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
which is different than they had said because their recommendation is that they approve the conditional use permit as requested by the applicant. The applicant requested it from a letter
of credit which is still a moot point because their bank has already said that the letter of credit is already there. All we have to do is approve this. But it also covers a conditional
– it also modifies the existing one to allow the immediate occupancy of the trailer that’s already been there for five months. The trailer which is illegally placed at the
new section already was not supposed to be there until the letter of credit was signed. That’s already been recognized by the Planning and Zoning in a letter on the 8th of February
this year which said that it was there when it wasn’t supposed to be there. It wasn’t supposed to be there until the letter of credit. It’s been there – not only has it been there,
but they’ve been using it, and you can go there tomorrow and have lunch there because they’re serving food out of it, too. They have no permit to have it there. We’re actually asking
not for an extension, though. The conditional use permit ended on the 22nd of January of this year. That’s when the seven months ended. I’m not sure if this is really an extension
since the conditional use permit has already expired. But we’re asking not what the City Council had agreed to back in early July, actually late June, was seven months. They had asked
for six. They were given seven, and they said they would have it out in seven months. It’s been two months since it’s expired, a month and a half ago. So, actually what they’re asking
for is an eight month extension of a deadline that they were given already which makes it a total of 13 months that they were working out there when they said they were only taking six
and you gave them seven. So I’m not quite sure what we’re voting on. Are we voting on an extension on something that’s already expired? Are we voting on a six-month extension or an
eight-month extesnion? Are we voting for the applicant’s request of the extension from the day of the letter of credit or as the recommendation, the real recommendation which is in
the minutes of Planning and Zoning which is to delay it – to have it extend from the day of your approval. So I’m not sure what we’re voting on. The reason I’m concerned about it is
when I read the agreement, I read the agreement that you guys signed at Council – signed for the bank, and one thing that concerns me is that although you agree on certain things, there
is no dollar amount listed over there. So you’re basically signing an almost blank check over there because what it is, it’s for improvements, capital improvements which we were told
back when they asked for the conditional use permit that the money to build a house was there. The only thing they needed was a loan for the letter of credit. This agreement says that
it’s for – that the money can be borrowed on not just the letter of credit, but also on capital improvements. So it’s not $500,000. It could be a lot more. Whatever it takes, because
we don’t know. That’s a private business. So those are the types of things that I’m concerned about. What are we voting on? I’d like to see it clarified a little bit. Just where
we sit in this whole thing. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Margulieux: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Any one else? Okay. There’s no one else testifying? Does the applicant want to say anything after that? Probably hear what the motion will be very quickly.
Spink: No comment.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we close the public hearing.
Bird: I would second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion – let me state something first. We’ve got the letter of credit ready to give to us, been signed, the agreement has been signed, Cherry Lane has signed
their part of it, City has signed their part of it, bank has signed their side. Cherry Lane wants to get going with this clubhouse, last I heard it was, and we do, too. They’ve got
to have a place to have people come out there while they’re bulding it, so I would ask the Council to kind of take that into consideration when you make your motion and put this thing
to bed once and for all, and let’s get on with it and get it (inaudible).
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I’ll try to make a motion that will be acceptable, I hope. I move that we extend the conditional use permit for the extension of the temporary clubhouse at Cherry
Lane Recreation, Inc., for eight months, and in that same time maybe we’ll have the new one up and running within eight months.
Anderson: I second that.
Corrie: Thank you. Motion is made to extend the conditional use permit to include the temporary clubhouse to be for eight months at which time the clubhouse will be built and the temporary
clubhouse will be gone. I added that. I guess I shouldn’t take liberties. Okay. Any discussion?
DeWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just a point of clarification, that eight months would be after the official signing of the extension?
Bird: After the enact – when they get their building permits.
Corrie: It’ll be March 21st when we vote on (inaudible)
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, does this include – does that motion include full use of the temporary clubhouse while it’s being built?
Bird: Yes, ma’am.
Corrie: They get water and the whole thing. It’ll be after the Council approves the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law that the attorney draws up for the 21st. Any further discussion?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, is there any possibility that there’s any other – I don’t know who to ask this, maybe to legal, that there would be any other hurdle that they would have to go
over before the 21st?
Corrie: No. We just have to approve it.
McCandless: Thank you.
Corrie: I take that back. We’ve got an attorney (inaudible). Mr. Attorney.
Rossman: I’m just looking at my notes from talking with Bill Nichols this afternoon. I understand that the applicant is anxious to begin on this and we’ve already directed our staff
to begin preparing Findings. We would have those Findings available for the March 15th special meeting if you prefer to get this rolling, or we can set it over for the 21st. Whichever
you –
Bird: Bring it the 15th.
Corrie: 15th, that’s a meeting with the sewer? That’s a special meeting.
Bird: We’re having an executive session, too.
Corrie: You’ll have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for that meeting?
Rossman: We’ll have them the Friday before at the latest.
Corrie: We can do it the 15th. Okay. Any objections to that?
Bird: No.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: The 15th of the month you can dig your holes and put your water and hallelujah and get this thing going. Thank you, Wally. Thanks for your patience. Okay.
Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 00-007 Request for daycare group with 6-12 kids in an R-8 zone by Anna Kukay – 2512 E. Clarene:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 14, public hearing, rquest for daycare group with 6 to 12 kids in an R-8 zone by Anna Kukay at 2512 E. Clarene. At this time I’ll open the public hearing and
invite staff comments.
Hawkins-Clark: Mayor, Council, I just request that you approve the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission dated March 22nd. On the screen is the location here in the
Dove Meadows Subdivision. The site plan, the site is fenced. Their proposing to increase 6 kids maximum to 12 kids maximum, and I do not believe that there’s any testimony in oppositition
to this at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Thanks.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Brad, that was February 22nd, not March 22nd, don’t you mean?
Hawkins-Clark: Oh, yes. I’m sorry. February 22nd, you’re right.
Corrie: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone from the public – applicant here tonight?
Kukay: Anna Kukay at 2512 E. Clarene if you have any questions for me.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony on Item 14, request for daycare group of 6 to 12 children in an R-8 zone? Okay. Hearing none, I’ll entertain
a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and secondd to close the public hearing on Item No. 14. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I’ll entertain amotion on the recommendation – the request for the conditional use permit.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that the request for daycare conditional use permit of 6-12 kids in an R-8 zone by Anna Kukay at 2512 E. Clarene, that the attorney draw up the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law with recommendation and Decision and Order with the Planning and Zoning recommendations included.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and recommendation of acceptance of the conditional use permit for
Item No. 14. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. Public Hearing: VAR 00-001 Request for a variance to allow building height of 55’6” in a C-G zone for United Heritage Corporate Headquarters by BRS Architects:
Corrie: Item No. 15 is a public hearing; request for variance to allow building height of 55’6” in a C-G zone for United Heritage Corporate Headquarters by BRS Architects. Staff comments
first and I’ll open the public hearing.
Hawkins-Clark: Mayor and Council, the request for the variance is to exceed the maximum height in a C-G zone which is 40 feet. Initially the application did request 55’6” at its highest
point. You should have in your packets a February 23rd letter from BRS Architects requesting a change to that to 59’8-3/4” which would be just about 20 feet exceeding the height in
the C-G. Staff doesn’t have any problems with the request. It’s in the Central Valley Corporate Park. The site here is on the screen, and here’s an elevation which they are proposing
– you can see that the towers are where the height variance would be. Three-story building, and they are apparently looking to raise the interior roof on each floor by a foot or something,
so that increases the overall of the building. Staff recommends approval.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening?
Hawkins-Clark: We had received them at some point, but they should get on over to you, Will.
Capshaw: Mayor and Council, my name is Mike Capshaw with BRS Architects. I reside at 2025 South Phillipe. I’m representing United Heritage in this matter. Initially we had asked
for 55’6” (inaudible – walked away from mic) and we went into our construction design and ran into some problems with structural and HVAC and we needed to raise the floor elevation,
finished floor to finished ceiling just a little bit on (inaudible). This is going to be the corporate headquarters for United Heritage, and because it is going to be such, we’ve gone
to extremes to design something very nice, not something with a flat top. We wanted some sloped roofs, we wanted some interest. We wanted to make sure that we hid any mechanical units
that we had so some of those towers in the center of the building (inaudible). So that’s pretty much where we came from on that. We tried to make something that will be an asset to
Meridian. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: I have none.
DeWeerd: It looks like a read asset.
Bird: Beautiful.
Anderson: Nice looking building.
Windrow: Mayor and Council members, I’m Jack Windrow. 1212 12th Avenue in Nampa. I’m Senior Vice President with United Heritage. First of all, I guess I”d like to say how excited
I am to be moving our corporate headquarters to Meridian. United Heritage is the original grange mutual life. We’ve been affilitated with Idaho, associated with Idaho since 1935.
We’ve been located in our current headquarters for over 40 years on 12th Avenue in Nampa. We are very excited to be moving to Meridian. This is going to be our corporate headquarters.
This is going to be a Class-A building. I think it will reflect very, very well in Meridian. We’re excited. Our grand opening is intended to be May 15. We’re going to be sending
all of you an invitation; I’m going to offer mine tonight, a personal invitation to come to the ground breaking, and I think this could be the start of some wonderful things in the park
out there. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you for coming to Meridian.
Corrie: Yes. Thank you very much. You can’t imagine my thrill to talk to the Mayor of Nampa. She’s a nice lady and she understood. Thank you for choosing Meridian. Beautiful building.
Anybody else from the public that would like to issue testimony in this?
DeWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I would like to close the public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I would move that we approve the variance to allow buiding height of 59 feet instead of 55. Let’s just hit it at 60 feet in the C-G zone for the United Heritage Corporate
Headquarters by BRS Architects and for the attorney to draw up the proper Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
DeWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the variance of the United Heritage Corporation Headquarters to a height of 60 feet and to draw up the
proper order. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 18. Public Hearing: PFP 00-001 Request for preliminary/final plat for proposed Records East Subdivision, three commercial lots on 23.6 acres by Developers Diversified Realty
Corp. – southeast corner of Records Drive and Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Now we will move to Item 18 and open the public hearing on the request for preliminary/final plat for proposed Records East Subdivision, three commercial lots on 23.6 acres
by Developers Diversified Realty Corp.
DeWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move to be excused myself from this item.
Corrie: I don’t think so.
Bird: (inaudible)
DeWeerd: I didn’t ask. I said I would.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll open the public hearing and invite staff comments first.
Hawkins-Clark: Mayor, Council, there is a recommendation dated February 22nd from the Planning and Zoning Commission for you. Represented here on the screen we have the proposed plat.
We would, again, point out that it is preliminary and final plat application, joint. Other than the Planning and Zoning recommendation, we don’t have any comments. Unless Gary – that’s
it.
Corrie: Okay. Public hearing, I’ll invite the developer to speak.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin, my address is 380 E. Parkcenter Boulevard, Boise, Idaho. Mr. Mayor, City Council, I’m speaking to you tonight on behalf of Developers Diversified Realty
Corporation. I’m with Dakota Company, a Boise based development company. This will be the briefest presentation you will ever hear. We are in support of all the recommendations from
Meridian Planning and Zoning. We, too, will be issuing an invitation to our ground breaking ceremonies as fast as we can, and I’ll happily answer any questions about the plat. This
is related to the project earlier tonight with the conditional use permit that was approved on the Consent Agenda.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions from Council? Okay. Since there’s no one else in the public for testimony, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item 18.
Bird: So moved.
Durkin: Mayor, I’m sorry. There was testimony.
Corrie: There was, so I’ll take that back.
Bird: I’ll withdraw my motion.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Woodvine: My name is Woodvine. I live on the corner of Records and Florence, and I just have one question. Is the Wal-Mart (inaudible) is there going to be any work done on that this
year? If I can get an answer to that, I can step down and head home.
Corrie: I think there is.
Bird: I would imagine.
Corrie: There is going to be starting (inaudible)
Woodvine: Well, the problem that I’ve got with this thing is the water. The – not the domestic water, but the irrigation water. They’re going to have to, according to Meridian law,
they’ve got to tile that ditch, and if they get in and do that, it would only take, we’re only talking a matter of two, two and-a-half days to put that whole thing in, but if they wait
until some time after April 15th, between April 15th and October 15th, then it’s going to cause all of the work that the Nampa Meridian water district has put into our deal to make the
water better this year than last year for not. They’ve – the thing about everything, they’ve put additional filters in, they’re going to have a blow-out before the water comes in, and
they’ve taken all the precautions that they can take, and if they don’t tile that ditch prior to a lot of work they do in there, I mean, if they just put it off until sometime between
April 15th and October 15th, then we’re going to have all that work for nothing. It would just cause us nothing but problems. If we could address that situation to them before, we’re
only talking – then they’re not going to have to juggle too much of their schedule, anyway. It’s only a matter of a couple of days to put that line in. So I just to – so I could tell
my people there in the subdivision that I live in that we have made our deal, brought it to their attention, and I would just like to find out – we called the company, and they said
they would have to talk it over with their Wal-Mart engineers. They would have to get back with Wal-Mart engineers, and I don’t have any idea of how to get in touch with the Wal-Mart
engineers to see if they would address this problem for us first. So that was a concern that we had.
Corrie: Okay. While you’re here, you said domestic water. You mean the irrigation water.
Woodvine: I said irrigation, not domestic.
Corrie: Okay. Gary, is there anything on that – I guess I can ask the developer here too. Let’s get Gary’s answer and then we’ll get the developer’s answer.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, I’m not sure what improvements have been made by Nampa Meridian. I know they were having problems, the subdivision was having problems last year
with debris in the water, and I don’t know what Nampa Meridian did to help clear that up.
Corrie: Okay.
Durkin: We had an application into, and the drawings have been submitted to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to handle the tiling in accordance with their standards. It isn’t a Wal-Mart
criteria. It’s a Nampa Meridian Irrigation District criteria, and really strict rules on how we can do that. There could be a circumstance, it’s speculative at this point, that the
irrigation water may be turned off for a day or two or a period of time during that tiling, but it’s – the matter is in the control of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District since they enjoy
the easement to have that drainage ditch (inaudible). Our plans have been submitted in accordance with their requirements. I think that it won’t be an issue. It goes on, for your
information, Council, the ditch goes on a park of the property – Brad, maybe you could just point with your pointer where that ditch comes in to the – right there. It comes in from
the south at that point and goes west. So it isn’t the full length of the property. While the development is all the way back to the east, there is a very small portion that has to
be tiled, and we’reunder the rule – their rules and regulations to do it in accordnance with their standards, and I assure you that’s what we’re doing.
Corrie: Did that answer the question? It’s under Nampa Meridian rules, so they’ll tell them when they have to do it and how they’ll do it.
Woodvine: Yes. That’ll be fine.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other testimony on this item? Okay. Hearing none, then I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
McCandless: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Request is for a preliminary and final plat for proposed Records East Subdivision, commercial lots. Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I’m sorry (inaudible).
Corrie: I’m sorry. I’ll take that back. Whoever wants to speak.
McCandless: What motion did you want me to make?
Corrie: The request on the preliminary and final plats.
McCandless: Oh, good. I move that we approve the preliminary/final plat for the proposed Records East Subdivision, three commercial lots on 23.6 acres by Developers Diversified Realty
Corporation on the southeast corner of Records Drive and Fairview Avenue and ask that the attorney prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the – have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and approve the preliminary plat for proposed Records East
Subdivision, three commercial lots of 23.6 acres by Developers Diversified Realty Corp. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED
Item 16. Public Hearing: PP 00-016 Request for preliminary plat for 45 building lots on 8.25 acres for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood/D.W., Inc., - west of Eagle Road
between Overland and east of Victory:
Item 17. Public Hearing: PP 00-003 Request for preliminary plat for Woodbridge Subdivision of 164 lots on 50.9 acres by Woodbridge Community, LLC – east side of South Locust Grove Road
¼ mile south of Franklin Road:
Item N. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 99-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres to R-8 for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood / D.W., Inc. – west
of Eagle Road between Overland and east Victory:
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. We probably need to go back and do a continued public hearing on Items 16 and 17 to fulfill the legal requirements there, so I would make a motion that we continue
the public hearings on Items 16 and 17 for the preliminary plat for Woodhaven Subdivision and the annexation for Woodhaven Subdivision. Sixteen and seventeen.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made that we continue the public hearing on Item 16 which is the preliminary plat for Woodhaven Subdivision and also the request for annexation and zoning on the Woodhaven
Subdivision as well as the No. 17, the public hearing for Woodhaven Subdivision.
Bird: I second it.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded. That was – Item N. Okay. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 19. Public Hearing: VAR 00-002 Request for a sign variance allowing a directional to be placed off premise at the north side of the entrance on Meridian Road by Home Federal:
Corrie: Item No. 19 is a request for a sign variance allowing a directional to be placed off premises at the north side of the entrance on Meridian Road by Home Federal.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would request that I step down for this. You see the applicant, you’ll know exactly why.
Corrie: Permission granted. Okay. I’ll open the public hearing and invite the staff comments first.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Mayor and Council, here’s the proposed location. Franklin Road and Meridian Road. The purpose being that the site technically for the proposed sign is Meridian
running along the west boundary of this site. There is a lot line which creates two separate lots, functionally, because of ACHD’s requirement to offset the driveway from the intersection.
They are required to put their entrance drive to this site down here. The proposed directional sign would be here, and that would require a variance because of the off-premise sign.
Technically it is an off-premise sign, but functionally it is part of the same site. That is the reason for the application. As long as the sign’s kept out of the right-
of-way and less than three feet to keep the clear vision triangle open, staff supports it.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. It’s a public hearing. Is the – silly asking this question, but the applicant’s representative here this evening?
Anderson: Debbie Anderson, Idaho Electric Signs, 6528 Supply Way. The directional that we are proposing is less then three feet. We do meet that criteria. Basically, it’s a technicality.
The area where we are proposing the installation of that sign is to be maintained by Home Federal, and it was a requirement by ACHD that they have their entrance this far out of the
property. We’re also trying to minimize some of the incoming traffic off of Franklin Road. The drive-thru actually faces toward Franklin Road, so we will have traffic crossing there,
so we’re hoping to minimize a little bit of the incoming traffic and bring it around so that they can go up and around the property into the drive-thru and we’re not crossing so much
of the traffic that way. We believe that we do meet all these specifications other than the fact that we are technically an off-premise sign.
Corrie: Questions of Council?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this time? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item 19.
McCandless: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on the request for sign variance on No. 19. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Thank you. Council. Questions, discussion?
McCandless: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion for the request for sign variance allowing the directional to be placed off premise on the north side of the entrance on Meridian Road by Home Federal.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that we approve the sign variance allowing a directional to be placed off premise at the north side of the entrance on Meridian Road by Home Federal and for
the attorney to draw up the proper papers.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion is then made to approve the request for sign variance by Home Federal. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council President, if you would be so kind as to do No. 20 for me, I’m going to leave the room for a minute.
Council President Keith Bird presides over meeting. (Mayor Corrie steps away from meeting.)
Item 20. Public Hearing: VAC 00-001 Request for vacation of 10-foot wide utility and drainage easement centered on lot line common to Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, Commerce Park Subdivision
located ¼ mile east of Eagle Road on Commercial Court by 4M Leasing/Canvest:
Bird: No problem. Public hearing, request for vacation of 10-foot wide utility and drainage easement centered on ot line common to Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, Commerce Park Subdivision
located ¼ mile east of Eagle Road on Commercial Court by 4M Leasing / Canvest. Staff, please.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Council, this arrow is pointing to the lot line subject. This is the Nelson McAlvain warehouse that currently sits on the east lot. They are proposing to put an
addition onto their building which would actually extend over the lot line. In order to do that, they need a lot line adjustment. To do a lot line adjustment, they need to vacate the
easement. Planning and Zoning Commission has the recommendation before you dated February 22nd which we ask to be incorporated.
Bird: Okay. Anybody from the public? The developer?
Washburn: Jim Washburn, Hubble Engineering, 9550 Bethel Court. I don’t have any statements. If there’s any questions?
Bird: Council have any questions for him? Okay.
DeWeerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Bird: Do I have a second?
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Okay. It’s been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Bird: Okay. Council, anymore discussion? If not, I’d entertain a motion.
DeWeerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the request for vacation of a 10-foot wide utility and drainage easement centered on the lot line common to Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, Commerce
Park Subdivision by 4M Leasing / Canvest and for the city attorney to draw up the appropriate paperwork.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Any discussion? We’ve got a motion and a second there. We’ll have roll-call vote. Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Mayor Corrie returns (Council President Keith Bird steps down from presiding over the meeting)
Bird: Mayor, I’ll let you have it back. Thank you.
Item 21. Public Hearing: VAC 00-002 Request for vacation of two 6-foot easements, north/south and east/west, by Hawkins Smith – northwest corner of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Corrie: Item No. 21 is a public hearing, request for vacation of two 6-foot easements, north/south and east/west by Hawkins Smith, northwest corner of Fairview and Locust Grove. At
this time, I’ll open the public hearing and invite staff comments first.
Hawkins-Clark: Mayor, Council, again, the similar situation. There are existing four lots, and in order to get the configuration for the proposed Walgreen’s site, this is the existing
survey here on the screen which shows a fairly standard quadrant configuration. I apologize; I don’t have a copy of their proposed lot line adjustment, but more or less, they’re talking
about shifting this north/south line over. They’re talking about shifting this east/west line south to create a lot here which would be the largest for the Walgreen’s, will remain to
be four lots. In order to do that, there are existing easements here, and that’s the request for the
vacation that is before you, and there is a recommendation dated February 25th that we ask to be incorporated.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening?
Boyle: Clinton Boyle representing Hawkins Smith Developers, 8645 West Franklin Road. Mayor and City Council, I appreciate you hearing this item tonight and staying up at the late hour
of 11:00 to hear it. I just have to state that we agree with the staff comments on this simply vacating some existing utility easements that traverse through the middle of the site
to accommodate the infamous or famous or whatever you want to call it, Walgreen’s project that has been before you in the past. If there’s any questions, I’ll answer those.
Corrie: Questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
McCandless: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony on Item No. 21, request for vacation? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the public
hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 21. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion if there’s no other discussion on the request for vacation.
DeWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request for vacation of two 6-foot easements, north/south and east/west, by Hawkins Smith and incorporate the staff comments and the recommendations
by Planning and Zoning and ask the attorney to draw up the – do we have Findings? Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. The appropriate paperwork.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the request for the vacation of the two 6-foot easements, north/south and east/west, by Hawkins Smith and to include the staff comments,
Planning and Zoning comments and have the
attorney draw up the proper papers. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 22. Water / Sewer / Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Now we have water, sewer and trash delinquencies. Mr. Clerk, I didn’t notice anything in the Consent Agenda to approve the bills. There was a –
Bird: Yes. It’s No. –
Corrie: I stand corrected. Thank you. Okay. This is to inform you in writing, if you choose to, you have the right to a predetermination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 7, 2000,
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 March 7, 2000, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water and sewer delinquency?
No response. They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they
appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $39,343.85. Council, I’ll entertain a motion to approve the delinquency turn-off schedule list.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’d make a motion that we approve the water delinquency turn-off list schedule for March 7, 2000.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the delinquency turn-off list schedule for March 7, 2000. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 23. Department Reports
City Engineer- Gary Smith:
1. Proposed “Construction, Operation and Maintenance Agreement” between Gemtone, Inc. and the Settlers Irrigation District:
Corrie: Department Reports, City Engineer, Gary Smith.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, two items. The first is a proposed “Construction, Operation and Maintenance Agreement” between Gemtone, Inc. and Settler’s Irrigation District.
This concerns a pressurized irrigation system pump station that they will be constructing, the developer of Gemtone will be constructing to provide irrigation water to Gemtone No. 2,
3 and 4. Previous to this request, the City of Meridian, you approved an easement for Gemtone to construct a pump station on the access to a piece of ground that we have for well No.
16, and –
*** End of Side 4 ***
-- agreement since we granted them or granted the developer the easement to construct the pump station. I don’t have any other comments.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, has Bill Nichols seen it? I know Eric hasn’t, but –
Smith: I don’t know. I transmitted it over for him to take a look at it, and I don’t know whether he has or not.
Bird: Is this kind of a standard agreement that we’ve done before, Gary?
Smith: Never seen one. We haven’t done this before.
Bird: We never have? Okay.
Smith: We haven’t had an occasion to do it before, I should say.
Bird: Is it going to hurt if we set this back two weeks and let Eric look at it and make sure it’s okay for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest?
Smith: I don’t think so, Councilman Bird. I think that they –
Anderson: Or we pass it subject to review by the attorney.
Bird: That’s a good idea. Let’s do that. Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve the “Construction Operation Maintenance Agreement” with Gemtone, Inc. and the Settler’s Irrigation
District upon approval by the City Attorney and for the mayor to sign and the clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the proposed “Construction Operation Maintenance Agreement’ between Gemtone, Inc. and the Settler’s Irrigation District with the condition
of approval of the City Attorney
and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
2. Request of Change Order No. 2 for the wastewater treatment plant:
Smith: Thank you. The second item I have is a request for Change Order No. 2 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant digester clarifier facility project. (inaudible) with our design engineer,
Keller Associates, is here this evening, and Dennis will be happy to answer any questions you might have on the items that are being requested for change order. The total amount of the
change order request is an increase of $13,062.75 and an increase of three days in time schedule.
Anderson: What’s the total, Gary?
Bird: $13,062.75. I want you to look out at that big of job and look at $24,672 in change orders; something about 8/10 of a percent of the total for change orders? I think the designer
and our staff, Brad and Gary, and the builder needs to be complimented. This is fantastic when you have this large of a job and only have that kind of a change to change orders. I’ve
seen the billing come through this morning, Gary and Brad had taken me through this, and I’m just – the fire station went the same way, and I think it just – we had very little change
orders, and you get jobs like that, it just makes it go so much better to not have a whole bunch of change orders. I sure appreciate it as a citizen of the City of Meridian.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $13,062.75 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant digester and clarifier facilities.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded that we approve the amount of $13,062.75 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant digester and clarifier facility Change Order No. 2. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Smith: Thank you. That’s all I have unless you have any questions of me on anything.
Corrie: I’m going to ask Bill to ask a question of the Council. Bill, will you kind of – then we’ll do Items S and J that was pulled off, and then we’ll be (inaudible).
Gordon: I guess my question is where do I go from here. Were you pleased? Were you satisfied? Were you astounded? Are you mad? The Design Committee was – they didn’t – I think they
kind of expected you guys to grill them and line them up against a wall where you could have a shot at them, and they – it was kind of a letdown for them to be not quizzed, and I assured
them that was not the problem. I think the architects answered all the questions. They were ready for you guys. I don’t know if they did any practicing or what, and they all left
word they want me to call them tonight when this is all over with to find out what’s next. I guess that’s where I’m at.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, as one Councilman, I would say we need to get on with – and I don’t know how we can do this. I would hope that we would be able to attain the services of the architects
that have gotten us to this point to do the finals. I would like to see that. I think we can get the financing. The price didn’t shock me at all. In fact, it was -- $20 a square foot
cheaper than I thought it’d come in at. I think that we need to get a construction manager on within a couple of months. He’ll save us lots of money because he’ll help with the architects,
and he’ll take all the – he or she – anyway, that’s my opinion. I would like to go on forward, and that leaves it up to us to find the financing, and we’ll do that. I believe we need
it. There’s no question about the necessity. Now, how about the ground?
Gordon: I talked to Dave Williams today, and – I knew that question was going to come up. The seller has agreed to everything that you guys have proposed. The only thing that he’s
looking at changing is that canal that cuts across that property, they’re considering relocating that canal now because it – when it crosses a road, it just takes one corner off one
of his lots and is going to cause problems for him trying to sell that lot or get it so that he can use all that property. He’s looking at relocating it along the back property line
and then come straight across and go right up the property line so he doesn’t lose any property. Other than that, everything is moving right along. He’s got Gary Lee from one of the
architectural firms that does their work. He’ll have the estimate on the road for you guys early part of next week long before the 21st date that was requested. He said it’s coming
in less than what they anticipated. So, it’s all moved, a go, they like what they see on the building, and the seller’s still anxious to sell us the land.
Anderson: On that canal, Bill, if he wants to relocate that, from the looks at the way that thing crosses our property, he’s going to want to locate it back at the start of the piece
of property we want to buy from him, too; is that correct?
Gordon: Yes.
Anderson: Otherwise, he’s got to take it across the front of his property. SO I mean, if the canal where it’s at really doesn’t bother us at all, so I mean, is he willing to pay for
the relocation of that on the piece of property that we’re talking
about buying, or is he wanting us to pick up the tab of relocating that to help him out, too?
Gordon: I knew somebody was going to ask that question, so I asked it, and he said no, the seller is –- he’s looking at the property across the road there. The way the canal is now,
it’s not sellable. He needs to re-route that before, and that’s what he’s looking at now is the cost. He would foot the entire bill on that. It would be a contingency of the sale.
It – we had talked about that was going to have to be done at a later date anyway if we expanded or if we wanted to put something else out there. If he’s going to do that now, that
would help. But he’s going to pay.
Corrie: South side and come north – property line?
Gordon: Right.
Anderson: As far as a comment about what we saw on the conceptual drawings tonight, I was very impressed. It looked like there had been a lot of thought and hard work went into it
on everybody’s part. That was a – really squinting trying to see some of that stuff. Does he have some smaller drawings that –
Bird: You got a packet, Ron.
Gordon: Yeah. The fold-outs.
Bird: Ron, I got a question for you. How did you go with ZGA, you hired them to do the conceptual on the fire and they just kept right on drawing the thing – how’d we do that?
Anderson: For services like that, you have to –
Bird: We have to get a bid, don’t we?
Anderson: No, you don’t. You qualify somebody based off of their expertise and stuff like that.
Bird: Well, that’s what we did –
Anderson: That’s what you’ve done already –
Bird: -- already, so we can just continue them on?
Anderson: So if you like that company and the work they’ve done, you can just continue right on with that.
Bird: Is that satisfactory with you, Chief?
Gordon: Extremely so. These guys have been really a pleasure to work with. They’re reliable, knowledgeable.
Anderson: I’m still a little bit pessimistic that we’re not going to meet the timeframe that they’re talking about, and even they talked about. That could be some problems. All the
approvals and everything slows that up. I think, realistically, we’re looking at a two-year deal to get it done, not necessarily a year and-a-half. I think we may need another six
months behind what they’re projecting.
DeWeerd: However it works out is –
Gordon: They don’t see any problems with the dates they gave you.
Anderson: They haven’t taken anything before our P & Z and Building Department.
Gordon: Steve Simmons said that they would even draw up the RFPs for the construction manager for us, no charge, to get that thing moving if that’s what we wanted him to do.
Bird: I think we need to discuss this. We’ve got a month or so to do that. I think we need to have a, truthfully, an executive session with the Council and with Steve and yourself,
and decide if that’s the way we want to go. I’m just one person and I feel that on this large of job that I’d like some other input on a construction manager.
Anderson: My other issue, too, is again funding. I’d like to sit down with, number one, we need to have the person who did our audit go over the audit with us and then we need to go
through the finances and then figure out where we’re at. I, too, would like to have an executive session and maybe discuss finances and a couple of other issues.
Bird: We can do that maybe the 21st during the regular Council meeting.
McCandless: May I ask a question? Since I served on that Committee, and since I’m so close to the whole thing and the whole project, and since I’m the Police Liaison, should I excuse
myself from any of this?
Bird: No.
McCandless: Okay. I won’t, then. I just thought I’d ask.
Corrie: Okay, Bill, if you would get everybody together, then we’ll do an executive session on the 21st. Is that what you want to do?
Bird: I think –
Corrie: I’d like to know where this is coming from, the money. I know you’ve got ideas and I don’t question it, but I’d just like to know what it is.
Bird: I’ve got an idea.
deWeerd: Me, too.
Anderson: I guess what I’m envisioning in that executive session is maybe Janice for finance purposes, and Bill to represent the Police Department and the city counsel.
Bird: That’s great.
Corrie: So I’ll arrange it for those three to be there.
Gordon: That’s for the financing? DO you want me to go ahead and get them started on the plans? Get the contract drawn up? I was thinking maybe to go ahead and tell them to give
us a proposal on what they’re going to charge.
Anderson: That’s the next step.
Gordon: Okay, I’ll bring that before you guys. Did everybody see the bill that they gave us for the work so far?
Bird: No. I don’t know why I got the bill. It was in my – a letter in there addressed to me.
Gordon: We had three bids, and it was $23,000, $18,000 and then these folks was not an hourly rate not to exceed $10,000. Their bill came in at $5,300 for everything that they’ve done
so far. I’d say that’s considerably less than what we were looking at.
Bird: They’ve done a lot of public safety buildings all over the country.
Item S. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Adult Entertainment Ordinance
Corrie: Okay, Bill. You’ve got it. Item No. S which is the Findings and Conclusions of the adult entertainment ordinance. Tammy asked to have pulled off and – Tammy, questions?
DeWeerd: Well, just back to my original comment when these Findings were ordered and we were told that we could change them. At this point, I would like to strike on Page 2 the RSC
and the C-G and leave only the I-L zone.
Bird: What? Where at, Tammy?
DeWeerd: Page 2, the last sentence on –
Bird: Oh, the RSC.
DeWeerd: That the I-L zone should be the only zone that this is allowed in.
Bird: As a Conditional Use?
DeWeerd: As anything.
Bird: I don’t know if that’s – just a second. I don’t know if that’s going to change that. It might not be the right wording.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Mr. Attorney, I don’t know if we can do that or not. It was a public hearing and we made the recommendations in the public hearing. I like her idea, I have no problems with
it, I just wonder if we can do it.
Rossman: At the public hearing, the only discussion was whether or not – well, the proposal was that it be limited to these three zones?
Bird: Right, on Conditional Use.
Rossman: I’d have to talk to Bill who was present at that hearing, but my initial impression was that if all three were addressed, I’m not sure that you would be restricted from cutting
it back to just the I-L as long as all those zones were discussed and there was full opportunity for the public to testify with regard to all three of them.
Corrie: Well, I have no problem with RSC and C-G, getting them out of there because I don’t want those in a shopping center.
Rossman: Let me talk to Bill and, if necessary, review the minutes, and we’ll – I can have an answer for you. I can’t necessarily right now.
DeWeerd: Okay.
Corrie: Table that one and then we’ll get back and put it on the Consent Agenda on the 21st? Those two stricken out and just the I-L. The motion? He’s going to
look at the whole thing. Okay. That takes care of your question? Thank you. I need a motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we table the Item No. S, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the adult entertainment ordinance relating to zoning schedule to March 21st, 2000.
DeWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table Item No. 2, Findings on the adult entertainment ordinance to 3/21/2000. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; deWeerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item J. Tabled from February 15, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 81,000 s.f. mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland
Mini Storage Subdivision by Overland Mini Storage, LLC – 1230 East Overland Road:
Corrie: The last item is J, this is the CUP for the mini-storage facility on Lot 2 of proposed Overland Mini Storage Subdivision. Staff, I believe we had a comment on that .one.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, thank you, Mayor. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, there are two items that have come up that I wanted to draw to your attention for change. One of
them is fairly insignificant. I think the other one maybe deserves some discussion. 1.6 talks about the need for an off-premise sign requiring a variance, so we just need to require
that. The applicant has agreed to put the sign on – they want to relocate it. They don’t want to go with the variance. They want to relocate the sign to put it on their legal parcel.
So this – that needs to be addressed. Item 1.14, the way that the Planning and Zoning Commission saw this site plan, and I – I’m sorry. I haven’t seen the packet, so I’m not aware
of – is there a landscape plan for Overland Mini Storage in your packets? It’s on an 11 x 17.
Bird: It was in the previous one. I’ve got it somewhere, but I’m not going to dig through it.
Hawkins-Clark: yeah. We don’t have it, but basically if you recall, there’s – the site is located on the north side of Overland, and the Nine Mile Drain actually borders it on the
north. They were required to put trees around the entire perimeter of the project. That was Condition 1.14 of the Findings. At least 35
feet on center, and there’s a sewer easement that runs along that Nine Mile that was not incorporated; so, in other words, they’re going to have to remove all the trees out of that sewer
easement which means that there will be no trees, no buffering along the north side of that project. So I guess it means that City Council either needs to one, require that the trees
be placed in a new landscape buffer that is outside of the sewer easement which we would see the impact of that would be reducing the building sizes. Would you like me to bring one
of them up if you don’t have them? I can do that. So that’s a modified plan there; the landscape plan. The result is whether – the staff would like to see buffer aroudn this. When
you’re driving down I-84, you’ve got those storage units smoewhat buffered from I-84. The way that it’s prposed, as you can see, it’s just landscape on the two sides on the west and
the south. Either they need to reduce the size of the buildings, they can put the trees still aroudn the perimeter, but they’re still going to have to put them outside of that sewer
easement or, two, just state that the submitted landcape plan is adequaste which is ladnscaping on two sides and then strike this No.1 .14 from the Findings. SO those are the – in terms
of what’s proposed, I understand it’s not public hearing, it’s just the Findings of Fact. Bob Unger from Pinnacle Engineers is here. I guess it would require a re-opening of the hearing
to get that to take place, but that’s – for staff, that’s what we see as needing to happen, and that, obviously, affects the developement agreement because that means those conditions
would need to be reflected in the new development agreement, and it would also reflect the ordinance which is the other two items that you shifted tonight.
Anderseon: mr. Mayor, Brad, looking at this plot plan that you have the Mayor, is this Nine Mile Drain here? And if the freeway’s out here, then isn’t – there’s a piece of property
there that something else is going to be developed on, right?
Hawkins-Smith: That’s correct.
Anderson: So the back of htis isn’t actually, long-term, going to be visible from the freeway. Whatever gets built back behind here would be what’s visible from the freeway, isn’t
it?
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Depending on what’s there. It’s an R-T now. That’s the site that the Sundance Apartments, the 300 units came through a couple months ago, and was denied. Zoned
R-T still. It’s mixed use in the Comp Plan. It could be that there is actually four different parcels in there, but you’re right. Depending on how it would be laid out, it could provide
some screening.
Anderson: Is there a fence that goes around that now? A proposed fence?
Hawkins-Clark: No. Well, around your project, yes. I thought you meant existing.
Anderson: What kind of fence is it?
Hawkins-Clark: It’s a chain-link.
Anderson: So it wouldn’t do any screening? Put the litlte slats in it or smoething?
Corrie: Okay. What’s Council’s pleasure? Do you want to have staff go back with the developer or do you want to go ahead with (inaudible) take chances on the –
Hawkins-Clark: I would point out, Shari did make comment on this even thought she is out of the office. She feels that there – unless perimeter can be put around, it’s a significant
modification and would need to be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess I kind of feel this is like one of those issues somewhere that we had earlier tonight with the other subdivision that, again, this is something that the
devleoper and staff have not spent enought time working out the details and it’s coming to us before it should. I would recommend tabling and telling staff and the developer hammer
it out. So we’re not debating these things at the City Council meeting.
Bird: Is that a motion, Councilman?
Anderson: I would make it that way.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Corrie: We’ve got a motion before the Council. Any discussion? Evidently Bob has something to say. The night is – it’s not a public hearing. Can we hear from what he has to say
about that? He’s the developer. I don’t know –
Bird: I think we can, Mayor.
Corrie: -- if we can do that or not. I don’t think we can.
Rossman: You can’t take testimony. I guess if he has argument or opposition about something, that’s fine. But he certainly can’t offer anything that would be testimony that would
be included in the record and would affect any determination that you woul dmake. Okay. I don’t have a problem with it.
Corrie: I just don’t want to jeopardize the whole thing.
Bird: Just make sure you state it’s a comment.
Unger: I understand. Bob Unger. Actually, we have two things here. We have J and we have No. 3. This was the Ordinance. I guess what I want to point out to you folks is that on
February 15 you tabled thse items because of a problem with the landscaping; apparently this problem. I tried to contact Shari Stiles on two occasions, no response from her to find
out what the problem was. Finally, I got hold of some of the other staff members, they indicated what they thought the problem was. So I tried to get together with staff to find out
what the problem was, how to resolve the problem, what we need to do. I did not get cooperation to do that. Today at 4:00, I was informed by Steve, Planning staff, that, well, you
still have this issue that you’re going to have to address this evening at the hearing. Here I am on the Consent Agenda, and I can’t say anything. I get tabled to the last two items
of the agenda. I’m not getting cooperation. We’ve got a development agreement that’s been prepared and signed. How did we get this far with this issue? How did we get this far with
this landscaping issue when staff had the landscaping plan, the conditonial approval that we had to do the perimeter landscaping. We didn’t know the 50-foot easement for the sewer was
there until after we started – met with staff on puting in the improvements and whatnot. Now we find out there’s a 50-foot easement, and then we’re told we can’t put anything within
that easement. If we could put something – a five-foot strip along the northern portion of that easement, we could get trees in to comply. The only other way was – we would have to
reduce everything else. So we’re trying to comply. We’re trying to work with staff, and we’re not getting cooperation. We’re hearing at the last minute such as the 15th when we originally
tabled, we didn’t know there was a problem until I got to the meeting that night and since I had a later item on the agenda, I didn’t even show up for the Consent Agenda, and Shari says
you’ve been tabled because of landscaping and we’ll have to talk about that later. But nothing ever happened. Here we are, we’re getting tabled again. My clients are really under
the gun, and I’d love to meet with staff and work this thing out, but right now it’s – Shari’s out of town or she’s gone for a couple of weeks and can’t work with her. You know, we’d
like to cooperate, we’d like to help out. If we can come up with some alternative way, great. But let’s get some direction to staff to meet with us ASAP. We’re trying to get our final
plat through here, hopefully onthe agenda for the 21st, but I still have these issues out here. If we can get them all together and get them all done on the 21st, I’m a happy camper.
So, please, help us out and give us some direction. Give somebody some direction, and let’s move forward, please. Thanks.
Corrie: Brad, what about that?
Hawkins-Clark: Easements are a matter of public record. Our opinion is it’s the developer’s job to go and find out where those easements are. Staff has got a lot of applications coming
through us. We can’t take every single one of them when it comes in and verify every single little easemnt that’s out there. We need to have them pointed out on the plans that are
submitted to us. In this case, it comes out as policy. We’re not going to plant trees in sewer easements. We still
feel like it’s still important for them to comply with what Planning and Zoning Commission recommended: perimeter landscaping. I guess that’s what it comes down to.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Brad, I’ve got a – I realize you’re very busy and stuff, but this was turned down for this simple fact that the 22nd – the 15th of February and we didn’t – I don’t
know if Bob tried to get hold of you guys or what the deal is. I don’t know if there was some correspondence sent out from your office or what telling them they had been turned down
and the reason they had – we had to table it was because we were short this which I would think would be the proper steps to take. If we table it tonight, we better see some action
by the 22nd on both people’s parts.
Hawkins-Clark: Understood.
Corrie: Can we do it? Brad, do you think you can do it? Can you get it together?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, Steve’s actually been the one working with him, but I’ll certainly pass it on.
Corrie: Okay. That being the case, let’s – Council people like to do. Any other discussion? Then I’ll entertain a motion, Mr. Bird, to table these two items until the 21st and have
it –
Bird: I think Ron already made it. I’ll second it. Ron already made a motion.
Corrie: I’m sorry. You did?
Anderson: I think I did.
Corrie: The motion is made to table Item J and 3 until the 21st of March whcih gives time for the developer and staff to get together and take care of the quetsions on the landscaping.
Any fruther dsicsusion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Well, that takes care of them all. I wish everybody pleasant dreams tonight. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: So moved.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:44 P.M.
(TAPE OF PROCEEDINGS ON FILE)
APPROVED
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK