HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 03-21Meridian City Council Meeting March 21, 2000
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members present: Bob Corrie, Tammy deWeerd, Ron Anderson, Cherie McCandless, Keith Bird.
Others present: Bill Nichols, Gary Smith, Steve Siddoway, Bill Gigray, ken Bowers, Will Berg, Tom Kuntz, Keith Borup.
Item A. Approve minutes of March 7, 2000, Special Pre-Council meeting:
Item B. Approve minutes of March 7, 2000, City Council meeting:
Item C. Continued from March 7, 2000: Findings of Fact 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 D. Tabled from March 7, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Adult Entertainment Ordinance relating to zoning schedule:
Item E. Tabled from March 7, 2000: Findings of Fact 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 F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-005 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Papa John’s Pizza in an L-O zone for a take-out, delivery and eating establishment
by Cole Associates Architects – 1580 West 4th Street, Suite 103:
Item I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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 Avenue:
Item J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-007 Request for daycare group with 6-12 kids in an R-8 zone by Anna Kukay – 2512 E. Clarene:
Item K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-001 Request for variance to allow building height of 60 feet in a C-G zone for United Heritage Corporate Headquarters by BRS
Architects:
Item L. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: PFP 00-001 Request for preliminary/final plat for proposed Records East Subdivision, three commercial lots on 23.6 acres by Developers
Diversified Realty Corporation – southeast corner of Records Drive and Fairview Avenue:
Item M. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item N. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: VAC 00-001 Request for vacation of a 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:
Item O. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: VAC 00-002 Request for vacation of two 6-foot easements, north/south and east/west, by Hawkins Smith Management Co – northwest corner
of Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove:
Item P. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: RZ 99-005 Request for rezone of 7.265 acres from R-18 to R-15 by William and Lucile Leavell for Creekside Arbour Phase II:
Item Q. Development Agreement: RZ 99-005 Request for rezone of 7.265 acres from R-8 to R-15 by William and Lucile Leavell for Creekside Arbour Phase II:
Item R. Development Agreement: 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:
Item S. Development Agreement: St. Luke’s:
Item T. Development Agreement: AZ 99-012 Request for annexation and zoning to C-C of 13.09 acres (Wal-Mart) by Developers Diversified Realty Corporation – 4000 E. Fairview, ½ mile
east of Eagle Road:
Corrie: Okay. I’ll call the regular City Council meeting to order on March 21, 2000. I’ll open the City Council to – for the Consent Agenda and the regular agenda. So we’ll start
with a roll-call vote, Mr. Berg. I want to welcome everybody here this evening. Again, I apologize for the delay that we had tonight. Also, I want to welcome the Scout Troop 198
that’s here with us this evening. Welcome. Council, you have the Consent Agenda, items A through T. What is the pleasure of the Council?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda with the following exceptions: C, that it’s moved to the regular agenda; D has also moved to the regular agenda; E
and I moved to the regular agenda; table O; and omit H and A.
Bird: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I think we also need to add on there that the Council minutes were not available.
Bird: That was Item A.
Anderson: Okay.
Corrie: And also what about Item H? Do we need to strike that?
Bird: She did in her motion.
Corrie: Okay. Council, you’ve heard the request from the Councilwoman. Is there any more discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the changes say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: For the ones in the audience, Item C will be moved to 10; D will be moved to Item 18; and E will be moved to Item 14.
Item 1. Ordinance No. 861: AZ 99-012 Request for annexation and zoning of 13.09 acres (Wal-Mart) by Developers Diversified / Dakota Company:
Corrie: I’ll open the regular agenda. Item 1 is Ordinance request for annexation and zoning of 13.09 acres, Wal-Mart, by Developers Diversified / Dakota Company. Mr. Clerk, what number
will that be?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Ordinance No. 861.
Corrie: 861. All right. If the Clerk will read the Ordinance No. 861 by title only, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council.
ORDINANCE NO. 861, 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 COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT (C-C); 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 AREA TO BE ANNEXED WITH ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AUDITOR, TREASURER AND ASSESSOR, AND THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE
OF IDHO, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE SECTION 50-223 AND SECTION 63-2215.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to hear Ordinance No. 861 read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion from Council on Ordinance
No. 861.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 861 with suspension of the rules for the request and annexation and zoning for (inaudible) 13.09 acres for
Wal-Mart.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Bird to approve Ordinance No. 861 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, abstain; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED
Item 2. Ordinance No. 862: RZ 99-007 Request for rezone by Developers Diversified / Dakota Company (Wal-Mart):
Corrie: Item No. 2, Ordinance No. 862 is a request for rezone by Developers Diversified / Dakota Company for Wal-Mart. Mr. Clerk, if you’ll read Ordinance No. 862 in title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council.
ORDINANCE NO. 862: AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT THE OWNER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HAS MADE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR REAL PROPERTY THAT LIES WITHIN
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FROM I-L (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO C-C (COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT0 AS DEFINED UNDER § 11-2-408b(9) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY
OF MERIDIAN, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID REZONING DESIGNATION TO THE OFFICAL MAPS
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO.
Corrie: Okay. You’ve heard the reading of Ordinance No. 862. Is there anyone who would like to have the Ordinance No. 862 read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion
from Council on Item 2, Ordinance No. 862.
Bird: I move that we pass Ordinance No. 862 with a suspension of rules for the request of rezone by Developers Diversified / Dakota Company, Wal-Mart.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 862 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, abstain; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED
Corrie: In the regular agenda, it shows Ordinance, request of annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres by Walgreen’s. That’s a misprint. We voted on that last time. It was Ordinance No.
859 and it was passed. We will not have that Ordinance.
Item 3. Ordinance No. 863: AZ 99-022 Request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres for Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company:
Corrie: Item No. 3, Ordinance No. 863, request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres for Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company. Clerk, if you will read Ordinance No. 863
by its title.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
ORDINANCE NO. 863: 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 DESGNATED LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT (L-O); AND DECLARING
THAT SAID LAND, BY PROPRE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW, BE A PART OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO REPEALING ALL ORDINANCE,S 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: You’ve hard the reading of Ordinance No. 863 by title only. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance No. 863 read in its entirety? Okay. Hearing
none, I’ll entertain a motion from Council on Ordinance No. 863.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt Ordinance No. 863, a request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres for Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company with suspension of
rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 863 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk .
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Ordinance No. 864: AZ 00-001 Request for annexation and zoning by Robert Glenn:
Corrie: Item No. 4, Ordinance No. 864, request for annexation and zoning by Robert Glenn. Now have Ordinance No. 864 read by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council.
ORDINANCE NO. 864: 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 IFNDING THAT THE
OWNER HAS MADE A REUQEST 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 DIRECING 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: We’ve heard the reading of Ordinance No. 864 by title only. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance No. 864 read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll
entertain a motion from Council on Ordinance No. 864.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt Ordinance No. 864 for request for annexation and zoning by Robert Glenn with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: motion made and seconded to adopt Ordinance 864 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Ordinance No. 865: 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 St. :
Corrie: Item No. 5, Ordinance No. 865, request for rezone of 1.761 acres from R-8 to R-15 to entirely R-15 b Lynd Hoover, 1318 East 4th Street. Mr. Clerk, if you will read Ordinance
No. 865 by title only, please.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council.
ORDINANCE NO. 865: AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT THE OWNER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HAS MADE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR REAL PROPERTY THAT LIES WITHIN
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FROM R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) AND R-15 (MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT0 ZONING DISTRICTS TO ENTIRELY R-15 (MEDIUM-HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) AS DEFINED UNDER MERIDIAN CITY CODE § 11-7-2 E; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO ADD SAID REZONING DESIGNATION TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO.
Corrie: You’ve heard the reading of Ordinance No. 865 by title only. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to have Ordinance 865 read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll
entertain a motion on the Ordinance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we pass Ordinance No. 865, request for rezone of 1.761 acres from R-8 and R-15 to entirely R-15 by Lynd Hoover, 1318 E. 4th Street, and for the Mayor to
sign and the Clerk to attest with a suspension of rules.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 865 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Ordinance No. 866: RZ 99-005 Request for rezone of 7.265 acres from R-8 to R-15 by William and Lucile Leavell for Creekside Arbour Phase II:
Corrie: Item No. 6 is Ordinance No. 866, request for rezone of 7.265 acres from R-8 to R-15 by William and Lucile Leavell for Creekside Arbour Phase II. Mr. Clerk, would you read Ordinance
No. 866 by title only, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council.
ORDINANCE NO. 866: AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT THE OWNER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HAS MADE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR REAL PROPERTY THAT LIES WITHIN
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FROM R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL0 ZONING DISTRICT TO R-15 (MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) AS DEFINED UNDER § 11-2-408B(5) OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ,ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID REZONING DESIGNATION
TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, Idaho.
Corrie: Okay. You’ve heard the reading of Ordinance 866 by title only. Is there anyone that would like to have the Ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a
motion on Ordinance No. 866.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt Ordinance No. 866, request for rezone of 7.265 acres from R-8 to R-15 by William and Lucile Leavell for Creekside Arbour Phase II and for the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have Ordinance No. 866 approved with suspension of rules. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, on Page 1 of that Ordinance do we need to correct those findings where it talks about R-15 to L-O or make a note of that?
Corrie: I think he has the proper one in front of him, right? Changes made?
Anderson: Yes. If we just make a note that finding one on page one should match the summary, it’s a request from R-8 to R-15, not R-15 to L-O.
Corrie: Any further discussion? With that, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7b. Tabled from March 7, 2000: 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,
Inc. – west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview Avenue:
Item 7b. (Item I) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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 Avenue:
Corrie: Item No. 7a, this is a request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed office building and townhouses in an L-O and R-8 zone of five acres by Centers Construction, Inc., west
side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview Avenue. I believe there is also Item I which was also the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, request for annexation and zoning of
5.029 acres from L-O to R-8 by Centers Construction. Okay. Staff, comments first.
Siddoway: Mayor, members of the Council, you have before you on the screen the vicinity map of the area to refresh your memory of the site of the subject parcel is hatched. It’s along
Locust Grove north of Fairview. North of the subject parcel is Gem Park Subdivision. To the west is Meridian Place Subdivision, and to the south in the white is Doris Subdivision currently
in the county. They have submitted building elevations you’ve seen previously. I won’t spend a lot of time with those. I was out on site, took site photos. This is a view of the
site as taken from Locust Grove looking to the west. There are several large trees on this property all of which I believe will be removed as part of this project. This is standing
in the center of the site looking south to Doris Subdivision. Here we have a view looking to the west into Meridian Place Subdivision. You can see – there’s been an issue about easements
several times before. White we were on site, there were children using the site to access due to Chief Joseph. I just thought that was an interesting thing to point out. Turning –
looking a little further northwest, you can see the relationship between the subject parcel and the lots that are in Gem Park Subdivision. There has been some discussion or concern
about the elevations, and you should have in your packets -–you can see a slight rise between Gem Park and this diagram on the left in the proposed Wesley Subdivision on the right.
That existing rise is anywhere from one and-a-half to four feet; you should have a copy of this already submitted to you. Turning and
looking east back toward Locust Grove, this is the view. You can see the trees, ashes and catalpas. At the request of the City Council from the last City Council meeting, staff and
the applicant did meet to resolve the outstanding issues in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and have reached agreement. You should have a copy of that in your packets.
This is the plat that it reflects that agreement. It has a revision date of September 15th, I believe. You – this is a copy of the recommendation to City Council. You will notice
the revised comments note in this area to say that these are the revised – I’m sorry – these are the revised comments that came as a result of the meeting between the staff and the applicant.
I don’t feel a need to go into those changes in any detail unless there are any specific questions from the Council. That’s all I have at this point.
Corrie: Questions from Council?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Steve, was the connection to Doris Subdivision made?
Siddoway: No. They were not able to work out an agreement for public access. The owner of the parcel in Doris Subdivision is willing to do private, gated access, but staff’s feeling
– it’s in – we would like to see that go through, but we feel that if it’s not public access, then forcing Wesley Subdivision to put one that potentially goes nowhere doesn’t make any
sense. You’ll notice No. 1.24 of the recommendation to City Council, we state that during the annexation and zoning hearing for the property, the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed
desire to have a pedestrian easement granted connecting to Doris Subdivision and Meridian Place Subdivision to allow the school children to get to Chief Joseph Elementary without being
forced out onto Locust Grove Road. Staff does recommend that we use easements to the plat if agreement to continue the paths can be reached with the neighboring property owners. That
agreement was not reached as a public access. The neighbor in Doris Subdivision was willing to grant private, gated access that he’d control, but not public access; therefore, we did
not feel that it should be required for the Wesley Subdivision.
deWeerd: One last question, then, are you gaining an additional lot, then, for open space? P & Z had requested two lots. When they came to us, they gave us one. We stated at our
last meeting we’d like to stay with the two.
Siddoway: Okay, I was not informed that the City Council wanted to stay with the two. We did go back and – if I can break for just a second. Mr. Berg, can I get a pointer? That would
help me immensely. Okay, the applicant has given up one lot at this location instead of the two. You will see that there’s a – most of these other buildings are duplex-style townhouses.
This one is only half of one. With the open space here, they did shift – they had 25 feet-wide landscape buffer in here. They were only needed 20 per the Ordinance between the incompatible
adjacent uses, so they shifted that additional five feet to this area is a well. They provided to us calculations which you will find in 1.11 of the recommendation to
city council. They do show that whether you include the net portion of the site that is just R-8 of 4.787 and they’re not including the Locust Grove right-of-way as part of the open
space calculation. They still have 11.36. In our discussions with them, we decided that was meeting the intent of the Ordinance and these comments were based on approval of this plan.
deWeerd: I just have one question. Is it because of the drainage area? Does it need to be in that corner or can it be to the south so that if that property owner ever were to open
it up, then you would have that pathway there and you wouldn’t have to do any modifications? If you just kind of switched that – (inaudible) drainage issue –
Siddoway: Again, I don’t know about the drainage issue. I don’t know if Gary knows of the drainage issue. I do know that it does drain from east to west. Whether it’s on the north
side or the south side of the street there, I don’t think, is a big deal.
deWeerd: Just a question.
Corrie: Any other questions or discussions? Okay. Then I think we need to vote on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the annexation and zoning. Do that one first?
That would be the revised? Take a stab at it there?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess if it’s an option that they could flip-flop that open space to the bottom so that pathway’s still a possibility, if we could leave that at a staff level
working an still be able to pass these Findings, that would be my preference if that’s an option.
Anderson: I didn’t think we were that far off at the last meeting from getting that pathway. I didn’t think there was any problem; it was just a matter of working out the details,
but apparently that didn’t work.
deWeerd: I understand the issue of leaving just a path going nowhere if he doesn’t leave that open, but if you put the open space down there, then you’re not necessarily leaving a path
going nowhere. It’s just open space. So that would be an alternative to having that path there.
Corrie: What you’re saying is to flip-flop the north site to the south site?
Bird: Yeah, there’s 21 and 22 (inaudible).
Corrie: Do you really want to – you lose the open space.
Bird: You’d have to bring your circle down to the south.
deWeerd: And your road would then go with the property, line up.
Corrie: It’s changing the plat, however. You would have to – I would think so. Bill – you’re changing lots and everything else.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, whether or not it constitutes real changes, it’s always the essential question, but if the developer’s here and can comment on the issue,
that might be helpful to the Council.
Corrie: Is the developer here tonight? Could you kind of give us some feelings from your side of it?
Canning: Yes. My name’s Joe Canning, and regarding the original question on which way the property drains, the northwest corner is the low corner of the site. There’s probably more
fall from the east side to the west side than from the south to the north, but definitely it is the low sides, that Lot 18. There’s also an existing storm sewer that runs inside the
property adjacent to that unless property line (inaudible) pathway right in that area right up to that drain, the tiled drain ditch that goes through Gem Park Subdivision. That was
another encroachment, but it’s buried, but it is an encroachment in that park area. That was the reason that 18 was chosen for the open space. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the application for annexation and zoning.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’d make a motion that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the annexation and zoning of 5.029 acres to L-O and R-8 for Centers Construction.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Anderson, is that the revised comments 3-20-00? Revised site plan dated 3-15-00?
Anderson: Yes, it is.
Bird: I’ll second it, then.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit as proposed in the revised edition of 3-20-00 on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I think the current motion is on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with regard to the annexation. The plat issue actually comes up in connection with
the Conditional Use Permit.
Corrie: Oh. You’re right.
Bird: I’ll withdraw my second. We’ve got to take these dates out, don’t we?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I think Mr. Anderson made a motion, Mr. Bird asked him to amend it; if Mr. Bird and Mr. Anderson will agree that we’re just back to the Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the annexation and zoning, I think we’re square.
Bird: I agree.
Anderson: I’ll take it back to my original motion on the approval of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion is made to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, the original Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the application for annexation and zoning of
5.029 acres for Centers Subdivision. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, it needs to be a roll-call vote.
Corrie: It needs to be? On a Conditional Use Permit? Okay. Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now the request for the Conditional Use Permit for proposed office building and townhouses in an L-O and R-8 zone of five acres by Centers Construction, Inc. Your comments
are the same?
Siddoway: I have no further comments than what’s already been stated, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: All right. Any further discussion from Council?
Bird: I have none.
deWeerd: I have none.
Anderson: None.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on the request for the Conditional Use Permit.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit for proposed office building and townhouses in an L-O and R-8 zone of five acres by Centers Construction, Inc., west
side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview Avenue with suspension of rules and to the recommendations from the revised comments of 3-20-00 and the revised site plan of 3-15-00 and
prepare the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to request for the Conditional Use Permit on Item No. 7 and have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law based upon the motion.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I’d like to back up and have the Council – I failed to have them accept the Consent Agenda as revised in the original motion. So if we can get that motion of accepted Consent
Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the revised Consent Agenda from the meeting.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to accept the revised Consent Agenda. Any further discussion? Okay, Mr. Bird, if you can give us a roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Also let the record show to thank the gentleman in the audience for letting us use his laser beam there.
Item 8. Tabled from March 7, 2000: 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,
Inc. – west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview:
Corrie: Item No. 8, this was tabled from March 7, 2000, request for preliminary plat for proposed Wesley Subdivision, 32 townhouse lots and one office lot for 5.029 acres by Centers
Construction, Inc., west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview. Staff, comments?
Siddoway: No further comments – already been proposed, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Any discussion of Council on the preliminary plat? Okay. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the recommendation for request of preliminary plat for proposed Wesley Subdivision.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we request the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law to approve the request for preliminary plat, the one that we just received,
for proposed Wesley Subdivision for 32 townhouse lots and one office lot of 5.029 acres by Centers Construction, Inc., west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the request for the preliminary plat of proposed Wesley Subdivision for 32 townhouse lots and one office lot and for the attorney to draw
up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing: Amendment of Fireworks Ordinance and adoption of new fees:
Corrie: Item No. 9 is a continued public hearing; amendment of Fireworks Ordinance and adoption of new fees. At this time I’ll open, re-open the public hearing, it’s a continued public
hearing and invite staff comments first.
Bowers: Kenny Bowers, Fire Chief, 540 East Franklin. We took the testimony that was presented to you people weeks ago on the Fireworks Ordinance. We updated the definitions of fireworks
to be in line with the state Ordinance. We took out a lot of the definitions basically on some of the fireworks that didn’t exist anymore, updated some of the stuff there. We changed
some stuff on a little bit of who can apply for permits also by the State. We changed the dates when the tents and the booths will need to be torn down after the sale of fireworks;
got them to be the same. Attorney Bill Nichols added a little bit of wording into the insurance requirements. As you can see, it was quite a bit more wording than what the attorney
had before in there on coverage. Page 10, on the Page 10 of the Ordinance, there was quite a concern on who can be in a booth or a tent. We kind of went through and reworded that a
little bit for the purpose of the vendors. I hope that’ll be able to work out with them. If not, the City Council will probably have to decide on an age limit that can be in a booth
that are selling or help selling. That’s kind of a deal for civic groups and stuff for kids that like to do that. We also changed the part where the watchman, watchperson, whatever
you want to call them, is watching the tents and the booths at night. We changed that a little bit. On Page 11 where it talks about the tents and stand sizes, we put in there we basically
left it the same wording with the approval of the Fire Department on the size. N, on Page 11, this is the part that was brought up about no tents or stands shall be erected in a location
where retail sales are not allowed. Basically coming right out of the Ordinance, Planning and Zoning, so really there’s – until that gets changed, there wouldn’t be any way we could
change ours. In talking with Shari, she does not have a problem with the booths and the stands in those areas. Also, on Page 12, there was a concern on where the vendors needed to
keep their records. We reworded that at this time. We hope that’ll work out and help out for them. Does City Council have any questions of the Fire Department at this time?
Corrie: Okay, this is the second draft?
Bowers: This is the second draft, yes.
Corrie: Dated March 15, 2000? That’s the corrected?
Bowers: Yes.
Corrie: Any questions of Council?
Bird: I have none.
Bowers: Okay.
Corrie: Since this is a continued public hearing, is there anyone from the audience that would like to issue testimony on this?
Lee: Bernell Lee, 5660 Becky Drive, Meridian. Mr. Mayor, Council members, on Page 9, I have a question just for clarification, 9B, the part about 100 feet within a gas station, and
I’m just wondering is that the boundary line or the pump itself? I know the old Ordinance said the pump itself. On Page 10E, regarding the fire extinguishers, I would like to have
it delineated there as to dry-type or the choice of dry or wet. I know in the case of where there’s electricity, water’s not acceptable. However, where there is not electricity, water
does a better job. On Page 11, there seems to be a contradiction here between L and No. 2. If we could add an L, no fireworks shall remain unattended at any time regardless of whether
the fireworks stand/tent is open for business or not unless locked or otherwise secured would take that contradiction away between those two. I would also like to thank those people
responsible for doing this work with this Ordinance. A lot of work has gone into it. I think it’s a great piece of work and it’s going to be appreciated on my part. Thank you. Any
questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Anyone else from the audience?
Lund: I’m mark Lund, I reside at 9680 Quail Lane in Bozeman, Montana. I represent R & S Marketing. On Page 11, I’d like to have the same concern with the discrepancy on storage and
in Q1 it does allow that you can –
*** End of Side 1 ***
-- 60 days prior to the season and it describes the storage facility as being (inaudible) fireworks stand or building. In L, by reading it, it says no fireworks may remain unattended
at any time. If you kind of look at those two together, if you were storing 6 days prior to the season with those two, you wouldn’t be able to leave them unattended for that time.
I would like to add now that you can leave the fireworks stand if it’s locked and secure. In that (inaudible) the same mode as Q2 where it says you can store them in the fireworks stand,
temporary shed, trailer, truck or vehicle. That’s going to leave the retailers if he’s got to go away to use the phone, he can at least close his stand down while he uses the phone
and come back. Gives a little latitude. As far as on Page 12, still talking about storage, the State Code allows the jurisdiction can allow storage in an inhabited building with a
one-hour firewall, and I guess for the people that are doing the stands, typically they’re doing one stand as a family project or a civic group trying to earn extra money and a lot of
the times the people store it in their garages. I guess I would like to have that opportunity for the retailers, and I guess my suggestion would be to limit it to an inhabited building,
single-family dwelling with the one-hour firewall. Those would be my two suggestions for the storage. Are there any questions that I can answer? Typically people are storing things
in their garage are probably more flammable than fireworks, and in their boxed containers. It’s pretty hard to set them on fire unless you actually put something ignited to them unlike
if gasoline was in the garage leaking, it’s quite a bit more volatile. Thank you.
Corrie: Questions? Okay. Thank you.
Holgreen: Good evening Mayor and City Council members. My name is Sydney Holgreen and I’m with American Promotional Events from Murray, Utah. I have one simple comment. It is on
Page 4, and this is concerning the applications and the date that we can file for our permits. It’s simple adjustment moving for July 4th selling season, moving that from April 1st
to the 15th and then for December moving from October 1st to October 15th. Not that big of a deal, it just gives everybody a little bit more time for filing deadlines. We don’t know
if that would cause problems for your city or not, but that’s something that we’d like to see. Anyone with questions?
Bird: I have none.
Holgreen: Thank you very much for the changes. This is working out very well for us. Thanks a lot.
Farley: Thank you, Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Jerry Farley and I’m from the state of Washington. Same as last time. I’m here on behalf of some of the fireworks
companies, two of them are here tonight. I wanted to, if I might, make a few other comments about some of the provisions in the Ordinance. This is a substantially improved draft to
be really honest. This is phenomenally better draft. When I say that, I mean not only I think in terms of protecting the public, but also in terms of types of regulations that it proposes
to impose upon the firework retailers. There are, I think, a few additional changes that might be warranted. Some of those are I would think just housekeeping in nature. Some of them
are a little bit more of policy issue. On Page 4 in the Section that is headed C, after the word January 1, I was going to suggest that two words be added. They are “provided that”
simply so that it would read provided that each period requires separate application of permit. I don’t think it really changes much, but I think it makes it read a little bit better.
Sydney’s just talked about the April 1 being changed to April 15 and October 1 being changed to October 15. It’s our belief that later applications, substantially later applications;
those that occur within just a few days of selling season, tend to be made by people who are not necessarily always the best representatives of the fireworks industry. So we like a
selling period – an application period that is 60 days or so in advance of the selling period because that means that people tend to be fairly serious about it and they tend to be more
responsible individuals. The April 1 and October 1 are a little soon because of the cycling in the fireworks business, the way in which they do their business, the 15th – granted, it’s
only two weeks, but it’s a little bit less. It’s still in excess of 60 days. We’d respectfully request those two changes on that page. Then on Page 6 in the section at the bottom
where it says B, this deals with the application for a permit. It says the purpose for which the applicant is primarily existing in which it was organized, well, as you know, sometimes
the applicant can actually be a person. So we thought it might be a good idea if after the word “applicant” if you put it “if other than a natural person” because, obviously, a natural
person can apply for a permit and doesn’t have to say why they’re existing or why they were organized; in fact, to some extent, they – I suppose they may have to ask their parents about
part of that. Then on Page 7, where F near the top, once again, the location of the applicant’s principle and permanent meeting place or places, we thought if you could put it after
the word business the words “if applicable.” And then in H, if the applicant is an entity rather than a sole proprietorship or a natural person, by putting in that “or a natural person”,
you sort of eliminate the problem of – I don’t think any of these are huge, but these are (inaudible) by the way, but it just makes it readable. Then near the bottom, the – in fact,
the last sentence on the last page, it now says that no application shall be granted to an applicant. I think what it should say is no permit shall be granted to an applicant that is
not qualified applicant or a legal entity or is a legal entity whose officers or directors are not qualified. Clearly, you don’t want to – any person can come in and get an
application form, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to grant the application and give them a permit. I did want to also specifically compliment you on the insurance language. I see
a lot of this language around in various states and various jurisdictions. I think that by putting in a (inaudible) based insurance, you have provided for yourselves and for all others
who are going to be potentially involved in bad situation a higher quality of insurance. (inaudible) based insurance is always much better than claims made. I applaud you for that.
Usually those – there are some in the fireworks industry who because they are not, shall we say, responsible operators, sometimes have a hard time getting a (inaudible) based insurance.
That’s another way to make sure that if they’re going to be selling a product they’re going to be there if there’s a legitimate claim. On Page 9, I was going to make a suggestion in
the B there about the middle of the page. If you were to delete the word “station” after “gasoline” and delete the two words “or installation” at the last of that, it would then say
“within 100 feet of any gasoline or flammable liquid dispensing device.” That would make it clear that the pump is where the 100 feet starts. The problem with the gasoline station,
it could be the building, it could be the property. Clearly, where you want to make sure they’re 100 feet away from is the dispensing device. Then in C, the last sentence, no heating
device may be used in a temporary fireworks stand at any time. Respectfully, if you’re going to have a selling season from December 26th, it’s going to be pretty darn cold in there.
But, we thought it should be consistent with something, we’ll get to a little bit later. If you were to put in between the words “no” and “heating” the two words “open-flamed heating
device,” and possibly also add another sentence at the end, “all heating devices shall meet and be used in compliance with City electrical code.” That clearly would allow heating devices
which do not have open flames which have a UR rating and UR instructions and no tipover and so forth, I’m thinking, say, for example, heating device in which there’s water contained
in the pipes and the water is heated and it radiates heat, you clearly can provide heating, but you don’t have to worry about the thing catching fire because they don’t get hot enough
temperature. Then on Page 10, it’s been mentioned once before about the fire extinguishers. Water fire extinguishers are better than dry-chemical for fighting fireworks-based fire
– it’s the fireworks that are being consumed, but if you have electricity, clearly you want a dry-chemical. So we were – I was going to suggest that I like the idea of two fire extinguishers,
at least one of them have to be water and if there is electrical, then, clearly, one has to be dry chemical. That’s how I think that should be written because you want to have dry chemical
there for electrical, but you clearly want to have water for fireworks. With respect to F on that page, I wanted to specifically say I think this is good language, and I appreciate
very much the way in which your staff, your fire department and your City Clerk and your attorney have written that. I think it provides proper supervision but it allows people to go
into the stand. It suggests the right-aged people should be there. There’s always going to be someone who’s 21 in control, and while we know that on occasion, someone can be 45 and
irresponsible, the fact is that if there’s a 21-year-old person there, there’s more likely to be responsible activities. On Page 11, I apologize for – that fire line up
there, no fireworks shall remain unattended at any time, at the end of that sentence I was going to suggest also that you say “unless that it is locked or otherwise secured” because
the gentleman correctly pointed out that if you have fireworks in a facility, you literally could never leave that building unless you put the sprays in. So you couldn’t go to the grocery
store, you couldn’t go to the restaurant, you couldn’t go to church. I know that that’s not really what you mean. You want to make sure that fireworks are properly secured. So I thought
that if you put in “unless locked or otherwise secured” there, then the person can’t leave an open fireworks stand; clearly can’t leave a tent, but could have a security guard there.
On M, at first when I read this yesterday, I was a little unclear what it meant because I wasn’t sure if the approval went to the adequacy of the structure, the way in which it is,
say it’s a tent, the way in which the tent is put up or to the size or other features of the tent. In P, there is specific reference to tents which comply with Article 32 are the only
ones that can be used for sale or storage. We absolutely believe that Article 32 makes sense because, of course, that deals with exit requirements and fire retardant materials and so
forth. In fact, in P there, I was going to suggest in the lot line there where it says “safe and sane” in the re-draft, that should say “non-aerial common fireworks” because, clearly,
that’s one that got missed. The term “safe and sane” doesn’t exist in statute and is nowhere else in the Ordinance, and I know that’s what you meant was the non-aerial common fireworks.
But I was going to respectfully request on M, once again, about the 750, it would be my preference, and I would requires that you say “no stand shall have a floor in excess of 750 s.f.
and all tents shall comply with Article 32.” The effect of that is you could have a tent that’s larger than 750 s.f., but it would comply with Article 32. The reason is the smallest
tent that anybody’s going to use is 40 x 20, so that’s 800 s.f.; it’s already bigger than the 750; therefore, the way this is drafted, the Fire Department would have to approve it when
what you want them to do is make sure the tent is properly installed and has the proper exits and so forth. I would like, respectfully, to suggest 750 s.f. per stand but tents comply
with Article 32. I know that Mr. Lund talked to you very briefly about the one-hour firewall option on Page 12. That is found in the State Statute. It usually says one-hour firewall
and a three-quarter-hour door, and we would respectfully suggest that option be included as well as I’m sure Councilman Anderson and others know, one-hour means that the fire’s going
to burn for an hour before it can get through, and that probably means that somebody’s going to be able to get out. I know there are a lot of concern about fireworks being in a room
in a home or in a garage that’s attached, and I know that’s why it’s not specifically mentioned in here, but if it is in fact a one-hour firewall, that, we believe, should be adequate.
But we would want to make sure that one-hour is in fact a legitimate one-hour and that in fact they’ve not done anything to aggravate the wall to destroy the true one-hour rating.
Then, once again, on that section at the top of Page 12, I was a little unclear about what this means if I may read the phrase, “which is detached from an inhabited building and contains
no open flames including heating and lighting sources.” I had the impression first that you clearly don’t want somebody having a fire in the middle of the room, but what I thought that
it would probably would
mean would be no open-flame heating or lighting sources, and I was going to suggest that you delete the “s” from flames, the comma, and the word “including” and leave the word “and”
after “heating” and put in the word “or” and then it would read “building and contains no open-flamed heating or lighting sources.” I think that is probably what you want it to say,
and that’s what we would like it to say. I have two other – three others, really fast, and I apologize. On the bottom of Page 12 there, where the sentence starts “each permittee shall
be required to retain at the licensed premises while said premises are open or at” I thought you should put in the word “a” - “at a location where they can be readily available to the
Fire Department or Police Department, and then I was going to suggest putting in the phrase “during the selling period allowed by the permit” and then continue on “and at principle place
of business – “ (inaudible) that way the selling period, they could be on the selling premises or the place where they’re readily available and then for a year after that they would
still be available as well at the principle place of business. Otherwise, without that phrase “during the selling period allowed,” it’s unclear whether there is just a year or more
and this one makes sure that when they sell on through July 5th, those records have to be available at one or two places and for a year after that. Quickly, on the top of Page 13, the
last sentence up there says that “conviction, violation of the aforesaid Idaho State Fireworks Act or any of the provisions of this chapter by the permittee or by any of its agents,
employees or officers shall constitute to the cause in and of itself to deny any subsequent application or permit.” The way I read that, if I were the permittee and someone who was
my employee or my agent violated a provision of the Idaho State Fireworks Act or this Ordinance, and I didn’t know about it, I would never be allowed to apply for a fireworks permit
again even if I did know about it and probably would have stopped them from violating if I had known so. I thought it might be a good idea to at least include after the word “officers,”
“with the knowledge of the permittee” so that way they would have the constructive knowledge and in a certain sense, they could have stopped it if they wanted to and chose not to, then
they should really be denied a permit because they have violated the statute and the code and an earlier provisions you have, at this Ordinance, you have a language that says they can
apply for a license if they’ve been convicted of a felony, ever, or in the last ten years a violation of this Ordinance for fire, fraud, or fireworks. So I think – I confess I’m not
an attorney, but it seems to me that without some kind of knowledge of the permittee, there might even be a question of whether or not it could stand a court test. I could be wrong,
but it just seems to me that it’s more fair this way, with my suggestion. Then finally one last comment as if I haven’t taken more of your time than I probably deserve, the date of
effect, the way this is drafted now, we don’t know exactly when you intend to finally enact it, perhaps tonight. I don’t know that your specific Ordinance requirements for publication
and so forth, but this could, in effect, give force before the selling season this year, before the 4th of July, and I don’t think you intended that, and we respectfully ask that you
have an effective date after at least July 12th or so so that you’ve gone through the selling season, you’ve cleaned up your site and you’re thinking prospectively for the selling season
in December. So we were
going to say this Ordinance shall take effect on August 1st, 2000, or something like that so that you don’t have any confusion. You might actually enact an Ordinance, if you did this
without that kind of a situation, you might actually enact a provision in the Ordinance that no one can comply with because the date might have passed by which they would have had to
do something. I want you to know how much I appreciate the work that you’ve done, and I really – your staff has done on this Ordinance. I’ve been very impressed with the openness
and the willingness to talk and to be helpful and to in fact be cooperative, but at the same time protecting the public’s heath and safety. Have to be honest. There are places I have
been where there is not that willingness to be cooperative. So it’s nice to have it happen a few times. I want to make sure that even though I’ve made some suggestions for some substantive
changes, this is one of the best days I’ve seen for a long time and I want to thank you very much. I’d be happy to answer questions or just sit down.
Corrie: Council? Anyone else? Okay. Any questions, answer any questions (inaudible) come up on some of this?
Bowers: Mayor Corrie, City Council members, talking about fire extinguishers, years ago that’s all we had was water fire extinguishers in the booths, and the last few years, most booths
and tents have power in them now, so I kind of think that’s where the power fire extinguishers come in is because every booth and tent has power in them, electricity. Probably just
not to get confused between the fire extinguishers, but we do realize that the water fire extinguishers work much better with the fireworks. The dates, I don’t have a problem changing
there. On the – some of the verbiage in here, that will be up to our attorney to go through some of that very good changes there. We’ll get the safe and sane, that one sentence, we’ll
get that out of there. The pumps or property line, we will check on that. In the past, we’ve just went through the flammable liquid dispensers so we’ll go through that and check for
that. Heating devices, don’t have a problem with that. On Page 11, L and 2, are the ones that we’ve been discussing. Bill and I have discussed this quite often of how we could decipher
between the two. Bill was comfortable with it to go with it just to bring it in front of the Council to see the changes that we would need to put on it, we don’t have a problem with
putting the locked or secured in it. The one-hour firewall in homes, we don’t have any authority in the homes. The Fire Department doesn’t have any authority in the Meridian homes.
That’s kind of why we try to stay away from that part of it. We realize there are storage in homes. We realize that there are one-hour firewalls out there in garages that are real
nice, and one-hour firewalls that are not complete. So that’s one thing we’ll have to look at there. I believe the rest of this, the word change that Bill Nichols would have to go
through and see if it goes through Council okay. The City Council have any questions of the Fire Department?
Bird: Kenny, on Page 9D, your 30-inches wide is not going – it needs to be at least 32 to meet ADA and any building that you have open like that you’re going
to have to have some kind of ADA. That needs to be changed to 32 inches wide instead of 30-inch wide doors.
Bowers: Okay. We’ll check into that. The State’s probably got the same thing, probably. It needs to be changed, then. Thank you, Councilman Bird. Any other questions or comments?
I’m really pleased that the people, the vendors and everybody’s been able to come in and give their support and the changes to you guys. Appreciate you guys taking the time.
Corrie: Any further comments from Council? Questions? Okay. Pretty well satisfied with it, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we close the public hearing.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s made to close the public hearing. Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. We’ve heard a lot of new testimony tonight. Some good ideas, some possible changes. I guess at this point to give Kenny a little direction, I would say that
he was making notes and writing some of those, and if he wasn’t, I’ve got some of them written down here for him, but maybe suggest that our Fire Department take this input and decide
which of those thoughts that they may want to incorporate into the Ordinance and maybe bring a copy of this Ordinance back to us before our Strategic Planning Meeting that we could observe
it again, and I would like to take some action on this within the next Council meeting or two. Again, I think some of these ideas have merit and would be good, but let the Fire Department
decide which ones they want to incorporate into them.
Corrie: Council, agree?
Bird: I echo the same thoughts.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Council members, if we could have some direction from the Council as to when this Ordinance would be effective, do you want it before this coming fireworks season
or after?
Anderson: I think I’d like to have a recommendation from the Fire Department, but I kind of envisioned it that it would be in effect before this, myself. I don’t know what Kenny’s
line of thinking was.
Berg: If I may, thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the application deadline right now is April 1st. For any action by the Council would be after that. Requirements of the
applicant to submit the application may be different than what’s required right now by Ordinance of which you approve. It might be a battle to have them re-submit more information after
they submit their application, according to our Ordinance.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, there is an existing permit process now or not?
Corrie: There is.
Nichols: So with the existing permit process, if they had a permit application in place before the permit application process is changed, that application would have to be approved
or denied based upon the existing standards at the time the application was made, not necessarily – you can also include in the Ordinance a provision that the application portion of
it doesn’t become effective until a date certain, but I think you want to – that’s my question: if you want the issues with regard to the stands and the tents and the classification
of the fireworks and insurance requirements in place before the fireworks season, then we need to know that so we can put it together for you and the vendors need to know that. We can
adapt the application process for this particular year or defer one part of it until after July.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess I’d defer that question to Kenny. Do you want to go before the season or after?
Bowers: If we changed the – Mayor Corrie, City Council, if we changed the dates to the 15th, possibly that might get us under the gun.
Corrie: Would that be enough, though, Bill?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I’m not sure that’d be enough time for this year, but we could certainly defer the application part of this or extend it to a later date
for this first year if that was the Council’s choice. We could say May 1st because actually, if you want a 60-day window, May 1st is more than 60 days before the 4th of July, and then
thereafter it would be April 15 or whatever date you set. Maybe you want it to be May 1st – whatever you choose. But, again, Mr. Berg is the one that has the burden of getting these
things on the agenda and getting them published and noticed. We do have, unless there’s an emergency provision in the Ordinance, it would be effective 30 days after passage.
Anderson: I guess my direction would be to push forward with it. Try to get it in place this year.
Bird: It’d be mine, too.
Corrie: I’ve got two (inaudible). How about you two? All right. Then let’s have the attorney – Kenny, you’ll have that ready for us on the 28th of this month? All right. Any further
– we need a –
Bird: We’re going to have a special meeting which I understand we are, but are we going to have a publicized meeting we can enact on it.
Corrie: You can act on it the 28th.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I think there may be some posting requirements and so forth for an Ordinance that we couldn’t actually, the Council could not actually vote
on a proposed Ordinance, but I think as I understand the Council, they want to have the proposed Ordinance with revisions as recommended by Chief Bowers in front of them no later than
next Tuesday, so that it is ready to go.
Corrie: Okay. Very good. Okay. Kenny, you’ve got the marching orders here on that one.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I don’t think the people that testified tonight have any problem with complying with your proposed Ordinance unless there’s something that’s
way out of line that you approve. I don’t see any of them having any problem with that. It’s just a matter of what the law says what we can and can’t do according to what Mr. Nichols
said. They will probably comply because it’s a safety issue and they want what’s best for the people that purchase it as well as the ones that are selling it and supplying.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Clerk, when would be the date that with your posting requirements that we can revisit this?
Berg: Mayor, members of the Council, Council member deWeerd, posting, I think, is just for the regular agenda. We can put it on the regular City Council agenda on the 4th as long as
I have what is going to be voted on when we do the agendas so it’s available to the public. Then after that as far as getting it in the paper, we could have that possibly arranged for
that Friday in the Statesman for a published Ordinance. We’re talking about 30 days in effect as Mr. Nichols said, so that first week of April, we’d have it was approved. I don’t
think I have to do any special postings as long as it’s had a regular meeting other than having the documents that you want to approve available to the public.
deWeerd: Okay. Mr. Mayor, may I make a motion that we continue the public hearing on the amendment of – that we have this on our Consent Agenda for the amendment of the fireworks Ordinance
and adoption of new fees on April 4th? Okay. Then on the regular agenda.
Corrie: Regular agenda for April the 4th? Okay. I have a motion to have it put on the regular agenda for April 4th.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Continued 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 10a. (Item C.) Continued from March 7, 2000: Findings of Fact 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:
Corrie: Item 10 is the continued public hearing on request for preliminary plat for 45 building lots on 8.25 acres, proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood, and also the Consent
Agenda Item No. C is also to be on this agenda. This is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law that’s a request for annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres to R-8 for proposed Woodhaven
Subdivision by Dan Wood. Okay. At this time –
Bird: Mr. Mayor, can we take a little break? I move that we have a little recess.
Corrie: Okay. We’ve got a motion to recess for 10 minutes.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded for a 10-minute recess. We’ll be back at 20 minutes to 10:00. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
Corrie: Item 10 is the continued public hearing, request for preliminary plat for 45 building lots on 8.25 acres for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood, west of Eagle Road between
Overland and East Victory. We’ve also moved that Item C. which is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the annexation
and zoning at the request of Council. They wanted to see what the preliminary plat was and then we’ll enter the public hearing on that one, and then we’ll take the Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law and the annexation first and then the request for preliminary plat. At this time I will re-open the public hearing as to be continued, and staff comments first.
Siddoway: Mayor, City Council, I will direct my comments to both the annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat issues together at once. The hatched area on the screen just to
get you going, this is near the intersection of Eagle and Victory. Hatched area is the area for the proposed Woodhaven Subdivision. To the north of it you have Thousand Springs Village
and wraps around it to the west as well. On the south side you’ve got large one to one and-a-half acre parcels that are currently in the county. The area is mixed/planned residential
in the Comp Plan, previously City Council recommended for zoning of this area, the applicant has requested reconsideration for the R-8 zone that he had requested. This is a view of
the site from the berm at Thousand Springs Village along Eagle Road. The site is this area in here. Now standing in the site looking north to Thousand Springs Village, the fenceline
there. If you look east there is a large grove of Idaho Locust Trees, the last remaining stems of Locust Grove was probably named for, although, it’s on Eagle Road instead of Locust
Grove Road. Looking south you see the residential parcels that are in the county currently zoned R-T and just shifting over a little bit to the right, that’s a continuation of the same
shot looking at the south property line looking southwest. Looking directly west you see the extension of the Thousand Springs Village Subdivision that is behind that fence there.
This is the new revised preliminary plat that is being proposed tonight. They have removed the duplex lot in this corner. The average overall lot size for all 29 single-family homes
is 7900 s.f. which is over the minimum 6500 s.f. that is allowed with an R-8 zoning. Along the southerly boundary, the average for those eight lots is over 9000 s.f. which exceeds the
required minimum for an R-4 zoning. They did change the McDonald Lateral in this location to a common area. They point out in the memo which I believe you have in your packets that
if you are able to extend the lot lines that they are currently showing to include that buffer, those lots would be over 10,400 s.f.. This is a comparison of their original plat on
the bottom showing the number of lots that they had originally proposed as part of their planned development, and the current proposal is above it. Scales are the same and that is all
I have for my presentation.
Corrie: This is a continued public hearing; I’ll invite Mr. Wood or his representatives or anybody in that development.
Wood: My name is Dan Wood. Mayor, members of the Council, I’ve got an aerial photo that I’d like to pass along (inaudible – walked away from microphone) property wasn’t there, so there’s
a little red square there. It kind of shows where his house is approximately at. That’s kind of a – wanted to point
that out to kind of give you the reference. There’s a map next to that that also shows the lot dimension so you can kind of get a closer feel for how deep some of those lots are. Also
what I’ve got here are some pictures – they’re blown up a little bit better than the ones that are (inaudible). Just to kind of give you an idea of what it looks like from my property
looking back towards my neighbors to the south. It shows them quite a bit of their landscaping. Mature – Mr. Young’s property there which is the furthest to the east – excuse me, to
the west. Planning to put a few large trees some years ago, so he’s got quite a buffer right there. He abuts me about 70 feet, as you can see with the proposed plat before you, and
I’ve only got one lot that abuts him right now, and that particular lot is real close to 10,000 s.f. right now without including the 15-foot buffer that is where the McDonald Lateral
is at which I do plan on tiling that ditch. I also plan on putting up a six-foot high wood fence along the ditch road so that hopefully there will be more of a buffer between this also.
I’ve tried to – originally I proposed 45 lots trying to comply with the mixed residential plan in the Comp Plan, I met with staff, we went over it, their interpretation was that something
different than potentially this R-4 that’s been approved pretty much throughout most of all Meridian. So I met with them to different uses, so what I tried to do is come up with the
original plat. He didn’t like that one. So I attempted to change it and went with the straight R-4 or R-8 zone. Since then I’ve also turned around and taken out the duplex lot which
then has increased my lot size closer to the 8000 s.f. that’s required almost to the R-4. In the last meeting, Councilman Anderson said too bad we couldn’t have larger lots to the south
and maybe the smaller lots to the north. Well, that’s what I did. I just turned around and beefed up the lots that are to my south that abut my neighbors and then the smaller lots
are more toward the center and more toward my entrance. The way it works out right now, I think I’ve got over 60 – well, I can’t remember for sure on that. On most of my larger lots
are all abutting either my neighbors to the south or on my west side of my plat. One of the other concerns I guess Mr. Young has brought up is that he’d like to see me be required only
to allow single-levels to the south with that in this case, the neighbors to the south of me are all anyway from 8 to 10 feet higher in elevation than what my proposed Woodhaven shows.
You can look at the pictures I’ve got in there. The ditch is about three feet higher than the ground, and then those properties set up even higher than that. So I can’t see any reason
why I would have to turn around and be restricted to just single-levels because I feel that we’re not going to block them anyway. They’re already up higher than I am. I don’t see any
need to do that, so if the Council feels the same way, the other thing is Mr. Young had also asked that I might turn around and continue –
*** End of Side 2 ***
particular kind. I feel that if he wants to share in the cost of it, then that’s fine. I’d be more than happy to put the wooden one up and meet my obligation to the City. The other
thing, I guess, with my neighbors is you can see from the aerial photo, like in Mr. Young’s case, his lot’s like 350 feet deep. The aerial photo
shows his house is about in the center of that 350-foot lot. Which means that it ends up that he’s got over 150 feet from the back of his house over to his very north boundary on top
of that, I’ve got 15 foot for the ditch rider road or the ditch easement, and then on top of that the minimum setback for the house would be 15, so you’re going to have over 200 feet
difference between him and myself. It sure seems like more than enough adequate for a buffer between the two of us. I guess at that point – any questions?
Bird: I have none.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I just have one. I know the residents have expressed some concern about access to the irrigation. Have you resolved that with them?
Wood: I turned around and talked with Boise Project Board. They are right now part of the district is already covered up. The portion behind Mr. Young to the west of him. They’ve
worked out – I just can’t speak for them, but they’re going to work out some kind of a ditch or another pipe parallel with the ditch that’s – the pipe that’s already there. What they’ve
asked me is when the time came could we work together to put another continuation of that pipe along the side of the pipe that I’m going to put in so that they could get water. The
way the things are going this year, this project won’t be on until fall, so it won’t disrupt their water now, but when the time does come, the irrigation company does have plans for
some kind of a take-out box or something like that so they will still be able to get water out of the ditch.
deWeerd: Okay. This dust abatement was also an issue raised during construction?
Wood: Excuse me?
deWeerd: Dust abatement during construction?
Wood: Usually if – I’ll do everything in my power to keep it down.
deWeerd: They’ll have a number they can call?
Wood: That’s fine. You bet. I think they already know it.
Corrie: All right. Thank you. Anyone else like to issue testimony?
Young: My name is Rex Young, I live at 2950 E. Victory Road in Meridian. I’m not sure exactly what we’re talking about here tonight because last Council meeting, actually, the Council
meeting before, the zoning was approved at R-4, yet, we’ve got a plat plan that’s R-8. We’ve got the one item from the Consent Agenda that’s pushed back, what is it? I can’t come up
with the term. The conclusions of law and so forth, but that’s pushed back and so I don’t know really
– I guess I’ll just start from the first and go through it the way I see it, and, hopefully, I’ll cover everything that needs to be covered. This is the fifth public hearing that I’ve
attended concerning Woodhaven. Three of them have been with Planning and Zoning and now this is the second with the City Council. Before the first public hearing with Planning and
Zoning, the neighbors got together at Mr. Marquart’s house to discuss our concerns with the project. At that meeting, Mr. Wood was invited to attend and we explained to him our concerns.
He was not willing to make any concessions at all at that particular time. We’ve gone through a couple of hearings and then after the last City Council hearing. I approached him out
on the steps in Mr. Marquart’s presence and asked him a couple of questions about the fence and his reply then was I’m not willing to make any concessions now. As I take a look at the
guide that you folks put out, I see the words compromise and this sort of thing, and I don’t really know where this enters in. As far as the plat is concerned, this plat here was developed
for R-8. Most of the lot sizes are not sufficient to meet the R-4 which is what was approved by the City Council on the 15th of February. The home sizes do not meet the minimum requirements
in that you’ve got two homes under 1,100 s.f., three homes under 1,200 s.f., seven homes under 1,300 s.f., and you’ve got 17 homes that are over 1,300 s.f. but it doesn’t say how much
they’re over, and it’s my understanding that in an R-4 zone that you have home sizes that must be at least 1,400 s.f. This plat plan does not provide for transitional lots; policy 6.8U
of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan reads new urban-density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to the existing rural-residential land use shall provide screening and transitional
densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban-level densities and rural-residential densities. The lots to the south are all rural-residential
lots. When I bought mine 30 years ago, it was a rural-residential lot. Conversely, to what staff said, those lots to the south range in size according to what they said, from 1 to
1-1/2 acres lots. The majority of the lots, or at least half of them are two-acre lots. Those lots range in size from 87,120 s.f. down to 43,600 s.f. Now when you look to the west,
that area that was taken in by Thousand Springs Village, they provided transitional lots. Their smallest transitional lot was 12,500 s.f. This is what we’re asking for is transitional
lots at least equal to the smallest lot provided by them. We don’t think that’s unreasonable at all. Now, some people might suggest that transitional lots aren’t appropriate here.
But according to people that offered the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The fencing along McDonald Lateral; I really don’t have a problem with steel posts going in. I don’t have a problem
with that at all. We’ve got a six-foot high solid wooden fence, I would like it to be the same as which covers half the back of my property, but I can live with steel posts. But there’s
another thing that we have asked for in the area of fencing. We have asked that the fence line be built up as necessary so that you’ve got a level fence line that’s at the same height
as the roadway parallels McDonald Lateral. Now, I really don’t think that it would have to be any build-up to speak of, maybe just in a place or two, but I think that is a perfectly
legitimate and logical request. Mr. Wood had some things to say about two-level houses. We would like to see all the houses along the back side of our property, the southern portion
of his, we’d
like to see them single-story houses. Now, when I take a drive over into the subdivision, there’s some homes there that have kind of a second story that’s a loft above the garage that
has a roofline which is really no higher than a single-level home, and I don’t have a problem with that. But when I see those homes that it looks like there’s more floor space on the
top level than there is on the bottom level, then that to me is objectionable. We would respectfully request that those homes along there be restricted to single-level lots. As far
as burning and raising livestock, we’d want to make sure that our ability to burn with appropriate permits and to raise livestock is preserved. Mrs. deWeerd indicated or asked the question
concerning construction control, and I appreciate that very much. During the construction of Thousand Springs Village, there was a significant dust problem, and we would hope that during
the construction of this subdivision that necessary watering could be done of any areas where the earth is disturbed whether that be roadways or fields or whatever to abate that dust.
Also, there’s been significant problems for us homeowners along there with the construction going as late as 10, 11 o’clock at night with the machine noise and the beepers and that
sort of thing, and we think that needs to be controlled. As far as the piping of McDonald Lateral, the thing that we’re asking for there is that we don’t want to be, if you will, fenced
off water when McDonald Lateral is buried. We would ask that Mr. Wood work with the Boise Project Board of Controls so that those systems could be put in, if you will, simultaneously.
Now, essentially what is supposed to happen, and there should be construction start tomorrow to take care of that area to the west, but essentially, I think that when he buried McDonald
Lateral, it will be in a pipe that’s about five feet deep, and when Boise Project puts their line for us homeowners at – supposed to be about a three-foot line with T’s coming off and
pumping station. If I understand it right, when Woodhaven is developed, there will be just another line from the central box that will run to the east which will take care of that
requirement. So if he’ll work with the Boise Project on that, we will be very happy. The property line. The property line always kind of ran the center line of the ditch. With the
ditch being gone, we don’t have a property line anymore. My property runs through the property line. And the legal description provides meets and bounds. Once that McDonald Lateral
is piped, we’d like to see a survey in there so that – and stakings so that we know exactly where the property line is and you can then go out there and tell where the city limits of
Meridian falls too. I think this is something we need. It’s something that we neglected when they put in Thousand Springs Village. We don’ t know exactly where the line is. Now,
I’ve got a brief summary here of our concerns that I’m going to give you. I’ve got one other subject that I want to talk to you about very briefly, and also I think I neglected at the
beginning of this, that my comments pertain to the other property owners to the south unless they make specific comments to the contrary for their particular property, but as far as
what I’ve talked about so far, does anyone have any questions of me?
Corrie: Any questions of Council? Okay.
Young: Okay. The other thing that I’d like to talk about, but I don’t know if it’s appropriate, but I’m going to go forward anyway. Getting ready for the last City Council meeting,
I went in and went through the file and saw in there a letter from Mr. Wood requesting that the decision of 15 February where the property was zoned as R-4 be reconsidered. I went home
and I prepared a letter dated the 2nd of March and hand-delivered that early morning on the 2nd of March voicing my objection to that. I went in a few days later and I noted a letter
in there dated the 3rd of March from White, Peterson, Pruss, Morrow & Gigray signed by Mr. William F. Nichols that states: The Meridian City Code does not specifically allow for reconsideration
of Council’s decision. Now, then he launches into a dissertation in my vernacular, no offense, but of how to circumvent the lack of authority in the City Code so that you could reconsider
the decision, and he sites his concern there as being concerned with due process. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I submit to you that we had due process. I submit that the Mayor
opened the public meeting; that the Planning staff provided information and answered questions; the applicant, Mr. Wood, and / or his representative had an opportunity to present, which
they did; public testimony was taken, and I talked about the plat and I gave each of you a copy of that plat and the surrounding area. That copy of the plat that I gave you was the
latest that I had and the square footages were exactly the same on all lots except those along McDonald Lateral. Those were changed slightly based on the right-of-way or easement to
the north being changed from 21 feet down to 15 feet. That enlarged those lots just a little bit. I gave you the best I had and the most accurate information that I had. The applicant
was given opportunity for rebuttal and summarization; he had ample opportunity to talk about the plat, make a recommendation or delay or table, but he chose not to; the public hearing
was closed and the Council voted. When you voted, I submit that you had the facts. Due process was provided. I urge you to stand by your decision of the 15th because due process was
provided. Now, if we don’t do that, then I guess I need to find out how I can ask for reconsideration of every decision that I’ve applied for. With that, I’ve said it all. If there
are any questions of me, I’d be glad to answer them, and if not, why, I’ll sit down.
Corrie: Questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Marquart: Dave Marquart, 3100 East Victory. Contrary to what Rex had said just a moment ago, I have an R-1 lot in there. One of the few. Just for clarification. My concern is, tonight,
the same that Mr. Young had, and that is are we looking at an R-8 or an R-4? I thought when we were last together on the 15th of February that the Council had decided on an R-4, so
my presentation is addressed to that point knowing nothing of what was going to happen perhaps this evening. Steve, is it possible that I might have the shot that you had that
looked to the west? The picture? That one, yes. This is in the center of the lot that we’re speaking of, and this is the fence that separates Thousand Springs Village from the piece
that we’re speaking of. Directly across that fence, the six-foot wooden fence which has wooden posts, and I would agree with Dan or Mr. Wood that the steel posts would post – (inaudible)
but those lots over there right across there are a minimum of 12,500 s.f. That was determined in a compromise position with Becky and the developer of that particular lot prior to coming
to Planning and Zoning and to this area. It came to you and it just went right by. All we’re looking for is the same consideration. We’re looking for the quality there with what’s
just directly across that fence. Our property, as you’ve seen, is just directly to the south of that fence, just to our left there. So the wooden fence, steel posts, no particular
problem. I would like to address something that Mr. Wood said just a moment ago, and that was concerning the single-level homes. He would like to have that taken out. I don’t know
whether or not you’ve received the letter that he sent to the Mayor, and I have it here, on March 1st, but his last paragraph on the first page about half-way down, he said if the Council
so desires, I would agree to all single-family homes. So he states in that letter that he would support single-family homes, and it appears that he’s changing his mind now.
deWeerd: Those are single-family. That has nothing to do with the single-level.
Marquart: What did I say? I beg your pardon, excuse me. Thank you. I’d like to address then – thank you for your clarification. I’d like to address the R-4 issue, and that is what
I’ve come here for and I’ve practiced my notes this morning or early evening. The standard in R-4 is 80-foot frontage and minimum lot sizes of 8,000 s.f and minimum size homes of 1,400
s.f. As you can see on the plat, in fact that’s the one that’s up there right now, the standard’s only a few meeting that minimum standard for an R-4. You can see from this and from
the earlier shots that it even said R-8 on the plat. I would urge the City Council to comply with what they had said before on the 15th and that is an R-4 subdivision and that you
direct the applicant to address that issue with minimum lot sizes for R-4 and to comply with the Comprehensive Plan for transitional lots. I realize that we do have some distance from
the center of the canal to our properties, our homes, but your Comprehensive Plan doesn’t address that. Your Comprehensive Plan addressed transitional lots, not distances. I would
urge that you use your Comprehensive Plan to address the transitional lots. The third item I would encourage and if I may point to this plan again, this is the fence that we were speaking
of earlier. Apparently your staff member was standing in this area taking a picture to the west. These lot sizes over here are the ones that are currently now a minimum of twelve-five,
and for equality, I think we would like to see similar addresses in this area here. Thank you very much for your time this evening.
Allen: Jim Allen, 3040 East Victory. I’m the one down there that says Allen. I do have two acres. I do have livestock. Idaho is a right-to-farm state. I would like
that included in your notes so that’s included on the plat. I agree with Mr. Young and Dave that this is not really what it’s showing to be. The best I can get out of it is an R-5.
I don't know what an R-5 is, but when we’re counting the lots, it doesn’t come up R-4. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony?
Allen: Thank you for your time. This is Mary Allen, 3040 East Victory Road. I appreciate the efforts that have been made, but it’s confusing when a decision’s been made and then I
think it opens the door to questioning a re-decision. I’m concerned for my other neighbors that are not here to represent themselves that are buying lots in the R-4s around the Thousand
Springs in good faith that their areas will be respected as well. So I’d ask for your consideration there. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else? Okay. Get the (inaudible) Steve or Dan?
Bradberry: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ll try to be brief. There were a few things that I thought – Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t introduce myself; it’s been a while since I’ve been here and
I’ve forgotten how to act. Steve Bradberry, office address is 225 North 9th in Boise. I represent the applicant, Mr. Wood. I think there are really three points that I want to try
to make tonight for you, and largely, it’s in response to the testimony that was given tonight and I guess on previous occasions. First of all, with respect to this notion of the reconsideration
and whether or not a Council ought to or ought not to reconsider previous decisions. I guess I want to back everybody up just a little bit and remind the Council and those who were
testifying tonight that – and I wasn’t at the hearing when the annexation and zoning took place as you know. I did read the minutes of the meeting and, of course, had some conversations
with those who were here. It was very clear to me that the Council was, or some members of the Council were somewhat concerned about the fact that the preliminary plat was not officially
before the Council that night. There was a fair amount of discussion about whether or not the Council ought to act or ought not act and how they ought to act on the annexation and zoning
when the preliminary plat is not there. It caused, I think, some confusion, and some legitimate consternation on the part of all parties. So as a consequence, the Council went forward
and at least made what I would think and could only characterize as a preliminary decision about the annexation and the rezone knowing that the plat was coming. Of course, now the plat’s
here and everybody’s had an opportunity to have officially before it all the information that they need. I also think that it’s important to point out that no final decision on the
annexation and rezone has been made. If it had been, there wouldn’t be an item on your agenda tonight for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and an Order on that annexation; in
other words, the actions that you all took here a few weeks ago was to direct the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law be prepared and be brought back to this Council for consideration
for the adoption. So the Council could choose to adopt or not
adopt those Findings and Conclusions. Council could choose to amend those Findings and Conclusions and now that you’ve had an opportunity to see the plat and make decisions based upon
that plat, I think you should avail yourself of the opportunity to make that decision and make modifications if you choose. That is all that Mr. Wood is asking you to do is now that
you have all of the information, if you choose to take some action different on the annexation and rezone, you take advantage of that opportunity tonight when you have the Findings and
the Conclusions in front of you. In addition, there’s nothing unusual about City Council taking another look at something that maybe deserves a second look. I don’t know of a single
jurisdiction that doesn’t do it. As a matter of fact, in my estimation, it’s not a good idea to force yourselves into a position where you won’t because everybody makes mistakes, everybody
has second thoughts. I’m not suggesting that you people made a mistake, but just that we all do that, and it makes sense to give yourself an opportunity to look at something again and
try to come to a decision that makes sense based upon all the information. I rambled on longer than I intended to on that topic. Okay Sorry. Now, the notion of what does the Comprehensive
Plan allow or require, what is it that’s supposed to be happening on this piece of property and does this project comply with what the Comprehensive Plan requires? Well, I’ll tell you,
this time and not that they do it a lot, but this time, staff got it exactly right, and I think all you have to do is look at Page 2 of your December 6, 1999, staff report which was
delivered to the Mayor, Council, and the Planning and Zoning Commission and look at Paragraph 2, Page 2, and I’m going to read it because I think it’s a really good paragraph. Did
a great job. It says: staff agrees with proposed R-8 zone while the Comprehensive Plan does not define the mixed residential land use designation, this parcel falls within on the general
land use map. Staff believes that it must be differentiated from the single-family residential designation. To date, the single-family residential designation has usually resulted
in parcels being annexed with an R-4 zone. Staff interprets the mixed/residential designation (inaudible) zoning other than straight R-4 and that the uses of land within the mixed residential
area should strive to meet a broader housing residential market need than can be met under the single-family residential designation; in other words, let’s do something different in
these areas. That’s what the Comprehensive Plan suggests. Let’s do that. It goes on to say annexing the subject parcel with the requested R-8 zone also conforms with other Comprehensive
Plan policies and it refers to either the housing policies and call for a wide variety of housing types and housing for all income groups. I think the staff got it exactly right. One
of the other things that we all tend to forget is that although Comprehensive Plans are just that, they’re plans, we call policies, they are something more than just a piece of paper
that you go through and adopt and spend months and months and months and hours upon hours to adopt and then just throw them away and not worry about them. The Comprehensive Plan, at
least theoretically, is the will of the people. It goes to the process and the policy statements are made. In this case, the policy statement was that this property should be mixed
residential, something different than straight single-family residential, and that’s what Mr. Wood is proposing, and, in fact, that is what Mr. Wood was relying upon when he acquired
the
property. There was an article in the Statesman last Friday the 17th about your new proposed Comprehensive Plan, and I thought it was interesting because there was a paragraph in it
toward the end and I’ll read that because I think it helps to – it says, suggestions from other groups included a change in zoning Ordinances that allow a diversity of residential development
instead of the typical four homes per acre, the residents said they would like to see mixed density properties. It sounds like the residents, at least those that are in the process
so far seem to think that this notion of mixed residential uses is a good idea; in other words, it’s a great policy. I suggest to you that you already have that policy. The problem
is not the lack of the policy. The problem seems to be the lack of the, maybe the reluctance to put that policy into practice. Now you’ve got an opportunity to put the policy into practice,
the policy that you adopted long ago, and apparently some people think ought to be adopted again. By the way, there’s another part of the staff report, a later revision of the staff
report that I think is really good, too. It’s in the staff report that is dated December 29 which is revision to the December 6th staff report, and it’s about half-way through on the
first page. It says – what I want to talk about and talk to you all about is the compatibility issue, this notion that large lots and smaller lots are somehow inherently incompatible.
Maybe you’ve heard me talk about this before, but I’ll say it one more time. It’s the same thing. It’s residential housing. It’s not inherently incompatible to have a big lot next
to a small lot that are both used for the same purpose. People live in them. That’s basically what they’re all about. Staff seems to think – I must have gotten through to staff at
some point in time because they write in terms of compatibility, staff does not consider a single-family residential Subdivision adjacent to single-family uses to be incompatible uses.
While it’s a valid argument and a Comprehensive Plan policy that a transition of lot sizes is appropriate, these are not incompatible or even unharmonious uses. Additionally, low comparisons,
that is Ada County Assessor’s Office and national studies, Urban Land Institute, show no evidence of property values of large residential lots decline when high-quality, smaller lots
are constructed adjacent to the large lot boundaries. Reading right out of the December 29th staff report. I think staff got it right again. I think that’s exactly the case. In this
case, Mr. Wood is, in fact, proposing transitional lot sizes in his most recent plat. We’re talking on average a little over 10,000 s.f. in all of those lots. That’s pretty good for
an R-8 zone. As a matter of fact it’s real good for an R-8 zone. Okay. Lastly, this notion of single-family homes, I’m doing the same thing, single-level homes. I’ve heard the Council
take the position in the past that they would impose that sort of requirement. I’ve always thought it was inappropriate then and I think it’s inappropriate now. I’ve reviewed the Ordinance
again, recently, even as recently as today looking for some support in the Ordinance, in your zoning Ordinance that suggests the Council has given itself the authority to regulate whether
homes should be single-level or multiple-level. I don’t find it. It seems to me that in order for the Council to impose such a requirement, they need to first adopt some standards
that set forth that requirement. The reasons that standards must be adopted before the condition is imposed is so that people out there in the world will know what the rules are
before they show up here. That’s why we have the requirement that standards be adopted; otherwise, the Council could simply make a determination about any requirement on any topic on
an ad hoc basis, and the law clearly doesn’t allow for that. I just don’t think that it’s appropriate to impose that sort of requirement unless you’ve got standards to say when, where,
why and how on each instance. Second of all, I don’t think there’s any facts to support any notion or the allegation that single-level homes are somehow going to prevent some harm or
some interference to the neighbors nearby; after all, some of them have two-story homes. Frankly I just think that by imposing that sort of a condition all you’re really doing is you
just play into what I would describe as the irrational fears of the opponents of the developmental project. With that, I’ll stand for any questions you may have. I wasn't near as brief
as I said I would when I started, was I?
Corrie: Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Bradberry: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Council, do you have any discussion while the public hearing is open? Ask any questions?
Bird: I have none.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I’ve been with this application since (inaudible) it seems, and I have seen a lot of concessions made. They’ve gone from 45 lots to 29; they went from a god-awful
amount down on the southern portion of that, and really, if (inaudible) to transition, their mixed residential into the larger lots to the south of it. So I do see a lot of concessions
along that end. I am a firm believer of mixed residential. I’m one of those that don’t like to see the square mile of R-4 because it is disturbing. I – this has turned out to – they
first came in with a PUD and that was totally unacceptable. The density was way too high, and there was just no transition. From looking at it from the beginning to now, I think that
it still fits within the Comprehensive Plan with the idea of what a mixed residential is; transitioning residential is not really, I think, the definition, I think transitioning has
to do more with use between different land sues and residential, but I still think that you do need a transition from lot sizes and they have done a good job. Those lots are R-4 in
size, and so if you have them come back with R-4, those lots on the southern boundary are what you’re going to see. It just allows them a little bit more of a mixed use in the other
lots throughout the development. I don’t know what needs to – if the rest of the Council would support the original R-8 designation, but I’m still in favor of that.
Corrie: Any other comments? Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing at this point.
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 10, request for preliminary plat. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: We’ve got the Findings of Facts that we have on the – come up on the annexation and zoning. Council, you have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law based upon the testimony
(inaudible) --
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I have a question of legal counsel, then. If the Council’s decision was to allow this to go to R-8, then the proper procedure would be to table the preliminary
plat at this point and send it back for public hearings on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law or how would that work?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, members of the Council, I believe that the procedure if the Council wishes to reconsider its decision to zone this property or designate this as
R-4 would be to table the preliminary plat decision then a motion to amend or not the direction to the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and indicate
what changes, if any, you want made in those Findings. Then we go back and come up with proposed Findings to fit your new Findings or what you’ve decided.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, this is for counsel, too, please. How can you just go back and amend your Findings when you’ve already passed on the R-4? This is just a legal question that I’ve
been told that we can do it this way and I’ve also been told that we have to take it – they have to start all over. This would have been a much easier way for me if I had seen this
plat when we had the other. What is the legality on changing it?
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the City Council, you have new testimony with regard to an essential aspect of the approval of the annexation and zoning which is what the
preliminary plat shows that you didn’t have before. So I think there’s a basis there to change your decision if you choose to. With all due respect to Mr. Young and his comments about
due process, the question is due process doesn’t necessarily pre-determine a decision. It asks for notice, opportunity for hearing, opportunity to comment and provide testimony to the
decision makers. That’s been done. They’ve had an opportunity to -- the opponents and the proponents have had an opportunity to come forward and say what they wish to see in terms
of the entire project.
Corrie: So the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law that you have before you states that it is to be an R-4 by a two-and-two vote with the Mayor making the tiebreaker, so I guess
the question at hand is do you accept or don’t accept the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law that’s before us; is that correct?
Nichols: Mayor Corrie, members of the Council, I believe that’s correct, and if these Findings of Facts are rejected, then we need a motion from the Council to tell us what it is that
you want in them.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just to clarify that, so we would need to reject them or we would request the attorney to amend them?
Nichols: Again, Councilwoman deWeerd, members of the Council, Mayor Corrie, I’m not sure that it makes too big of a difference as long as it’s the considered decision of the Council.
My parliamentarianism is not the best in the world. I should have been in FFA, I guess. I would submit that either way, as long as the considered decision of the Council, and we’ll
go from there.
Corrie: Okay.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to attempt a motion here, then. I would like to move that we direct the City Attorney to amend the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for request
for annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres to R-8, amend to R-8 rather than R-4 for the proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood, D.W. Inc., west of Eagle Road between Overland and East
Victory to incorporate all staff comments.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made. Do I hear a second?
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to direct the attorney to draw up new Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law to indicate that the conditions would be an R-8 with the staff recommendations
incorporated as stated by Mrs. deWeerd. Any further discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, now, what are we going to use the final plat? You’re going to table this preliminary plat. I’ve already seen three changes on this that’s come before us. Are we
going to get another change now that we’re R-8 if we pass this and go R-8? Are we going to get another plat change?
deWeerd: My motion is based on the plat that is attached to the letter of March 20, 2000, by Dan Wood.
Corrie: It’s not the plat you saw, though.
deWeerd: This is the plat.
Bird: That’s not the plat you saw and is that legal to attach a plat to the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law?
Nichols: Councilman Bird and Mayor Corrie, members of the Council, I don’t – Councilwoman deWeerd can correct me if I’m wrong, but I construe her comment as an explanation of her motion,
not as attaching that plat to the Findings of Fact.
deWeerd: That’s my basis for the R-8.
Bird: wait a minute. Ask her again.
Nichols: Well, perhaps I can clarify this, Mayor Corrie, members of the Council, if the issue is this particular preliminary plat which you have – all we had was the hearing on the
plat. Certainly, the new Findings of Fact if we approve this motion can be put on the next agenda and be consistent – be with or right before the preliminary plat. –
*** End of Side 3 ***
Bird: Mr. Mayor, that’s what I was trying to get at is you’re making your decision based on this plat that you see in here. There’s no guarantee that he has to come back with this
after you change your deal. Don’t get me wrong. My vote would have been different if I had seen this because I believe the first time down because I feel that he has went and done
R-4 on every lot that adjoins other property. I don’t believe we could make him to have the one-acre lots back there or the quarter-acre lots. But I just want you to understand that
once you change this to an R-8, he can change this plat.
Anderson: We don’t have to approve it.
Bird: You don’t have to approve it; that’s right. But then we start going back through the situation that we’ve been going through: five or six public hearings. I’m not saying that
it’s not our system’s fault, but I also think that a lot of the times it’s developers need to come in a little better prepared and we don’ t need to be seeing 16 different plats on one
deal.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mayor Corrie, members of the Council, Councilman Bird, I guess this question is directed to Mr. Bird. With the requirement of a Development Agreement, would that give you
greater comfort with regard to the issue of the lot sizes?
Bird: I have no problem. I just wanted it clarified, Mr. Nichols, that this isn’t a guaranteed plat. If we change it – I know it will be, don’t get me wrong, I know it will be, but
it’s just shows that our system has got to be changed a little bit to make it much easier.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just to re-emphasize this, we have no business looking at zoning and annexation without seeing a plan with it.
Bird: I hate to admit you’re right.
Corrie: Also, if we do go to an R-8, there’s no reason for him to put larger homes there, either. You can go an R-8 sized home which is less than the other subdivisions around him.
Let’s keep that in mind. I don’t know what his intentions are in putting larger homes or smaller homes or classification of R-8s, but – R-8 it can be smaller homes. It doesn’t have
to (inaudible). Any further discussion? Okay. Questions have been called for?
(unidentified): I’m looking for some clarification on this single-level issue. I don’t think you’ve discussed that, and I think it’s important.
Corrie: This is not before us on this. This is not the preliminary plat, we’re talking about zoning and annexation. That’s all.
(unidentified): But as a condition of the annexation, I believe that issue has been addressed. Maybe I’m wrong.
Bird: That is not in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in any way shape or form.
Corrie: Okay. Questions have been called for. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
Bird: Let’s roll-call.
Corrie: Okay, we’ll have a roll-call vote, then. All those in favor, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, no; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY.
Corrie: Three ayes, you have the zoning for R-8. Let’s take the request for preliminary plat at this point tabled and brought for Council on April 4th if that’s – I guess I shouldn’t
be doing that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we table the request for preliminary plat for Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood, D.W., Inc., until April 4, 2000.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table Item No. 8, preliminary plat, until April 4, 2000.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I think it’s important at this point since the public hearing has been closed and even though we are continuing this, I do believe some issues were raised that need
to be part of conditions of the preliminary plat and I want to assure that the neighbors of what my list is and that would be dust abatement during construction; it would be the fencing
at a height of the lateral; it will be maintaining the integrity of your access to irrigation out of the McDonald Lateral; the addition of the Right-to-Farm Act to be a provision of
that; and that the property line be saved.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. Continued 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:
Corrie: Item No. 11, this is continued public hearing, request for preliminary plat for Woodbridge Subdivision of 164 lots on 50.9 acres by Woodbridge Community, LLC – east side of
South Locust Grove and ¼ mile south of Franklin Road. At this time I’ll re-open the continued public hearing and invite staff comments first.
Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the issue before you tonight is a continued public hearing for the preliminary plat of Woodbridge Subdivision. It has 164 lots, just over
50 acres. This is Locust Grove on the map before you, and the hatched-in area here is the area for a Woodbridge Subdivision. I do have an existing photograph of that field at this
time as well as a photograph taken from the north, Green Hill Estates, I believe, that’s the subdivision to the north. This is where there’s been some discussion on the plat of a pedestrian
– an easement that would be grassed and such that it would come up to an existing easement that’s located at this point in that Green Hill Estates Subdivision. If I back out a little
farther, now in Green Hill Estates and looking down the line of where that easement would be with the Woodbridge site in the back. This is the proposed plat; it is a planned development.
There have been some issues with the staff comments. Staff issued comments, received comments back on some requested revisions from the applicant. Gary
responded today in response to several of those, so I’m going to let him have the floor for a minute.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. I hand-delivered a memo to each one of you along with the developer and their representative today by fax to the developer and their engineer.
This memo that was written was primarily authored by my assistant, Bruce Freckleton. Bruce had been working closely with the developer and their engineer concerning comments that they
had to the staff comments that were previously issued. The memo that was given to you today addresses the requested modifications to the staff comments by the developer, O’Niell Enterprises.
Specifically, those are numbered on the three pages of the memo that was distributed today. I haven’t had a chance to talk with the developer or the representative directly about these
comments that were issued under this memo. I don’t know what their attitudes are. They weren’t in complete agreement with what they were requesting as far as modifications were concerned.
I think that we did address their requests, and we feel as though this is a compromise as to what was originally listed as our comments in the review of their project. I think that’s
all the comment that I have. Those are the comments that I have concerning this memo. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Since this is a continued public hearing, I’ll request the applicant to start first.
O’Niell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Derek O'Niell, 100 N. 9th, Suite 300, Boise, Idaho. I am president of O’Niell Enterprises, managing member of Woodbridge Community,
LLC. First I’d like to compliment and thank your staff for working diligently with us for the last month or two on this report and primarily in the last two weeks since this issue has
moved forward. I haven’t had a chance to talk to Gary specifically about his comments. I have read them, reviewed them very carefully, and I would submit to you that we are in agreement
with the condition as modified in his letter, or Bruce’s letter dated 3-21-00 to you. So I can keep it quick and short and tell you that we are in agreement with the conditions as written
by staff or the amended conditions, 3-21-00, that you received today. I’m happy to answer any questions, review any issues with you. Hopefully we can keep this quick and move forward.
Corrie: Council, questions? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony on the preliminary plat?
McMillan: My name is Reese McMillan870 S. Locust Grove Road. On this southwest corner, there’s a drain ditch that goes down through there that (inaudible) all our properties (inaudible)
seven of us along Locust Grove down through the freeway that the water runs continuously (inaudible) wondering what they were going to do with this drain ditch. Also, I’d like to see
the Five Mile Drain stay in a natural wetland condition so if there was a geese nest down there, ducks down there, we’ve got foxes running in and out of those places down
there. I’d like to see that stay a natural condition down there. Also, when they start this, I’d like to see the dust abatement. We’ve had Jabil out there, and you can’t believe the
dust, and this is closer than what Jabil is. Also, you know, no late night or early mornings or – give us all a break out there anyway. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other testimony? I hear none. Mr. O’Niell, do you want to comment on those?
O’Niell: I’ll address the dust issue and we’ll do everything we can to be a good neighbor. There’s a construction site, we’re moving a lot of dirt, but we’ll do everything in our power
to be a good neighbor. We’ve done this often, and it’s in our best interest to do that. The Five Mile Drain issue, one of the main elements of our plan and the main purposes of us
developing this property is to make that an amenity for the project. The more we can enhance it and improve it, the more that does for values in our project. So we’re doing everything
we can to work with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to enhance and improve that element. That’s very important to us. We’re working toward that. In terms of the drainage ditch
and the downstream users, our commitment is to provide water to anybody who has a water right and needs to be delivered water. We’re working through that right now, so if they have
a water right and water’s to be delivered to them, we’ll provide water to them.
Corrie: Okay. Council have any other discussion for the public hearing?
Siddoway: I actually wanted to take the question, I’m sorry, I forgot you name, Mr. McMillan asked regarding the existing natural areas. There are ducks and fox out there. I would
point out that this line on the plat that follows up here, our designated wetlands, some of those wetlands are becoming building lots, and it may be good to hear from the applicant about
that. I assume you have to mitigate for those wetlands by building other wetlands elsewhere, and just like to hear some response on that issue.
O’Niell: I’m sorry. I thought he was discussing specifically Five Mile Creek. I can discuss the wetlands. Those are delineated wetlands by the Army Corp of Engineers. We submitted
for a 404 Nationwide Permit and we will comply completely with that permit. We’re going to replace the wetlands that you see have some building lots one to one, so we will replace any
wetlands that there are. Actually upstream from there. If you go through any projects we do, we work very, very hard to create natural amenities in waterways, and this is that wetland
we’ve worked with the Corp, they’re in favor of us taking and moving the wetland or enhancing the wetland if we do it on a one-to-one basis. That’s what our intent is, to be fully under
the jurisdiction of the Army Corp of Engineers, and that permit is in process as we speak. Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. McMillan was talking about the drain instead of receiving the water, they receive the water up top and what he was talking about was it going to be able
to still have the drain, the drain ditch was going to still stay in there.
McMillan: (inaudible).
O’Niell: We certainly have a plan that will drain any of the water that would be naturally draining from there. Actually, what we’re doing is instead of taking it down that drain that
crosses the property, we’re going to move it down where the natural waterway is, we’re going to drain water into the natural waterway so that improves, gives us a little more water to
put in that natural waterway and improves that area. We certainly have a very specific plan to make sure that any water that would be draining won’t back up above that property, and
we’re working closely with irrigation district.
Bird: I was going to say, I’m sure they’ve got water rights.
McMillan: (inaudible)
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions of the public hearing? Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on the closing of the public hearing.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 11. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Done. Okay. Discussion, Council?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we instruct the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the approval of the request for preliminary plat for Woodbridge
Subdivision, 164 lots on 50.9 acres by Woodbridge Community, LLC, east side of South Locust Grove Road, ¼ mile south of Franklin Road, to include the comments dated 3-21-00 by Bruce
Freckleton.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat with the inclusion of the staff comments and for the attorney to draw up the proper
orders for the preliminary plat. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Public Hearing: VAR 00-003 Request for reduction in the requirements for landscaping and parking for the expansion of an existing warehouse facility in an I-L zone by 4M /
Canvest:
Corrie: Item No. 12, there’s been a request to withdraw. The requirements for the landscaping and parking; they want to re-do that whole program. So, Mr. Counselor, do we just make
a motion then to withdraw Item No. 12; is that correct? Or do we hold the public hearing and then do the request?
Nichols: Mayor Corrie, I think, members of the Council, if it’s withdrawn, I’m not sure the Council needs to take any action other than to acknowledge that it’s withdrawn.
Corrie: Okay. It has been withdrawn, request to withdraw. Okay. No. 12 is done?
Item 13. Public Hearing: Request for an increase in fees for park shelters at Tully Park and Storey Park:
Corrie: Item No. 13 is a public hearing, request for an increase in fees for park shelters at Tully Park and Storey Park. At this time, I’ll invite Mr. Kuntz to start the public hearing,
and I’ll open the public hearing at this time.
Kuntz: Mayor and Council, last year with the opening of Tully Park, we added a shelter three to four times larger than we’ve had prior in Storey Park. As a result of that, we’ve gone
through and amended our park shelter fees and rules to go along with that. Those are before you tonight for your consideration.
Corrie: Okay. Anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony on the public hearing for increasing the fees of the park shelters at Tully Park and Storey Park? Hearing
none, Council, any further discussion on the public hearing?
deWeerd: I move that we close it.
Corrie: Motion is made. Do I hear a second?
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Second to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Mr. Berg.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, just a question for the legal counsel. If there wasn’t any objections or any concerns at the public hearing, can we adopt the Ordinance that’s
attached with the hearing?
Nichols: Mayor Corrie, members of the Council, Mr. Berg, I think to adopt the Ordinance, you’re going to have to have it on the agenda as a proposed Ordinance. I would just for your
information to the Council, when Mr. Kuntz and I began working on this process and I got to looking at the Ordinances, we actually had a resolution in place which contradicted a portion
of the code, and so, that’s why you have an Ordinance and a resolution so that we can clean that up so in the future you just simply pass whatever resolutions to raise or lower fees.
So, anyway, that’s – the other substantive change was there aren’t as many things as Mr. Berg’s office on this issue as there would be at Mr. Kuntz’ office as far as the reservation
list, the applications and so forth where under the current code, it puts all those things in Mr. Berg’s office.
Corrie: So we can do a resolution?
Nichols: You’re going to have to do the Ordinance first in order to authorize the resolution.
Corrie: Okay. Then I guess we need a motion to have the attorney draw up the Ordinance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have the attorney draw up the Ordinance showing the increase in fees for park shelters at Tully Park and Storey Park.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the proper Ordinance for the increase in fees, the park shelters at Tully Park and Storey Park. Any further discussion?
Nichols: Mayor Corrie, Mr. Bird, in your motion does it include the appropriate resolution as well as the Ordinance?
Bird: Yes. I thought it was all one.
Corrie: The motion is to draw up the Ordinance for the proper resolution. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 14. Tabled from March 7, 2000: Ordinance No. : AZ 99-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 7.25 acres to C-G by Overland Mini-Storage, LLC:
Item 14a. (Item E.) Tabled from March 7, 2000: Findings of Fact 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: Item No. 14 was tabled March 7; Ordinance requesting annexation and zoning of 7.25 acres to C-G by Overland Mini Storage, and also Item E from the Consent Agenda was also on
this. I’ll ask the Planning and Zoning Director. You’re on board.
Siddoway: I’m not Planning and Zoning Director. You see on the wall in front of you a vicinity map, the Overland Mini Storage sites; it’s along Overland Road between Overland and I-84,
and between Locust Grove and Meridian Road which is just off of the map over here. As you know, there were issues on the site plan related to landscaping and parking and signage. Those
three issues that were brought up last City Council meeting. Staff was instructed to meet with the applicant to work out the details. Some of these details have been worked out, others
we are – seems we’re at an impasse. I’ll try to just briefly familiarize you with the site. This is taken from Overland Road looking north across the site. Standing here at the eastern
edge of the site looking along Nine Mile Creek, the fenceline here, Nine Mile Creek runs along this side. I’m standing in the property now looking across Nine Mile Creek in the foreground
here, and the residential properties that currently exist northeast of the Overland Mini Storage site. This is also standing in the center of the Overland Mini Storage site looking
south toward Sportsman Pointe. We’ve been through several versions of the landscape plan since Council last met, I believe the number is four, this is the current plan as it now stands.
The issue was that Nine Mile Creek runs along this side. Well, let me first of all state that the signage issue is resolved. They have moved their sign from an off-premise sign to
on-premise and has submitted sign details, the sizes of which have been incorporated into the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law by the legal department and should be in your packets
now. So that issue is resolved. The issue regarding the land, the parking remains – they show space for one handicapped space and two standard spaces. They may be able to get a third
standard space if they bump the gate out a little bit to
accommodate it, but the gate line right now runs right through the center of their third parking space. We have no standards for parking at a mini-storage lot in the zoning Ordinance,
so if City Council feels that three lots, three spaces is sufficient, then we can approve it and not be in violation of any Ordinance. However, just based on experience as staff, last
summer, Republic Storage came before us with a project to increase their parking because when they get a lot of people moving in and out, friends show up, and they find that they did
not have enough parking to accommodate those needs. They said three to four spaces met the needs 80 percent of the time, but then on the weekends when you get a lot of people moving,
especially when church groups are involved and friends come and help, they needed additional parking. So staff feels that more parking is needed. The original Conditional Use Permit
that went through Planning and Zoning showed extensive buffering along Nine Mile Creek. To provide buffers for adjacent uses on this side that would not have to look at the walls of
expansive storage units. When the final plat was submitted, it showed a 50-foot sewer utility easement that can’t be planted in along that edge. So, basically, that entire buffer that
had been put in as part of the Conditional Use Permit was now going away. The plan that you see before you tonight has one tree at the end of every building to try to provide some of
that buffering and approximately 55-foot centers. You have the buffering along the west side and also have a strip of buffering along the south side going across. The 35-foot landscape
setbacks that were required along Overland Road were also provided for. Staff’s position is that this is still inadequate; that we still need to have a buffer at least six-feet wide
outside of the existing sewer easement that can hold the trees around this property to provide that landscape buffer and then just shrink the buildings accordingly. That is staff’s
position at this time. If City Council feels that this is an acceptable solution, then you have the option of approving it and being done with it tonight. That’s all I have. If you
have any questions, I’ll be happy to answer them.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: So if I’m understanding that drawing right, you still can drive around that end of the building to the north, the one line there is the fence?
Siddoway: Yes. There is a problem that I’ve noted with this landscape plan that his line, you can kind of see where along here it’s noted as the edge of pavement line. We need at
least 25 feet per Ordinance between the planter and the edge of pavement. Some places that is only 15 feet, but it’s kind of in the details because we can – there is space for them
to put the additional paving, you just have to move it out closer to the fence line. And the easement can be asphalted over it; it just can’t have trees in it.
Corrie: Okay.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, what was the original plan approved by Planning and Zoning and City Council? Were they one in the same? And how different is it than what we’re seeing now?
Siddoway: I don’t have it in a graphic to put up, but I do have it in a packet here if you’ll just give me a second. This is the plan that was proposed originally and approved with
landscaping all along Nine Mile Creek. I’ll hand it out to you so you can look at it.
Corrie: Okay, Council? Okay. Somebody has a comment.
(Unidentified): Mayor and Council, looking ahead at future pathways within our impact area, I think it’s also important to consider the impact that keeping that 50-foot easement would
have on future pathways that may be connected to the City. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. All right. We have Item E which is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for a Conditional Use Permit of mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland Mini Storage and
we also have the Ordinance. If I’m not mistaken, it’s the desire of Planning and Zoning to have that remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission?
Siddoway: That’s what we see as the – unless the City Council wants to deal with design issues, open up the public hearing, have testimony from the applicant who is here, that would
be the only other option.
Corrie: We can’t have a public hearing because it wasn’t noticed, so we’re not going to (inaudible). No, there’s no public hearing at all. So it’s up the Council what you’d like to
do. Bob, we’re not taking testimony. Would you propose that we just take up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law first and then – how do we do this so we don’t get ourselves
in a hole? Okay.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I wonder if staff, Steve’s got anymore to add now.
Siddoway: Nothing more at this time. I was asking Mr. Unger if he were to give me any indication that they were willing to just put the six-foot landscape buffer outside the easement
and the driveway be on that and shorten the buildings and try to increase the parking, we could go through one more round just at a staff level without remanding this back to P & Z.
But if that’s not the case; if they’re not willing to do that, then our position is that it needs to go back to P & Z because this is a significant modification to the Conditional Use
Permit that you recommended approval on. I’ve not heard back from him on that yet. Okay. I’m being informed by the applicant that they’re willing to do a six-foot minimum wide strip
outside of the easement to provide for landscaping, put the driveway beyond
that and shorten the buildings. They do want to keep the parking as-is on the site. If Council is comfortable with that, we can do one more round at a staff level and come back with
that to you. Obviously, we would like to see more parking, but I guess there’s talk of actually expanding these – some of these other three lots that are creating with their plat and
they feel that they can provide additional parking on some of those future lots; although, there’s no guarantee of that, obviously.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Steve. The parking isn’t a real big thing with me because if you look at most of these storage places, they have very little or none parking. So what
I am hearing is we need to table this for another two weeks and have the staff work out a new conditional use proposal or –
Siddoway: A new landscape plan.
Bird: -- Yes. Get it straight.
Siddoway: A new landscape site plan. Basically to provide for a six-foot minimum.
Bird: Okay. I’ll make a motion if that’s okay.
Corrie: Go ahead, Steve.
Siddoway: I just want to understand that we’re comfortable with three parking spaces and one handicap space and then we’re going to get the buffer, a six-foot wide minimum buffer outside
of the six-foot sewer easement and require the drive aisles be below that and the building needs to be reduced accordingly. That’s what I’m going to work with the applicant on.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we table until April 4th the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for CUP 99-033 and for the staff and the applicant to work out some new proposals
as have been brought up and brought back to us.
deWeerd: Would that include parking?
Bird: That would include parking which is part of Item – whatever they decide.
deWeerd: Whatever staff desires or the applicant?
Bird: Whatever they work out together.
deWeerd: Well, I’ll second that just for discussion.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to table the Conditional Use Permit – order of Conditional Use Permit until April 4, 2000. Discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I think it’d be helpful for staff and the applicant to know what kind of parking is minimally accepted, acceptable.
Bird: I think the staff just basically said that three parking spots and a handicapped; was that not right?
Siddoway: No, our desire is to have more based on the fact that Republic Storage just came back to us to expand their parking lot saying that they didn’t have enough.
Bird: I don't know. My feeling is that that’s something that you guys can negotiate with.
Siddoway: You sound like you’re comfortable with –
Bird: I’m comfortable with that myself. If you go around and look at the mini-storages, very few of them have very much parking spots. Very few of them have it. Normally park up and
down between the buildings all the time. They’ll pull in and do that. If you actually look out here at the Meridian Storage out here, I think it was the first mini-storage that we’ve
probably had in the area, there’s probably five or six parking spaces, but have of it’s Meridian Electric there in the same office building.
Anderson: I think it’s a self-policing deal because they can adjust their own business. No one’s going to rent (inaudible) so they’ve got to provide access.
Bird: I agree with you, Ron.
deWeerd: So it sounds that parking is not an issue.
Siddoway: Okay. I’m going to leave parking alone. We’ll just go with the landscape buffer. Okay.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: No, we’ve got to table the Ordinance. Mr. Mayor, I move that we table the
Ordinance for the request of annexation and zoning of 7.25 acres to C-G by Overland Mini Storage, LLC, until April 4, 2000.
Anderson: Second.
** End of Side 4 ***
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to table the Ordinance for the request of annexation and zoning by Overland Mini Storage to April 4, 2000. Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: (inaudible – tape change) … of possible action I think will be handled the 28th if we have it set. I think on Item 17, if I’m correct? Right?
17. Department Reports:
A. City Treasurer – Janice Smith
Treasurer’s Report – Volunteer Firefighter Monthly Pay:
Corrie: Department Reports, City Treasurer, we’ve already had the reports –
Berg: Madame Treasurer gave me a memo to pass out to you that she wanted to have some action on if possible. It deals with the Fire Department and the volunteer firefighters’ pay
period. Chief Bowers has a few comments that he and Treasurer has worked out.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council members, first off, I do want to thank you for participating in our open house and ribbon cutting on Saturday. I think it was a very well-deserved
thing. It was a very important day for the City and rural residents and for the Fire Department. I appreciate you showing up and participating. First off, did everybody get a copy
of that – what it is is the volunteer on-call personnel have approached us and asked if they would be able to get pay for their calls that they come on monthly now. In the past, of
course, when we were going 100 – 200 calls a year, it didn’t amount to much monthly, so they did want it to add up every six months. Also, this is kind of a two-fold request. Janice
from the accounting department felt that this would work out much better for their department, also, to do all the checks at the same time each month and that the auditors, it would
fit in with the auditors per year. It would fit in much better. As you can read here and see, the payroll for the volunteer on-call is about $7,000 a month. It varies, it goes up
and down, just depends on how busy the month is. I also approached the Rural Commissioners on March 16, 2000 of this very same subject. They approved of the change if the City Council
was in favor of it, but they did not want it to go into effect until June 1. That would be our next pay period that we start. They were in favor of waiting until June 1 and starting
it. Are there any questions of myself or the Department?
Bird: I had a question, Kenny. What does this – I mean, they all will be making enough per month that it’ll – FICA and all the taxes and stuff will be taken care of,
because if you don’t – pay periods, if you don’t make enough money, then all this stuff is not taken out, and I don’t want to get ourselves in trouble that way.
Bowers: Yes. They take out taxes and the –
Bird: If you change it to a month and they only made one or two call outs, though, and I don’t remember what it was, it used to be $100 or so on a pay – on a paycheck, then you wouldn’t
have any taxes or FICA taken out. These volunteers need to realize that that when they get to the end of the year and they’ve taken in $1000 over 12 months and hasn’t had any taxes
or FICA taken out and they get hit with it at that end, I can hear them coming back and screaming you didn’t tell me. I’d have no problem with that. I think it’s a great idea. I just
want them to know up front that they – maybe Mr. Berg knows what the minimum is before you get taxes and stuff taken out, but I think that’s something – as long as the firemen are aware
of it.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council members, we do pay up to the May, the end of May and the end of November now at this time. Two times a year.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. I guess the question would be, the action would be, do you want to go monthly and the effective date.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I think for us and City Council it really doesn’t matter and Kenny (inaudible) really didn’t create any additional problems on the bookkeeping of payroll if it
would make things easier for the audit, I would make a motion that we approve this change and coincide it with the Rural District and when they want to start it, June 1st.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion is made that we pay the rural firemen on a monthly basis and become effective on June 1, 2000. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
City Engineer – Gary Smith
Bio-solids Dewatering Project – Change Order No. 1:
Corrie: City Engineer, Gary Smith.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council members. I’ve got three items. Item No. 1 is the bio-solids dewatering project, change order No. 1. You should have a
memo in your packet that explains the need for this change order. This memo was put together by Brad Watson. It consists of three items. First item is an old ditch that we found out
there at the site as we were excavating for the building that needed to be excavated, back-filled with some suitable material to support the facility. The cost for that extra work was
$11,787.04. Second Item was the necessity for a disconnect switch for the flow meter to the centrifuge was found not to be needed. That was a reduction cost of $1,005.96. The third
item has to due with the gas piping. It was changed from welded steel to plastic, and that resulted in a savings of $700. So the net change on this change order is an increase to the
contracted amount of $10,081.08 along with an increase in contract time of 28 days. I would request your approval and authority for authorization for Mayor Corrie to sign Change Order
No. 1 for the bio-solids dewatering project in that amount. Do you have any questions?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Change Order No. 1 with Turnkey Construction for the sum of $10,081.08 with an increase of 28 days on the back of the contract and for the Mayor
to sign.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $10,081.08, Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those
in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Tully Park Easement:
Smith: Second item is an easement request for an easement by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for access from Linder Road into the Tully Park pump station. This pump station supplies
irrigation water from Five Mile Creek to Tully Park and also will supply pressure irrigation to the Turtle Creek Subdivision which is to the west of Tully Park. The deed has been transmitted
to Nampa Meridian for the pump station and the operation and maintenance agreement has been previously acted on by Council and sent to them and this is the remaining need for their operation
maintenance of that pump station is to provide an access easement. I can’t tell you why that wasn’t part of the original deed. I think it just got dropped out of the loop. Wasn’t
originally included.
Corrie: Okay. Discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the request for the Tully Park Easement.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Tully Park Easement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve, the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest, as presented by the City Public Works Director. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Country Terrace Estates Sewer Connection Issue – Sid Harmon:
Smith: Thank you, Mayor and Council. The last item I have concerns Country Terrace Estates Subdivision and the need or the request for a sewer connection out there to the City sewer.
This goes back to initially the request was, I believe, in December of last year. I don’t know if you recall it or not, but specifically Mike Luke lives in Country Terrace Subdivision
and he called one day stating that he had problems with his septic tank drain field process. All of the – just a little history. All of the residents in Country Terrace are presently
served by a community water system; they are in the county; they have City limits to most of the west side of them which is Running Brook Estates; to the south side of them which, again,
is Running Brook; to the east of them is Meridian Greens. There’s a portion of their west boundary that is county, still county. The property across Overland to the north of them is
still county. The – as I mentioned, they’re served for water by community well that’s operated and maintained by a water system association. Each lot has an individual septic tank
and drain field for disposal of sewage. As part of the construction of the subdivision, the developer installed sewer lines in the streets which are public rights-of-way. They were
dry lines. When Running Brook Estates was constructed, I required the developer of Running Brook to extend the sewer line through their subdivision and connect to the sewer lines in
Country Terrace because that’s the way they flowed, that would be their only avenue for future connection assuming they had a problem. And when Mr. Luke called, was found that not
only did he have a problem, but there were several lots in the subdivision that had experienced some degree of problem with their septic tank drain field process. At the time that Mr.
Luke’s request was presented to you, you instructed me to come back and talk to the residents of the subdivision concerning annexation. With other business that was pressing, I kind
of dropped the ball on that; Mr. Luke’s problem with his drain field seemed to dissipate and so he didn’t press me. Consequently, nothing happened from my standpoint, to get information
back to you. Recently, Mr. Luke called again and said his problem has surfaced, so to speak. So the
question then was, well, I got back in my file and found that the question that you had posed to me was what’s the attitude of the residents toward annexation? And in that regard, I
contacted Mr. Luke who in turn contacted Mr. Sid Harmon. Sid is the President of the water users association. I’m not sure that’s the right terminology, but they don’t have a Homeowners
Association, per se, but the water users’ association kind of – is a focal point for operations within the subdivision. He did some legwork, some homework amongst the property owners
in the subdivision concerning the annexation issue, and he has gathered some information in that regard and in regard of actually connecting to the sewer system that’s in the public
right-of-way. I guess with that background, I will turn the comments over to Sid and let him give you information that he’s gathered on the attitudes of the residents in Country Terrace
concerning annexation. Mr. Harmon.
Harmon: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Sid Harmon. I live at 1635 Country Terrace Estates in Meridian, Idaho. Like Gary said, there’s a resurface of a problem in Mike
Luke’s front yard. He had an engineer from Master Rooter come out and pronounce his drain field dead on arrival. His front yard is too small to physically fit a new drain field in.
His back yard overlooks Running Brook Estates, and is therefore, on a slight bluff, and he may not even have enough room to put a drain field and septic tank in his back yard. Knowing
that we kind of expected for quite some time that eventually our little subdivision will be annexed, Mike Luke is somewhat reluctant into trying to put in a $5,000, $6,000 system only
to have Meridian annex us a year or two or three years from now because that would be about what it would cost to hook up to City sewer and water when annexed. Mike has a problem.
On the other hand, our subdivision’s been well served by a well for almost 20 years. My next door neighbor’s a single gentleman that works for Van Waters and Rogers, it’s a ground water
contamination specialist. He tested the water and promptly bought his house because it’s some of the best water around that he’s ever seen. We enjoy the well. I’m not the president
of the Homeowners Association, but the president of a corporation to support the collection of funds to support our well. When the 28 residents, we have 28 homes out there, and I was
able to contact 26 residents, and that was after a considerable amount of time and effort that Gary had put into explaining several different things to us. We got together with a couple
members of our subdivision, vice president, director, and we had our meeting and put together some information, tried to send it out to folks to get their feelings on the impacts that
would be to them, pros and cons on annexation. Out of the 26 homeowners that I did ask, 11 percent favored annexation and 89 percent did not favor annexation. It’s just strictly on
you annex me, I would have to hook up to City water and sewer. Financial was probably a main point, however, everybody likes the good water. You go over and visit somebody in Meridian
Greens, and you say, man, your water tastes bad. And vice versa when they come over to us, they say, man, your water tastes good. That’s kind of the position of the residents out there.
It looks like about 11 percent for and 89 percent against; however, Mike Luke still has a problem. That’s kind of where we
stand. Are there any questions that you’d like to ask me or are there any other options anywhere between full annexation and Mike Luke, you’ve really got a problem.
Corrie: Sounds like 80 percent of them knows he’s got a problem but they don’t care. I mean, they don’t care that he’s got the problem. They do care, but they want to keep their own
until they have a problem.
Harmon: We have had two other people who have a problem. One of them tried to put a pond at the end of his drain field and couldn’t figure out why his pond wouldn’t work right. Another
owner never had a septic before and never pumped it and his failed and had to put in a new tank and drain field system. We realize that septic systems will fail and sooner or later
we will be annexed. That’s why we’re down here looking to see what other options there might be. Gary did point out that right now all the lines in the streets belong to us. We’re
responsible for the maintenance of them. If Mike Luke were to hook onto City sewer and we were not annexed, we would be responsible for any flushing, caring and maintenance of the lines.
Basically, nobody had a problem with that because tomorrow it could be them.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, is it the well that most of the residents – they don’t want to lose their water, their well and – is that their real concern?
Harmon: I would say that mostly the concern would be financial, but everybody in the same breath would say I really like the water out here. Those folks have lived in there most of
them long enough to really appreciate the difference. I’ve been out there 10 years now.
Anderson: Gary, what’s the option on water? Could they hook up to sewer and keep their water for awhile until such time they start having problems with the well and then go to City
water?
Smith: Councilman Anderson, Mayor and Council, I’m not prepared to address that from a DEQ standpoint if that would be a DEQ issue. Right now, they’re a county subdivision with their
own water system, and they’re operating under requirements that DEQ would have over a private water system. I don’t know if that would be affected by an inclusion into the City of Meridian
as one option. The other option would be to allow them to connect without connecting to the City water system as a county subdivision. The only way we could handle that would be to
– as far as billing goes, just to bill them a flat fee each month based on the average water use in the City. So it wouldn’t be based on a meter of water used because they don’t have
meters.
Anderson: But for them to hook up to the sewer, you’d charge them a double hook-up fee, a double assessment?
Smith: No, sir. That was removed from our Ordinance. It would be just a straight connection fee. But what I mentioned to Sid, and I think I mentioned before, perhaps not, but Central
District Health has taken the attitude because they have jurisdiction over septic tanks and drain fields that if a city sewer is available to a property, even if the property’s not in
the City, they won’t allow that property to replace their on-site system. They’ll require them to connect to the City. I talked to Mayor Corrie about that yesterday. I’m not sure
of the legalities of all of that, but they’ve done that to us before. Not done it to us, they’ve done it to the landowners that were outside the city limits in front of which a sewer
line exists. They’d required them to connect to the sewer; would not let them replace their system. So that could very possibly be Mike Luke’s situation as far as Central District
is concerned. I don’t know whether Bill Nichols has any –
Corrie: Would this be everybody in that subdivision hook into our sewer line or just the one or whenever they come in with a problem?
Smith: As a county resident, it would just be as they experienced a problem. If somehow the subdivision was annexed, then our Ordinance requires a connection. That could be varied,
I suspect. I guess the whole Ordinance is susceptible to variances, but by Ordinance, they would have to connect within 15 days of notice. I mentioned before we haven’t gone out and
actively solicited customers because we got lots of them. We do have some folks in the city that are adjacent to sewer lines that are not connected.
Anderson: Why would you even want to be annexed into the City if you could hook to our sewer and use the facilities that the rest of the tax payers are footing the bill for?
Smith: That’s the question, yes, sir. And we used to have a little bit of a penalty for hooking into the sewer and water system, but that penalty’s not there any longer.
Anderson: You’re never going to be able to annex one house at a time because it’s got to be contiguous. So you have to have either the subdivision goes or they don’t go. When you
look at all the trouble Boise’s been having with extending sewer and water services outside their area, I guess I’m not leaning toward us doing that either.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, is it something we can do that, you know, when it goes above 10 percent wanting to hook up that the whole subdivision would have to them be annexed and required
to hook up or it’s either all or nothing?
Corrie: Are you directing that to Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, Mayor and Council, it is likely even though this subdivision is more than five acres that you could annex it because the
subdivision is contiguous since it’s part of a larger parcel which was split up into less than five-acre lots. But the force annexation issue is what’s caused these problems as far
as annexation or statutes at the legislature. If you – in the policy as I understand that the City has had is to only annex upon consent where people come to you and asked to be annexed
because they’re going to receive something in turn: city services, zoning considerations that they can’t get from the county. I don’t think you can come up with an agreement that enough
people in the subdivision would sign, kind of a (inaudible) agreement that would cover this thing. I think it’s cleaner and less political problem if they all consent or if the vast
majority of them consent and you only have a couple people in the neighborhood that doesn’t want to come in, because then we can force annex those few if you’ve chosen to, but generally,
I don’t think you need to be or want to be in the process of solving these problems by extending city services beyond the boundaries, because you’ll never get them annexed then. I just
don’t see it ever happening unless you completely surrounded them and got them enclave. It’s unfortunate for Mr. Luke and the next Mr. Luke that has a problem out there. But if you
look at it from the standpoint of this subdivision did not already have a sewer line in place, then not only would they be looking at having it annexed, they’d have to figure out how
to do an LID to put the lines in.
Corrie: You’re going to have that come up as enclaves very quickly (inaudible) city limits. They are hooked up and everything else. It’s an unfortunate situation where people out
there would have the problems that are coming up. They have to do what the citizens are having to pay the taxes for and getting the same services and they’re not doing it.
deWeerd: So I guess the neighbors have to decide.
Smith: And Mr. Luke has a problem that – I don’t think Central District Health is going to help him out with an on-site system. But I guess maybe that question needs to be asked for
sure, too, to replace it unless it already has been replaced. I don’t know.
Anderson: I don’t think we’re going to resolve that issue tonight because it’s a pretty big issue. It involves a lot of things, but maybe at a strategic planning, maybe would be the
place to discuss it a little more. I’m not sure there’s a clean, crisp answer.
Smith: I did want Mr. Harmon to report to you as far as what the residents’ attitudes are toward annexation, and he’s done that.
Corrie: I don’t think that we’re falling on deaf ears. We’re caught between a Catch-22 here that we’re learning some lessons from Boise. We just need to discuss it more, I think.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a lot of time.
Anderson: You might add, if you compare mill levy rates, the City of Meridian has one of the lowest mill levy rates for taxing as any cities around here.
Harmon: Mayor and City Council, Mr. Anderson, your point’s well taken, and nobody’s really complained when we looked at our tax rate. That really wasn’t an issue.
deWeerd: It’s the hook-up?
Harmon: Well, you made a comment about we’re getting something for nothing. We’re going to pay about $2,000 worth of fees per person to hook up to that sewer even if not annexed.
We’re going to pay a sewer fee based on a flat rate because like Gary says, we don’t have water meters, so we’re going to get a flat rate, supposedly for the sewer fee. So I’m paying
the fee and I’m paying a sewer fee. I don’t see that I’m getting something for nothing.
deWeerd: We didn’t say that.
Anderson: If you look at the total cost of operating one of the plants being in the millions of dollars and look at what the city people are paying for it in addition to their taxes,
they are paying a lot more than what you’d pay.
Harmon: Like I said, the City taxes wouldn’t go up that much, and nobody has a complaint about that. That would not be a big deal about that at all.
Anderson: Plus there would be several other benefits: police protection.
Harmon: Well, we talked about that, and a couple of the folks out in the area is with the Sheriff’s Department, and we get real good service out there. (inaudible). There might be
a couple other things that we were looking at for pros and cons. I did talk to, On Gary’s suggestion, talk to Mike Reno with CDH, and he said that he would not issue Mr. Luke a permit
to hook up to – to do a new septic system unless he received a letter from the City of Meridian saying that we will not annex you. So that may set a little bit of future tone or something
like that.
Corrie: We can’t –
Bird: We’re not going to say that.
Corrie: That’s too open-ended.
Harmon: I was looking for my notes to repeat that verbatim. I was flipping madly through that and I could not find it. That’s the tone of what he said. I will not submit or let him
put in a new septic system unless Meridian says, No, we will not
annex. Then he said that he would go out and see if it would be appropriate to put in another septic system.
Corrie: That’s unusual.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I think the letter could say that if it’s the Council’s wish that you’re not inclined to extend City Water and sewer or sewer services to
properties outside the City limits unless they are annexed. IF that’s your policy and you say such, then CDH does with it what it will. But that has been your policy.
deWeerd: To add to that, indicators are that the subdivision does not desire to annex into Meridian.
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, Mayor, members of the Council, that would be appropriate to include in there, and parenthetically, Mr. Harmon needs to be – at least you’ve got a poll
taken by people in the subdivision. He needs to be congratulated for making that effort so that at least you know how the subdivision stands instead of guessing at it.
Harmon: I did intend to attempt to make it as much from my point of view to them, open-minded as possible. Didn’t come with a negative point of view. I attempted to make it as broad-based
as possible.
Corrie: As you did here. I appreciate that. Okay.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I think it would be to Mr. Luke’s benefit if we asked that Gary write the letter explaining our policy and perhaps echoing what we’ve heard tonight that it is not
the desire to annex into the City of Meridian and perhaps that can get something going for him and Central District Health.
Corrie: Any comments on that from Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, you know, I know Mr. Luke quite personally; I don’t know why we’re even bothering writing Central District Health. We’ve got a policy. Let them go out and make the
decision. All they’re trying to do is make – let us make their decision for them. It’s not going to make one bit of difference for Mike at all. When the subdivision wants to come
get annexed, they can come ask us to get annexed. Let Central District Health – we all know that CDH is probably not going to let any of the septic tanks when they start failing, and
they’re going to start failing. Like you said, they’re 20 years old. They’re – I don’t know why we’re even being involved with writing a letter to Central District Health.
Anderson: The only thing that letter is going to do is force Central District Health to come back and tell him even sooner that they’re not going to allow him to put a septic system
in and that he needs to look at annexation.
Bird: But how are you going to annex it? Where he lives is not up to another –
Anderson: It’s not up to him because he’s not contiguous.
Bird: He’s not contiguous, so, you know, you’re putting him out in the spot of saying, man, what am I going to do?
Harmon: Mr. Mayor and City Council, I would like to address some of the words that I heard at Mike Reno at Central District Health. He sounded somewhat amenable that he would allow
him to hook up but only after receiving word that we would not be annexed. Sorry. That he would issue him a permit to put in a drain field, but only after hearing that we would be
not be annexed.
Bird: We can’t guarantee that you won’t be annexed.
Harmon: I know that, but I thought I heard something different – in a tone –
Bird: I mean, I just don’t see where it’s our point to write any kind of a letter to Central District Health. You’re in the County. You don’t want the city services except as you
need them. So my personal opinion is why will we stick our necks out. Why do we say we’re not going to annex you when six months from now 75 percent of the citizens in that deal comes
in and say I want to be annexed. Well, you wrote a letter last month that you’re not going to annex us, and we’ve let Mr. Luke already put a septic tank back in. Now he’s going to
have to hook up. I did – the Central District Health thing, I don’t – I just don’t see the City of Meridian has any business writing any letter.
Harmon: That was the (inaudible) that Central District might not even allow a septic to go in and made the call. That was his –
Bird: Let Central District stand the heat.
Corrie: Okay. Then, (inaudible) take it back to them that that’s not going to be the policy to hook anyone up at this point.
Parks Department – Tom Kuntz
Bid results for Storey Park irrigation system:
Corrie: Okay. Parks.
Kuntz: Mayor and Council, two items that I need some direction on. The first I want to address is the bids on the sprinkling system at Storey Park. You should have in your packet
a memo. To paraphrase that memo, on January 28th we received four bids for the irrigation system at Storey Park. I’ve listed the names
and the companies and the amounts there. The budget amount for the project was $80,000. The reason that was so low was that we anticipated carrying over approximately $30,000 from
last years’ budget to build the pump station. Since the budget amount and the low bid amount are so far apart and we still have some unanswered questions in regard to the pump station
and where that will be located, I’m requesting authorization to reject all the bids at this time with consideration given to requesting additional funding and re-bidding the project
at a later date.
Corrie: Comments from Council?
Anderson: Why was your estimate off so far?
Kuntz: We were anticipating – last year we budgeted $30,000 to build a new pump station for the existing sprinkling system at Storey Park. We didn’t move forward with that because
there was an opportunity for us to take over Well No. 8 once it was abandoned. After about three or four weeks of research, we found out that Well No. 8 only has a life expectancy of
five more years. So we were not able to carry that money over from last year’s budget to this year’s budget because of some new accounting procedures that have been adopted by the City.
So the $80,000 plus the $30,000 would have brought us to $110,000, but we lost that $30,000 from last year’s budget.
Anderson: Does this bid include a pumping station?
Kuntz: Yes. Actually $10,000 of that low bid is for a block building with a metal roof that would resemble the Chamber building.
Anderson: So why wouldn’t you go ahead with the pumping station and the building and do the sprinkling system (inaudible).
Kuntz: Well, I called Western Ada Recreation District about two weeks ago because I felt like if we’re going to go to the extent of putting in new sprinkling systems in the park, and
since that pool area is located right next to our park, that might be prudent to ask them if they wanted to consider in putting in a new sprinkling system around the pool that we could
possibly maintain, thus, the grass around the pool being the same greenness around in the park. They indicated to me that they had some discussion with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District
because the box they’re pumping out of now which is on the south side of the pool which Meridian Speedway and Western Ada uses, is an illegal box. That in fact Nampa Meridian irrigation
District, what’s going to try to move all of us, the City, the Speedway and Western Ada into another box to pump out of. The box that we’re using right now is going to have to be relocated
once Franklin is widened to five lanes. So with that in mind, we met with Nampa Meridian, and they are suggesting that we – the three of us pump out of the new box that’s located on
the Hon property which is right across from the Chamber of Commerce, and that we pump out of that box in conjunction with the Hons. I’ve
asked Gary Smith to become involved to make sure that we’re not losing out on our ability to have an exclusive ump station instead of being in with the Hon Development. So there’s some
matters that need to be cleared up as far as where that pump house is actually going to be located before we move ahead. In addition to that, I plan on bringing a proposal to you to
do some renovating at Storey Park in next year’s budget, and this will include some re-routing of the sprinkling system. So to answer your question, Councilman Anderson, there’s enough
loose ends out there to where I’m not ready to move ahead with this project.
Anderson: One more question. If we built the pump house, it would be one a Nampa Meridian irrigation ditch? Just be pumping out of their ditch? (inaudible)
Kuntz: No. It would be strictly irrigation water from Nampa Meridian. The benefit that we have to the current site is that when we don’t have water in that ditch, we have a surface
well across Franklin Road that we can dam up and we have access to water when there’s no water in the irrigation ditch. We prefer not to lose that if at all possible.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to move that we reject all bids for the Storey Park Irrigation Project.
Bird: I second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to reject all bids on the Storey Park Irrigation Project. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Kuntz: The second item I have –
deWeerd: Excuse me for a moment. Just to kind of make the plug now that this $80,000 – we would like to carry forward. I know we can’t carry forward, so whatever it is that we do
with it, we would like it to show up in this year’s budget and not be penalized. Just thought I’d throw that in.
Corrie: Let’s why we’re working on the budget this year (inaudible).
Anderson: Why couldn’t’ you take that $80,000 and reappropriate it for some other project among the – Parks Department had lots of projects on their list this year that didn’t get funded,
why couldn’t you take that money and appropriate it to something like that and use it this year?
Bird: (inaudible) how much was (inaudible) Generations Plaza.
deWeerd: Generations (inaudible).
Kuntz: Generations is funded. We could certainly put that money toward Chateau.
deWeerd: If you like, we could tell you how to spend that.
Anderson: I would prefer that you try to find another project.
deWeerd: A Parks and Recreation
Anderson: -- in the same, approximate price range.
Bird: If you want to give it to the Mayor (inaudible).
Corrie: He needs to present it to the Council as a change.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
1. Renewal of farm lease with Ken Aschenbrenner:
Kuntz: The last item I had, we’re moving ahead with finalizing the master plan for the 56 acres, and these are just three options –
*** End of Side 5 ***
bring with just for visual purposes. But before that, a plan becomes finalized which we’re hoping will be within the next 60 days, we need to do something with the 56 acres that’s out
there. We researched a couple of options. One of those being putting a turf farm out there and there just seems to be some obstacles that make that not the best option. So I’ve been
contacted by Ken Aschenbrenner who farmed the land for us in 1998, and I would like to have authorization to renew that lease with Mr. Aschenbrenner, and I’ve got a copy of the old lease
that was attached in your packets. There would be two changes to that lease. Those changes would be on Page 1 of the lease agreement under the terms of lease, Item No. 2, and the change
would be that the lease would be effective the 1st day of April of this year and would expire on the 30th of September of this year. The other change is that the lease amount would
be $2,600 for wheat which would pay our water bill, irrigation taxes, which we’ll have whether we’ll farm it or not; and if he is able to plant beans, that lease amount would go up to
$3,180. The bottom line is we’ve got irrigation taxes on that land whether we farm it or not, we have opportunity to put a crop on there, cover our irrigation taxes, keep the weeds
down without any additional costs until the Council appropriates money to start building Phase I of the new community park. So I’m requesting authorization to renew that lease with
Mr. Aschenbrenner through September of this year.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we recommend renewing the lease with Ken Aschenbrenner for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to have the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest to a lease agreement with Mr. Aschenbrenner as presented to City Council. Any further discussion?
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 18. Tabled from March 7, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Adult Entertainment Ordinance relating to zoning schedule:
Corrie: We have one other Item; Item D on the Consent Agenda which is 18 which is the adult entertainment. Okay. Mrs. deWeerd, what have you got for us?
deWeerd: Well, just to reiterate what I said last meeting that I would like to see if this were permitted in the I-L zone only. Light Industrial.
Bird: The only problem is that some of it’s grandfathered according to the letter we received. Is that okay, Mr. Nichols, if we do that?
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the Council, yes, there are non-conforming use, apparently you have one business, as I understand it, in the Old Towne District that’s a
non-conforming use as long as they do not expand or change some material way that business, then it can stay in place even though it’s not an allowed use within that zone for any new
businesses. But if they try to expand, they’re out. If they close up shop and go away and somebody else wants to come in there and operate the same business, they can’t. As long as
– I think to support the record, if Mr. Siddoway would say what I said earlier which is that there’s sufficient available light industrial land available, then you have a basis upon
which you can say we’re zoning this in a particular (inaudible) and it’s available.
Siddoway: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, there is sufficient light-industrial land currently available in the City that would allow these businesses to have a place to go. In
addition, current movements in our changes to the Comp Plan are to make locations where those establishments currently exist to also go industrial. So that would be in compliance with
that.
deWeerd: So do I need a motion to recommend amending the Findings and ask you to draw up the appropriate changes?
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, Mayor, members of the Council, a motion from the Council that directs me to write the Ordinance to allow it as a conditional use in a light-industrial
zone only is enough. Then I’ll put it together.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I would like to move that we instruct the City Attorney to amend the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the adult entertainment Ordinance to allow this
use under a Conditional Use Permit process in light-industrial zone only.
Bird: I will second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to – the Ordinance – it’s getting late – that was presented on tape. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion as stated
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I believe that does it. If everybody will meet me in the morning at 6:30, I will be very happy to have you there.
Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, before you do, I realize that I’m not on the department reports, but can I just give a brief one? First I would just like to bring up the Treasure Valley Futures
Project that has been going on. Recently completed. If you attended the final presentation, you probably feel as I do that the process was better than the final presentation and products,
but we have generated a lot of imputes to build on. I don’t’ want to lose that. The person in charge of that, Treasure Valley Futures Project, has agreed to do more. We are going
to set up a meeting to talk about how to do that. The Mayor’s Committee will obviously have a charge to take that on. We would actually like a chance to present the results of that
process to the City Council in much the way we did with the ad hoc committees either at Pre-Council meeting or if you have a Strategic Planning Meeting where we could come, give a presentation
to the Council; I don’t know if you want to entertain a date yet tonight, but we could do it on Pre-Council on the 4th or we could just leave that open for now and find a way to discuss
that.
deWeerd: We could discuss it at our workshop next week.
Corrie: (inaudible) by the time I got everybody’s (inaudible)
deWeerd: Steve, if you could suggest a couple of dates maybe or date alternatives for a Pre-Council or a workshop so the Council –
Siddoway: Do you have any special workshops planned currently? That’s what I would go by. We could go the 4th which is the next regularly scheduled meeting or if you have a Strategic
Planning Meeting or a special workshop planned, we could go with that as well. I need to coordinate this, of course, with the Treasure
Valley Futures folks who have the presentation. We’ll do that. Also just wanted to bring up the Comprehensive Plan process is under way. I’ll spare you the details. I was going to
go through some of the dates, but we won’t go into that. It is moving along. The last thing I wanted to let you know about is Ordinances that are being worked on at Planning and Zoning
for signage and landscaping and we hope that you’ll see them soon. We intend to meet the deadline to get them to start hearing in May. We wanted to give you a heads-up on that and
let you know that they are coming. That’s all I have.
Bird: Thanks, Steve.
Corrie: This is the recommendation from the Traffic Committee, recommendations to go to letter to ACHD (inaudible) problems with it or if you want to do something, you know – otherwise,
I’ll – after I talk to each one of you and have your approval, I’ll go ahead and send the letter. I want you to see what they’re requesting and then (inaudible)
deWeerd: Mayor Corrie, just one thing on what Steve has said. He and Brad have done a wonderful job with Shari out on leave, and I really want them to know that they’re very appreciated.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:27 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK