HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 05-02Meridian City Council Meeting May 2, 2000
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:36 p.m. on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members present: Robert Corrie, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Tammy deWeerd, Keith Bird.
Others present: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Bill Gordon, Tom Kuntz, Skip Voss, Bill Nichols, Will Berg.
Corrie: Okay, I’ll open the City Council meeting at 7:36 for May 2, 2000, and we’ll have roll-call, Mr. Clerk. Thank you. First off, I’d like to welcome you all here this evening.
Thank you for taking the time to come out.
Item A. Approve minutes of April 18, 2000, Special City Pre-Council Meeting:
Item B. Approve minutes of April 18, 2000, City Council Meeting
Item C. Approve minutes of April 4, 2000, Special City Pre-Council Meeting:
Item D. Tabled from April 18, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned unit development including continuing care retirement
community, single- and multi-family residential and office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers - Joseph A. Billig – east of St. Luke’s between Franklin Road and Interstate 84:
Item E. Tabled from April 18, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: PP 99-010 Request for preliminary plat for proposed Bear Creek Subdivision – 326 single-family lots on
150.79 acres by Bear Creek, LLC – east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland:
Item F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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 Victory:
Item G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-010 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an 1800 s.f. home/office to be used as office space/relocation in a C-N zone by C.W.
Construction, Inc. – West Barrett Drive south of Franklin Road:
Item H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-005 Request for variance from conditions of platting and City Ordinance
12-5-2.N regarding pressure irrigation in the Scottsdale Subdivision by Wolfe Commercial Enterprises, LLC – south of Franklin Road between Meridian and Linder Roads:
Item I. Water and Sewer Hookup Agreement for Opal C. Farrington:
Item J. Water and Sewer Line Crossing Agreement for Vienna Woods Subdivision:
Item K. Approve Bills:
Corrie: First item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, we need to do some tabling on the Consent Agenda. Items A and B need to be tabled to May 16th; Item D, E and F need to be tabled to May 16; Item I needs to be taken
down to the regular agenda as 1a. With those changes, I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to approve the Consent Agenda with the items that were tabled. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Public Hearing: VAR 00-008 Request for parking variance – reduction in required parking spaces for Generations Park Plaza II by Gary Benoit – at East 1st Street and West Idaho:
Improperly noticed – scheduled for May 16, 2000
Corrie: Let me make a few announcements here. On the agenda, No. 7, which is a public hearing, that was improperly noticed, and it’s scheduled for May 16th, next meeting. So if there’s
anyone here that was for that public hearing, it will be the 16th rather than tonight. So that’s due to an improper notice, the rescheduling.
A. City Councilperson - Tammy deWeerd:
1. Pathway Master Plan Committee / Sub-Committee of Parks and Recreation Commission:
Corrie: On the Department Reports, Item A has been requested by the City Council, Tammy deWeerd, to move that to the 16th of May. That’s on the pathway, master plan committee and subcommittee.
City Attorney – Bill Nichols:
Latecomers issues:
We’ve added an Item D which is from the attorney to discuss latecomers issues. He has four questions on sewer lines. So that one has been added.
Item 13. FP 00-007: Request for Final Plat approval of 102 lots and 14 other lots on 31.94 acres in an R-4 zone by Projects West, Inc., for English Gardens Subdivision:
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, you also were going to put Item 13 for May 16th.
Corrie: Yes. The Council, when Item 13 comes up, will table that to the 16th due to the fact that request by staff that we have not gotten all the final plat approval – the developer
– at that point there’s a couple of questions, so that will be tabled. So if there’s anybody here for Item 13 to hear what goes on, that will be tabled at that time. Thank you, Ms.
McCandless.
Item I. Water and Sewer Hookup Agreement for Opal C. Farrington:
Corrie: Okay, regular agenda, Item I, the water and sewer hookup agreement for Opal C. Farrington. We’ll open that. Staff comments first.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, this agreement is requested by Opal Farrington for connection of three sewer and water connections, the property is owned by them – owned by Mrs.
Farrington at the northwest corner of Adkins Lane and East Pine. The agreement for services to property outside City limits has been sent to them for signature. There was a correction
that needed to be made in the agreement concerning the assessment fees. Our old Ordinance addressed a double-connection fee for service outside the City limits. That’s no longer in
effect, so that needs to be revised in the agreement. Beyond that, I believe they are willing to sign that agreement which does include provisions for them to immediately begin annexation
process to the City of Meridian. They are contiguous to the existing City limits.
Corrie: Council, any questions on that request for water and sewer hookup agreement? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion that – if you would like to have them go ahead with that
and with the changes to be made.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the water and sewer hookup agreement for Opal Farrington with changes being made, and once they are made and signed by both parties, the Mayor
to sign and the Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to have the agreement signed and approved – the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest after the City Engineer has approved the agreement. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 1. Ordinance No. 873: Adult Entertainment Ordinance relating to zoning schedule:
Corrie: Item No. 1 is the Adult Entertainment Ordinance relating to zoning schedule. Mr. Clerk, if you will read that Ordinance and give it a number and read it by title only, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, Ordinance No. 873: An Ordinance amending subsection B, Commercial, of the zoning schedule of the use control of Section 1 of Chapter
8 of Title 2, Meridian City Code, by addition thereof an adult entertainment business under land use; and providing for the same to be permitted only by conditional use in the I-L District;
and providing an effective date.
Corrie: You’ve heard the reading of the Ordinance No. 873. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance No. 873 read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain
a motion on Ordinance No. 873.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 873 with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Bird to approve Ordinance No. 873 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, if you will give us
the roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 2. Tabled April 18, 2000: Ada County Development Services 00-10 PDR 00-05: Request for Preliminary Plat for Edinburgh Subdivision – 138 Lots on 40.69 Acres by Steve Smith
– ½ mile east of Eagle Road on McMillan Road:
Corrie: Item No. 2 was tabled April 18. Ada County Development Services, 00-10 PDR, 00-05. Request for preliminary plat for Edinburgh Subdivision of 138 lots on 40.69 acres by Steve
Smith – ½ mile east of Eagle Road on McMillan Road. Staff, comments?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, we just delivered to you tonight a report dated today. We did meet with the applicant yesterday, and we had listed 11 items if you were to approve this
as conditions of providing service and approval and approving the preliminary plat. There’s a question on whether we legally can approve a preliminary plat that we cannot serve the
entire plat. The applicant’s representative did deliver as the last page of the memo, 52 lots that the Public Works Department feels is the maximum that can be accepted from this subdivision.
So if you were to approve this plat, that would have to be one of the conditions because you couldn’t approve the entire plat. This property is located presently ½ mile from the city
limits on McMillan Road. The Boise City is here. Our area of impact goes on the boundary. This is where Vienna Woods Subdivision was previously approved through our negotiations with
the Ada County Commissioners on our area of impact. The applicant, when we met with them, did agree to being subject to the park impact fees, and those would be collected at the time
that sewer and water hookup was made, or the application was made. The other – another item would be irrevocable agreement to annexation, and they have agreed to that. We would enter
into an agreement with them, and plus, they would include that as a non-negotiable term within each lot’s property deed. We had asked for some more verification from the School District
on their ability to serve this subdivision. They would be subject to a latecomers agreement for the pressure line. They’re proposing that they would hook into this temporary lift station
in Vienna Woods, and they would have their sewer serviced on a temporary basis coming down this pressure line to connect in where Summerfield Subdivision is and on into the south slew.
They would be subject to latecomer costs for tapping into that. We’d asked for five-foot wide sidewalks to meet our Ordinance requirements. Hydrant placement approved by Public Works
Department; pressurized irrigation system, they have been working on with the Settler’s Irrigation District; we’ve asked for a six-foot high fence to be constructed on the west side.
There’s already fencing on the east side. They’re coordinating with Vienna Woods for the boundary to the north. As I said, they’ve agreed to the park impact fees. We ask that the
20-foot landscape setback be provided adjacent to McMillan beyond the 48-foot right-of-way take from centerline. They have agreed to that. As far as the open space, we had asked for
10 percent open space as they call this in Ada County a planned development, our Ordinance, if it is a planned development, they would be required to have a minimum of 10 percent usable
open space. They had this 16,000 s.f. tot-lot. They have agreed to add these two lots. It would make it roughly ¾ of an acre of open space for these 52 lots. One thing that we hadn’t
talked about at the meeting yesterday, but I understand that Gary has talked to the applicant’s representative since that time, and do you want to address that, Gary, about the future
fees?
Smith: Mayor and Council, one thing that we had discussed with the applicant, and as Shari mentioned, I talked to Gene Smith, their engineer, this morning, the Public Works Department
is in the process of trying to develop a systems development fee for sewer and water within our Urban Service Planning Area. This fee would be assessed as – at least as we envision
it on a preliminary basis – to all building permits that are issued in the City of Meridian regardless of where the building permit takes place. This would enable City of Meridian to
construct sewer and water main trunk lines. Of course, this would need to come before the Council for your review and approval and public hearings, also. But I thought it was important
to at least put it on the table at this point. I apologize to the applicant for not bringing it up yesterday when we met. I, at this point, all I have is a draft calculation from your
engineering department as to what that fee would be. I just wanted to make you aware of it, and as I mentioned earlier, the applicant’s engineer is aware of it. Thank you.
Stiles: As I said, we do have a legal question as to whether we can approve a partial plat as they have indicated. Ada County is waiting our response regarding this plat. They have
tabled it, and I believe it is back to the County on the 11th of May. We had some concerns about the design, although it is a grid pattern, most of the grid streets are not going like
a typical grid that would provide the inter connection. They have predominantly 80 by 100 lots with not much diversity in any of the lots within this subdivision. Going on to our recommendations
and based on the Comprehensive Plan analysis that was done, we do recommend denial of the rezone and preliminary plat; however, if City Council chooses to approve it, we would ask that
the 11 items noted in this memo be clearly expressed as conditions of approval. That’s all I had.
Corrie: First, Bill, legal question she brought up.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, tonight is the first time that the question’s been put to me, and I don’t have a ready answer for you. I don’t have an answer. It’d be
a pure guess on my part at this point.
Corrie: We wouldn’t want the legal to guess. Okay. Well, this isn’t a public hearing. I would like to invite the applicant up. I’ve got a couple of questions myself, and I’m sure
the Council might have some questions.
Butler: Good evening, City Council. JoAnne Butler, 101 South Capital Boulevard, representing Bunderson Smith, LLC, the applicant in this matter. With me tonight is Senator Bunderson,
Steve Smith and Gene Smith, our engineer. Mr. Bunderson will come up in just a few minutes and also address some of the questions that the Council might have. Of course, we are requesting
that the City forward a recommendation of approval of this preliminary plat to the County, and as Shari mentioned, it’s just next week that they’ll be reviewing that plat. The matter’s
been before the Council twice now. The staff’s provided your
report; we appreciate your report and generally agree with most of those provisions, and I’ll go through that in just a moment. We believe that the comments made by the staff in its
report and the conditions of approval that the staff provided in connection with the plat can only lead the City to do just that: recommend an approval in this matter. We’re specifically
asking for an approval for only 50 lots at this time, for only 50 lots to finally be platted because that’s what the capacity is at this time. We’re not asking, now, we’re not asking
in the future for a final plat approval for more than this 50 lots until the capacity for that 51-plus lots can be shown to the City’s reasonable satisfaction. So I guess Mr. Nichols
probably doesn’t have to do the research because we’re making it as legal as you can possibly make it. We’re agreeing not to ask for any final plat over and above what the capacity
now is of that area. We’ve had several pre-application meetings with Ada County to design this subdivision, and we’ve had several meetings with your staff. We’re here to try to accommodate
the City as much as possible under the Ordinances in effect, and Senator Bunderson will speak to you about the overall development goals that he and Mr. Smith have for this project to
identify for you how the design works in the context and how it works for not just this subdivision, but how it works for Meridian as a whole. I’ll just refer to your staff report so
it’s easy for you to follow along, and I’m referring to – I’ll be referring to mostly the conditions of approval. Before I get there, on the 2nd page, your staff states that the primary
issue before the Council is whether Urban Services should be extended beyond the existing City limits. But in fact, the services we’re requesting are already there. We’re not asking
you to extend services. Vienna Woods, when it went through was required to provide sewer that would serve this entire quarter section; so no urban services are going to be extended
by the City until some time further down the line, and, again, as I said, we wouldn’t be requesting any final plat approval until that time. So the sewer and water will be stubbed to
this area in capacity before 50 lots are available. Just as a reminder to the City, your Comprehensive Plan, this is under Page 10, and I won’t make you refer to that; I’ll read to
you from it. That Comprehensive Plan states, and I’m quoting: No new development should be approved outside of the urban service planning area unless it can be shown that urban services
can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval. Your Comprehensive Plan contemplates that you will serve not only outside your City limits, your Comprehensive Plan even says
that you may serve outside your urban service planning area if you can show that services are available. But we are inside the urban service planning area, so we more than meet your
Comprehensive Plan goal as to show where services can be reasonably provided by the time of final plat approval. So we do meet all of your Comprehensive Plan goals as identified in
your staff report and this other goal is not listed in this staff report. We also meet your subdivision ordinance. With regard to conditions of approval on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff
report, I’ll just quickly go through these. Number 1, we do consent to annexation and to provide further comfort to the City do not only reflect that on the plat itself, but to provide
that in the deeds. Senator Bunderson will speak to that as well. We have – Number 2 – we have met with the School District. Mr. Carberry has told us that
the District has no problem with the development, and it does not want a school site on this ground. In any letter that the City requires will be provided before any final plat. Number
3, we appreciate being subject to latecomers’ fees. I represent other people in this area that have already been built out and will be being paid by the folks that build here. I’m
sure that they’re very happy, too. Of course, this particular developer, down the road, if it should ever oversize facilities on the next phases, we would also appreciate having latecomers’
agreements that pertain to their development as well. Number 4, sidewalks at five feet are acceptable. Number 5, we will coordinate fire hydrant placement. Six, we’re glad to provide
the City with specifications for the pressurized urban irrigation system for your review. We will construct, on Number 7, the fence required. As the staff states in Number 8, if the
City recommends approval, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to pay park impact fees for this area. Number 9, arterial setbacks are fine as stated. On Number 10 as Ms. Stiles refers
to, there’s a little bit of confusion there. This subdivision is not, as you defined it, under your zoning ordinance which the zoning ordinance, of course, doesn’t apply in this case;
the subdivision is not a planned unit development. Ada County calls them planned developments, and when they forward the application onto you, you see those similar words. This is
not a situation where we’re asking – we’re giving amenities and asking the County for flexibility in setbacks or other standards. We are not asking for any flexibility and yet still
providing the common area. So this is not a planned development as if we were in Meridian you would define it, so the 10 percent would not be applicable here. On Condition No. 11,
regarding the sewer assessment, I know the Council’s heard me speak before. It is appropriate for the City to look into whether or not an overall city-wide sewer assessment for expanding
your system is appropriate. This applicant is willing to be a candidate for such an assessment that is fairly assessed across the City, and I know you’re going through that process.
So in conclusion before Mr. Bunderson comes up, we are asking for your recommendation of approval. The subdivision plat uses existing capacity; nothing new will be extended; it meets
your Comprehensive Plan and it meets your subdivision ordinance. It helps you develop into the area of impact in a reasonable fashion. It helps to provide park land for impact fees.
Of course, if you were to recommend denial, we'd want you to be very, very specific and clear in giving your reasons for that denial, but we believe that you can easily approve this
subdivision based on your Comprehensive Plan and the conditions of approval. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Bunderson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. For the record, my name is Hal Bunderson. I’m a 50 percent owner in this subject development. To give you a little background,
my partner, Steve Smith, and I and our spouses developed a Dunwoody Subdivision to the north of Vienna Woods. Those are about 1-1/2 and 2 acre lots. It’s a very nice subdivision.
Also Larkwood just to the west. It’s also in the impact area of Meridian. I want to mention that so you
have a flavor of the type of work we do. This subdivision, Austin Creek, to the east, has lots of 6,000 s.f. This moves into 8,000 s.f. To the north, Vienna Woods, it'’ lots that
will abut the north end of the Edinburgh are also 8,000. So it transitions into Vienna Woods has larger lots to the north. I think it’s important, in my opinion, your judgement, but
it’s very important to establish a line between City boundaries. City of Boise is there. I think we have general agreement with the lineage of the Ada County Ordinance, I think it’s
not clear to all concerned. By virtue of us putting in the deed the requirement, making it mandatory to annex at your pleasure. That, in fact, establishes a line, in law, where that
boundary is. So I think there’s some value in moving forward. Also, when we talk about the 50 lots, that’s, of course, because we all know because of the capacity that’s available.
When the White Line is available within about a year, then there’d be sufficient capacity to move forward with the balance of the development. The – I want to comment on how we get
treated by staff. We’ve been treated very well. Been cordial and a workman-like environment. We believe this is a good development. We’re pledged to make sure it’s a handsome development.
It will enhance the City of Meridian. We’ll work with yourselves and staff to make that happen. Be glad to stand for questions.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Senator Bunderson, I think JoAnne said that she was willing to put in writing that you would seek no final plat other than on the 52 lots until the sewer capacity
and water capacity is at the site; is that correct?
Bunderson: That is correct.
Anderson: Senator Bunderson, where would this subdivision get its water from right now? The water supply?
Bunderson: We anticipate stubbing off of the Meridian water supply going into Vienna Woods and bringing it in from that direction. Also, at the lower right-hand corner of the southeast
corner we’ll have pressurized water going into all the lots. We have worked with the developers of Vienna Woods. They will also have a separate pump right there as well.
Anderson: That will be for irrigation –
Bunderson: That will be for irrigation purposes. We have a working relationship with the developers of Vienna Woods. That’s why we were able to work together in solving some of these
common problems.
Corrie: Senator, do you know how much open space is in Vienna Woods Subdivision, what they allowed?
Bunderson: I don’t remember exactly. I think seven acres sticks in my mind, but that could be an error. Shari?
Stiles: I believed it was near to eight, but I couldn’t give you the exact number of acres.
Corrie: With that in mind, Senator, you have 3.2 percent total in open space in the whole plat after you get finished. Had you ever thought about more than that? Maybe – Vienna Woods
is the north end, that will be in the City limits. Trying to keep it fairly safe in my mind, you’ve got a tot-lot, but that’s only 3.2 percent. That’s not a 10 percent that they were
recommending.
Bunderson: We have thought about that. This map doesn’t show it, but Austin Creek, of course, now we’re crossing city boundaries, and I understand. The people who go to parks are
where parks are. As you know, on the northwest corner of Eagle Road and McMillan is a very large Boise park. So that the availability of parks are significant. I think that’s about
a 40-acre site it looks to me like. So that’s less than a quarter of a mile from this development. So the other side of it is we are paying impact fees for park purposes so that we
can enhance other Meridian parks that you would choose to spend that money.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, Senator Bunderson, I’ve only been on Council a short time, but – prior to that Planning and Zoning. It seems that the purpose of the City has been to annex and
serve or serve by which we can annex. In the cases – well, there’s only one case where they haven’t done that, and that’s Vienna Woods. That certainly didn’t set precedence. In my
opinion, to divert from a plan which is our sewer and water plan and how we serve, how we provide services to the developments in our area of impact, we need to be able to provide those
services without impacting existing service. The developments that we should consider annexing or servicing should benefit our community, and I think in the case where we’re not annexing
should provide more and be a true benefit to the community. It’s hard to go in conflict with the master plan that our water and sewer plan has put together and how we’re going to grow.
We’re trying to be conscientious of not sprawling all over or leap-frogging all over, and we’re doing that so that we grow in an orderly manner and in a manner that can best serve the
community that is annexed into Meridian. In your opinion, other than it being just like any other subdivision in the City of Meridian, what is different with this subdivision, and why
should be go against our sewer and water plan to accommodate this?
Bunderson: That’s a good question. I couldn’t agree with you more. I support long-range planning, and –
deWeerd: Then we’ll see this back in a number of years?
Bunderson: When Vienna Woods was approved, the pump station for the sewer was a capacity substantially greater than Vienna Woods. As I understand, the reason that was required so that
whole area could be used to pump through that station. Otherwise, and as a matter of fact, I suspect that the developers of
Vienna Woods are looking for some recovery of cost from that for latecomers. I believe the leap-frog did occur with Vienna Woods. This is a little leap-frog because it’s closer to
the City as far as the same as any other old subdivision. There’s some unique circumstances in this particular section of your impact area. That’s the history with the debate with
Ada County and the City of Eagle. That’s an important factor to weight. I think what this does is, as I mentioned earlier, is make clear where that line of demarcation is in the legal
way so that there would not be, because of the softness of the interpretation of the Ordinance with Ada County, there would not be any risk of encroachment further to the west on – for
whatever reason. It just seems to me that it’s prudent to draw those lines. I know that sounds self serving, but if I was looking at it from the other side with whatever level of sincerity
you can say and still not come across as self serving, I don’t mean it that way, I would want that line clear. I would want the definition not to be subject to debate any further.
I would like that done now. So I think there is a true advantage that this area where this one is and Vienna Woods and the like, that you come down. Since the services are there, basically,
the water is close by. See, Boise water and sewer abuts that property almost. The water does abut it. The sewer is just a few houses in. So we’re supportive of Meridian, and we think
bringing these other services across, there’s real value in clearly defining that line. So I don’t think it is the same as any old subdivision.
deWeerd: I didn’t know our area of impact, that line was of question. It was my understanding that if we could provide services in a reasonable amount of time, and I believe the timeframe
was 10 years, which we can do, that boundary wouldn’t change. You mentioned drawing a line, and when we’re talking our water and Sewer Master Plan, we have to draw a line somewhere
because then the next person’s going to come in and say, well, you did it for them. We’re only proposing a minimal amount of lots on impact. Where do you draw the line if you keep
giving in or caving in and not following the plan that you designed and the way you want to grow. You know, we’ll have the White Line in a year, and the lift station, as I understand
it in Vienna Woods is a temporary thing. It’s not built to be a forever thing. It was just built to be a temporary solution for that one subdivision. And so they built over-capacity.
I don’t think there was any agreement, unless I’m mistaken, that that capacity was to serve any property contiguous to their piece of property. Again, as a new member, maybe I don’t
fully understand that, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
Smith: Thank you, Mayor and Council, Councilman deWeerd. When – I guess we’ll go back to the days of negotiation with Ada County on our impact boundary and the proposal by the owners
of the now Vienna Woods Subdivision. One of the issues at that time was whether or not the Vienna Woods property would be part of the City of Meridian’s area of impact or part of Boise
City’s area of impact. And at that time, the owners indicated to us that they did have plans for development, and those plans were a number of years away. I don’t remember the exact
number. It seems like it was five years away from the time that we were negotiating with Ada County. At that time, the Council decided, and the
Mayor decided that we could provide services to this area in order to maintain it as part of the City of Meridian area of impact. And we understood at that time, and I had advised the
Council and Mayor that in order to provide these services, it could only be done through the installation of a lift station. It was my feeling, and I passed that feeling along to the
Council and Mayor that – and our City Attorney at the time, Bill Gigray, concluded also that once Vienna Woods Subdivision was accepted into the Meridian City area of impact or that
piece of property, and a lift station was installed that we would be most likely subjected to proposals for other properties in the same area to also be served by the City of Meridian.
So it was our opinion at that time that in order to eliminate the proliferation of numerous lift stations, that we would have a lift station in Vienna Woods’ property that could serve
more than just Vienna Woods. Not knowing for sure what was going to happen, but just having the feeling that once it started, there could be continuance of proposals or development.
So in that manner, or in that matter, then, the wet well for the lift station in Vienna Woods has been sized to serve property other than Vienna Woods. Now, the lift station itself,
the mechanical part of the lift station, I’m not – I can’t tell you exactly what the capacity of that station is from the pump’s standpoint. That’s a little history as to how we got
to this point in time, and I guess the thought process at the time the negotiation with Ada County as to what could happen out here in this area.
Anderson: Gary, where is that lift station pumping that to now?
Smith: It’s pumping south on Locust Grove to a manhole near the charter school that will discharge into that manhole. In the process of development of Vienna Woods, the sewer line
in Locust Grove at that point, the gravity sewer line, would be at capacity with Vienna Woods plus approximately 50 lots. And, there could be no more development in this area into that
lift station until such time that the flow could be diverted to another point of gravity flow. And the plans are that that would be the white drain sewer interceptor that we’re working
on right now.
Anderson: Ultimately, this area would be served by what trunk line?
Smith: Ultimately, this area would be served by the north slew trunk line.
Anderson: Which is not planned for quite a while, so we’re actually taking the Vienna Woods and anything else that we approve and dumping it into another service area at this point;
right?
Smith: That’s correct. Yes. And we’re getting back into the same situation that we were in with Bear Creek Subdivision where we’re pumping from one drainage area into another. But
like I said, that was the decision that was made by the then-City Council and Mayor for the negotiation process with Ada County for our impact boundary line.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Gary, the lift station doesn’t go away when the white trunk comes in, It just pumps into that.
Smith: That’s correct.
Bird: White would probably not be at capacity for years and years and years. I’d hope the north trunk would be built before that was ever at capacity. The only thing I see is this
corridor up here is the one we’re getting the pressure on from Boise. We’ve jumped, leap-frogged, sent – I include myself in it, I voted yes for it – we’ve overloaded existing sewer
lines to the southwest of us by approving subdivisions that we know that their sewer line isn’t going to be out there for probably the last one that’ll ever be developed in the impact
area of Meridian. The south Black Cat sewer line. I think as a Council we just need to decide whether we’re going to protect our area up there or whether we’re not. If we want the
development up there or if we want to just give it away.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, so is our area of impact still a question? Is that your implication?
Bird: My – I believe our area of impact is always up for question. That was no guarantee of 10 years that I recall. Not being on there, I don’t know what the agreement actually was.
You’ve already serviced one thing that’s north of this one. We have the capacity. We went out and we approved a subdivision that we’re shoving into another sewer line that we have
to do some jogging and everything else to make it work. That’s going to stop – it could fill up pretty fast. I don’t know how much this south slew – how much more of this south slew
can be pumped into it. I think 50 more lots. No, it isn’t an implication, but I think we’ve set a precedence there regardless of what this thing says.
deWeerd: So did you set a precedence when you approved Bear Creek?
Bird: I think we did.
deWeerd: So anything that comes in down there you’re going to approve that?
*** End of Side 1 ***
Bird: -- sewer, you’re going to have to. I think. That’s my personal opinion.
Corrie: Any questions? Thank you. Okay. Council, Any further discussion on the request for preliminary plat?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I have a question of the City Attorney. That would be as far as our impact area and the implications if we don’t approve or if we recommend not to approve this,
does this put this piece of property up for grabs
from Boise? I think Boise would have the same issues, though, providing sewer there. They’d have to put in a lift station.
Corrie: Yeah, but that’s ours, not theirs.
Bird: No, they’ve got a lift station right to the west of it. The sewer’s within, what, the sewer’s to the park and what’s that? How far is the Boise sewer line there, Gary? 100
yards? From this piece of property.
Smith: I believe it’s serving Austin Creek Subdivision.
deWeerd: And it can serve this piece of property?
Smith: Shari said that she’s talked to John Johnson at Boise City and it would have to be served by a lift station into their system. I don’t know that that’s what Shari’s conversation
with Boise’s been. I know that it has been referenced in the past that Boise City’s sewer line is running on a grade or running out of cover as they approach this boundary line between
the City of Meridian and the City of Boise. I know that the northwest corner of – what’s the subdivision up at Chinden? – Bristol Heights, that northwest corner of Bristol Heights has
a lift station in that that pumps back into Boise. So I believe that the Boise City sewer line is nearing its elevation capacity, you might say, for gravity flow.
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, Mayor and Council, the process for area of impact negotiation is that every 10 years this is up for renewal and negotiation with the County. It is a
negotiation process, so if this subdivision were denied, and if services were available from Boise City, Ada County could say in the process of negotiations in the next go around, and
I believe that’s in 2004, I think, and if I recall, the last Ordinance was in 1994 –
Corrie: That’s correct. We talked to them in 1997, right? Okay.
Bird: But the Ordinance wasn’t signed when you talked to them, but the Ordinance that was actually in effect was 1994.
Corrie: Their zoning ordinance? That could be.
Nichols: The process is a 10-year process whatever the date is. So at that point you’d be negotiating the issue of where should the boundary be. If you’ve not been able to serve an
area within that block of time by having City services extended out, and if the adjoining municipality is able to say yes, we can serve it, then you’d have that negotiation point, if
you couldn’t resolve the negotiation it goes to what they call a Committee of Nine who resolves it or tries to resolve it. If that doesn’t work, then it can be resolved at the District
Court level. I think that’s where we get into this issue of protecting this area of impact. If there’s a development that’s already there and if they already agreed and served by City
services even if that’s outside of the City limits and if they’ve agreed to be annexed, then it’s rather a moot point as to whether that area of impact should be moved because at that
point they are served by the City services and once they are contiguous, there’s this irrevocable consent that they be annexed at that point. So it’s not a, quote, forced annexation
in the sense that you annex property just because it’s contiguous, but you annex it because it’s been requested to be annexed.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, again, for the City Attorney, if the 50 homes were built, would they be annexing the whole area regardless or just the area where the 50 homes were built?
Nichols: Councilwoman McCandless, Mayor and Council, I think the – what I’m hearing from the applicant is that they would irrevocably consent to the annexation of the entire subdivision
that these designated 52 lots would be the Phase I, the remainder of the lots would be the second phase; therefore, what I’m hearing from them is that the entire thing would be consented,
if you will, to annexation when it’s contiguous.
Anderson: I guess a point of order, then, we don’t deal with these in the County that often, and what’s the course of action – either we approve the preliminary plat or we would recommend
that Ada County deny it; is that the correct procedure?
Nichols: Mr. Anderson, Mayor and members of the Council, there’s been an illusion, I think, in some of the comments that maybe the area of impact Ordinance of Ada County is fuzzy on
an issue. The issue is whether City approval of the subdivision is required because it’s within the area of impact but outside the City limits. As I read the area of impact Ordinance,
and I read it as an advocate for the City, it says to me that subdivisions inside an area of impact must be approved by the City. Elsewhere in that same ordinance it says land use applications
submitted for land within the area of impact are to be submitted to the City for comment and that those comments carry no greater weight than the comment of any other affected party.
So I – an argument can be made, and perhaps that’s what Ms. Butler was contending, that the subdivision application is a land use application, and, therefore, all the City can do is
comment. I’m taking the position as I read it, the City must approve the subdivision within the area of impact, and so my position would be the Council should take either a motion to
deny approval or grant approval with whatever conditions would deem appropriate.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: I’ve had my say.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the request for approval or denial of the preliminary plat, Item No. 2, Edinburgh Subdivision.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got one question. We’re just making the suggestion to Ada County to approve or to deny the recommendation?
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the Council, what I am earnestly suggesting that you do is that you either approve or you deny this subdivision. It’s not a recommendation.
The ordinance says the City will – submitted to the City for approval, not submitted to the City for comment. So I would recommend, strongly suggest, urge, that you either deny it
with reasons as specified by Ms. Butler or that you grant it with those conditions that you want.
Corrie: Okay.
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council, the further thing is that then that goes to the County as such as either an approval or disapproval of the preliminary plat.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess just one more question for counsel. If we, under the reasonably provided as far as our services go, sewer and water, if we can only reasonably provide services
for a portion of it, is that reasonable? Is that subjective? I guess I’m still – if you look at the terminology “reasonably provide,” and you’re looking at a whole development even
though they’re just doing Phase I, in the past do we dissect these projects like that and can you? I know I’m pushing you to answer the question that was in the staff report, but if
we’re to make a decision tonight, that needs to be answered.
Corrie: I don’t want to take the monkey off your back, but I don’t think he’s a Council member, so technically, he’s just here to give us advice. That question you asked is going to
have to be answered by the Council. I don’t mean to be rude or anything, but it’s not his choice to give an opinion. He’s here for legal advise and that’s it, and he has done so.
deWeerd: Maybe I should rephrase that question. Maybe I’ll still put him on the spot. Okay. Let’s forget about the reasonably provided and go to can we be looking at just making the
decision on a portion of a subdivision?
Corrie: I think that was Shari’s question.
Nichols: Councilman deWeerd, Mayor and Council members, I prefer to look at it in a different light, and the way I would look at it is there have been instances of subdivision approval
with limits on the number of building permits that can be issued because of capacity issues or infrastructure items that need to be completed. Now, perhaps not in this jurisdiction
but in other jurisdictions of which I am more – I don’t know if that answers the question posed in the staff report with regard to can you approve a preliminary plat where only a portion
of the plat
is proposed to be submitted later for final plat approval so that they can issue building permits and build up those lots. As I said before, I’m not prepared to answer that question,
although, I do know there have been subdivisions approved in other jurisdictions where limits have been placed on the number of building permits because of infrastructure issues.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I will step up to the plate and make a decision on this thing. It’s my opinion that this is a great example of urban sprawl. It’s a case where we’re sitting here
asking ourselves whether we have the ability to provide the services and I think all these indicators point to us that this is a bad thing. Don’t disagree with Senator Bunderson’s comments
about it would be nice to be able to make a demarcation in line, and we know we have some problems there, but I think the City is diligently working to solve those problems which are
in the process of constructing a major trunk line heading out to that area, and we are working on some additional things to fund trunk line. So all I can ask for is patience for the
developers in those areas, and we will try to get there with services as soon as we can, but I personally believe that this would be a mistake to go out and do a spot approval of something
like this knowing that we have all these unresolved issues and so many questions about being able to service this facility. So I would make a motion that we deny this request for a
preliminary plat for Edinburgh Subdivision.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded that we deny the request for preliminary plat for Edinburgh Subdivision. Any further discussion?
Nichols: Point of order, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. It would be appropriate to delineate items for the reason of denial, and if I can be so bold as perhaps interpret Councilman
Anderson’s comment or maybe the question is to him, is the reason for the motion that the City’s not able to provide sufficient services and now to serve all of the lots that are proposed
in the preliminary plat?
Anderson: I would say that’s an appropriate summation that we just don’t have the capacity through the lift station and the fact that we’re dumping this into another service area now.
We have been advised by our Public Works Department that it wouldn’t be a good idea to continue to do those practices – capacity issues with only being able to service the 50 lots would
be appropriate.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, when the White Line is available, is it reasonable that this could be served by the White Line even thought ultimately it’s not in the service
area, but in order to get services to them, would we be favorable when the White Line is available?
Anderson: To ask me that question, I would have to refer to our Public Works and our Sewer Master Plan because I’d like to visit that issue a little more in depth to see whether that
would be reasonable.
deWeerd: But I think what the applicant also needs to get kind of an idea of where the City stands on this and when this property would be considered favorably by the City.
Anderson: I feel like you’re asking me a question that I don’t have the professional guidance to be able to give you that answer. I need additional help to answer that question.
Corrie: Let’s take privilege here and ask Gary. Can you answer that question?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, the Sewer Master Plan was – the study was made on the basis of certain area being served by gravity sewers. The size, the diameter of the sewer
line was based on development of those gravity drainage areas. When you start pumping from one drainage into another as we’ve discussed in the past, the capacity of the sewer lines
that are part of the Master Plan is reduced for gravity service. So if you assume, for example, that Edinburgh Subdivision and Vienna Woods Subdivision pumps into the White Drain, then
somewhere along the line service area is going to have to be removed if – a service area will have to be removed from the White Drain for gravity service if gravity service is not provided
to Edinburgh and Vienna Woods. It’s just a matter of taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other. It’s a mathematical thing; it’s a capacity – the only thing that
could happen, I suspect, is that the assumed development density for the sizing of the trunk line in the White Drain ultimately develops – would be less than what was assumed for design
purposes with some capacity remaining. Of course, that’s not a known – the engineering is done on a best-guess land use basis in order to size the pipe for the sewering of the drainage
area. I don’t know if I’ve answered the question. It’s really just a – I guess it’s a matter of timing involved in this also as far as how fast does the White Drain develop out. If
you look at the size of the drainage area just the drainage area from Ten Mile to Locust Grove from Ustick to McMillan is three square miles. That’s 1980 acres. If you figure three
dwelling units per acre, and I don’t know what it’ll be – there’ll be some commercial development in that area, but just based on that assumption, that’s roughly 6,000 users. Again,
if you assume straight residential development at 800 dwelling units per year, that’s about 8 years of development, 7 ½ years, and that’s assuming development doesn’t take place anywhere
else within the City of Meridian. I don’t know how far out that the north slew is constructed, for example, to provide gravity service to this drainage area where Edinburgh and Vienna
Woods is located. So it’s hard to say if there will ultimately be a conflict between gravity service to White Drain and pressure-line sewer service to this area. I guess in the back
of my mind as I’ve expressed before, there’s always
that possibility of compromising gravity service. Like I said earlier, this whole thing races back to the impact boundary negotiation days.
deWeerd: I think that’s an issue that this Council will have to take up so we can at least let these property owners know.
Corrie: Motion’s been called for. The motion is that we deny the request for Edinburgh Subdivision. Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, no.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NO
Corrie: The preliminary plat for Edinburgh Subdivision, the preliminary plat, to the Ada County Planning is for denial.
Item 3. Public Hearing: AZ 00-005 Request for annexation and zoning for proposed Stratford Business Park of residential and professional offices from R-T (Ada County) to R-8 by Howell
Murdoch Development Corp:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 3, request for annexation and zoning for proposed Stratford Business Park of residential and professional offices from R-T to R-8 by Howell Murdoch Development
Corporation. At this time, I’ll open the public hearing and invite staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property immediately south of Stonebridge Subdivision platted as Medimont Subdivision. In this area here they are currently constructing
the Dee Jay Subdivision. This road, Watertower Road, will be extended to the eastern boundary of Dee Jay Subdivision, and they’re proposing that they would come in further with the
– cul-de-sac, and the intent of this is to get this in the City for the purpose of ten acres of it would be for the new police station site. The developer has no definite plans for
the remainder of the site at this time, but eventually, Watertower would be continued all the way to Locust Grove and they would then develop lots on the northern side of Watertower
and the remainder of – south of Watertower. The current Comprehensive Plan designates this area as single-family residential. That’s one of the reasons they have requested the R-8
zone because that zone does accommodate single-family housing. The – with a designation of R-8, a police station could be constructed; however, the remainder of the lots would need
to wait until our Comprehensive Plan is adopted hopefully early fall that would re-designate the preliminary draft that we have re-designates this area west of Locust Grove as commercial
which we felt was more appropriate due to the development in the area. Do you have any questions of me?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, Shari, in the P & Z hearings, the issue of an irrigation access were brought up and water rights. Has that been resolved as far as Mr. Smith had raised the question,
apparently, the irrigation ditch that runs through here services properties to the east, and their major concern was still being able to access that, and I believe, the City Attorney
believed that it could be put into the Development Agreement.
Stiles: They would be required by State Code to continue that access. It may not be the historic, convenient access they may have had in the past, but they will have an access to all
of the necessary headgates and to serve their property.
deWeerd: Just one more point of clarification. This is not for approval for Stratford Business Park?
Stiles: No, it’s not. It’s simply an annexation and zoning.
deWeerd: Okay.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I missed it. What did you say about a cul-de-sac or a road?
Stiles: When they – they are proposing a one-time split so they can take off the area that the City would like to acquire. The cul-de-sac would be an extension of Watertower, and they
would have to have the minimum frontage in order to have a legal lot of 65 feet. So the cul-de-sac, I’m not sure of the exact configuration of it, but it would have to meet the Fire
Department’s requirement for turn-around and construction. Does that answer your question?
Anderson: Just a question. I thought we were passed that. I thought we were putting road to it.
Bird: I did too.
Anderson: I thought we were way passed cul-de-sac and we were at road.
Stiles: I guess I’m not considering it as any part of negotiations you’ve had with the seller. It’s just what we would require as a minimum. If it was going through, great.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. This is a public hearing. I’d invite any of the developer first.
Williams: My name’s Dave Williams, Diamond Properties. I’m the broker representative for the property owner, Howell Murdoch Development Corporation. Last night I met with Mr. Smith
at the site, and we walked the ditches and took a look at the headgates that he had some concerns with at P &
Z hearing, and he was quite happy and confident that the developer and the property owner’s going to accommodate him to those headgates. I see that he’s not here this evening. One
of the adjacent property owners is. He joined us, Mr. Everett. So I think we’ve satisfied that need, and we will be satisfying that need as we do our continual development. We have
come into agreement with the City Engineer, Gary Smith, and head of P & Z, Shari Stiles, as to the splitting of the 10-acre parcel. We can’t do that and do an administrative lot split
without the proper access to that 10 acres as well as the frontage to that 10 acres. So in order to accommodate that at this point, the owner of the property is going to put in a cul-de-sac
which will allow for that as well as a full easement of the width of Watertower as it comes east from Stratford. That will accommodate the one-time lot split. Within an 18-month period
of time, the developer will be putting in the entire roadway east to Locust Grove and also tying into Adkins.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions? Anything else? Okay. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, Council.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council, discussion?
Bird: I have none.
deWeerd: I have none.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we would approve the annexation and zoning.
Corrie: Okay. DO you want the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and the Ordinance?
McCandless: The attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Decision of Order.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for annexation –
Anderson: It hasn’t been seconded.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Corrie: I’m sorry. I thought you said you’d second it. Okay.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I would like to add to that motion, too, that we incorporate the staff’s recommendations in this motion.
Bird: Second that.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the request for annexation and have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and proper Order and incorporate
the comments of the staff. Any further comments? Okay. Hearing none, City Clerk, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Public Hearing: PP 00-004 Request for Preliminary Plat for 40 building lots on 3.98 acres in an R-40 zone for proposed Heron Brook Townhome Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers,
Inc. – northeast corner of Meridian Road and Blue Heron Lane:
Corrie: Item No. 4 is a public hearing, PP 00-004, request for preliminary plat for 50 building lots on 3.98 acres in an R-40 zone for proposed Heron Brook Townhouse Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., northwest corner of Meridian Road and Blue Heron Lane. At this time I’ll open the public hearing and invite staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this property was rezoned several years ago to an R-40. They had proposed apartments at that time. There had been several people come in and look at
the file regarding the approvals; although, there was a plan approved, once all the conditions of approval were met, it was impossible to meet to construct the plan as was shown on their
previous plan. The applicant is now proposing to come in with townhomes. They’re proposing, I believe, it’s down to 38 buildable lots. 39? 36. Okay. Excuse me. Thirty-six buildable
lots now. They have brought in a revised plan tonight, and the applicant states that he will comply with all of the conditions as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Some pictures of the project they have approved – Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended a zero setback on the carports. They will not have garages in the subdivision. They
are proposing a pathway alongside the Jackson Drain. On the north side – this is the Jackson Drain that runs down on the northern boundary here. On the other side of the Jackson Drain
is where the City owns property known as the Fothergill
Subdivision along that Jackson stub drain, and the City owns and maintains that side. So they will be providing another pathway on this southern boundary of the subdivision.
Corrie: This is a public hearing. I'll invite the representative for the preliminary plat on Heron Brook Subdivision.
Unger: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council members. My name is Bob Unger with Pinnacle Engineers. Our address is 870 North Linder Road, Suite B, Meridian, Idaho. We representative
Lynn Helen and Glenn Henders who are the developers of the property. Staff ahs done a pretty good job of reviewing the application and the project itself. Let me state right up front
if we could, we could incorporate my testimony on the preliminary plat and also for the CUP so I don’t have to do this twice, if that’s all right. We have made some modifications to
the project based upon Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendations on the CUP. As such, we’ve incorporated those into the preliminary plat also. Let me give you an appropriate
breakdown of lots since we have made some changes. We have three common lots, open-space lots. One of those is surrounding the entire project. Then we have a common lot here and
also one in this area here. So we have three common lots open-space type lots. We have another lot which is the driveway for the project. So we actually have 40 lots; 36 of those
lots are buildable. Thirty-five are townhouses, and the 36 is the clubhouse lot. So I just wanted to clarify that. There was a question to that, so we just wanted to get that straightened
out. We are providing pressurized irrigation through Nampa meridian. We are making improvements to Blue Heron Lane. In fact, we’re putting in curb, gutter and sidewalk plus 30 feet
of pavement. We are dedicating an additional 18 feet of right-of-way to the Highway District for a future widening of Meridian Road if that ever takes place. At the request of the
Planning and Zoning Commission and part of the recommendation is that we enter into a maintenance agreement of that 18-foot strip so that we can landscape that with grass and enter
into that maintenance agreement with the Highway District for that 18-foot strip. We are providing a 35-foot landscape strip as required by City Code and Planning and Zoning Commission
and also 20-foot landscape strip and buffer along Blue Heron Lane. Just a point of clarification. I know that City Code requires that all ditches be tiled. In this particular case,
we have the Jackson Drain here, and it is being used by the City as an amenity by their trail system on the north side. We are also requesting that we not have to tile that. Staff
has said that they don’t want it tiled, so we are providing a path on the south side so we can also use the Jackson Drain as an amenity. We will be fencing the project along these
two areas here leaving this back area open in that it is a very nice amenity. I’m going through the recommendations. I hope you folks got a copy of the letter, I see you did, which
was hastily put together. We are providing 82 parking spaces; 76 is the required number, so we exceed that. The project is intended to be a 55-and-over senior community. We clarified
that with Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, and also it is reflected in our revised CC & Rs which we have provided a copy to the staff. As far as our open space
requirement of a minimum of 10 percent in a planned-unit development, there was some concern there as to whether we’d provided calculations. In this letter I have provided the appropriate
calculations. We have a total of 57,512 s.f. of open space. If we remove the landscape strip along Meridian and we also remove the landscape strip along Blue Heron Lane, we end up
with a net square footage of 28,102 s.f. which is 16.2 percent of the 3.98 acres that we have. So we still do comply with the planned development requirements for open space. I did
note in here the correction from the Planning and Zoning Commission on the setbacks. They did provide or allow for zero setbacks on the carport and 20 feet for the actual dwellings.
We’re fine with that. Something they did not specifically address but had been shown on the preliminary plat and on the Conditional Use Permit is the rear setback. We’ve always reflected
approximately five-foot setback in the rears. Some of them are four. We would ask that be included in your approval this evening. In conjunction with the Planning and Zoning Commission’s
recommendation for the zero setbacks and the modifications of the setbacks, they required that we widen our driveway from 25 feet to 30 feet, that’s back of curb to back of curb. We
revised our plat and conditional use plan to reflect that; we had no problem with it. They also required that we have no-parking signs and also paint the curbs red. We don’t have a
problem putting in the parking signs. We with that (inaudible) there isn’t any room for anybody to park on the drives without blocking somebody’s driveway. So, certainly, we concur
with that. We do have a little bit of an issue painting all the curbs all red because there is a continued maintenance problem there, and to be honest with you, it doesn’t look very
good. So we would ask you consider that in your motion this evening. Certainly the Homeowners Association, I’m sure, can be very diligent about people parking on the drive. As far
as the requirement for garages, we are providing carports; they are open. Our modified plan does reflect some garages. We have a couple of two-story units in this area that would have
two-car garages. We have a unit in this area that we have a two-car garage, we also have a unit here that would have a one-car garage and also over on this lot. The Planning and Zoning
Commission felt that was sufficient, that the carports were sufficient, and did not have an issue with that. It was also brought up that they would like to see us provide a storage
shed for any kind of maintenance tools, et cetera, and although the project, the maintenance of the grounds and everything will be contracted out with a professional landscaping company,
we thought that the concerns that there was a concern about a storage shed was a valid concern. So in our conditional use plan, this was a clubhouse lot is, we have provided a maintenance
shed right here in this corner here. It’s all on here, and I could stand here and show it to you, but I think you folks get the gist of it that we are working to comply with all of
the requirements. We have provided elevations and floor plans for approximately five different layouts for the project. We will be pretty much staying with those; there will be some
interior type options provided for prospective buyers, but the general appearance of the buildings in the entire project will not be changed by any of those options that we would be
offering. That was the deal on the Conditional Use recommendations, and if I could, I’ll just hit the Planned developments. They were pretty short, same type issues, go
ahead and provide a 30-foot wide back of curb to back of curb drive throughout the project. An issue that although I don’t have anything in writing, and I don’t see Kenny Bowers here
this evening, but when we initially started this project, we initially discussed an emergency turn-around right there. The staff felt that we would need one. We met with Kenny Bowers
on that, and Kenny said if the distance from this intersection to the end of the drive there was 150 feet or less, that he would not require an emergency turn-around. We are less than
150 feet. If, in fact, there’s a change in that, then we’d have to make some modifications in that to comply, but we will comply with any and all fire requirements. Something else
that was brought up was access to the clubhouse once it’s built, how would the Fire Department gain access to fight a fire there? I’m going to have to show you (inaudible) – this is
the clubhouse lot right here. We have an entrance into the clubhouse providing parking and a parking area, et cetera in here, and through ACHD – ACHD wanted us to provide a turn-around
on Blue Heron way down here off of our property totally. We discussed that with them, we negotiated with them. We agreed to put an emergency turn-around, and that was their idea –
we agreed to put in an easement right here for emergency turn-around sufficient size for emergency turn-around. ACHD has agreed to that. As such, that would provide excellent access
for the Fire Department. We would also be providing a fire hydrant somewhere in this area right here. As such, there really shouldn’t be any issues of us being able to provide fire
protection for the clubhouse. We, once again, would do whatever is required by the Fire Department to gain whatever access they feel they need. So we’ll work with them; we always do.
We are not proposing individual garbage pickup. We will be providing dumpsters. We have one to be located in this area and also another to be located in this area which is pretty
good location for all of the property owners to use. So we would not be proposing individual pickup. It would be through the dumpsters. We will work with the –
*** End of Side 2 ***
-- I believe that pretty much covers the issues, and if you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer them.
Anderson: I just had a couple quick questions on that pathway along the Jackson Drain. Is that going to be paved or graveled?
Unger: It will be a paved pathway. We’re proposing six-foot paved pathway.
Anderson: Would it have any landscaping around it?
Unger: It would be all – we will be providing grass all along this area here and down to the bank of the Jackson drainage. We cannot provide any trees because there is a 40-foot easement,
Nampa Meridian easement, and they will not allow us to put any trees in there, so we did not propose any trees. Certainly we are (inaudible) once again, we are proposing trees all along
this area, berm,
trees, fencing. Along here it would just be grass. There’s no way that we can get Nampa Meridian to approve anything but – I’m sure you’re all familiar with Overland Mini Storage.
So you know where I’m coming from on that. Which, by the way, we got them to approve that today.
Anderson: One other question. Blue Heron, is that paved or is it going to be paved?
Unger: Blue Heron is currently gravel. We are required to put in curb, gutter and sidewalk on our side, and pave half of the 36 plus 12 which is – we’re paving 30 feet.
Anderson: How far down are you going to pave? To the clubhouse?
Unger: We’re going all the way down to the corner of our property which is right here which is where there’s a – not a real bridge, but a crossing right there of the Jackson Drain.
Any future development to the south would be required to pick up the other side of the paving of the curb, gutter and sidewalk. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions? Thank you, Bob.
Unger: Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony on the request for preliminary plat? If none, I’ll entertain a motion from Council.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion? Questions?
Bird: I have none.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just a comment. This application has gone through some transformation, and I appreciate the fact that the applicant and staff worked well together and got the recommendations
from P & Z straightened out. It looks good. I guess with that, Mr. Mayor, I will move that we ask the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision
of Order on approving the preliminary plat of 3.98 acres for 40-lot townhouse project proposed by Heron Brook Townhome Subdivision.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the recommendation –
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just to add to that, include all staff comments, the response by Pinnacle Engineers, and to clarify that there are 36 buildable lots with 35 townhouse, one clubhouse,
and to remove the requirement of painting the curbs.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? I would – one question I had. Is that – on the painting of the curb, is that in the Conditional Use Permit? It’s
not in annexation. Okay. Not the preliminary plat. But you’re going to put it in this one?
deWeerd: You bet.
Corrie: Okay. All right. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Public Hearing: CUP 00-011 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 40-lot townhome development in an R-40 zone for proposed Heron Brook Townhome Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers,
Inc. – northeast corner of Meridian Road and Blue Heron Lane:
Corrie: Now I’ll have the public hearing for request for Conditional Use Permit for – actually, it’s going to be a 38-lot townhome development in an R-40 zone for proposed Heron Brook
Townhome Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers. At this time I’ll open the public hearing and have staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, again, this is for property that was annexed, I believe, in late ’93 or ’94. Just a point of interest. This was originally approved for 66 apartment
units with 108 parking spaces. So they have made a significant reduction in the density there, and I would like to thank the applicant and his representative for working with our staff
and providing what we hope is a very fine addition to this area.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. At this time I’ll invite Bob back if he’d like to come back, or he can tell us to incorporate his remarks. He did that? Okay. I’m sorry. Thank you very
much. Is there anyone else in the public that would like to issue
testimony on the request for a Conditional Use Permit? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing for the Item No. 5. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question. Shari, when have we started requiring people to paint curbs?
Stiles: It just came up in the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Bird: You’ve got to be kidding me.
Corrie: Looks like we’ve got to have another meeting.
Bird: I think we are.
Stiles: Maybe that’s why they don’t get out until 3:00 in the morning.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, something is sticking with me, I don’t know why, but it’s just a comment. But with 38 units, and you have two trash receptacles? What are they supposed to do?
Walk down there and carry their garbage? It doesn’t seem reasonable to me. Just a comment.
Corrie: Any further discussion? I’ll entertain a motion on the request for Conditional Use Permit.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we have the City Attorney draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order to approve the Conditional Use Permit
for the Heron Brook Townhome Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers and incorporate staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Heron Brook Townhome Subdivision as stated on record. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, roll-call
vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye, McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we take a five-minute recess.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:35 P.M.)
Item 6. Public Hearing: VAR 00-007 Request for parking variance – request for no off-street parking for Generations Park Plaza I by Gary Benoit – at East 1st Street and West Idaho,
Old Town:
Corrie: I’ll re-open the meeting from the coffee break, and we’ll have Item No. 6. Public hearing, VAR 00-007, request for parking variance, request for no off-street parking for Generations
Plaza by Gary Benoit at East 1st Street and West Idaho, Old Town. At this time I’ll open the public hearing and like staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the building immediately east of Generations Plaza. This is where the existing park is, and the City has purchased this additional area around
the park for Phase II. The building had previously housed Sunshine Plumbing. There was – I think it was called Rocky Mountain Chipmunk House, something like that, that was approved
for a short time in the front of this building. I was looking for the file to see if a variance had previously been granted. It was an issue when this came up. I don’t – I was unable
to find the old file. I believe at that time they had stated that they could provide parking for four cars off of the alley here. I don’t know if that’s still in the plan or whether
that’s feasible. I believe they have an outside stairwell that they’re proposing to cover, and that may preclude providing any parking area there. They have proposed – it’s a little
hard to tell on here, but they have proposed an expansion of the facility that would include outdoor seating. Of course, this would be contingent on the City approving some type of
a lease arrangement to allow this entryway coming into the building and also this outdoor seating area. We have received one letter that I know of from Dean Mayes, Jr., in opposition
to this variance request as he has the building immediately adjacent to the east here. Staff does support this request. They have done a great deal
of study on the market for this building. This building has been vacant for quite some time. It’s somewhat of an eyesore now, and I think that their willingness to put this kind of
money into downtown Meridian is going to benefit all of downtown Meridian including all of the existing merchants and create the downtown area that people want to be in day and night.
With that, I will let them give whatever presentation they have. The variance that was postponed or tabled until the 16th would be for this property on the north side of the alleyway,
and that will be the subject of a later variance request, but we are dealing with the Generations Plaza Phase I at this time.
Corrie: Thank you, Shari. This is a public hearing. I’ll invite the applicant first.
Cole: Good evening, Mayor and Council. May name is Stan Cole with Cole Associates Architects. I represent the developers on this project which is Stewart Laney and Benoit. First
I’d like to say that this park that we’re developing adjacent to – that the City has provided is a good catalyst to what we see as kind of a starting point for the Old Town development
projects. We’ve worked very hard with your staff, the City, and they’ve been very accommodating in meeting with us and working toward what we think is a great start to your downtown
core. Our project consists of two buildings. The one that we’re working on the variance for tonight, Generations I, also includes the building to the north which we refer to as Generations
II. The first building is, after a lengthy study with our structural engineers, we have now decided that actually demolish the building and build over what is currently there and basically
the same footprint with more structurally sound design. Will not change pretty much from what we originally designed within the original core of the building. Currently there is no
parking at the building itself. We see a need for a variance to help us in our development plans with this building so we can accommodate what’s kind of existing at this current time.
Our first tenant that we’ll have in this building is intended to be an up-scale restaurant which will be in the main level which will accommodate that whole, entire floor. The upper
level we have not leased out yet. That will be office so we have a nice mix between restaurant and office use. Our design is – what we feel is complimentary to the downtown. It’s
kind of a historic look that will definitely add some value to the Generations Plaza and the downtown core. The second phase is also two-story and is also designed to compliment the
downtown and have some kind of historic somewhat character to it. It’ll be a mixture of retail, restaurant on the first floor and office use on the second floor. In looking at the
downtown core, and I’ll have Gary Benoit speak to this as well, we have looked at some of the opportunities that currently exist for parking in the downtown core, and I'll have Gary
expand on that a little bit.
Benoit: Good evening, Mayor, City Council. I’m Gary Benoit, and I’m here to answer questions and tell you a little more about our project. We’re excited about the whole downtown area.
I would like to repeat Stan’s compliment as far as the downtown. We wouldn’t be looking at the downtown right now if you, the City leaders hadn’t had the foresight to put in a facility
like Generations Park. In
doing so, you know, it caught our interest, and we’re hoping that our project will catch other people’s interest and lead to the further development of the Old Town section. We feel
like it’s a step in the right direction. Of course, the parking is always a question, and we knew that coming in with this project, but we were unable to comply with current City standards
required for parking. As a developer, I can tell you that the downtown will not develop and nothing will happen until the parking question is answered. We’ve had several meetings with
the very accommodating City staff, and I think they understand the problem. We’ve chosen to be, if you will, and then we hung a price tag on it, that we’ve invested some money in choosing
to be the guinea pig to help you fix the parking problem downtown. I see a parking problem, because, again, you have basically two blocks there of neat old buildings that could – something
could happen with, but nothing will happen unless two things occur. First of all, the parking needs to be reconfigured so that it can accommodate development and people really can develop
that area, and the second thing, there needs to be a good plan. Some foresight put into that. Fortunately, Mayor Corrie has seen his way clear to appoint a Committee, a Revitalization
Committee of which, I think, Mayor, I’ve been asked to serve on. I’m looking forward to that because I see so much potential in the downtown area. What you have isn’t a problem. What
you have is an opportunity downtown. In one of our conversations we talk about the evolution of the downtown area. It’d be easy to say, well, let’s go build a parking garage downtown.
That’ll surely fix everything. Well, it might, one day, but it won’t today. It’s not economically feasible to go down and do a parking garage. You need to walk before you run, before
you get onto greater heights. So hopefully our project will help you to see some ways clear to develop the answers. It’s unfortunate because you don’t really have a set of answers
tonight to answer our question with. Our question is can we build this restaurant without any parking downtown? Well, the answers are there, but it’s going to take a little bit of
confidence in the future and confidence in the Mayor’s Committee to realize that the solution exists out there. I’ve done quite a bit of homework on this downtown, and I’ve gone through
the downtown area at various times of the day and various days of the week trying to assess exactly where the parking is and what’s available down there. I’m convinced that the downtown
doesn’t so much have a parking problem as it has a lack of pedestrians down there. A lack of people to park. There’s actually only been one occasion, Wednesdays, the church has a phenomenal
parking thing, and it crunches the whole downtown. That same church is in the process of relocating, so they’re going to fix that problem for us. As you can see, on this parking diagram
here, I’m going to step aside here, some of the – in the tan, these are the existing parking areas, and they’re really quite abundant. There are really quite a few of them. I would
like – one of the suggest6ions I have is I think we need to better utilize the parking that exists. Case in point: in my various trips to town, here’s a City parking lot (inaudible)
Shell station. I have viewed this several times and I have yet to find a single car in it. Ever. This parking lot right by our project, and I think it’s 21 spaces in there, of the
seven times that I’ve viewed it, the most I’ve found in there were three cars. That’s the most with the exception of Wednesday, and I
can tell you, I haven’t been over on Wednesday, and I’ve already heard about Wednesday. I know there’s no parking, and I haven’t been able to get over on Wednesday morning, unfortunately.
Around the perimeter we have two-hour parking, and there’s always an abundance of two-hour parking. There’s lots of space available during those times which tells me there’s lots of
room for customers to come in. What we don’t have is a reason for customers to come here. What we would like to provide is a reason for customers to come down here. As far as employee
parking, we don’t anticipate that our employees are going to park here. This is a two-hour parking, this is all two-hour parking around here. Our employees will either come down here
by the lodge, might even walk over to the Shell station, they might come and park in some of the outlying existing parking. Some of the solutions that would exist for this type of thing,
in Boise, for instance, we could go into the heart of downtown Boise and build this project and not provide a single parking space. The reason for that is they have a parking overlay
district. They realize that in order to get that core developed that they needed to say, look, we’ve got to lighten up on this, let’s don’t make them provide any parking. Let’s get
the center taken care of, and as they move out further and have a little more land, make them start providing parking. That’s exactly what it is. The further away from the downtown
core, the more parking you have provided. But in the downtown core itself, you don’t really for the most part have to provide parking. There would be some exceptions if we were to
build a ten-story high-rise building, we would certainly have to provide some parking. So that would be one of the solutions that they found. Some of the things that I found that we
could do in our downtown core, again, I look at the opportunities. There are potentials up and down the alleys. Just by taking out (inaudible) behind these buildings, this would be
adjacent to ours, there are at least 16 parking spaces and perhaps more. Now to do this, we need to dress this up a little bit, paint the alleys, dress up the back of the buildings
just – put some lighting in and a little bit of landscaping. Those are all potential solutions, but that makes parking more accessible. Over on this other alley over between Pine and
Idaho Street – Broadway and Idaho Street, there are 20 spaces back there. There are numerous spaces back here just by realigning and reconfiguring things that we can fix up, and those
are easy fixes. We could, in six months, get a lot of these put together and fix for you. On a longer termed basis, I’d like to see us take a look at some of the land back over here
there’s an empty lot that is doing nothing now except growing weeds; maybe that’s something that the City would take a look at. It’s readily available now for relatively inexpensive
price, or you’re sitting on a jewel over here. This old lumber yard, they’ve got that great big backyard area there that’s way more than development’s going to need. I believe the
railroad owns that. Is that correct? That would be wise for the most part to sell off some of that to encourage to develop downtown to add value to their land unless somebody’s going
to come in and build a resort hotel there or something that really isn’t going to happen, they probably don’t need that much land. I’d like to see the City perhaps entertain at least
look at the possibility of acquiring some of these lands so that when we get the downtown to click and we do have a parking problem down there that we
have a place to go with it. That’d be some of these outlying areas that are financially accessible right now. I think it’s an easy fix. So, again, to summarize, I don’t know that
we don’t have the real answer except to tell you that we have a good project for you. I think that with the proper planning downtown and a good project like ours to kick it off that
you can fix the Old Town problem, and it’s not a very big problem. You know, there are local improvement districts, there are funds available that’ll help on low-interest basis. Those
are all things that the Mayor’s Committee will explore and see where the fix is. All I can say is that I’m convinced there’s a fix there, and it would be a shame to lose a project such
as ours because you’re going to need that to make the rest of it work. Unless you have a good project, other developers aren’t going to be very interested in the rest of this. So I
would urge you to help us along with this project, and in turn I’ll invest my time with your City. I think the Mayor has appointed some good people to represent the City, and I think
they’ll come up with some good solutions. Thank you for your time.
Corrie: Thank you, Gary. This is a public hearing. Anyone else that would like to testify in this request for parking variance?
Wasson: John Wasson, 1486 North Silverado Place, Meridian. Little hard for us to sit back there, but I have a question for the developer. Are there not buildings directly adjacent
to where you’re planning on working?
Benoit: That’s right.
Wasson: And what would the structural – the impact of you raising that area be to those buildings adjacent to it, structurally speaking?
Benoit: No impact – it’s a separate building. It’ll be a block-and-steel construction.
Wasson: So it’s not adjacent to – it’s not directly adjacent to –
Benoit: (inaudible) zero lotline. But we’re not tied into their building, so when we tear down, theirs isn’t going to fall down.
Wasson: Okay. That’s all I need to know.
Corrie: Anyone else? Okay. Okay, Shari mentioned this one? It’s entered into as testimony. Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close
the public hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move we close the public hearing for the parking variance, Generations Plaza I by Gary Benoit.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 6, parking variance. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council, discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess just some general comments. I would like to tell the developers first of all I really appreciate the fact that they’re taking an interest and wanting to
do a project like this in Meridian, and I do agree, I think this will be the first step and it will really help to get things rolling and get to revitalize our Old Town area. I do have
some question as far as Gary had identified a number of potential parking sites, but I don’t know how that would work since some of those are privately held now, whether they would welcome
people parking in their lots and what kind of arrangements could be worked out with those folks to allow employees or if you leased out space in these offices, what kind of arrangement
could be made for these people to have parking where they could park on an eight-hour basis or something like that. But I think he does bring up some interesting points, too, about
this City possibly exploring some other potentials and at this point, it’s something that we ought to be looking at before we get too much development before we get too much development
down there is identify that land because it would be a lot cheaper and behoove us to have those sites identified and secured ahead of time. Potentially the old lumber yard and some
of those things, I think that would be a good point. Then, one thing that’s off the subject that I still haven’t seen is, I think, you guys are somewhat taking advantage of the City’s
development of the Generations Plaza, and you’ve indicated that will really enhance your project, and what I’ve always envisioned is that downtown Meridian can become a friendly, pedestrian-friendly
place where they could go down there for dinner or entertainment or to shop or whatever, and I think part of that is going to be that we’re going to have a lot of functions going on
in that area, and I would like to see some type of public restrooms made available and if there could be an allowance in one of the corners of the buildings or something like that to
allow for that, I would definitely like to see that, and maybe there could be some partnering there with the City of Meridian to make something like that happen because I know that the
business owners and the restaurants aren’t going to be real happy about the general public coming in and wanting to use their restrooms if they’re not patrons. As you put together your
design, if you could maybe keep that in mind.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Ron whole-heartedly. I believe that we have a good example to look at in the City of Boise. I believe that in the 60s and 70s they required some parking
spaces down there with their downtown, and consequently, their downtown died. They’ve gone and changed that now, and I think Gary pointed out that there are a lot of opportunities for
us, through joint ventures or whatever we have to do, to get some parking lots. I know we have
to. Parking structures are prohibitively high. We can’t afford that. But I believe that if we want to do something with downtown that we are going to have to have some variances.
I fully back these two developments. I think that they’re a good addition to our downtown.
Corrie: Any other comments?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess a question perhaps for our City Attorney. I know that Mr. Benoit raised the awareness of potential areas for parking and that the Mayor’s Committee should
be looking at some of this parking lot overlay district, that sort of thing, in granting a variance once a recommendation is put, can you ask that this development participate in the
recommendations of that committee that would be dealing with parking issues? Is this kind of –
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, Mayor, members of the Council, it is of my opinion that conditions in a variance are not appropriate; that you have Conditional Use Permits, but this
is a variance application and it needs to be considered on its merits that way.
deWeerd: I’m sure Mr. Benoit will do it anyway.
Corrie: Any comments, questions?
Bird: I have none. I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for a parking variance request for no off-street parking for Generations Park
Plaza I by Gary Benoit at East 1st and West Idaho, Old Town.
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for parking variance, attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Public Hearing: VAR 00-008 Request for parking variance – reduction in required parking spaces for Generations Park Plaza II by Gary Benoit – at East 1st Street and West Idaho:
Improperly noticed – scheduled for May 16, 2000
Corrie: Item No. 7 is a public hearing. As I mentioned at the first of the meeting, it was improperly noticed and scheduled for May 16, 2000. So, Gary, if you’ll be there at that
one.
Item 8. CUP 00-012 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Maple Grove RV for RV sales, RV retail and repair in an I-L zone – 2490 W. Franklin Road:
Corrie: Item No. 8 is a CUP 00-012, request for Conditional Use Permit for
Maple Grove RV for RV sales, RV retail and repair in an I-L zone, 2490 West
Franklin Road. Staff.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this project was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. They had recommended denial based on the Fire Marshall’s report of non-compliance with
Fire Code issues. Whether your decision would be to remand this back to Planning and Zoning Commission or approve with conditions, I would just like to ensure that if you are going
to have some kind of approval or conditional approval that any Findings would reflect our staff comments particularly in regard to Ordinance requirements for paving and landscaping and
those issues. I would like Fire Marshall to speak now? I guess that’s primarily the reason they had it for denial; it was based on Skip Voss’ testimony. This property was annexed,
at least by the information given to us by the applicant, it was roughly 19 years ago. I don’t know anything about the history of approvals at that time or – Gary tells me it was part
of the VanAuker annexation when they’d come in and called it an industrial subdivision and we had since seen pressure that’s not really developing as an industrial subdivision, but it’s
being parceled out piece by piece and not really with a plan at all. The applicant brings up a point that why did the City annex property without providing services to it, and it’s
the City’s policy that as part of a development, it’s the applicant’s responsibility to see and to solve any problems with serving the property. The City doesn’t annex property and
then immediately go out and provide services to it. It needs to be done as part of the development. That’s a little bit of the history. I don’t know if you have copies of the new
site plan. The first plan was a little different in that it had shown all of the parking areas, I believe, were paved at that time. Now they’re showing only the driveways to be paved
which that would be a violation of City Ordinance. Also, we would have to look at the landscape plan and see if that was going to fit our requirements, but – is this – can you see from
there? Is this the latest version that you have? That’s – it’s showing paved driveway all the way around, and then a lot of motor home parking and employee parking is all proposed
to be graveled, that would require a variance. The storage area in the back, I believe Planning and Zoning Commission, at least in their testimony during the public hearing, didn’t
have a problem with having a certain area designated that could be gravel. Staff is concerned about the use of gravel parking areas. There are some air-quality issues and the (inaudible)
dust created by such gravel areas. They do propose landscaping on Franklin Road. We had requested a landscape setback of 35 feet beyond the required right-of-way. Apparently Ada County
Highway District is not requesting any additional right-of-way dedication. I guess if we force the issue and stated that was a condition of our approval, they would be prepared to
accept that additional right-of-way for this section line road. That’s all the testimony I have. Would you like to hear from Fire Marshall Voss?
Voss: Mayor and City Council, Raymond Voss, Fire Marshall, Meridian Fire Department. We sent in a letter to zoning on this. I say “we” meaning the Fire Department. The Fire Chief
and I. This occupancy is in operation without our blessing. They do not conform to the City Ordinances at this time. There’s no water out there for firefighting whatsoever. City
water does not go out there yet. They have a building – repair building in the back that they are welding and cutting in. Under the code, it should be fire sprinkled. It is not.
The units seem a little close. I may be wrong. I haven’t been out and measured them. We do know that if something like that catches on fire, it does spread rapidly from one unit to
another. No water there. We don’t have any way to fight a fire if that does happen. The Fire Department felt that this should not be approved because of these problems with lack of
water and lack of proper equipment on site like the sprinkler in the building. If you look at the picture Shari has up, that building back there at the back of the picture, it says
“RV Repair,” it’s the building that they’re cutting and welding in, and it’s my understanding at this time. That building was built to service concrete pumper trucks years ago. But
it was my understanding, and I may be wrong because I’m still confused on this, that was a County permit that was issued for that to go in there. It was not a City permit. Will and
I have tried to find anything on the City permit for that concrete outfit, and we can’t do it. I’m pretty sure that was a County permit, and these people bought the property, gone in
there – and I’m not trying to put them out of business. I’m just saying I don’t think we should approve this at this time because couldn’t bring up to standards the water and the sprinkler
systems and this kind of thing.
Corrie: Any questions? Staff?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I had one. How long has this been an RV business, now, Skip?
Voss: Couple years I’d say. Couple three years.
Bird: It’s been longer than that.
Corrie: You can ask the applicant. Any other questions? I’m going to – this is a public hearing, but I told the applicant that I would let him speak to this on some of the questions
and things he had said. So before I bring him up, for the record, the applicant has come to my office several times advocating his position in this. I just wanted the Council to know
ahead that I had him in the office like any other citizen wanting questions and trying to get some answers. So at that point, I’d invite Matt up and he has brought some papers to us,
and we’ll hear what he has to say.
Dugan: Mayor, Council members, my name is Matt Dugan, I’m the President of Maple Grove RV Service, Inc., at 2490 West Franklin Road. First of all, if my etiquette isn’t up to standard,
I don’t do this every day, so excuse me. It’s definitely not due to the lack of any respect. I’m going to state our position, our position statement, of Maple Grove RV which I was
given a letter from the City Attorney’s office that this is what I’m supposed to do. It’s going to take me a minute to read it. It won’t take long, so please bear with me. Maple Grove
RV respectfully requests the Meridian City Council to overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation to deny our request for a Conditional Use Permit and to immediately
approve said request on the following grounds: references to ambiguous or non-existent code; ordinance or section violations; and inconsistent or untrue statements presented as fact
by the Meridian City Rural Fire Department. This mislead the Planning and Zoning Commission to believe the facility does not meet fire code. It is the contention of Maple Grove RV
that if this facility does not meet fire code, it is due to the lack of negligence of the City of Meridian and its entities for 19 years to fulfill their obligations to provide City
water hookup with 300 feet of said property boundaries as required by City ordinance. We further contend the City of Meridian and its entities have been fully aware of this situation
and have continued to approve and / or condone the development and use of said property without City water to compensate for their unwillingness and / or unpreparedness to provide City
water as required by City ordinance thereby creating an atmosphere of acceptable practice becoming recognized policy. It is a position of Maple Grove RV that there is sufficient evidence
to support findings that said property has been approved by the City of Meridian and its entities for annexation, zoning, development and use as light-industrial, commercial property
in the absence of City water for the past 19 years. By virtue of the presumed knowledge of said property’s development and uses, the Meridian City Rural Fire Department has approved
and / or condoned said development and uses in the absence of City water. We further contend that is reasonable to assumption that said property continues to meet all terms and conditions
of statutes as set forth by the City of Meridian and its entities for continued use as light-industrial, commercial property in the absence of City water without prejudice or malice
until the City of Meridian and its entities provide City water. For the five years previous to our occupancy, said property was owned and operated by a concrete pumping company as headquarters
for a dealership, storage, maintenance, repair and dispatch facility for numerous large vehicles. The City of Meridian and its entities approved the construction of a building to use
for the maintenance and repair of these large vehicles using various tools including hotwork equipment. The property owner did hold a valid dealers license issued by the State of Idaho.
The dealers license allowed the property to buy and sell more than five vehicles annually as required by the Idaho Department of Transportation. The property owner was never required
to attain a Conditional Use Permit to do business. For the past 3-1/2 years, Maple Grove RV has used said property as headquarters for a recreational vehicle maintenance and repair
business where numerous large vehicles are serviced by the facility. The building erected by the previous owner
issued for maintenance and repair of the RVs using various tools including hotwork equipment. These activities are allowed without a Conditional Use Permit as set forth in City Ordinance
11-8-1-C. Maple Grove RV would like to obtain a dealers license in order to sell more than five used vehicles per year; however, a dealers license as set forth in City Ordinance 11-8-1-B
does require a Conditional Use Permit which is the reason Maple Grove RV submitted a Conditional Use Permit application. It is clear that the use of said property has maintained a consistent
theme --
*** End of Side 3 ***
-- and repair utilizing the shop as it was authorized for use having been subjected to an inspection for conformance to specifications and plans and found to be in compliance with the
Ordinances of City of Meridian as noted on the building construction permit. Our research indicates the Fire Department, the Department of Public Works and the Meridian City Attorney’s
office have no documentation to indicate any fire code violations or that any has ever existed on said property. The Meridian City Rural Fire Department was requested by the Planning
and Zoning Department to comment on their ability to service said property without City water. Instead of an assessment of their ability, the Fire Department submitted commentary in
a form of a letter dated March 27th, 2000, which does not contain one reference to the Fire Department’s ability to provide services to said property without City water. The Fire Department
made claims of undefined City Code violations, one specific claim to a violation of USD Article 49 with a notation of a specific need for sprinklers in the building when using hotworks
equipment and unqualified opinion of who should have to run City water to the site. Taking the one specific claim of the Uniform Fire Code violation seriously, Maple Grove RV researched
Article 49, and there is not one direct reference to a sprinkled building within said Article. Therefore, this claim of Fire Code violation is a misrepresentation of Maple Grove RV’s
business practices, and has no bearing on a Conditional Use Permit application. The Fire Department’s credibility continues to be in question due to the statements made by Raymond Voss,
Fire Marshall, in direct response to inquiries by the Planning and Zoning Commission, made it a public hearing on April 11, 2000. Fire Marshall Voss introduced numerous innuendoes and
allegations founded in hearsay and speculation but presented as fact without substantiation. The most serious of these groundless claims declares Maple Grove RV has legal proceedings
pending for enforcement with Meridian City Attorney’s office. Again, taking this claim of unknown pending legal action seriously, Maple Grove RV contacted the City Attorney’s office
for enlightenment. The City Attorney’s office provided documentation that clearly refutes Marshall Voss’ claim of pending legal proceedings. The Fire Department was requested to produce
19 points identified as quotes made by Fire Marshall Voss in his testimony. To date, no response has been received from the Fire Department in support of Marshall Voss’ testimony leaving
Maple Grove RV to believe that there is no evidence to support Marshall Voss’ testimony as fact. With the tainted expert testimony and refutable
documentation from the Meridian City Rural Fire Department, there is no conclusive evidence before the City of Meridian and its entities of Fire Code violations which is a stated foundation
for the Planning and Zoning Commission to have recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit application, and therefore, no grounds to deny our Conditional Use Permit application.
Commissioner Hatcher said it best, and I quote: If there was somebody’s hand slapping the City, I would do that because I feel somebody dropped the ball. It is the City’s responsibility
to provide the necessary utilities to that piece of property. If Mr. Dugan does not have those facilities, then I feel it is the City’s responsibility to justify those. I say to the
City, let’s get this problem solved and let’s get it resolved now. End of quote. The City of Meridian can easily resolve this issue by approving our request for a Conditional Use Permit
application without City water as has been past practice or immediately provide said property with City services eliminating any concerns either real or imagined the Planning and Zoning
Commission may have. That’s what I have.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any questions for Mr. Dugan. I’ve got questions for our staff. Mr. Voss, has all the repair shops that use welders or cutting torch in the City of Meridian
sprinkled?
Voss: No. We have one other than, again, my understanding is in a legal battle right now.
Bird: It doesn’t have sprinklers. Every repair shop – every automotive repair shop, every service station has sprinklers?
Voss: No. Service stations don’t. It’s got to be over 3,000 s.f. His building is 3600 s.f., so he’s required to be sprinkled. The service station bays are, two-car bay, is not required.
Bird: Okay. That’s what I’m asking. Now, I’d like to ask Gary how far away is the water and the sewer? I realize the sewer goes to the Black Cat. We’ve been approving, for the past
two years, two of us has sat on here and approved stuff that we’ve had lift stations to get it back to another one. Why haven’t we gotten the water down there to this point?
Smith: There have been no requests for water, Councilman.
Bird: But it says right there in our Ordinance that if we annex somebody, we get the service to them. Am I not right? Provide the services to them?
Smith: I don’t know what the Ordinance says.
Bird: Okay, Gary, but how far away is it?
Smith: It’s at the west side of the projects being done by Interstate Battery right now. I don’t know how far that is from this project.
Bird: Probably ½ mile.
Smith: I would probably guess that. Correct.
Bird: So all those down around there. And is Bowers’ place in the City now?
Smith: I don’t know.
Bird: Or does it stop there at the line?
Voss: It shows it in the City on the map.
Bird: And that’s Jerry’s?
Voss: (inaudible)
Bird: yeah. I know who originally owned it and who – I was thinking he also had some – is he the one that started the repair up there? Okay. Speak into the mic, Skip.
Voss: I know when VanAuker annexed that he did not bring in that property because she would not come in the City.
Bird: Juanita?
Voss: Yeah. She did not want in the City, so that parcel was left out. That’s why it’s shown on the map like it is as a separate parcel. I’m not sure when it was annexed.
Bird: it said in our document here 19 years ago, I think.
Voss: Well, that was your VanAuker annexation.
Bird: That was the VanAuker annexation –
Voss: You go through the propeties that were annexed, and it doesn not list the (inaudible) property.
Bird: Ron didn’t buy that from Juanita at that time. I mean, that was her own proerpty. He’d bought Bowers and all them around there.
Voss: She was already there. Papa Bowers would give Don his property and give her that.
Bird: Okay.
DeWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess I have a question to Gary. When we annex into the City, hasn’t the developer as things started to develop, don’t they run those services out or is it the
City that does it? I was under the impression that the developer did it.
Smith: I guess I think this probably was annexed in 1979, Councilwoman deWeerd, and as I recall at that tiem when Mr. VanAuker brought it before the City for annexation, he had some
kind of plan to develop that whole area into an industrial park. I guess in reference to your question specifically, the development community, when they bring a development in like
that, they do extend the services to serve the development. The City doesn’t do that as part of the annexation just annexing the property. Now, Councilman’s Bird reference to the Ordinance
– I’m not sure. I don’t know.
Bird: That’s just in here, Gary. That’s what I’ve been told that we are to provide it down there. Most of the time on your subdivisions and stuff, we run it through or they get latecomers.
They deal with inside the subdivision is where the developers work, right?
Smith: They extend it through the subdivision. Correct. Now, we have extended lines on our own in order for development to take place when the Council decided that they wanted to
see development take place in certain areas of the City, then we did undertake projects on our own to extend sewer and/or water for sewering those properties. That was a decision that
the Council made to encourage development in certain areas.
DeWeerd: Has there – I’m sorry.
(inaudible – tape machine recorded inaudibly)
deWeerd: I guess the question is has there been a request to extend the services out to that prpoerty?
Smith: Not that I’m aware of.
Anderson: I’m a little confused on what caused all the review of this. The request from the applicant was to be able to sell some RVs there? It wasn’t bulding on the building or anything,
was it? He just wanted to start selling some vehicles at retail?
Stiles: When they want to get a dealers license to actually sell vehicles, the Transportation Department requires them to get zoning compliance from our Department, and since he doesn’t
comply and since the sales lot does require a Conditional Use Permit, that’s why he was requested to submit an application.
Anderson: This gets back to the issue that we talked about our other meeting. A business license would help to eliminate a lot of this stuff because people would know all this stuff
going in. When we change from one business to another. Now that we’ve identified that there are all these problems, now what’s the next step?
Stiles: I would just like – I have a copy of the Ordinance annexing the property, and I had extensively researched this area of – Walt Morrow was involved in it. There was a great
salesmanship job done back when it was annexed, it was going to be a lovely industrial park. They were going to immediately come in with the preliminary plat for the property, and,
of course, we haven’t seen any of that, which in Section 3 of the Ordinance, No. 388, annexing the property, it says: The above described property to be known as Linder Industrial Park
and zoned D Industrial, is annexed to the City of Meridian subject to the following requirements: That the preliminary plat to be submitted answer to the questions of traffic, landscaping,
sewer and water connections and design review. So that was clearly an issue that’s been back in 1981 when this was done. I would usppose that the option that the City would have, one
option the City would have, would be to de-annex it due to non-compliance with the representations that were made during the annexation process.
Anderson: That still wouldn’t solve the Fire Code violations and the lack of water supply, but it would resolve the landscaping issues. Right?
Stiles: It’d be Ada County’s problem then.
Bird: They’ve got their own well.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’m not sure tonight whetehr we can resolve this issue. I guess I would make a motion that we table this and take all this information under advisement and maybe
think on this a while and maybe set up an additional meeting with Mr. Dugan and the Fire Department and P & Z and maybe see what we can resolve on these issues.
Corrie: Is that a motion?
Anderson: No, it was just a sugggestion.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, point of order. Mr. Dugan handed the City Clerk and copies have been distributed of the response with attachments, and that should be
noted as having been received in the record even though this isn’t a public hearing, this should still be noted as having been received on the record.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Anderson: I guess I would make a motion, then, that we table this and just take it under advisement at the present time.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay, motion made and seconded to table this and take it under advisement until we have further discussion with the Fire Department and Planning and Zoning and Mr. Dugan. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay, we’ll get together with you and the Fire Department and Planning and Zoning and see what can be done here on this one. As soon as we can – Shari, if you can kind of put
the program together for us and give us a time.
Stiles: Is this tabled to a date certain?
Corrie: We can just bring it back off – tabled. So we need to have you make – get some timing for us. As soon as we have those meetings, then we can bring it back off the table.
There’s no time certain on it. That’ll give you some time to work this out as best as we can. Is that – motion.
Anderson: Yes, and I’d also like to maybe involve the City Attorney because he can maybe guide us legally as far as what our option is on this.
Corrie: So we’ll get to it as soon as we can get everybody together. We’ll be notifying you of a time and place.
Dugan: Okay. Thank you.
Item 9. CUP 00-018: Request for Conditional Use Permit for a proposed high-tech manufacturing facility / machine shop in a C-G zone on a vacant lot on Lot 5, Block 2 of Troutner Business
Park by Joseph Heilker:
Corrie: Okay, Item No. 9 is the CUP 00-018 request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed high-tech manufacturing facility / machine shop in a C-G zone on a vacant lot on Lot 5, Block
2 of Troutner Business Park by Joseph Heilker. Staff.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a property located at the southeast corner of Pinwoods and SW 5th Avenue, it’s the Troutner Business Park. Our zoning schedule of use control
does not address high-tech machining facilities. We do have a couple of them that are located in light-industrial zones. Mr. Heilker currently operates over near the Micron area out
in that general area, I believe, and is quickly running out of space for his machine shop. It is – I haven’t
gone on a tour yet. I would still like to go on a tour, but I think it’s similar to operations maybe at Hi-Micro Tools where they have the very expensive machinery that does very precise
machining of these electronic components, but Mr. Heilker can explain in much better detail. The reason they’re wanting to come to the Troutner Business Park besides its centralized
location in Meridian is a high quality of the development that’s being constructed in there. The subdivision has gone slowly, but they do have high standards. I encouraged Mr. Heilker
to come in and indicated that staff could support this application, and a lot of that was based on Mike Ballantine’s discussions with me on this was exactly the type of client the City
of Meridian would welcome and should – he would like to have within his development. Mr. Heilker could find available light-industrial sites on which to locate his facility; however,
the standards that exist in some of those existing areas is not up to what he would like to bring to the City of Meridian. Staff recommends approval of this request in accordance with
the staff and agency comments, and that’s all I had.
Corrie: Okay. While it’s not a public hearing, I would like Joe – if you would like to make your statement.
Blecha: Mayor Corrie and members of the Council, my name is George Blecha and I reside at 507 Hill View Drive in Boise, Idaho, and I am the project architect for Joseph and Stacey
Heilker. I actually come here to answer any questions that you might have of me of this project. It is true, as Stacey has presented – excuse me, Shari Stiles, we’ve had many conversations.
I apologize for that. Mr. Heilker has outgrown his facility out on Citation Circle which is across the roadway from Shopko Distributing off of Gowen Road. This facility here is approximately
10,000 s.f. which about 2400 of it is office support space for the manufacturing, and we kind of have to go lightly on manufacturing. I guess they’re kind of getting a little more involved
in the process there. It is high-tech. All the machining is done in enclosed chambers which there is virtually no environmental impact or chemical impact to the area. What the process
involves is manufacturing of either failed parts from or new parts in the manufacturing of various industries here in the valley, and that ranges anywhere from Micron Technology to Howard
Bar in which many of their parts do wear out in conveyor portions and slides and plastic parts that the silicone people use in their manufacturing process. So it is very clean. The
waste products that come from the machining, I’m presuming, is recycled in a very clean manner. I’m not sure that I could add much more to that, but I’m here to answer any of your questions.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. Any discussion? I’ll get a motion, then, on the request for Conditional Use Permit.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision of Order for a proposed high-tech
manufacturing facility, machine shop, in a C-G zone on a vacant lot on Lot 5, Block 2 of Troutner Business Park by Joseph Heilker.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit and have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the approval of the Council.
Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. VAC 00-003: Request by Ronald C. and Rafanelli Nahas for a vacation of public utility easement in a C-G zone – Lots 12, 13, 14, and 15 of Block 2 of Central Valley Corporate
Park No. 5:
Corrie: Item No. 10, request by Ronald C. and Mrs. Nahas for a vacation of public utility easement in a C-G zone, Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Block 2, Central Valley Corporate Park No.
5. Staff, comments?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, this is a request by the developer to vacate a public utility easement in a C-G zone for subdivision Central Valley Corporate Park No. 5. Part
of this easement vacation is also going to involve a lotline adjustment for four lots within that subdivision. It’s the Lot No. 12 is the lot within which they’re asking for vacation
of utility easements, and Lot 13, 14 and 15 of that subdivision will be increased in size from what was originally platted. Lot No. 12 will be decreased in size from what was originally
platted. I don’t believe there are any problems in terms of the existing utilities within that Lot No. 12 with one exception: There is an irrigation ditch that was piped through there,
takes water from the Eight Mile Lateral and conveys it to the west for use, and I’ve been in contact with Gene Smith who’s the – was the engineer with Hubble Engineering and their land
surveyor concerning the existing irrigation pipe to make sure that it was – that an easement was maintained for that irrigation pipe. But other than that, I don’t think there are any
– haven’t been any comments by the utilities that I know of within Lot No. 12.
Corrie: Thank you, Gary. Is the applicant here tonight? Okay. Council, I’ll entertain a motion or other discussion on the request for a vacation of public easement on Item No. 10.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order for the request of the vacation of public utility easement
in a C-G zone, Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Block 2, Central Valley Corporate Park No. 5 by Ronald C. and Rafanelli Nahas.
Corrie: Okay, is there a second for a motion?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for vacation of public utility easement, Item No. 10, and attorney to draw up the decision. Any further discussion? Roll-call
vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. CUP 00-019: Request by Jeff and Mike Hon for a Conditional Use Permit for planned unit development for two principle buildings on a single lot in Honor Park Subdivision No.
2 in a C-G zone – 357 E. Watertower Lane:
Corrie: Item No. 11, CUP 00-019, request by Jeff and Mike Hon for a Conditional Use Permit for planned-unit development for two principle buildings on a single lot in Honor Park Subdivision
No. 2 in a C-G zone, 357 East Watertower Lane. Staff, comments.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, I’m not too sure of this project other than I did overhear Shari visiting with Jeff Hon and the project architect. She indicated to them that she
didn’t have a problem with this request, so they left the building. Ron Hon was here also, and Shari indicated to him that she didn’t have any problem with the request. I’m sorry.
That’s all I know about the project.
Corrie: You filled in nicely there, Gary. Any questions from Council? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the Item No. 11, CUP.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’d make a motion that we have the City Attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order approving the request for Conditional
Use Permit for a planned-unit development for two principle buildings on a single lot in Honor Park Subdivision No. 2 in a C-G zone, 357 East Watertower Lane.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit and have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with approval of Council.
Any further discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just ask Shari if she had any response from the applicant on the conditions from P & Z or from staff.
Stiles: Jeff Hon was here earlier, and I told him that it would be no problem if they left as long as there weren’t any conditions of dispute and they have a problem meeting all the
conditions recommended by Planning and Zoning Commission.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Mr. Clerk, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. FP 00-004: Request for Final Plat approval of 32 building lots and 5 other lots 12.801 acres in an R-4 zone for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC / Frank
Stoppello:
Corrie: Item No. 12, request for Final Plat approval, 32 building lots and 5 other lots, 12.801 acres in an R-4 zone and R-T zone for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments,
LLC and Frank Stoppello.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this property was recently annexed into the City with an R-4 zone. The applicant – we have received a response from the applicant’s representative to
our comments. There were a couple of items that we wanted to discuss. I know during the preliminary plat process and maybe Mr. Stoppello can enlighten me on what approval process has
taken place with the Bureau of Reclamation. I know that Becky Bowcutt did testify that the Bureau of Reclamation told her do not come back here for another crossing of that Nine Mile
Creek. However, I wasn’t aware until this final plat was submitted – I guess I wasn’t aware of what this looked like back behind the property. This would be where Thousand Springs,
Sherbrooke Hollows is, and that has all been fenced on the top of the bank there. Applicant is proposing to leave this open here and provide a pathway subject to Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District’s approval in this location. I have not gone out to the site and not seen these pictures until today. I’m wondering how a pathway is going to be provided within 10 feet here.
It appears that from – there’s more than 10 feet from the top of bank to the fenceline here. It may be deceiving view here, but that’s one issue that I’d like Mr. Stoppello to address
or his engineer if he’s here. They are proposing to just fence off this drain and construct a – they showed a four-foot wide sidewalk on
their landscape plan, but they had indicated verbally they – they had both indicated verbally that they would provide a five-foot pedestrian walkway to meet our Ordinance requirements.
I guess I would just ask that if this is not to be piped as it was throughout Sherbrooke Hollows, that we receive letters from the Bureau of Reclamation indicating that they will in
no way entertain the notion that this could be a piped ditch. This is where an existing walkway or drainage comes in from the Thousand Springs Subdivision. The other area that they
have requested a modification to the conditions of approval would be this here. This is part of – actually, it would be on the side of the Nine Mile Creek. They are proposing that
it would be part of this lot here in order for that to be useable ground. The City still maintains that they would like to try to develop a pathway system through this area at some
point and would like that to be maintained as a common lot. This would be – this section of ground, this parcel here, is immediately behind other lots, existing lots, in Los Alamitos
Subdivision, and I don’t know what use this property would have for it. I guess it would be a good garden spot, maybe, or RV storage area. Other than that, staff still maintains that
they would like that to be dedicated as a common lot to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Those were the only two items that we had as possible discussion items,
and do you have any questions of me?
Stoppello: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Frank Stoppello. If I could – Shari, if I’m understanding the pictures, if I could, could I go over there – if you don’t mind
going back to the one that you had there. Okay. Shari, I think your pictures, where that one photograph is, as I understand, I wasn’t quite sure what about that Sherbrooke Hollows.
The Nine Mile Drain, this is all Nine Mile Drain. It is Nine Mile, isn’t it? Not Seven. It used to kind of come in here below the Ridenbaugh. Kind of had a lot of drainage from
the Ridenbaugh and it come in here. As I understand it, the last subdivision, and where you’re talking about the Corps of Engineers and that sort of thing, somehow they were allowed
to bury that and then come straight in here. The picture that you showed, if I’m not mistaken, was someone (inaudible) right here. There was no more Nine Mile Drain here because it
comes somewhat like this and directly that way as I understand it, and it comes out right here. Whoever was taking that photograph was looking down here. Now, questions about what
you had. The reason this 10-foot right-of-way was put in here was to satisfy the City’s eventual plan to hopefully have a walkway on the Ridenbaugh Canal and the Nine Mile Drain. This
actually is about 100 year-old easement. In fact, until the ditch company tore it out, the old wire fence was still right here. And they bring their equipment in here and they clean
this first ditch out and the Seven Mile and they go all the way down here and clean this out. The road runs right along this edge. And it goes up – I don’t own this part of the Seven
Mile – Nine Mile Drain – I believe Mr. Babbit does. So this proposal, and I think staff has accepted it, we would recognize the old 100-mile right-of-way right to where Sherbrooke has
its proposed walkway if it’s ever agreed with Nampa Meridian, and we would gravel this and Nampa Meridian, as I understand Becky Bowcutt, said we can still go ahead and gravel five –
this road along this edge right to here, and I would still
fence this part – this is already fenced along here, and then I would fence this and there would be access here and access here that would be locked until that agreement could be made
with the City. Now, up here in answer to your question, as I’ve said at a number of meetings, Mr. Sutter and his wife is here, the proposal is this is part of this plat of land. You
can’t get rid of it. You had to include the subdivision – couldn’t take it out. It is deeded land. It has nothing to do with the Seven Mile Drain because the access road is right
along – I believe this is Mr. Babbit’s property. My proposal – there are two proposals, because Shari, you told me the third one I couldn’t do. First one is Mr. Sutter wants to buy
it if we can sell it to him. He owns this unsubdivided – how many acres, Mike, five? Five acres here going out to Locust Grove. My first proposal that I promised is to sell this to
him. If it can’t be worked out with him, my second was sell it to these lot owners who are interested. Shari said that can’t be done, so I can’t do that. The third one is that it
will be sold and developed with this lot. It’s a half acre, it’s a beautiful piece of land. You couldn’t build on it, but you can do anything from a kids’ play area to a garden or
whatever. So that’s the proposal there. A common lot – that has never been in the plans, and like I said, if this City’s eventual plan with Nampa Meridian to make this a walkway, the
walkway would be along the road here and would continue along Mr. Babbit’s land until it got into the Los Alamitos part of the drain. So like I said, that has always been proposed as
an unbuildable lot for (inaudible) to the plat, but the plan is Mr. Sutter, if we can’t do it, then this will be sold and developed as one. This would be unbuildable in here because
this is only 50 feet wide. But it is a half acre of land. Like I said, you cannot – this is huge in here. You cannot, as I understand what Becky Bowcutt said, that whoever the federal
authorities are said you will not ever pipe anymore of this Seven Mile Drain – excuse me, it comes in right here. That picture was just looking this way toward the access into the next
subdivision.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, two questions. Where did that paved path that we saw in the one picture that just kind of came up and dead-ended. Where does that come into your subdivision?
Stoppello: As I understand that, that picture is right here. We are not required, and Shari proposed this, to bring it all the way to the canal. Bring it right here – if I’m correct,
Shari, that part is part of Sherbrooke Hollows and it comes up here. As I understand it, it’s fenced off or locked off from the canal. What Shari, when we met in November, was just
bring this here because if this is ever allowed, it will hook right into that paved part going to the canal. But no one can use this paved part. The Nampa Meridian won’t allow anybody
to be up on this canal. In fact, right here they just put a large sign that said no trespassing. What Becky told me was that they’re insisting or have insisted that there be no access
here. This is locked. From the Sherbrooke Hollows paved path.
Anderson: So is that path, the direction of it, heading north? Or is it heading east?
Stoppello: Sir, I think it comes up out of the street. Am I right, Shari, or am I wrong? Oh, excuse me.
Anderson: If that’s heading north, where does that hit into your subdivision?
Stoppello: This must be Sherbrooke over here.
Anderson: Is that heading south?
Stiles: It’s right where they’ve piped – that’s where they’ve piped the Nine Mile Creek, the drain there, and the outlet is right on this side of the fence next to your property.
Stoppello: Is it right here?
Stiles: Yes. That’s where the outlet is. That’s where the pipe is, yes.
Stoppello: The only one I’ve – for some reason this doesn’t jive. The one that – up on the corner by the Ridenbaugh on the overhead is my understanding is the access to the Ridenbaugh
Canal if it can ever be worked out (inaudible).
Stiles: I believe so. Mr. Stoppello, I guess my question was that 10-foot area is not any part of a ditch?
Stoppello: No. There is no ditch there anymore. If we could go back, I’ll show something.
Stiles: So this is where the outlet pipe comes out and then travels west?
Stoppello: This is south to north. That’s my land, comes right in and goes over the western boundary. Back up this way, there’s nothing – there used to be an irrigation ditch, and
this is the basically – kind of covered. This is where they travel along to clean out the ditch. Now, of course, with the subdivision in, they’ll have the south (inaudible) also, but
I voluntarily agreed to that -- if we could go back to that overhead subdivision. Because they now come in from here, they don’t need to do any kind of access here at all. Come in
on this side or this side to do all of this. They actually, according to Becky, didn’t need anything past this entryway, but voluntarily we put in this 10-foot. There’s no piping or
ditch here at all.
Stiles: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted some clarification on that.
Anderson: I guess what I was getting at, I was just trying to figure out if there was a way that you could connect the pathway that’s in the Sherbrooke Hollows with the pathway that
you’re talking about; I still don’t understand what direction
you’re heading there. But if those could be connected so that they provide interconnectivity –
Stoppello: It would be right here, sir. In fact, when they allow it if it’s ever allowed, there would be access by a chainlink fence or gate would be opened up. Shari, am I right?
Their paving kind of comes at an angle like this and goes that way? Am I correct?
Stiles: I haven’t been out there to see actually how they’ve paved that.
Stoppello: This is where we’re – I know that their access is right there and it’d just be right through the fence is where it would be and it’d be right on their path to the Ridenbaugh.
That was the reason why this wasn’t brought another 20 or 30 feet. There was no need to have two accesses on the canal, just one. But this is paved, I believe, right from – it goes
up from the street.
Stiles: Yeah, it’s an angle.
Stoppello: I think. That has been, as I understand it, (inaudible) by the irrigation company. So it’s there, you just can’t use it. But if the agreements ever reach this whole thing
would be the access pedestrian path right there. The gates would be right here. Which will be locked now, but if the agreement’s every reached (inaudible).
Anderson: Then my second question, I think, would go to Shari and staff on the lot. You talked about the second option was to sell it to the homeowners to the east of that on the one
oddball lot. Why can’t that be a possibility? It seems logical people to sell it to. It’s on the other side of the ditch.
Stiles: It wasn’t said that it was an impossibility. It was – they would have to re-plat it. They couldn’t just sell off pieces of it to those property owners. They would have to
actually have to go in to the other subdivision and re-subdivide that portion of Los Alamitos.
Stoppello: Okay. I think you did tell me that and in my mind I thought that would be hard to do.
*** End of Side 4 ***
Stoppello: -- five acres out to Locust Grove, so that would be a natural for him also. I would be very honest with you. According to Mr. Babbit, for some reason he never sold this
as part of the sale. (inaudible)
Corrie: (inaudible) yeah. Come up to the microphone and give us your name.
Sutter: My name is Mike Sutter, Mr. Mayor. Just this last week, the property that Mr. Babbit owns was quit-claim deeded over to myself, so now I have common land to that Lot 1. Very
much like the people to the east you mentioned. Just a point of reference.
Stoppello: You basically owned the Seven Mile Drain here in this area; right? Okay. I knew there was something going on like that.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, right now that piece is a common lot under the preliminary plat? Is that correct?
Stiles: Yes. Under the preliminary plat approval, that was approved as a common lot.
deWeerd: As I recall it on P & Z, we made that a common lot unless you could give it to one of the neighbors.
Stoppello: It’s never been a common lot on anything. It never has been.
deWeerd: That is what I recall, though.
Stoppello: No. Ma’am, I’m sorry to disagree. That’s never been a common lot. That was always going to be sold to the neighbors or sold for this lot. (inaudible) it never was (inaudible).
deWeerd: It’s just my recollection that we did not, at P & Z, and I don’t know what happened going up to City Council, but we did not agree that that could be a part of Lot 3.
Stoppello: Well, at that time, ma’am, there was a – staff had proposed a 10-foot right-of-way from the street to the Seven Mile.
Stiles: That was one option that we discussed. I don’t believe –
Stoppello: There’s no – because we’ve done all of this that this ahs been removed at that time at P & Z, but it’s never been a common lot. What had been brought up at P & Z, in a joking
manner, I didn’t want to keep that lot maintained forever, and it would be sold if deeded to the neighbors, to Mr. Sutter, the other neighbors didn’t want it or be developed and sold
with Lot 3. That was always what they wanted.
deWeerd: I know that was what you were proposing.
Stoppello: No one ever bordered – on a common lot.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have a signed copy of the Findings on the annexation, but they’re – at least in the draft that I had from the November 3, 1999, meeting it has a section 3.12,
and I don’t – I’d have to do some review to see if this was changed during the meeting. It says to adjust the adjacent lot line to provide the minimum street frontage and create a 10-foot
wide common area in place of the 10-foot easement adjacent to the north of Lot 3, Block 1. This is – I wish this weren’t coming up at the Final Plat stage, and I know that you don’t
like it either, but what is happening here, if this went to Mr. Sutter, it would basically shut off any access the City would have for this short little section for pedestrian access.
It is already annexed apparently, this little piece, little – well, it shows it as being annexed on our GIS system.
Unidentified: (inaudible)
Stiles: Okay. So, until future development of this property, the City wouldn’t be able to place any conditions to try to get that approved. It is part of our Comprehensive Plan to
provide walkways along all of these drains. You can see where this comes up, that it dead-ends, really, at a building lot. This is where the drain continues through. It is open here.
This is a common lot in Los Alamitos Subdivision that they also use for drainage, so the logical location would be not on this lot, but over on this side on Mr. Sutter’s property which
I know he’s not real happy to hear. This piece is not really going to be useable by him as part of his property if we go through with having a pedestrian walkway along the Nine Mile
Creek. The more logical location would be for these three properties, or four, to actually do a re-subdivision of that section and allow them to have those as part of their lots or
continue to maintain this as a common lot, but either way it’s a funny piece. I don’t know what you do with it.
Stoppello: Mr. Sutter does have access right across here. The right-of-way goes right out here. This is the road here. It goes right down here and right out, so he does have access
to that.
Stiles: Right here, Mr. Stoppello? This is his –
Stoppello: Right here, ma’am. Right there. This is the Seven Mile Drain. The culvert is right here, and the road –this is Mr. Sutter’s parcel right here, and the road goes right
across the Seven Mile Drain and continues on this 50-foot right-of-way. So he does already have access if he buys the piece.
Stiles: But he doesn’t own it and he doesn’t have the ability to use it if he doesn’t have legal ownership of it.
Stoppello: If he does buy it, he will be able to access the lot. He wouldn’t have to come in from this direction – he’s already got a road that the Nampa Meridian put across the culvert
in the cross (inaudible)
Stiles: Well, I guess that’s our dilemma because if this is not approved to be part of another lot, he’s not going to have the use of that property. You’re not going to be able to
legally sell it to him to use for his own personal use if it’s a common area dedicated to the use of this subdivision.
Stoppello: Yes, I guess so, but it’s never been planned or had public hearing on that or anything. So I guess it’s new to me. I mean, that’s a half-acre land. It’s got value to it.
Just dedicate it to – it’s kind of impractical to also make that common area for the rest of the lots. Number one, they don’t have access to it. Only access is the one subdivision
– this lot right here. If staff removed this right-of-way as part of this whole deal right here, that was the only common area that was proposed was a 10-foot right-of-way from the
street and down this lot to here. That was removed by staff.
Stiles: Staff removed that requirement?
Stoppello: Yes. That was part of the negotiation (inaudible) subdivision plat again. That was removed. This part in here was removed when this was presented had access down here
and that we would put this end which was never part of the original deal was putting that 10-foot all the way down to where it (inaudible) Sherbrooke Hollows. This was removed.
Stiles: That wasn’t part of that – staff can’t remove a requirement of a preliminary plat. If it’s approved a certain way, that is the approval. If this was approved as a common lot,
it is a common lot. If there were –
Stoppello: (inaudible – not speaking into mic)
Stiles: Well, Becky’s not here to stand up for this.
Stoppello: I don’t think it’s even on the preliminary plat. Is it? It’s not on there.
Stiles: That’s why I would need to have the signed Findings to find out what was decided on that.
Bird: It sounds like we need to table this to 5/16.
Corrie: Need to find out what the heck’s going on.
Bird: We’re getting too many stories.
Stiles: Well, I apologize.
Bird: I remember that as a common lot, too, that sticks in my mind. When Becky testifying. I could be wrong, but I –
Corrie: Well, under the circumstances, I – from my standpoint, I would recommend that you table this until the 16th so that she has some time to go back to the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and find out just where we are and if that was or wasn’t a common lot.
Bird: Well, this isn’t a public hearing.
deWeerd: I know there was a lot of testimony on that.
Stoppello: (inaudible) never has been.
Bird: Well, we need to find out. Mr. Mayor, with that, I would move that we table the request for final plat approval for 32 building lots and 5 other lots on 12.801 acres in the R-4
and R-T zone for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC, Frank Stoppello until 5/16/2000 and staff to get back and find out what’s actually on the preliminary plat.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to table Item No. 12, request for Final Plat until 5/16/2000. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that not only Shari look that up, but that she get with Mr. Stoppello because I really think that needs to be worked out before we get in front
of City Council so that we don’t have to listen to a 30-minute debate about you think this and I think that. You guys need to come to an agreement about what actually happened so that
we can hear the facts and get on with it.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 13. FP 00-007: Request for Final Plat approval of 102 lots and 14 other lots on 31.94 acres in an R-4 zone by Projects West, Inc., for English Gardens Subdivision:
Corrie: Item No. 13, I guess this time, is a request – that’s been tabled to 5/16/2000. Do I hear a motion to table that?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we table the request for the final plat approval of 102 lots, 14 other lots on 31.94 acres in an R-4 zone by Projects West, Inc., for English Gardens Subdivision
until 5/16/2000.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table Item No. 13 to 5/16/2000. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 14. TE 00-002 Request for a 45-day time extension for Oliason Park Subdivision by Tony Hickey – ½ mile west of Locust Grove Road on Pine Avenue:
Corrie: Item No. 14, request for a 45-day time extension for Oliason Park Subdivision by Tony Hickey, ½ mile west of Locust Grove Road on Pine Avenue. Staff?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, I just have a little information on the subdivision. I’m not – I wasn’t aware of the 45-day time extension request other than I do know that the
applicant is having problems with completion of the sanitary sewer line to serve the subdivision, connect that line to the existing City sewer system. Background is that he had some
discussions with the adjacent property owners for an easement to construct a sewer line, and I don’t know all of the discussions. The sewer line was constructed, an easement was not
obtained from the adjoining property owner, and other problems have surfaced between the two property owners, and now this developer cannot obtain an easement for the sewer line that
has been constructed; therefore, we cannot, as the City, accept the sewer line without the easement. So this applicant is right now fighting a bit of a battle with the adjacent property
owner concerning this issue. He has made a proposal to Public Works Department for an alternative to sewer this project which I’ve not acted on yet. I’ve been in conversation with
Mr. Nichols, and I believe Bill is going to contact the attorney for the developer and see if they could work something out with the unhappy property owner. So I would say that the
extension is for that reason. I personally would rather see the time extended a little to work this out as opposed to the City having to deal with a lift station for ten lots. That’s
what he’s proposing as an alternative.
Bird: Any other discussion, Council?
deWeerd: Mr. President, just in reference to the landscape – the letter on the landscaping on the landscape plan. Shari, do you have any comments to that, his request on that?
Stiles: I don’t have any response to that. It would be nice to have some kind of variety, I would say, but I haven’t seen this request. He may have asked Steve about it. I’d have
to get with Steve about it and see if – the pin oaks are really nice trees, but so are the crabs. I don’t know that he’d have any objection to it.
deWeerd: Well, that’s staff level.
Bird: Yeah. Any other discussion, Council? If not, I’d entertain a motion for the request of a 45-day extension.
deWeerd: Mr. President, I move that we approve the request for 45-day time extension for Oliason Park Subdivision by Tony Hickey.
McCandless: I second.
Bird: Motion made by Ms. deWeerd, seconded by Mrs. McCandless for 45-day time extension for Oliason Park Subdivision by Tony Hickey. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES (MAYOR STEPPED OUT, PRESIDENT BIRD PRESIDES)
Item 15. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquency:
Bird: Okay. Item 15, water, sewer and trash delinquency. I didn’t get mine.
Anderson: That’s what he’s looking for. Let’s jump down to Tom on the Parks.
Department Reports:
Parks and Recreation Director – Tom Kuntz:
Purchase of a skid steer:
Bird: Tom. Item No. 16-B. You’re up.
Kuntz: Council, you should have in your packets a memo in regards to purchase of a skid steer. As you recall, I brought this issue last meeting in April. At that time, if we were
to purchase the piece of equipment with all the attachments, the total price would have been $33,000. We were able to work out a way with the approval of our auditor and Reta in our
Finance Department to purchase the piece of equipment without any attachments for under $25,000. That’s requiring three estimates, and we actually have five at this point. They will
go out and buy the – purchase the pieces of attachments separately. The total value of the purchase, still, is $33,000, approximately. I’m suggesting the way to finance that would
be through transfer of line items – the money from line items. $7,000 from the rental where the money was originally budgeted to rent or lease that piece of equipment, and then $26,000
from the pathway. We have $300,000 in there now, we’re estimating our construction costs will be in the $200,000 to $225,000 range. I’ll stand for any questions.
Bird: Questions, Council?
Anderson: Mr. President, you state in here that you have five estimates. Is this the lowest estimate?
Kuntz: Correct.
Anderson: Okay, then my other question. This is coming part-way through our budget year, and can that wait until October?
Kuntz: No, sir.
Anderson: Why?
Kuntz: Well, our busy season started about two weeks ago. This piece of equipment will be used on a regular basis, daily, for different projects that we have on line for the next three
to four months.
deWeerd: Mr. President, just – Mr. Mayor.
(MAYOR RETURNS TO MEETING)
deWeerd: Just to further respond to that, this $7,000 from the equipment rental was set aside for the lease purchase agreement to purchase this because of the need to utilize the equipment
this year. That’s why we got to this point or how we got to this point.
Anderson: So you could still lease it theoretically? Have access to be able to use it this year? We’d just make our first-year payment if we paid the $7,000.
deWeerd: No, we would actually have to set aside the $33,000 for the five-year lease program, and then on top of that, yes, we would own it after five years, but there would be about
a $1500 additional cost for that lease program.
Anderson: Set aside the $33,000, but it wouldn’t actually be allocated. It would just be shown in the budget. We would still need to pay $7,000 this year?
deWeerd: That’s correct.
Anderson; And what does that do to our Five Mile Creek pathway deal, then? We’ve got to come up with that much money next year then? Compensate for that?
Kuntz: No, we’re estimating construction costs on what we had laid out is going to be in the $200,000 to $225,000 range, and that money needs to be spent or obligated this year so
that there will be no additional requests for funding of the
completion of the pathway as it stands right now through the State Transportation Department Grant.
Anderson: And how are we going to determine the estimated cost on that pathway? Do we have engineers?
Kuntz: Through engineers’ estimates.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I was, like Ron, I thought maybe we could find a used one or something, and Ron, I’m here to tell you that there are no used skid steers that we can save any money
on. This is a good buy if we’re going – if we feel that we need one. At this point, I don’t want to put out the money, but I believe that if they are going to use it like they need
to, hopefully they’ll have more use for it next year when they get some of the 56 acres on line, I hope. On the Five Mile Creek pathway, I don’t want to see that hampered by this, but
I’m – Tom had the engineers out there and stuff, and I guess that they can do it cheaper than what we thought.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question. Tom, now what do you – have you got an actual proposal that you’re bringing forward that you want us to approve tonight or what the –
Kuntz: Just to approve the transfer of the funds of that amount into our equipment account, and then we’ll make a final decision on which piece of equipment that we’re buying. Right
now we have a Case and Cat. Their low bid is identical, and we are actually still testing the Cat before we make a final decision.
Bird: Well, I’m not going to vote to transfer any funds until I see the final bid on what it’s going to be. You know, come forward for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Kuntz: I guess, Councilman Bird, what we’re asking for is a line-item transfer of funds.
Bird: Bring us – Tom, this is what I thought. I thought you were bringing us a bid. I know you’ve got five bids. I thought you were going to bring that. At that point, first place,
we can’t – well, this isn’t a fund balance. I guess we could transfer the funds, but at that point, we would take care of the transfer and stuff along with the contract that you’re
purchasing it from which the Mayor, the Council has to approve and the Mayor has to sign and the Clerk has to attest anyway on it.
Kuntz: There’s no contract because it’s under $25,000.
Bird: It’s a purchase of over – there’s an Ordinance in the City of Meridian that you have to have the Mayor sign and the Clerk to attest, I believe, over $500 I thought.
deWeerd: $5000.
Bird: $5000, Tom.
Kuntz: Not to my knowledge, Councilman Bird. We purchased a used truck for $10,000 and there was nothing required for that. It was a budgeted item. I guess I’m a little –
Bird: Well, this isn’t a budgeted item, evidently. This has got to be a change.
Kuntz: It’s a line-item transfer, and that’s what I’m requesting tonight is a line-item transfer to be able to purchase this piece of equipment. I’m a little confused because two weeks
ago you gave me the preliminary okay to do this. We went through extensive effort with Council member deWeerd with our staff to justify the use of this piece of equipment. I submitted
that to you two weeks ago when I brought this to your attention, and at the Pre-Council meeting I had unanimous support to go ahead with this. The only reason you didn’t act on it last
time was that you wanted me to come back and say how can we do this because there was a question of it being over $25,000 and requiring a formal bid. So through my research and approval
with the auditor and our Finance Department, they said we could purchase it this way legally without having to go through formal bid. The reason we don’t want to go to formal bid is
we’re still a month out and we need the equipment now.
Bird: Tom, as I recall, and I could be wrong on it. I’ll get the minutes to find out. As I recall, what was brought forward was the idea for you to go get the bids to get the different
prices. You come with the idea of just leasing the thing and that with one thing, and we said, hey, why don’t you go get some more bids and bring it forward. I have no problem with
you purchasing it. Absolutely none. I mean, you justified that you need it to Tammy, and I have no problem with it. But you’ve got – we’ve got to make the deal. I’m not going to
make the funds, the line-item changes if you don’t need that much money. You know? If you’ve got your five bids and this is the low one and stuff like that, that’s no problem. But
I’d like to, before I pass on something like that, I’d like to see it in writing, personally. We would request that from everybody else.
Kuntz: I’ve got it with me tonight. You can see it.
Bird: Have you got all the different bids with you?
Kuntz: Yes.
Anderson: So you have decided on a brand?
Bird: No, he hasn’t.
Kuntz: No. We’ve got it narrowed down.
Anderson: So the brand is going to change with what bid you want; right? The low bid is one particular brand, isn’t it?
Kuntz: No. There’s two pieces of equipment. Both the Case and the Cat are identical in their low bids. I can show you those if you’d like to see them.
Anderson: So the two that you’re still testing are the exact same price?
Kuntz: Correct.
Anderson: Okay.
Bird: You’re the liaison. What do you want to do?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve the purchase of this skid steer loader and authorize the line-item transfer from the Five Mile Creek pathway to off-set the
difference of what was budgeted for this.
Bird: Before I second this, does this include the purchase – does this include the transfer of the $7,000 from the rental and also does it approve the purchase of the attachments, the
other equipment? So you’re not just approving the $24,8000, you’re approving $33,000?
Anderson: Yes. That’s what I’m approving. It won’t do any good to purchase the machine without the attachments.
Bird: Okay. I second that.
deWeerd: Well, you need the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest?
Anderson: Yes. If I need that, then yeah. I’ll go ahead and throw that into it.
Bird: Motion made and seconded to approve the purchase of $33,000 and line-item transfer of $7,000 for equipment rental and $26,000 transfer from Five Mile pathway (inaudible). Any
further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquency:
Corrie: The sewer, water and trash delinquencies, I don’t know where it is.
Bird: I bet as close as it is, they probably didn’t get it ran, Mayor.
Corrie: They may not have.
Bird: This is only the 2nd.
Corrie: Could be that we need to take it up at the next meeting. Okay.
Bird: We’ve had to do that –
Corrie: I’m just now thinking about that. If that’s that close, they haven’t got it ran. Okay.
City Engineer – Gary Smith:
Engineering Agreement - Ustick Water Line Extension:
Corrie: City Engineer, Gary Smith.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council members. I have before you a proposed engineering agreement for the Ustick Water Line Extension project from the east side of Summerfield Subdivision
on Ustick Road east under Eagle Road in Ustick to the new Summers Funeral Home site. J-U-B Engineers is the engineer we’re proposing to use for the project. They did our 1999 waterline
extension project city-wide. That’s recently been completed. They did a good job for us, and they have done good work for us on previous projects. I would recommend them to you for
your approval to enter into an engineering agreement for this Ustick Water Line Project. Their estimated fee is $23,055. This includes a lump sum fee for the actual design of $8,667,
and then the remaining items are shown on their breakdown of the engineering services listed as time and material with estimates. On previous projects, they’ve been very good in meeting
their budget or less than their budget amounts.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, one question. Gary, just the motion should be to not to exceed $23,500?
Smith: $23,055 is what I total from their individual line items.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. One more question, Gary. Does this include design that bore under Eagle Road, too?
Smith: Yes, sir.
Anderson: So this would be going all the way down?
Smith: Yes, sir.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the contract with J-U-B Engineers for professional services extending our water line down Ustick Road for $23,055, and for the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the J-U-B engineering agreement for Ustick Water Line Extension of $23,055, the 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
City Attorney – Bill Nichols:
Latecomers Agreement / Refund:
Corrie: City Attorney.
Nichols: Thank you, Mayor, Council. Going back for a minute to the water and the sewer delinquent accounts, we did have one person here before the meeting began that got the pink card,
and Will has his name and a letter from him. He bought a HUD foreclosure, and HUD is supposed to pay this delinquency. I would recommend that you give him up to 60 days. He agreed
that if HUD did not pay it in 60 days, he would pay it and then chase HUD for the money. Will has the deal. You can take it up next month if you want, but I just wanted to bring that
to your attention.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, would he be turned off between now and the next meeting?
Corrie: No.
Bird: Okay.
Nichols: Moving on, Mayor and Council, to the latecomers deal. This has been percolating here for quite a while. I issued a memo dated March 28, 2000, to the Mayor and Council on
these issues. As a lawyer I hate to say I’ll be brief, but I’ll try. Anyway, the first issue is whether to issue these refunds. I really don’t think that’s a debatable issue. You
over-collected on some of these. They need to be refunded. The second issue is the process for getting those refunds out and what rate of interest should be paid on the over-collected
funds. My recommendation – there’s one argument which is nine percent which is reasonable rate of interest. There’s another argument which is 12 percent which is based upon a statutory
provision for monies which are held without an
agreement as to how much the interest should be on those retained funds. The difference as I think at the end of last month, the end of April, Reta calculated the difference between
nine percent and 12 percent. I think it was about $16,000. So using the higher rate of interest would take out of those over-collected latecomer fees or add $16,000 additional expense
to that. It’s quite a bit of money, but my recommendation is to go ahead and do it because there is a specific statute in point that I believe applies to this circumstance, and we’re
going to issue letters out to all of these parties that have paid these latecomer fees, and it’d be best to say here’s the amount we over-collected. We’re paying you 12 percent from
the date of the over-collection payment. Here it is. We’d include some other things on the checks that says it’s full and final payment and so forth and reduce any liability exposure
there. The next item to be decided is really the looking forward, and that is what do we do in the future? The old latecomer agreements had a pretty complicated formula. Cost of construction,
there was a rate of interest that was imposed on that cost of construction; there was also index based upon engineering costs; there was specific index that the City Engineer had to
go to to use to look at how engineering costs had increased over time and factor that in to come up with what the latecomer fee would be to be paid. We recommend going to a straight-forward,
this is the cost of construction, here’s a reasonable rate of interest, and that’s what the latecomer fee is based upon rather than indexing it to the engineering costs that have been
avoided by being able to tap into somebody else’s project that was done years before and so on. So that’s looking down the road for future latecomers. The next item on the future latecomers
we like the Council to address is what – right now the agreements say that those latecomer fees are to be paid to that original developer on a monthly basis. We’d recommend going to
a quarterly basis because it’s just going to be easier to do it that way. The third thing is when to assess the latecomer fee. Currently, the latecomer fees are being assessed at
the building permit stage. So a developer who is putting in a 50-lot or 100-lot subdivision and is connecting into this sewer extension that was put in by the neighboring development
doesn’t pay a dime to that original developer until the first building permit is issued on one of those lots. Then that person that buys the building permit is the one that has to pay
the fee. We would recommend that you go to when that – when the final plat stage or some point when this final plat stage – Gary? When it comes up to the final plat approval, an approval
of the final plat, this second developer then pays their share of the latecomer fees for that entire subdivision at that time. It simplifies the bookkeeping, it puts that developer
on the same footing that they would have been if they would have had to participate in that line originally, and it eliminates a lot of confusion in the Building Department. There have
been a lot of builders that bought lots in subdivisions that go to get their building permit and nobody’s told them about this latecomer fee because the realtor conveniently forgot to
tell them or didn’t know about it because the seller didn’t disclose it, and it would just be a way of making this process simpler and cleaner in helping to get it done. So that’s –
those are the issues that we ask for you to give us direction on.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Bill or Gary, how many other cities have – I thought that if we got into this trunk line assessment thing through all building permits that those latecomer fee things
would go away. Does Boise have latecomer fees or Nampa or do they all have it? Okay. Well, I guess they don’t go away. I thought that was getting rid of something. I say proceed
on with it, but I’d like to know what the final give-back is and to whom.
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the Council, we would take your direction, get a list, bring it back to you, have you approve the list with the amounts before any checks
are sent out. So – it would have to be that way. They’re – (inaudible) City funds, it would have to be done that way.
Bird: And then you’d draft a new latecomers fee ordinance?
Nichols: It does not require a change in the Ordinance, I don’t think.
Bird: It’s just the process.
Nichols: Just the contracts themselves.
Bird: Then, that being – I understand. We change that originally – haven’t the last few been written up right?
Nichols: I think the last one we did that Gary had done and I looked at, I don’t recall it talked about – I think we did. It said payable quarterly, and it was just a straight figure
plus an interest rate.
Smith: Right.
Nichols: So in a sense we kind of stuck our necks out a little bit, but we thought it was a good way to simplify it.
Bird: I for one say go for it. Get the stuff to us and let’s get it done with and taken care of.
Corrie: At the 12 percent rate.
Bird: Yeah. I think that’s fair.
Corrie: Any other comments? Okay. Do you want to – do you know what to do with that or do you want a (inaudible)?
Bird: Do you need a motion?
Nichols: Well, let me see if I can summarize it, and then we’ll go from there. Okay. We’re going to pay the latecomer over-collections; we’re going to pay 12
percent; on future latecomers, we’re going to have the cost of construction plus a reasonable rate of interest; it’s going to be payable quarterly; it’s going to be collected from future
development at the final plat stage.
Bird: That’s what I understood.
Nichols: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. Do you want that as a motion?
Bird: Do you want it in a motion or just when we come back?
Nichols: Let’s do it in a motion and then I can tell Reta there’s a motion to do it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we go forward with that latecomers deal that we’ll pay back the outstanding ones at 12 percent interest; all new latecomers fees will be done on engineering
interest, construction; and they will be paid at the final plat, at the time of the final plat for the whole subdivision; and be paid back quarterly.
Anderson: Second.
Nichols: Point of clarification, if I may. No adjustment for engineering.
Bird: Oh. No adjustment for engineering. And reasonable interest.
Corrie: And we can have the person writing up this (inaudible).
Anderson: I’ll re-do the second.
Corrie: Motion and seconded to approve the motion. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: One other item is Mr. Wasson’s request that we look into the allegations that he made on the lighting at the mall there at Linder and Cherry Lane. I gave those all that to
the Council. So, Council, you’ve had a chance, I think, to read those from the Code Enforcement Officer and the others and from SSC, Sanitation Services (inaudible). So I would entertain
anybody that would like to comment.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, after getting the reports back from our enforcement officers and stuff, I take it that the owner of that building has tried numerous times to get those lights down
and everything, and the collection of the garbage is not in the middle of the night or anything like that. I think that they, as owners of the
building and stuff, have been trying to be very fair about getting this stuff arranged, and if it is such a detriment, I’m surprised that we’ve just got one person in that subdivision
that is having this problem. That’s my personal opinion after reading the Code Enforcement reports.
Corrie: Anybody else have anything different? Okay. The question was to possibly pull the Conditional Use Permit. Does the Council feel that there’s enough evidences right now from
the Code Enforcement Officer? Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I believe that Ms. Stiles looked into that, and that was not a Conditional Use Permit. It was an allowed use within that zone. Is that correct?
Corrie: If they’re doing what they’re supposed to do and that’s an allowed use, there’s nothing to be found in the evidence from the Code Enforcement Officer’s information that he gave
us to warrant anything the Council at this point. So, that’s the answer that the Council has so far from the evidence that has been presented to us.
Wasson: Can I ask a question?
Corrie: Sure.
Wasson: The Code Enforcement Officers told me that the lights are in violation. They’re not supposed to be shining out.
Corrie: They aren’t. I went out there and looked. They put shades on them, they took the (inaudible), put the deals on the shades and shining down. They have to have those lighting
for the protection of the employees and security of the building.
Wasson: Sir, I have absolutely no qualms with the protection of the building, but when I looked yesterday, they had one on the west side, there was one light on the west side of the
building, and it is shielded down. There is one light that is
*** End of Side 5 ***
Wasson: -- one other light that is shielded down on the south side of the building. The remainder of the lights still shine out. I haven’t been – I’ve been home for about five minutes
tonight, so I haven’t had a chance to look, but why haven’t any of the other people complained? Because I hold the majority of that property line. I have about 230 feet on that line.
My line is very long and very shallow. The other guy’s a single person who lives next to me and he primarily works nights. He doesn’t see it.
Bird: But, Mr. Wasson, there’s people along here and stuff that would – if it was that bright, I would feel, and I cannot see anything from Mr. Burns, our Code
Enforcement Officer, that back up that statement there that it was a problem and stuff like that.
Anderson: Has there been any effort on your part to talk with the owners of the business?
Wasson: Sir, I’ve attempted to contact them in excess of five times on the telephone with no return phone call. As I stated two weeks ago at the meeting, for months at midnight, I
can stand on my back porch and read a newspaper with no light coming from my house. Now, if the Mayor says it’s been fixed, I believe him, but I haven’t been home today, and I’ve been
on the road for a little while. I’ll go look. But it wasn’t fixed yesterday, sir.
Bird: The hoods were not up?
Wasson: Negative, sir.
Bird: According to the reports we got, if I recall right, swing around back there, there were some hoods up there, but I don’t know what classifies – they were supposed to do it on
November 15, 1999. That’s –
Wasson: What they are, sir, they’re black shades or whatever they’re called, but they don’t vent the light down. The light shines straight out into my property. If the light –
Corrie: if the lights go this way, how can they go this way? I’m not being facetious. I’m trying to figure out if it’s the hooded, the light will go down.
Wasson: They’re not fully hooded –
Corrie: (inaudible) or what would you suggest that we do?
Wasson: I would suggest that they would hood them like they have the one on the west side and the single light that they have on the south side that is hooded with the remaining four
lights.
Corrie: Okay. We’ll have the Code Enforcement Officer take a look at that and see if that’s a recommendation that he would –
Wasson: And following the meeting, any of the City Council would care to go out there with me, I’d be happy to buy you a cup of coffee or a diet coke. I do too because I have annual
training in the morning.
Corrie: I think under the circumstances we’ll have the Code Enforcement Officer to see what the hoods area again, and if he’s – the owner is supposedly according to this has tried to
do it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got one question. We’re trying to darken that up back there. I have a question for the Chief. When you’ve got employees and stuff in back like that, you’ve
got to have some kind of light, don’t you, that’s visible and stuff for security reasons? I mean, your employees are parking back there. I wouldn’t want my daughter walking back there
to her car at night at 11 or 12 o’clock at night.
Gordon: Yes, sir. Fred Burns addressed (inaudible). There is a certain amount of light that is required. After the owner put the hoods on there, he said that he’s tried everything
he could to comply. He turned the one light totally out. Fred Burns believes right now there’s sufficient light for safety (inaudible) excessive.
Bird: Thank you, Chief.
Corrie: Let’s have him look at it one more time, and still, if it doesn’t meet your requirements, then I guess there are other avenues.
Wasson: Again, sir, I still invite any of the City Council that care to come and take a look at it tonight to take the four-minute drive out there.
Corrie: I won’t tonight, but I will go out there.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:56 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK