HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 05-16Meridian City Council Meeting May 16, 2000
The regularly scheduled City Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:40 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, 2000, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members present: Robert Corrie, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Tammy deWeerd, Keith Bird.
Others present: Shari Stiles, Janice Smith, Gary Smith, Ken Bowers, Pauline Skeggs, Kathy Dennison, Bill Gordon, Will Berg.
Corrie: Ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to call the meeting to order for the Meridian City Council, May 16, 2000, at 7:40 p.m. At this time we will have roll-call, Mr. Clerk. Thank
you. First I want to welcome everybody here tonight. It’s going to be a good night, I think. We’re going to have some rules that we’re going to have to set because there are a lot
of people here tonight. I’ll tell you about those after we get through with the Consent Agenda. Also, I want to welcome Troop 185 from Meridian. Thank you, guys, for being here tonight.
Item A. Tabled from May 2, 2000: Approval of April 18, 2000, City Pre-Council meeting minutes:
Item B. Tabled from May 2, 2000: Approval of April 18, 2000, City Council meeting minutes:
Item C. Approval of May 2, 2000, Special City Pre-Council meeting minutes:
Item D. Approval of May 2, 2000, City Council meeting minutes:
Item E. Tabled May 2, 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 F. Tabled from May 2, 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 G. Tabled from May 2, 2000: 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 H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 20.26 acres for proposed Stratford Park for residential and professional offices from
R-T (Ada County) to R-8 by Howell Murdoch Development Corp:
Item I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item L. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item M. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item N. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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:
Item O. Development Agreement: AZ 99-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres to R-8 for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood / D.W., Inc. – west of Eagle Road between
Overland and East Victory:
Council, we have the first item that is the Consent Agenda. What is the Council’s pleasure on that?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, on the Consent Agenda, Item No. E and F are moved to table to June 6, 2000; Items I and G move to 1a and 1b on the regular agenda; with that I move that we accept the
Consent Agenda.
Anderson: Second that.
Corrie: Motion’s made by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mr. Anderson to accept the Consent Agenda with the tabling of Items E and F and Items I and J to be moved to the regular agenda to numbers
1a and 1b. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
Corrie: Now, on the regular agenda, let me as a couple of questions here tonight. On the public hearings, we have the public hearing on the Generations Plaza No. 2. Is there anyone
here that’s going to testify in that public hearing outside of the developer? We have one. Okay. On Items 7, 8 and 9 which is Valeri Heights Subdivision, show of hands who want to
testify on that one. Okay. On the Carol Professional Center, Item No. 10 and 11 and 12, how many besides the developer are going to be testifying on that one? You have one? Okay.
No. 13, public hearing – variance request by James Aimonetto, is there anyone here that’s going to be testifying on that one? Okay. Crossroads Subdivision public hearing for a request
for rezone. How many? Anybody here besides the developer or the applicant on that one? I believe Item No. 15 we’re going to table until June 6th. We have a problem on the water.
Is the applicant here? Okay. Have you been – okay. Thank you. Okay. With the Council’s approval, I think that the one that a lot of the people are going to be here is the Valeri
Heights Subdivision. Would the Council be willing to hear the others first and then so that we don’t have to have them cancel on some of the later ones or if you want to just go ahead
and go right down through the line we can. If we do that, I’m going to ask that on the Valeri Heights Subdivision, if you – whoever wants to talk first, you have about five minutes,
and then the rest of you have the same thing, nothing new to add, then I’m going to ask you to raise your hands, and we’ll have a count that has the exactly the same thing, feel the
exact same way. If you have something else to add, we’ll hear it. It’s going to save us some time on this. We’ve got a lot of testimony here that we’ve already gone through, and we
don’t want to hear the same thing over and over by 10 or 12 people. So if you agree to that, I think we can go a lot quicker and be out of here before 2:00 in the morning. It’s hard
to make a decision at 2:00 in the morning, and we want to make a right one.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, as I understand it, you want to move 7, 8 and 9 to right after Item 17?
Corrie: Fifteen. Public hearing – the last public hearing and the rest we’ll do at the regular time. So after Item 14. So if everybody’s agreed to that, we’ll get to these others
real quick and we can get to the Valeri Heights Subdivision. We have to approve this now if you want to do that.
Bird: What about 16? That’s just a time extension. Could we put those public hearings after that?
Corrie: Is there anyone here that objects to that? Okay.
Bird: So we’ll put the 7, 8 and 9 behind Item 16.
Unidentified: Mr. Mayor, we never kind of got to say – I would just kind of like to limit it to say five minutes, raise hands of everybody – kind of did that in the Planning and Zoning
meeting and didn’t spend all night on it.
Corrie: I’ll limit it to three minutes if everybody wants to talk. What I’m trying to get at is if whoever gets up first will give whatever they want to say. If anybody else has anything
different than that by a show of hands agree with that. If you have something different you want to say or that, we’ll let you have the three minutes as well. I just don’t want everybody
to get up and say the same thing over and over because it gets really repetitious.
Unidentified: I’m for that rather than going clear to the end.
Corrie: You want us to do it the way it is? All right. We’ll do it that way.
Item I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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 I, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, this is a request for preliminary plat for 40 building lots on 3.98 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Heron Brook Townhouse
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., northeast corner of Meridian Road and Blue Heron Lane. Staff, comments first on Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, we’ve made some revisions just today because of some errors in the proposed Findings. That’s why we asked that it be moved to the regular
agenda. It has to do with Items 1.13 and 1.14 which deals with the setback requirements and the no on-street parking. We had
not received a copy of the letter from the developer dated May 2nd. So that’s been done. There were two things. The CUP and the preliminary plat. In the CUP, I think it’s 1.13 and
1.14, the preliminary plat had to do with the turnaround requirement. If you recall, the testimony was that the turnaround was available near the clubhouse. So we’ve made those changes,
but you didn’t get them until tonight.
Corrie: Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Unger represented that he’s fine with the changes. I don’t know if he’s still here tonight or not, but I showed them to him.
Corrie: Bob’s not here, are you? He didn’t raise his hand, but he was here earlier.
Nichols: Yes, and I can represent to the Council that he said the changes were acceptable to him.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions of Council? This is the first request, preliminary plat. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for
Item No. I which is now 1a, the preliminary plat for 3.98 acres.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Order of Conditional Approval of the preliminary plat dated 5/16/00 for Pinnacle Engineers known
as Heron Brook Townhouse Subdivision, northeast corner of Meridian Road and Blue Heron Lane.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for request for preliminary plat on the 40 building lots of 3.98 acres for Heron Brook
Townhomes Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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: Item 1b which is the Item J in the Consent Agenda is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, the CUP 00-011, request for Conditional Use Permit for 40-lot townhouse subdivision
in an R-40 zone proposed for Heron Brook Townhome Subdivision.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, we have some confusion going on. I think the attorney just talked about Item 1.13 and 1.14 which was out of the conditional use permit not the preliminary plat.
We just voted on the preliminary plat, so we – he was giving us conditions out of the one that we’re working on now instead of the –
Nichols: Right, and I apologize for the confusions, Councilman Anderson, Mayor and Council. The only item we changed in the preliminary plat was the item with regard to the Fire Department
turnaround in front of the clubhouse lot. Items 1.13 and 1.14 in these Findings in the Conditional Use Permit is what’s being changed there. I apologize for the confusion.
Anderson: Okay. Just wanted to get on the same page.
Corrie: Has the applicant also approved this?
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the Council, again, I represent to the Council that Mr. Unger said he was okay with our changes.
Corrie: The record will reflect that. Okay. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the Conditional Use Permit for Heron Brook Townhome Subdivision to include – to
note the changes on 5/16/00 and to have the Mayor sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the Conditional Use Permit to include the changes made in the conditions. Any further
comments? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, would you take roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 1. AZ 99-023 Ordinance No. 874: Request for annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres to R-8 for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision
by Dan Wood / D.W., Inc. – west of Eagle Road between Overland and East Victory:
Corrie: Item No. 1 is AZ 99-023, this is an Ordinance, and Mr. Clerk, what is the number on the Ordinance?
Berg: 874.
Corrie: Okay. Ordinance No. 874. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres to R-8 for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood / D.W., Inc. If the Clerk would please
read Ordinance No. 874 by title only, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ordinance No. 874: An Ordinance finding that certain land lies contiguous or adjacent to the City limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State
of Idaho; and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designation medium
density residential district (R-8); and declaring that said land by proper legal description as described below be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; repealing
all Ordinances, Resolutions, Orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith; and directing the City Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho; directing
the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed to Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and the State Tax
Commission of the State of Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: Is there anyone in the audience that would like that Ordinance No. 874 read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 874.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 874, request for annexation and zoning with the proposed Woodhaven Subdivision with suspension of rules and
the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 874. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 2. Tabled from May 2, 2000: CUP 00-012 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Maple Grove RV for RV sales, RV retail and repair in an I-L zone – 2490 W. Franklin Road:
Corrie: Item No. 2, tabled from May 2, 2000, CUP 00-012. Request for Conditional Use Permit for Maple Grove RV for RV sales, RV retail and repair in an I-L zone, 2490 West Franklin
Road. Staff, comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, as we discussed in the Pre-Council meeting, we did meet with the applicant. The Building Inspector was there, the Fire Marshall was there. Bill Nichols
was there. The Fire Marshal and Daunt Whitman, the Building Official, did discuss some options for them to be able to utilize that building. It basically involved a fire wall which
would have restricted their use on one side or the other. It would have had to contain their use for the welding equipment to one side of the building. There are still issues as far
as the zoning issues for the site plan as far as unpaved parking areas and landscaping requirements. I believe the major issue appears to still be the fire requirements. So maybe the
applicant has some additional information – he left the meeting with some choices to make, and I don’t believe he had made any at that time, so we need to hear from him.
Corrie: Other staff comments at this time?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I believe that the meeting boiled down on the fire issues of this. If you will recall, one of the concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission
level was that the existing buildings were not in compliance with the Fire Protection Code because it didn’t have a sprinkling system in it. The building official and the Fire Marshal
identified a portion of the Fire Protection Code which allows essentially a fire resistant bay to be established within the building with a one-hour fire rating barriers and doors so
that any welding or cutting could be done in that particular area of the building. It would not be required to be sprinkled. The one area of the Fire Protection Code which no agreement
was reached on is the issue of fire flow and water availability for the structures and so forth. There’s no hydrant there. There’s no City water out that far. The proposed change
in use that generated this issue doesn’t create, at least in my view, any additional fire hazards because there’s not additional cutting, there’s not additional welding. The only additional
issue would be where these recreational vehicles how they would be parked and the possibility of fire spreading from one to the other, but as far as because he’s changing his use to
include sales, if he sells so many a year, he has to have a dealer’s license, and that’s what triggered this whole thing. There’s a risk out there with a hydrant, but the risk is probably
not any greater than what’s there today by agreeing to this use. The other issue is whether he should be required to dedicate a portion of the frontage for future expansion of Franklin
Road and where the landscaping strip, the planting strip in front should be located. The Planning and Zoning Commission focused on the fire issue, and I don’t believe they really addressed
these other issues much because they didn’t get to those issues because of the fire protection issue.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening?
Dugan: Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Matt Dugan. I’m the President of Maple Grove RV at 2490 West Franklin Road. I have no problem putting up a fire wall if that would
suffice the Building Department. I have checked into a dry chemical system, and I have been assured by Idaho Fire and Safety that there is a large enough system to chemical spray the
building. Now if we have to have a wall up in there and the chemical system, then I would just prefer the wall. But I think the size of our building, only 600 square feet larger than
the required size of 3,000 square feet. The issue with the 35-foot setback, they want to have us up front is that we’re now not on the 2020 plan for Franklin Road. So which I believe
Shari was telling me is that you guys wanted the additional buffer zone that when Franklin Road is widened, that our 35-foot setback be on top of that. Well, what it’s doing is it’s
taking 45 feet of my property that’s not even on the 2020 plan. So we haven’t had any development of this property at all in 20 years, so when am I going to have a road widened in front
of me; am I not going to be able to use my land for another 20 years is what my issue is. The other thing about safety and like Mr. Nichols said, we’re not changing any use. We’ve
been doing this and it has been going on in the building since 1991. But it’s completely bare all the way around us. There’s well over 100 acres at least around us that is no – causes
no fire danger to anybody because it’s all agricultural even though it is zoned light industrial. That’s basically what I have. I really wasn’t prepared with anything to come here
tonight. I didn’t know I was on the agenda.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, perhaps we should table this until June 6th where the applicant can have a chance to respond to the conditions that staff has put and staff has some opportunity
to work with Mr. Dugan on that.
Dugan: I have no problem with the issue of the fire wall if that’s what the issue is. If I have to put up a fire wall in the building, I have no problem with that.
deWeerd: But with the landscaping and pavement or asphalting and those kinds of things, I thought you did have some comments on –
Dugan: I’m just saying why do I have to give up my property that I own now. What is the requirement that the City has on me that they’re going to take this on speculation that it’s
going to happen in 20 years or 5 years or 3 years when it’s not on the 2020 plan?
deWeerd: That 2020 plan, though, does change. It’s kind of a living, breathing document. With some of the developments that are going out to the west, it is very likely that that
can change. So we hope that would change within that 20-year plan.
Corrie: Would until June 6th give you some chance to talk with the staff and get that so you understand it and they can understand it and they bring it back and you make a decision
as far as the Conditional Use Permit is concerned? It sounds like that is one of the requirements of ACHD is (inaudible) –
Dugan: ACHD is in your packet – they required no improvements of this site at this time.
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I have talked to the staff person who wrote that report, and they were of the – they thought this had already been an approved use through the City, and
it had never come before the City. This – due to the fact that partly we don’t have a business license – the business was just started without coming to the City to ask for any kind
of occupancy or to meet any of the Ordinance requirements. Had Ada County Highway District realized that, they would have required the dedication of the right-of-way, they would have
required sidewalk construction clear down on Black Cat that the Zanders that had come in and wanted the – I don’t know if you even saw that application, but they had asked in the County
for permission to have a motor vehicle repair and were required to dedicate the right-of-way and were required to put in sidewalk on their property. This is directly from Ada County
Highway District and maybe if we table that I can get a new report from them, but they were operating under a misunderstanding that this had been an approved use through the City and
it was fully sanctioned by the City and that they were simply asking for the sales part of it. But that wasn’t the case.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess listening to the testimony at the last Council meeting and a little bit of the history of this property and why it was annexed and how it was annexed, it
makes more sense to me to be approaching this thing from a deannexation from the City. There’s no advantage for you to be in the City at this point. That eliminates the paving and
the landscaping and the road width requirements then all you have to do is deal with it at that point is the fire code issues, and you’ve been able to work with the one as far as sprinkling
the building as far as putting a firewall in there. The only remaining issue that you’d have at that point would be getting a water supply, and that you could still continue to work
on. It makes no sense to me to even be looking at this thing for keeping it in the City. I don’t see why we’re looking at that. We ought to be going the other direction.
Dugan: And I have no problem with what the Council says, but I just want to say that I have been a Meridian resident for 30 years. I am a Meridian High School graduate. So I am very
proud of this City.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to explain that should this property be deannexed, it would revert that back to the original zoning which would be a County rural transitional zone
and would not permit this type of operation.
Anderson: And then he would have to go to the County and apply for a permit for that type of operation?
Stiles: Yes, probably a rezone or a Conditional Use Permit or something of that nature.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I think that this point it would behoove us to allow Mr. Dugan and staff to talk about this, talk about their options and then come back and recommend a plan of
attack. I would make a motion to continue this to June 6th.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, is that acceptable to the applicant?
Dugan: Just a timeframe, I have been working on this for over a year and-a-half, and so – I mean, what’s two more weeks, but it is the peak of my season, and I am a very busy man.
I mean, I will be more than gracious to abide to the Council.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, you brought this in a year and-a-half ago to our staff?
Dugan: I started a year and-a-half ago with Planning and Zoning, yes, with my original application.
Corrie: Okay. I think we need some answers on the 6th. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: We’ll get you some answers, and I guarantee you that by June 6th you go one way or the other here.
Item 3. Tabled from May 2, 2000: FP 00-004 Request for Final Plat approval of 32 building lots and 5 other lots on 12.801 acres in an R-4 zone for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo
Investments, LLC / Frank Stoppello:
Corrie: Okay, Item No. 3, tabled from May 2, 2000. Request for final plat approval of 32 building lots and 5 other lots on 12.801 acres in an R-4 zone for
Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC, Frank Stoppello. Staff, comments first?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, if you’ll remember, we had a little misunderstanding, I guess, that you could say, about the common lot that would be located right in this area here.
I believe that was the only real matter; we had a difference of opinion on that. I talked to Mr. Stoppello right before this meeting, Tom Kuntz, the Parks and Recreation Director and
I walked out, went out there and walked this site. We think this would be a very desirable place to have as part of our pathway system. We would like to ask Mr. Stoppello to enter
into some discussions with us to see if that’s a feasible alternative and whether maybe there could be some impact fee offsets in consideration for that. I would – I don’t have any
problem with approving the plat except that it be understood that this is not to be sold off to the adjacent property owners, and it is to be maintained as a common area unless the City
approves something different. The first proposal was to either sell it off to the gentleman that purchased this property to the west or to sell it off to the individual lot owners that
abut it to the east. And I believe there is a common lot here in Los Alamitos that it would tie in very well for a future pathway. This pathway would extend from virtually all the
way from Overland Road near Locust Grove clear through to the Ridenbaugh. It would work well with the pathway system. I just hate to lose that opportunity to be able to work on something
for that pathway. Mr. Stoppello could answer any questions, I guess, if he has any disagreement in doing that. Other than that we didn’t have any problems with the plat. That seemed
to be the only issue that was remaining on our side.
Corrie: So the only issue is whether or not that’s going to be a pathway? He does not want to do that? Okay. Mr. Stoppello.
Bowcutt: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Mr. Stoppello’s asked me to come before you this evening on this issue of final plat since I was the person who did the original presentations
before you. If you recall, there were multiple discussions on that little finger that we referred to when we processed and what could be done with it. The main concern that the Council
had with that was that it be properly maintained; that it not be a weed patch or an eye sore. It was in the preliminary plat Findings that were adopted. It gave us the option, it stated
the applicant shall maintain or deed Lot 1, Block 1. So if it went with Lot 3 which is the lot that adjoins it to the south as say garden area, because I believe that is approximately
60 feet wide, then the Council would accept that. The big issue was that it just not sit there unmaintained. If it’s a common lot, in the development, it’s highly unlikely that these
residents will maintain it because they don’t have access to it. It’s blocked back there and isolated. The only reason that it’s part of the property was for access into the parcel
via an easement that ran from Locust Grove. Mr. Stoppello is not opposed if he can work something out with the City, Parks Department and they believe that this is a portion of the
pathway system that they would like to take on, he’s willing to enter into
discussions with them. If the Parks Department does not want to do that, an easement for pedestrian access along that would be acceptable. We want to be accommodating. We want to
make sure that your pathway systems for future pathway construction are protected. Shari indicated that she thought there was a common lot due north of this finger in Los Alamitos.
There is a common lot for the drain, but it is west of this. So this finger backs up to a single-family residential lot, and (inaudible) main concern (inaudible – walked away from
the mic) existing drain and the existing easement for Nine Mile in order to put a future pathway. So we’re really not sure if this piece in its entirety will be that valuable to the
City, but obviously, an easement would help to expand the path. Do you have any questions?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, on your map there, what’s that red diagonal area there?
Bowcutt: The red is the drain.
Anderson: And how much feet do we have – is this a common lot?
Bowcutt: (inaudible)
Anderson: So that’ whole thing is filled up with drain? Is it piped or tiled?
Bowcutt: It’s open and it appears that they are (inaudible).
Stoppello: The drain is 50 feet wide.
Bowcutt: It appears Los Alamitos has allocated approximately 30-some feet based on that assessor’s map.
Bird: Mr. Mayor –
Bowcutt: However, we’ve allocated 50.
Bird: Didn’t that finger – isn’t it 57 wide?
Bowcutt: Yes, the finger part is 57.19.
Bird: At the top 57.23.
Bowcutt: And we’ve allocated 50 feet for the drain.
Stoppello: Which Includes, if I may – (inaudible) My name is Frank Stoppello, Mayor and members of the Council. If I may point to the map and grab that microphone. I’ll be very brief.
Where the future pathway is going to be is there’s 10 feet here that’s going to go down here. Here’s where the only piping that’s been allowed on the Nine Mile Drain took place. Immediately
this opens up to
30. It’s very steep. A lot of water draining into it. Then it comes to 50 feet. This is a 50-foot wide. I’m telling you that it’s at least 15 feet deep, and the pathway for cleanout
– where they run their equipment runs right along this northern edge, and that’s what is going to be if they ever agree the pathway. Now when you get here, this road continues right
along here to a culvert that goes out to Locust Grove. I know Mr. Sutter owns this. I own nothing in here. I do – when you pull into this lot, you have all these backyards, and I’m
sorry, but my best memory is that is also Los Alamitos. This is the drain. However, I would like to get this approved. I told Shari before the meeting for something to work out where
they could come off of this road if they can’t get this road at the next development, if they come off this road and maybe put a five- or ten-foot path along here, they’re still going
to have to get back into Sutter’s property into the Nine Mile Drain. I think the question at the last meeting, Mrs. deWeerd, if in fact there had been discussions at P & Z, we have
the minutes. You were very active in them. I got up and said my intent is to sell this to the adjoining property owners or with Lot 3. That’s why it says 2.29 in the Findings maintained
or deeded. I think it says deeded. The idea was you were very insistent, you, ma’am, that this not be a weed patch while the developer owned it. That he had to maintain it. But the
idea was to deed it away. But I’m willing to cooperate with Shari if there’s a way to – I’d like her to prove tonight and I will give my word that I’ll meet with Shari and the Parks
Department, we’ll go out there, this is my road here, we can drive right along it and come from Locust Grove. You said you had trouble looking over the fence. We can walk right out
there. If something can be worked out on my word to the Council, maybe we can dedicate this along here as an alternate easement if you can’t get this or whatever, but I’d be willing
to do that. I would like to get it approved; I’ve been right exactly at a year on this if I could. I’ll answer any other questions.
Corrie: Questions, Council?
Anderson: I don’t have any questions, I just have a comment. This thing just keeps going back and forth. Our staff tells us that that piece of property would make a good pathway,
you guys keep telling us that it wouldn’t and it goes nowhere. Somewhere you guys have got to come to an agreement. You just can’t keep coming before us telling us it won’t work, it
will work. All we’ve asked you to do is get together in between Council meetings and work this out, and you keep coming back to the Council meetings telling us you haven’t gotten together
and worked this out. I would love to approve your project, but with this outstanding piece of property, I don’t know where it’s going, and it’s not that I don’t trust your word, but
to have a document and have something in agreement before we approve this, I’ll feel a lot more comfortable doing that than to go out there tomorrow after we approve this tonight and
all of a sudden nothing works out. There is no agreement. We’re left with something that goes nowhere.
Stoppello: This was approved, sir, exactly the way I said it. Maintained – applicant shall maintain or deed Lot 1, Block 1. Now, that’s right there. That’s
what you had a condition on last time. Nobody had a copy of the Findings. I have never agreed prior to that time to try to help out. I don’t think it’ll help it because you need to
continue down the Nine Mile Drain (inaudible) down this road and down into Los Alamitos. This is not going to help you. (inaudible) easement over on that land, a pedestrian path.
I’m doing that tonight. I was asked to tonight. But I have followed everything you said in the preliminary plat. I’m not changing anything.
Bowcutt: Councilman Anderson, I’m sorry that we’ve burdened you with this this evening. May I make a suggestion? Obviously you have set forth the conditions of approval in which this
final plat is approved. Let’s just add a condition of approval stating that Mr. Stoppello shall grant an easement to the City for pedestrian access if staff determines that it is warranted
and could be utilized by a park system or trail system. Something to that effect.
Stoppello: I have no problem with that.
Bowcutt: Therefore it is in writing. We would not be opposed to that.
Stiles: That sounds great. That would work fine.
Stoppello: I was just asked that before the meeting and I agreed to it.
Corrie: Okay, Council, you can either approve or reject the final plat at this point. Do you want to approve it with conditions? You can do that. Or you can reject the final plat.
I’ll entertain a motion to do something and then we can accept or reject it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the final plat for 12.801 acres with 32 building lots and 5 other lots in an R-4 and R-T zone for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments
with the condition added for staff and developer to determine the usage of Lot 1.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the request for final plat on the Tarawood Subdivision with the added condition of staff and developer working out the easement
on Lot 1, Block 1. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
Item 4. Tabled from May 2, 2000: FP 00-007 Request for Final Plat approval of 102 lots and 14 other lots on 31.94 acres in an R-4 zone by Projects West, Inc., for English Gardens Subdivision:
Corrie: Item No. 4 is tabled from May 2, 2000, 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. There has been a request from staff to table that until June the 6th. Any other questions of Council? I’ll entertain a motion on Item No. 4 to be tabled until June 6th.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we table No. 4, FP 00-007
*** End of Side 2 ***
Bird: -- request for final plat approval of English Gardens Subdivision until 6/6/00.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to table Item No. 4, request for final plat approval, FP 00-007, until June 6th meeting on English Gardens Subdivision. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 18, 2000: CUP 00-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for existing car dealership (2 buildings) on front four acres and proposed 72,000
s.f. Fairview Mini-Storage on the back four acres – 1005 East Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Item No. 5 is a continued public hearing from April 18, 2000, CUP 00-006, request for a Conditional Use Permit for existing car dealership (2 buildings) on front four acres
and proposed 72,000 s.f. Fairview Mini Storage on the back four acres, 1005 East Fairview Avenue. I will continue the public hearing and I think that one is maybe to be continued, but
I’ll have staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, it is to my understanding that we need to contact John Moody at L.B. Industries and ask him what they’re plan is to continue since they have asked for
an indefinite deferral.
Corrie: Is there anyone here from the public outside the applicant? Is the applicant here tonight? Is there anyone from the public that wants to testify on this public hearing?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing for the CUP 00-006 for a CUP by Fairview Mini Storage to June 6th.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to continue the public hearing until June 6th on the CUP 000-006, Fairview Mini Storage. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, just a point of order. What’s the longest time we can continue a public hearing? Is it 30 days?
Nichols: Council and Mayor, where the applicant requests the extension of a continuance, they’ve waived any statutory requirement on the timeframe, and I’m not real clear on how long
you can string it along, but particularly where they’ve asked for it, it’s a waiver. So they can’t claim any failure to act within a specific time.
Anderson: I guess – you were asking to the 6th? I’m thinking we should go at least a month. They’re asking for an indefinite time period.
deWeerd: We did it to that date certain so that staff could contact them and get a definite date.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I think it’s important to either – I mean if this issue is dead, then they need to say so and come back and do it again. If it’s not dead,
then they need to tell us when they’re going to have it done. An indefinite extension on indefinite continuance just doesn’t work for your purposes at least in my opinion. So that’s
why I think it sounds like that’s what Ms. Stiles is going to do is get – it’s (inaudible) date, basically. They need to do something with it.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion to table this until June 6th say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. 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 East Pine
Avenue:
Corrie: Item No. 6 is a public hearing. A request for a parking variance, reduction in required parking spaces for Generations Park Plaza II by Gary Benoit at East 1st Street and East
Pine Avenue. At this time I’ll open the public hearing and invite the staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, did you get staff comments on this? I didn’t have them in my packet. I just wanted to make sure that you had those.
Corrie: No. Don’t see any. I have one from Nampa Meridian. I don’t have anything in my packet.
Stiles: I’ll see if I can remember what I wrote. This would be dealing with only the variance part of the application. You will be seeing the Conditional Use Permit portion of the
application at a later date. They are proposing 11,000+ s.f. new building to replace the Stan’s Mowers known as the old Hitchcock Building. I don’t know if they have some –I guess
they can address if they have some revisions to the plan, but what they’re proposing is taking this lot which is adjacent to the City parking lot and making it the parking for a new
building. They want to raise the existing buildings there and construct a new building. They’re proposing 19 parking spaces. The City Ordinance would require 45 parking spaces for
the square footage of the building they’re proposing. There were some issues, none that have been submitted officially that as far as maybe changing directions of some of the parking
lots, changing the direction of the alley. They have submitted a request to Ada County Highway District for vacation of this portion of the alley, and we did get an application today
in our department to follow Meridian’s process for vacating that alley. I had a hard time preparing a recommendation on this. There are a lot of different schools of thought when
it comes to parking areas in the downtown core. An abundance of parking can lead to people depending more on their cars. It is the surface parking lots are also a waste of space in
some cases and result in lower densities in the downtown. So there are – there is also the site where people in the area are complaining about no parking availability. Paisano’s across
the street, they did get a variance from the off-street parking requirements. You just approved tonight the variance for this other space that is also owned by the same group here known
as Generations Plaza I, the old Holloway Building, and they have no parking for that site. It will take a concerted effort on the part of the applicant to find tenants that work well
with this building and will rely on the pedestrian-oriented clientele to come to the building. They have also submitted, I hope you have in your packets, they have submitted a drawing
showing where there is existing parking. Granted, a lot of it is private parking, but there is some availability of other areas to park. The existing City parking lot across the street
here on Broadway is severely under-utilized. They had discussed possibly requiring the employees of the building to park in that area and walk down to their building because the parking
will be a problem. You will be seeing the actual Conditional Use Permit on this project that will show all of the elevations of the proposed building and other design details at a later
date. Today we’re working on the variance. As far as this, the change in direction I mentioned, they had discussed possibly making this the opposite direction and re-doing the striping
on the City parking lots, but this would be the exit out because Ada County Highway District had made their determination – it has been that they can only have a right-in and a right-out
the way this is configured now just because of the location and the distance from the intersection. So my comment on that was if they did propose to change the direction of the City
parking lot or changed or effected any of the parking along this alley that should be the applicant’s responsibility to pay for those changes that would be required. But in the case
of the City parking lot, there would be some curbing changes, there would be some striping changes. I don’t know if it would affect the landscaping or not, but –
That’s what I remember that I wrote. I don’t have that in my file. The applicant can address his issues with the variance application. That’s all I have.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening? Okay. Give the applicant five minutes.
Cole: Good evening, Mayor and Council. I’ll try to keep this brief. You’ve seen this project before. This is one of two buildings that surrounds Generations Park. This is the second
one. We feel that in order for this project to be viable and be feasible that we would suggest reducing parking requirements that currently exist for this project. We feel that this
project is going to be a nice amenity for the City of Meridian and as designed and as proposed that it’s going to be beneficial for the residents of the downtown business district.
Corrie: Are there any questions that you can answer about this parking, striping, changing and if they do eventually go to that?
Cole: We’re working with ACHD right now to investigate right now the – they recommended the restriping in order for the entrance, the main entrance, to be located farther away from
that intersection. We have no problem with that developer restriping or what’s necessary to accommodate that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, and you’re talking about the City lot at the same time, correct?
Corrie: Any further discussion, Council, at this time? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to – in favor of the variance? Okay. Anyone else from
the public against the variance? Okay. Name and address, please.
Wishney: Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Susan Wishney, I work for Northwest Property Management. My firm manages a parcel of – project located on 2nd and Pine owned by Lloyd and
Betty Gerber. This is a mixed use structure. The ground level is commercial tenants. Upstairs are apartments. Our project provides ample parking for our residents with commercial
and residential tenants; however, there is not always sufficient parking on-site for the patrons and guests of my clients or my tenants. My tenants have stated to me on numerous occasions
that there is a dirth (sic) of parking on the street surrounding this area. It is absorbed by surrounding businesses and residences. If this reduction in parking application were approved,
it would probably already exacerbate the shortage of parking that exists in this area. This is a transitional area. I think some of it is moving more towards commercial, and it’s going
to impact my client’s project. He is opposed to this application on that basis. If, however, the streets surrounding this area were to receive posting limiting parking to one or two
hours, my client would not oppose the application for reduction in parking. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else in the public like to issue testimony in this request for a variance? Okay. Hearing none, Council, any questions of staff or the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. If there is no more testimony, then I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. VAR 00-008, Item No. 6. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Staff. Excuse me, Council, comments?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess just a general comment would be we listened to a presentation two weeks ago about this project and the parking, and this is nothing but a bare lot right
now where we’re talking about building the parking. If they were to meet our parking requirements, all they would be building would be a parking lot for the City of Meridian which would
be nice, but we’re actually trying to get some business and some things going in the downtown area, and these projects are the start of what we feel will help to revitalize our downtown
area. Parking is an issue in the downtown area, and I know that Council is going to have to address that further down the road, and we’ll have to come up with some additional solutions
to that, but I would make a motion tonight in favor of granting this variance for Generations Park Plaza No. 2.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay, motion’s made and seconded to approve the request for parking variance on the Generations Plaza No. 2 by Gary Voigt. Any further discussion?
Anderson: I’d like to add to instruct the counsel to prepare Findings of Fact for that.
Bird: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Just for the public’s information, we do have a committee, the Downtown Redevelopment Committee that’s going to be looking into the parking downtown and also on new businesses
and some of the Old Town areas to revitalize the downtown areas. This will be one of the things that they’ll have to look at.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I have one for the City attorney. If they construct their own parking lot, can we restrict the amount of time someone can park there? I know in our City lot we
have a two-hour limit enforced on it. I don’t know who enforces it, but they’re supposed to.
Corrie: It’s enforced.
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd, Mayor, members of the Council, the reason for putting an hour restriction on the public lot is because if you don’t, you have no way of keeping traffic
moving through it; whereas, the private parking lot can be restricted to patrons of that particular business. So that’s the – I mean, they have an interest in moving that – those cars
in and out of there. I’m not aware of a private parking lot where hour conditions have been imposed. It’s more or less been allowed. If somebody wants to spend three hours looking
through a craft store, then they can do so.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I do have one thing. For my own notes, I’m not sure that the applicant identified his name. At least I didn’t get it.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll –
Cole: I apologize. Stan Cole, Cole Associates Architects, Boise, Idaho. 960 Broadway.
Corrie: Thank you, Stan. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
7. Public Hearing: AZ 00-006 Request by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc. for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision for annexation and zoning of 12.73 acres from R-T to L-O and
R-15 zones - northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road:
Public Hearing: PP 00-005 Request by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc. for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision for Preliminary Plat for 12.73 acres with 10 building lots and
2 other lots on 12.73 acres in proposed L-O and R-15 - northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 00-014 Request by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc. for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision for Conditional Use Permit for a 128-unit apartment complex,
townhouses and office on
12.73 acres in proposed L-O and R-15 zones– northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 7 is a public hearing. This is a request by Vicki Welker, Gold River Companies, Inc., for a proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision for annexation and zoning of
12.73 acres from R-T to L-O and R-18 zone; northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road. At this time I’ll open the public hearing and have comments from staff first.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, would it be improper to open all three of those at the same time?
Corrie: If you’d like to, we can have them make comment on all three.
Bird: Is that agreeable with you?
Corrie: All right. I’m going to open the public hearing – change of order here. I’m going to open the public hearing on the request for the annexation and zoning, also for the preliminary
plat and also for the request for Conditional Use Permit on Valeri Heights Subdivision. So when you testify, you can testify on all three at one time if you’d like. Your testimony
will be for each one of those if you so desire. So I’m going to open the public hearing on 7, 8 and 9. Staff, comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property located on the northeast corner of Pine and Ten Mile. It is currently occupied by a home, a single-family home. I believe you
saw this application previously. Do you remember this? They have made some significant changes to the original plan. As far as the annexation and zoning, we did request a Development
Agreement and ask that certain restrictions be placed in that Development Agreement that wouldn’t permit some of the uses that they may come in with a Conditional Use Permit such as
a convenience store or a bar. On the plat portion of it, this is what it currently looks like. On the plat, on the recommendations from P & Z on Page 2, Item 6, at the top of the page,
it says subject property is within the City limits of the City of Meridian. It hasn’t been annexed yet, so it is not within the City limits. We would also like on the plat portion
of it to add another condition regarding the six feet of landscape right-of-way. There would be six feet beyond where the roadway improvements would be. We would like them to enter
into a License Agreement with Ada County Highway District and submit a copy of their agreement prior to any certificates of occupancy. There’s also a letter from Terry Little. Did
you get that in your packets?
Corrie: Yes. I did. Dated May 15th?
Stiles: Regarding the signalization at Pine and Ten Mile? If that is going to be your recommendation and a condition of your approval, we’d like you to specify
the funding and the timing of that signal installation as part of the approval, should this project be approved, so that we’re not having problems with it later. And on the Conditional
Use Permit recommendation, Item 1.10 on Page 3, where it discusses the requirement for a storage area, this is an R-15 zone requirement that they would have to have – that they’re asked
to have a storage area for RV, boats, campers, whatever as part of this planned development. That Item 1.10 would need to be omitted if the Council deems that appropriate. There’s
– this shows the existing field there. The palm (sic), out buildings. This is the proposed plan. They’re showing these as apartments here. They would have some garages along the
northern boundary and some along the outside perimeter. This area here is where they’re proposing the office area with the associated parking. Here on Pine, they would have their clubhouse
and pool. They’d have a fountain feature in the middle. I’ll go through – they did submit somemore planned use. This was the first prospective they had given of the office area, and
they had since come up with some new plans; this was the garages; four-plex; this would be the 16-unit complex; this is their proposed entry sign; this is the proposed clubhouse; this
is I guess commercial sign that I don’t know if each one of these would be an individual tenant or there aren’t any dimensions on it, so it’s hard to tell what exactly that one is; this
is showing their proposed landscaping. I do note that they are showing this – I guess this is the sidewalk. They’re proposing to tile the drain here. It’s a safety hazard at this
time; another site rendering; another four-plex; this would show the pond area that would be in the center of the apartment complex showing a gazebo. That’s all I had as far as pictures.
Do you have any questions of me?
Corrie: Any questions at this time? Okay. Thank you. Any other staff comments? Okay. I’d invite the developer’s representative to come up and see what you do in five minutes.
Bailey: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is David Bailey. My address is 6417 Santa Cruz Drive, Boise. I’m representing Vicki Welker, Gold River Companies,
for the Valeri Heights planned development. As Ms. Stiles had related, we had submitted this previously, and we think that the outcome of the resubmittal of this is not the same application
as a new application for the same property, but we think the outcome is really made some significant improvements to the project. The previous submittal had 164 units versus 128 units.
Excuse me, 136 units on this plan. There was an issue with tandem parking. On the previous application, it had parking spaces that were behind the garages that were controversial.
The open space wasn’t nearly as well arranged, I think, as we’re showing in this plan, and the buildings were spread throughout the site making for a variety of problems. The buildings
around the perimeter of the project which provided more impact on the neighbors to the project. There were some questions about the circulation in that plan, and that plan also required
some significant grading on the site in order to make it feasible to make it work. We think we’ve corrected all those problems, and we’ve tried to take into account, going over the
minutes from those hearings in the
meetings that we had had, and try to take those into account as revision of this plan. We’re currently showing 128 apartment buildings, and there’s actually 8 16-unit apartment buildings
there. In between each building there’s a courtyard area that would be landscaped, and there’s significant landscaping around the site as well. Back up real quickly. We have also
with me tonight Scott Harrison, the designer for the project, worked on the buildings. We have Pat Dobie who is our traffic engineer for the project, and Michael Marceeze who is the
property manager consultant for the project. The units we’re proposing would be between 800 and 1300 s.f. with one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. We are proposing to
construct a tot-lot, the water amenity that we’re showing there, and we do – I think you can catch it in the landscape plan, there was a question from Planning and Zoning about making
sure that that’s not a safety hazard and have shrubbery around that and a fence around that – portion of that, stones around a portion of that to try to keep small children around that.
It’s also located – (inaudible) seen fairly easily from a lot of directions on the site. Ground-floor units would meet ADA requirements and Fair Housing requirements, and that applies
to the townhouse units also. There are eight of those townhouse units. Clubhouse with pool and a basketball court on the southerly end of the project as well. We’re providing 304
parking spaces. Minimum required is two, and the Council, per the Planned Development Ordinance, could require up to 2.33 per unit. We’re at 2.375. We think we’re well over that.
We do have units that are set out to be garaged and open spaces for handicapped parking that we feel meets the handicapped parking requirements. 165 of the parking spaces are garaged,
those 10-foot wide garages with a door on them, not carports. We had delineated our walkways in our project with the stamped concrete, and you can see the dark spots there, to help
with the traffic – pedestrian circulation on the site, and hopefully help the safety issues in that area. We’re proposing a six-foot perimeter fence which would go six feet along the
north and east boundaries along the project. There would be berms along the west and southerly portion of the project. Landscaping behind the garages – the goal was to provide as much
of a buffer as possible to the property so the north and for what may be constructed to the east of this is. It’s currently vacant there and provide those garages with landscaping behind
them that would be maintained. There would be a fence, 10 feet of landscaping that would be professionally maintained, and then the garage units. Actually, to the northerly point of
the apartment building there, it’s approximately 85 feet from the property line before you’re even to an apartment building, and that’s at a two-story level. So it’d be almost 100 feet
from the property line to the three-story level of a building. The eight townhouses would be 1,300 s.f. buildings, and there are two-garages for each unit on that. On the southwesterly
corner we have 26,000 s.f. office space, and it’s split into three sections with some patio areas in the middle. There were some suggestions that we could – it’d be best to have a view
into the project rather than the whole back of the building. We’d like to break that up some and have some windows in the rear there. Our covenants as we’ve submitted are prohibiting
any signage on the back of the building. The sign that we were showing on the overhead here – I don’t know the exact size, but it’s the City
ordinance requirements, and it’s a fairly compact sized sign. In each of those spots it would be for the individual advertising. That and then on the front, say on the window or the
door of the building, would be the only other advertising that would be allowed for the office uses or commercial uses. I’m going to move ahead here. One of the biggest issues associated
with this project and with the area in general is the traffic associated with this. We appreciated the letter we got from ACHD recently that discussed some of those issues. We really
feel that this is the right place. Your Comprehensive Plan shows this as planned development area, mixed residential or mixed development. We think that this provides a good suitability
for that. COMPASS has supported our position on that, and the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine, Ten Mile being an arterial street which at some point in the future we’ll have connections
to either a rail system or an interchange to the freeway, and I think it’s scheduled in the fall in your plan for improvement. I don’t know that it’s funded yet, but it’s scheduled
in the five-year plan for the widening of Ten Mile Road. The intersection of Pine and Ten Mile right now is the problem. We’ve heard a lot of testimony on that. We’ve heard from people
on those issues. We’ve tried to do everything that we can within the scope of this project to improve that, and we really feel that this project would improve the situation at that
intersection and not degrade the situation at that intersection. We’d be willing to, as the Highway District suggested, to do the engineering, put up the traffic signs, the stop signs
for the project, and we have offered to do the engineering work and install a traffic signal at that Pine and Ten Mile Road. As far as the funding on that, the developer is expecting
to fund the engineering and construction of that and the Highway District would supply parts for the traffic signals. That’s what he was talking about in his letter that it’s not funded
in their five-year plan, so they can’t provide the money to pay for those improvements, but we could provide those improvements and do a better deal on getting the parts for that which
they can re-use when they do the improvements and benefit the public in advance. We are tiling the drain at the corner as Ms. Stiles printed out, and we intend to put in a right-turn
lane and the left-turn lane at that intersection so that we can provide a better flow of traffic to that area. The stub streets to the project to the north, this is something that the
Highway District wants and the City wants to provide the stub streets. The functionality of this project is not affected either way by providing those. It does provide a traffic route
from this project into this neighborhood to the north which we really prefer not to have, but I think the neighbors to the north would also prefer not to have that. Unfortunately, there’s
not a whole lot that we can do to that consideration that it’s the policy of the City and of the Highway District to provide those interconnections between – what we have done is made
the traffic circulation within the apartment complex to be as good as possible for providing the traffic flow through the apartment complex while discouraging cut-through traffic and
discouraging traffic that would go to the north out of this project. I believe that’s all I have unless you have any questions for me.
Corrie: I have nothing. Did you say it was –
Bailey: Pat Dobie who is the traffic engineer, Scott Harrison who is the project designer, and Michael Marceeze who is the property manager consultant.
Corrie: They’ve got 10 minutes.
Bailey: Thank you.
Dobie: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Pat Dobie. My address is 777 Hotstone Drive in Boise. I prepared a traffic impact study for this project last August. That study
was reviewed by ACHD. As a result of their review and subsequent meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission, there was an issue raised about high-school traffic. I went back
in December and collected additional traffic counts and reviewed that with the Highway District evaluating the conditions with the school in session. As (inaudible) stands, the Highway
District has approved the project subject to a requirement that they construct a left-turn lane on the Pine Street approach and a left-turn lane on both approaches on Ten Mile Road.
At the present time, the intersection is a little rough out there. It doesn’t have a lot of pavement width; it has some fairly poorly defined geometry, and it has that drain ditch
to contend with. The Highway District’s conclusion was with the projected traffic volumes, out through the year 2000, 2005, in COMPASS’ model, and even looking out into the year 2020,
with an improved section on Ten Mile Road and with the new freeway interchange out on the interstate, there would be adequate capacity at this intersection to accommodate the site-generated
traffic with these land improvements provided that the road was improved to at least a three-lane section. In Terry Little’s letter, he mentioned that the intersection is approaching
the (inaudible) for an all-way stop condition. Well, based upon comments that were made at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, both from the public and the members of the Commission,
the developer proposed to put in a signal at their expense. Now, because these are system roads, Ada County Highway District normally provides the materials for the signal which is
about a third of the cost. This is a considerable expense associated with installing the signal, and I think that improvement gathered with the land widenings and the sidewalks will
adequately mitigate the traffic impacts from full development of this project. In addition (inaudible) pedestrian crossing so that school children and pedestrians within the area have
the safe crossing on Ten Mile Road. Once the signal is installed, it will provide all of the capacity that’s needed to accommodate essentially any level of traffic at that location.
I know the neighbors are concerned about the traffic, and I just wanted to express to you that this is an extraordinary level of improvements that have been required of this – being
proposed by this development, and I think it adequately addresses the needs of this location. If you have any questions or if comments come up from the public, I’d be happy to address
them.
Corrie: You’ll have a chance after the public gets through to answer the questions that come up.
Dobie: Thank you.
Corrie: Do you have another one?
Harrison: members of the Council, my name is Scott Harrison, Project Designer on this project. I reside at 3595 Wasworth Drive, Boise, Idaho. Most of what I wanted to talk about is
in the staff comments from the last Planning and Zoning meeting regarding materials, construction, things like that, regarding this project. We’ve tried to incorporate into this project
the items that will make it a good project as far as construction standards and things like that. So I’m going to briefly go over a few of those items. Again, it’s (inaudible) construction
on the mixed residential and apartment side with separation of walls. We’ll have smoke detection and sprinkler – fully sprinklered systems. We will meet ADA and Fair Housing requirements
at all entrances. Turning radii within the structure itself within kitchens and bathrooms, et cetera, to meet those requirements. Any stairs that do require ramps will have ramps on
the exterior entrances on the building. It’ll be basic 2x6 construction, slab on grade. Our materials that we will use are pretty consistent with what you would normally see around
Boise. This is the roofing. Actual shingle siding, you know, the preferred selection right now is masonite, but we have an option there to do vinyl because vinyl’s come a long way
in the past few years. The windows, we have selected white vinyl, single-hung with an architectural and low-e coating for energy conservation. All the fascia and soffett, again, those
will be masonite with – the alternate being textured aluminum soffetts with fascia panels. I do have an additional item that I would like to give to you to pass around. (inaudible
– walked away from mic). That shows some of the things we’re planning as far as not only landscaping but some of the exterior venire (inaudible) add some brick to add with a bit of
change, a little bit of distinction on the size of the buildings. We didn’t have that before, the last time we presented this to the City Council. Dave was able to cover most of the
chief issues with regard to the site. Architecturally, as far as this project goes, it hasn’t been much of a concern, much of an issue. Most of the issues have been regarding traffic,
parking and things like that. If you do have any questions, thought, I’d like to entertain them and open it up to that right now.
Corrie: None at this time. Thank you.
Marceeze: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Michael Marceeze. I’m a property manager and here to address any issues that might result – be questioned about the property
management of the proposed site. I’m the owner of Summit Real Estate Services. I’ve been in the business since 1980 and managed over 10,000 units in my career. One of the properties
that I currently manage is Aspen Hills Apartments. It’s 120 units up on Meridian Road. I have with me, if necessary, the manager of Aspen Hills who would be pleased to testify that
there is definitely demand for more apartments in the area. She
maintains a waiting list almost year-around. Based on our review of the proposed site, we feel that this is a luxury property which is in demand and well developed and organized in
terms of units and amenities and adequate parking. In fact, there’s an abundance of garaged parking there that would reduce crime and certain traffic congestion on the property. Part
of our development service or our service to developers is to engage local law enforcement in reviewing plan design. There’s a program called CPTED which stands for Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design, and we have contacted that department within law enforcement, and they’ve reviewed the plans and given us some suggestions in favor of review which I am
happy to share with you. As a professional property manager since 1980, we employ various standards to maintain a high quality of environment including qualifying residents through
screening out of credit and criminal background and evictions and so on. We establish rules and regulations to control noise and aesthetics of a property, guests, overcrowding and so
on. And we’re involved with risk management between our managers for emergencies and to be involved with the community in the areas of neighborhood watch. There’s a program called
Multi-family Crime Free Program which we’re involved in. So just to summarize here, I’m here to answer any questions that might come up regarding the management of the property. There
is an art and science to managing properties well, maintain a quality environment and if this project’s approved, we will be engaged to implement that kind of management. Thank you
very much.
Corrie: Mr. Bailey, is that all that you had? Okay. Is there anyone from the public now that wants to issue testimony in favor of this project?
Fuller: Mr. Mayor, Council members, my name is Dave Fuller. I’ve been down here before a couple of times when this project came up before. I’m currently the owner and occupant of
the home which is a small farm at this location right now. I grew up here most all my life in Meridian. Graduated right down the street at the high school and thought this would be
a nice place to live all my life right there on Pine Avenue. What happened is that growth came, and I tried to, like my neighbors, suppress the growth just a little bit to no avail.
What you can do is you can try to fight it, you can try to help organize it, or you can just face the facts and let’s do something good for the City. I had other developers approach
me on this piece of land, and most of them wanted to go just R-4 with it, but because it’s the corner and because I believe it has more potential, and I want to leave some kind of a
legacy of my land here, that I wanted to make sure that some developer put in some kind of services, and the services I’m talking about are the office buildings. But in the office building
services, not very many people want a real fancy home right back behind an office building. So what comes next? The most logical thing is to put some apartments or multiple-family
type, higher-density, in behind that apartments (inaudible) provide services. So I’m here tonight to just tell you that I’m one of you and I support the project. We can flip back through
the pictures, but it looks awful good to me. I can drive back by that in a few years and say, hey. I used to own that piece of ground, and look what that –
*** End of Side 2 ***
Corrie: Is there anyone else to testify in support? Okay. Now, first one that gets up, I’ll give you five minutes and then everybody pay real close attention because if you agree,
and I’m going to ask for a show of hands if you agree, and then we’ll take that down as part of the public testimony. If anybody else has anything else they want to add to that, then
we’ll limit that to three to five minutes depending on how many we have. Who would like to be first?
Atkinson: Okay. Totally unprepared to do this. Mayor Corrie, Council members, I’m Erma Calhoun Atkinson. Like Mr. Fuller, I was born in Meridian, spent 30 of my 40 years here and
returned to Meridian to raise my family. I live at 1124 North Lightning. We would be on the north side of the fence in Thunder Creek. Our concerns focus on traffic safety, pedestrian
safety, compatibility with the surrounding area. You have on my rather lengthy three-page letter dated May 12th in your packet, I believe. Regarding traffic safety, in some ways I
feel really good right now because last fall when I was here, we were being told there was no traffic problem at that intersection, and look at how far we’ve come. So I’m trying to
refrain anything for tonight, but that I think is a positive because the people are taking the traffic issue seriously. That’s great. Actually, I have not seen the letter from ACHD,
although I guess I did receive a copy. I haven’t gotten it yet. I understand that can be a good thing. Regarding the pedestrian safety, even if you put in a traffic signal by the
developer, and that would be great to have a little walk and don’t walk lights, but there’s no where to go there. Valeri Heights will be an island with sidewalks that lead nowhere.
If a selling point is that they’re within walking distance of a park and schools and shopping, well, technically, yes, but you’ll be walking down the street. Sidewalks don’t connect
you anywhere at this point in time. That to me is a traffic accident waiting to happen, and I don’t think that’s responsible City planning to approve that project knowing that that’s
going to happen. Yes, I’ve seen the owner’s 21 year-old daughter roller-blading down the middle of Ten Mile. What can I say? If you add 500 more people to that corner, you’ll see
other people also on the road because there are no sidewalks. Trying to be brief here. As noted in my letter, this doesn’t exactly totally fit with the Comprehensive Plan we’re currently
operating under. On Page 73, 5.2U, it says new development should enhance rather than detract from the visual quality of its surroundings. As you know, Valeri Heights is a three-story
apartment complex. I think my seven year-old says it best when he looks out the window and says, “Mom, that thing’s going to look weird out there.” We are a subdivision of predominantly
one-level homes. There may be one or two that have a bonus room or something, but we’re one-level homes. This doesn’t blend. It’s surrounded on three sides at this point by rural
transition land. It’s surrounded on the north side by our single-family subdivision. It doesn’t blend for three stories. We here how wonderful Aspen Hills is, and I think that’s great.
I’ve driven around there. The main difference is Aspen Hills does not border on an existing neighborhood, on an existing subdivision. It’s bordered
by commercial between Aspen Hills and Meridian Road. It’s bordered on the north and east side by fields, and it’s bordered on the south by James Court Apartments which are two-story.
It wasn’t inflicted on an existing neighborhood. It’s also connected to shopping and other services by sidewalks. Again, Valeri Heights is connected to nowhere by its sidewalks.
We believe that the residents living around this property would look favorably on a proposed development which includes two-story apartments. I mean, certainly the townhouses are one
level and great, but I think we could tolerate a two-story development. Better buffering; those plans look great, but you’re seeing mature landscaping where the real tree is going to
be this tall. Ideally, with Mr. Bailey, we would like self-containment, but we understand that may not be possible, and we do appreciate the efforts that they’ve made. We need the
traffic signal at Ten Mile and Pine if anything goes in here and any other recommendations that are made by ACHD would be helpful. So at this point in time, we respectfully request
that you deny the annexation and zoning and preliminary plat request.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Okay. So far what she said, how many agree with that so far? Twenty-seven. I’ve got 27. So put that in the record that 27 agrees.
Atkinson: Mayor Corrie, I forgot (inaudible).
Corrie: They can bring it up if they like. Is there anyone else that has some other ideas that wasn’t – yes, sir.
Lambert: My name is Rick Lambert. I live at 3220 West Park Creek Drive on the corner of Ten Mile and Park Creek. I’ve prepared a letter here for you, and I didn’t get it in to you
on time, so that’ s (inaudible) – one for each of you. One of my main concerns is zoning. The zoning that went past the Planning and Zoning Commission last month seemed to get railroaded
through some how. This area here was zoned mixed residential in the ’93 Plan, and medium residential in the Draft 2000 Plan. Existing homes on the site is residential. I do not see
a need for an office space. I do not see a purpose for the office space. I do not understand how Planning and Zoning approved an office in an area in an area that’s not zoned for offices.
The second point I'd like to make is on traffic. Certainly everybody’s recognized now that the developer needs to put in a traffic signal. If you are familiar with the area, you know
that Pine Avenue extends to the west, and a traffic signal requires a four-way signal. I believe ACHD and the others have said that that will require a 300-foot approach on the west
side as well. So there’s additional paving and other implications associated with traffic signals that need to be addressed. The last thing is public safety. I’m concerned with cut-through
traffic. People that are familiar with the area that when Pine was closed earlier late last year, the high school kids were cutting through the subdivisions, and one went through some
guy’s yard into a pond and drove back out and tore up his yard. The high school kids, when they’re stuck at this stop sign are going to cut through that area there. Whether it’s through
the area – it’s difficult to see on this map because it looks like the road goes around this way.
But there’s also access that goes to the office area and ties into those other roads. Now, those kids are going to cut through that area. They’re going to cut through the other subdivisions,
and they’re not going to wait at the stop signal. It’s happened before and it’ll happen again. The other thing with public safety is I don’t know what the issues are with crime and
with fire protection, but I believe that with this number of families in that area it adds a certain element, and if you look at Aspen Hills and James Court and what’s going on in those
areas, I think you’ll see that they have a higher crime per square foot of area than we do in the surrounding subdivisions. So with that, what I would recommend is that the Council
not approve this and that if they do approve it, if they make part of the conditional use that when they put in the subdivision they have to have the signal in place and the turnlanes
as they’ve said.
Corrie: Thank you.
Vallee: My name is Chris Vallee and I live at 1167 North Gray Cloud. On North Gray Cloud Way is the row that abuts right up against the development there, and I can testify that it’s
just been mentioned before that when Pine was under construction that there were a lot of kids, high-school kids, driving through the neighborhood at high rates of speed, and that even
continues today when Pine isn’t under construction. Some feel that it’s a very easy way to get through the neighborhood and out onto Pine Avenue and down to the high school. In my
opinion, this would only enhance that just because of the traffic issues that exist today. If you notice in the 1998 plan, it was intended that Cherry Lane all the way down to Pine,
it was going to be a three-lane road. Based on the statistics of population and how much traffic there would be, that’s what was estimated that was needed. Today, obviously, the population
is much greater than what was anticipated under the ’98 plan via traffic is much higher and it’s still only a two-lane road. Putting in that facility would also increase that traffic
problem for pedestrians as well as others. So I would hope that based on this project, I mean, I understand, I think everybody here understands that there is going to be development
there. I would hope that when development comes that it’s going to be in single-family units as opposed to apartment buildings adjacent with commercial facilities which as was mentioned
before, this property is technically not in the city; it’s out in the rural area. So I would hope that eventually when it comes to the point that that is developed, that it is developed
with single-family homes that there is some area there where that we can have possibly have some common-area parks for the new subdivision that goes in and have a nice beautiful area
for Meridian as opposed to some commercial areas out in the country. The other thing that I bring up is on my street, there is three or four houses that are for sale, and one of the
houses that was occupied prior to us moving in last year at the end of the year, once this approved Planning and Zoning, they immediately put their house up on the market and they moved
out last Thursday because of the issues that were involved here, they felt that it was impossible to do anything about it. So they since moved. So I would hope that Planning and Zoning
– even though Planning and Zoning has approved this
project, that you would see that there is a need to do something different. I would hope that you would disapprove this project. Thanks.
Corrie: Okay.
Bravo: Mr. Mayor, City Council, Steve Bravo, I reside at 3713 West Pine. This project won’t directly affect myself or my neighbors, but the traffic issue is my main concern. We all
know how well Ada County Highway District does their job, and that raises my biggest concern. We could potentially go for 10, 15 years with this traffic problem before they decide to
widen Ten Mile and change the lanes. I don’t think we can survive for 10 years – we’re talking an initial 300 more cars in the morning and in the late evening with everybody going to
work at the same time, coming home at the same time. There’s no sidewalks. I think it’ll just be a mess for a long time, very long time. I don’t see the plans from the Highway District
going through like they’ve been proposed at this point. So that’s my concern. I’d like to see the project changed to something else with less density. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Martin: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Steve Martin. I reside at 2885 West Forecast in the development just to the north. I came here for three issues. First issue
is safety and traffic. My wife runs a small business out of her home and during the time that Pine was shut down, there was a period between 2:30 and 3:30 that there were cars 12 stacked
on our street coming west off of Pine going north on Ocean and then west on Ebbett, north on Haven Cove, and west on Forecast. Running and business and trying to get to our Meridian
Post Office was difficult, and also a safety issue where she had to change her daily schedule. The second issue as I come here with 10 years’ property management experience, I’m also
a business owner. I am located close to Clocktowers Apartments which I understand was part of the question here some weeks ago. We are one of the suppliers on the WYE project; we supply
all the concrete barriers, guard rails and safety devices. Clocktowers was originally also planned with a similar two-point-so-many parking spots. I am now experiencing $10,000 a month
loss due to property damage. We have the City of Boise Police working with us on a monthly/daily basis every night. I have security going through six times to my business. We are
right behind Clocktowers. We have been there, grandfathered, for over 80 years pouring concrete barriers, and Clocktowers has changed, and it does not suffice the property down there.
There’s people all up and down (inaudible) does have problems. I wanted to issue that here tonight as well. Ask if they appeal again, I don’t feel that’s a comparison to what’s going
on here, again, because it is surrounded by single-family housing. My recommendation is to vote this project down. Thank you.
Wilder: Mayor Corrie, Council members, my name is Laura Wilder. I live at 3401 West Pine, that’s the dirt road part of Pine west of Ten Mile. I just wanted to
clarify a few things as far as road improvements by ACHD. Myself along with Erma and Dave Atkinson met last week on the 9th of May with Dave Bivens, ACHD Commissioner, Larry Sale, Planning
and Development Supervisor, and Joe Reslin, Traffic Engineer and Supervisor so that we could understand what their plans really were. One of the spokesmen for the developer said during
the Planning and Zoning hearing that they intended to widen Ten Mile by 2004. We acquired a copy of the ACHD five-year plan approved in February, and you’ve probably seen this, which
confirms what we were told by the three gentlemen that we met with. It’s not even scheduled for professional services until 2005, and what that means is that serving initial work, the
actual planning and development acquisition of right-of-way won’t begin until at least 2007. So we are seven to ten years out before there is any widening shoulder improvements, sidewalks,
bike, ACHD on Pine or excuse me, on Ten Mile. Pine is not even on this plan. Well, we appreciate the efforts the developer has made in working with the signal and realize that they
have gone to great lengths to try to satisfy this, and we believe the signal will help, it still does not change how narrow and how inadequate Ten Mile and Pine are in the surrounding
area. Even with turn lanes, if emergency vehicles have to come down there at a congested time, it will be an extremely difficult situation because motorists won’t be able to get out
of the way. There are not shoulders adequate to pull off. On the south side of Ten Mile opposite of where the development will be, there’s a big ditch that just drops off. If you
have high-school kids lined up, emergency vehicles need to come through, even with the improvements of the development, it can be a difficult, unsafe situation. That in addition to
pedestrians walking on the shoulders which are barely wide enough to walk on, I speak for my family and I know many other neighbors, that even with the signal which is an improvement,
we are deeply concerned about the inadequacies of Ten Mile and Pine and feel that this project is ahead of its time and is not appropriate for this location until the infrastructure
of the roadway’s more complete. For these reasons, I ask you to vote no on this project and listen to the rest of the property owners in the area. Thank you.
Corrie: I’ve got a letter here from Arthur and Florence Hall we could enter into record. Okay. Anyone else to testify on different – other than traffic, cut-through and three-story,
traffic lights, road improvements?
Blaser: My name is Glenn Blaser, and I live at 3450 Stone Creek Road, Boise. I just like to mention three or four things. Number one, purpose of planning and zoning is to provide
adequate buffers and transitions between one zone and another. Lots on the north end there that belong to Thunder Creek, I’ve already had to return the money to the people that bought
the lots because fear of this project has frightened them away. How would you like to have a single-family home and 10 feet away from them a line of low garages 300 feet long? These
aren’t standard garages. They’re only 10 feet wide. When you’re inside, you can’t open the car doors. I think that a decent regard for the money that we put into these subdivisions
would require that an adequate transition take place between the R-4 and the R-15. I don’t think 10 feet which is the rear of a long row of garages will look like storage sheds. And
you notice that this project has
turned its rear-end to the City all the way around the project are garages or the back end of commercial buildings. The aesthetics of the project are – have to suffer. Another thing,
we’re required or I was required on all our subdivision in Haven Cove to provide for adequate drainage and run-off. We had to historically all the water on a project that has historically
run in the drain ditch continue to run in the drain ditch, any addition water has to be retained on site. There’s no place on that project where you could build a storage pond or catch
the drainage. Now, I want to point out to you that that roadway that goes around the project is not a roadway. If you look coming from the north, the two roads that come in are the
widths that Meridian City required. But this little road that goes around the outside of the project, I think it’s 25 feet wide. You’ll see it’s packed on both sides by garages. People
backing out will meet in the center. A fire truck cannot make a turn coming in from Pine and getting there. It has to have, according to all the requirements they put on me, a bigger
radius, and it can’t turn. If a fire truck were attempting to go around that 25-foot strip and any cars backing out, wouldn’t be possible. I don't think that – I’m not opposed to apartments
on this site. I think that this, in a way, is an improvement over the first presentation, but I am just horrified of the thought that Mr. Jepson’s property, our property, part of it
here on Pine, all the way up Ten Mile, going to have the rear-end of storage sheds. I think that from the viewpoint of aesthetics, that ought to really be reconsidered. Who wants to
see the garbage cans on the rear-end of a – and these buildings. See that one along Pine? That’s 300, 400 feet long. One continuous roof. That won’t be a thing of beauty. Hasn’t
a petition been sent to the Council? We’ve had a vast number of the neighbors sign a petition. Hasn’t anyone – Thank you very much.
Tamas: Good evening, Mayor and Council members. My name is Marie Tamas. I live at 1125 N. Roper. I’m not going to say anything about the traffic or the apartment complex. I’m going
to focus on the business that they say is going to be there. Now, I work in Boise, and I drive up and down Franklin, and I see this beautiful office building. It’s on Franklin at the
cross street I don’t know. I see that they took many months making it, putting a beautiful roof on it, and I think there’s only one business there. There’s at least three spaces unavailable.
There’s nothing there. They want to build another one, business office building, downtown. You want to bring people downtown, but yet, this is not quite in the City of Meridian.
What business person wants to move out there now when there’s nothing around there but apartments and homes? People aren’t going to drive that far out to go to the doctor’s office or
anything like that and then have to go in town to have X-rays or something. So I think for right now, businesses, offices, are not needed out there. You want to draw people to the
City, not away from the City. Thank you.
Corrie: Somebody here have a petition that they wanted to give to us? Is it different than the petition that we got from the Planning and Zoning? Just a question.
Walther: Yes, sir. Instead of 171 signatures, there’s 304 signatures now. That encompasses three subdivisions, four subdivisions around the surrounding area. My name is Reese Walther.
I reside at 1148 N. Lightning Place which is just north of the proposed plan. I also have a copy of a couple different letters that as I was going around getting the petition signed
and as others were going around getting petitions signed, we stressed that if you can’t be here tonight that you would give us a letter that addresses their concerns. If I could give
you these and a copy of the petition. You’ve heard a lot of testimony already about pretty much all of the topics that were on the petition except for one. The one that is dear to
my heart being a teacher in the Meridian School District is the schools and other services such as Fire Department and Police Department. Schools are already extremely overcrowded;
there’s over 900 students in Chaparral which is where elementary students in this project would have to go to school. I was just talking to a teacher today who said her class size was,
average, was between 27 and 30 students. Now could you imagine trying to handle 30 third-graders by yourself? That’s an enormous amount of students, and you’re just going to increase
it. Now, when I brought that up to Planning and Zoning and the School District’s concerns, they laughed at me. One reason they laughed at me was because there are proposed new schools
going in. Well, that, too, I laughed. I said that to the teacher. I said, well, there’s a new elementary school going in, right? So that’s going to drop the class size. She said,
oh, no. That’s not going to affect my class size one bit. That’s going to be a year-around school which are completely separate students. Not any other students are going to be going
to those. So that’s Chaparral. Meridian Middle School is extremely overcrowded. True, we have now Lewis and Clark Middle School going in; however, they’re almost to capacity as it
is. Eagle Middle School which is the school that I teach at, just to give you an example, it has absolutely nothing to do with this project, Eagle Middle School doesn’t, but this year
alone we had almost 1400 students. The school was built for 1,000. You should try to walk down the hallways. I’m a cart teacher, so I go from room to room to room trying to get my
cart down the halls. It’s a trick for sure. That’s how schools are right now in the Meridian School District. This is way too dense for the area, and we need – I realize that we’re
going to grow. We’re going to. That’s great. But this is too dense for the area. The last thing that I’d like to talk about, well, two more things. Fire and Police protection.
We’re already overdone as it is. We need more fire protection, and along with police protection. A couple concerns that I had watching a 20/20 just this last month on apartment safety:
There’s been no mention of lighting in the area. I haven’t seen any plans about the lighting, where the lighting is, and also on the 20/20, the new show, I forget which one it is,
it mentioned something about Post Office boxes, where they were located, had a substantial impact on safety of residents. The last thing I’d like to talk about, a lot has been said
about traffic just right around Pine and Ten Mile. But we should also consider the traffic down on Linder because if we’re adding 250, at least, vehicles just residing there, then if
you have company and visitors and such, you’re talking 300, 350 vehicles every day running back and forth running around there. Think about Franklin and Ten Mile. Think about Overland
and Ten Mile.
Think about the whole surrounding area. Sure, if you put a stoplight here at Pine and Ten Mile, so that’s fixed, but then you go down the street a quarter mile and you’ve got traffic
backed up at the stoplight back there. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Walther. Maybe it’s for a lot of the concerns that have been expressed here tonight. What do you – what would you like to see there?
Are you suggesting that single-family housing development would be better?
Walther: Sure, that would be my preference. If I could pick what could be there, I’d sure say single-family homes. But like a lot of the other residents around, many of us said that
we wouldn’t be opposed to necessarily apartments or townhomes or something of that nature going in, but 136 of them? That’s extreme. One thing that the Comprehensive Plan says is that
they wanted to steer this type of residence out closer to downtown, closer to Old Town so that they have access to things. They don’t have access to anything here except fields with
no sidewalks leading anywhere.
deWeerd: Well, the access would be in the future planning of the Ten Mile Interchange. But do you understand that a single-family housing development that would encompass this piece
of property would cause more traffic, would feed more students into the school district, and if you don’t do anything, developments are going to appear in other places that would feed
traffic into those areas, and who’s going to improve those roads? Those roads are going to be better off with the three lanes and the traffic light rather than having nothing and having
that creek there which is a terrible hazard. It’s going to be creating sidewalks that at least they can get through Valeri Heights. I know my kids – my kids go to Chaparral. I know
what they bike on. It’s frightening. I’ve also been standing where you all have been. We have an empty field behind our house. It’s no longer empty. They’re developing it right
now. That was before we even had Chaparral. Linder was bursting – we had portables. So the School District says the same form letter every single development, and unfortunately, we
have no impact on the schools. If this doesn’t come and single-family housing does, the impact is much greater on that intersection, and it’s much greater on our schools, and if it
doesn’t happen, the traffic’s going to increase in that area. I drive that area too, but you’re not going to have the road improvements. Unfortunately the hard lesson that we have
learned since I’ve stood where you stand and where I sit now, is development comes first, and they’re the ones that pay for it. As frustrating as that is, that’s the reality that we
have to work with. Our Comprehensive Plan designates this piece of property as mixed use. It’s defined as exactly that: a multi-use area that unfortunately I don’t want to see Meridian
become all R-4 development all over the place. We have to start planning for transit, and this is close to the railroad tracks. It’s also going to be close to hopefully somewhere where
we’re going to get the Ten Mile Interchange.
In order to get that interchange, we’re going to have to have some road improvements there, too. So it’s a harsh reality, but –
Walther: Can I address that?
Corrie: Just very briefly, please.
Walther: Sure. The proposed Comprehensive Plan as it stood just a month ago until somebody railroaded something through without anybody’s say, nobody in the public got to hear anything
about it. The last thing I heard about the proposed Comprehensive Plan was that a survey was going to go out to the public. I’ve never seen a survey, nor has any of our neighbors,
nor has any of those 304 people that have signed a petition. The proposed Comprehensive Plan as it stood just a month ago was proposed as medium density. We don’t have anything against
medium density because we know, we understand, that we need to grow, and we understand that we need those things that you were just addressing; however, just across the street is going
to be zoned either commercial or R-40 or something high density because it was closer to the railroad tracks which is going to be that transit system. Now, I wouldn’t have any problem
with medium density in there or R-8 or townhomes or mixed even, business and townhomes or businesses and two-story apartments. But this way here gives us no transition into anything.
deWeerd: One comment on the Comprehensive Plan, that is not finished. It is still in draft form. It will be going to public hearing probably in the next month or two, probably two
months, and we did have the public participate in it, but certainly get your names to the Planning and Zoning office and they can let you know when the open house is and that’s where
comments will be received because it’s not a done deal.
Walther: Sure, and I understand that. I was very unhappy when I saw the proposed plan just a month ago and it said (inaudible) –
deWeerd: Right now we still have to operate until that one’s done.
Walther: I understand, but I think that should – it’s the voice of the community just this last year, and I think you guys should take that into account.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Anybody else? I don’t want this to get a big blow-up here, but if you’ve got something that hasn’t been testified to –
Pearson: My name is Brian Pearson. I live at 1158 North Clara Avenue just north of the proposed apartment complex. I think that all the points have been well covered. I wasn’t going
to even speak until the last exchange with Ms. deWeerd. The notion that there will be lesser traffic density – let’s never mind
the school population problems – the notion that there will be lesser traffic density with these high density dwelling units as opposed to R-4, it just doesn’t fly in these cases. You’d
have perhaps three or four homes per acre and so what if my math serves me correct, that’s between 36 and 48 homes if it were R-4. So 36 to 48 cars commuting per morning if there’s
a car and-a-half average it runs up from there. With 136 units, the tenants aren’t going to be able to pay $600 and $700 and $800 a month rent which is what we heard at the Planning
and Zoning Commission without working somewhere. Eighty percent or so of jobs are 8:00 to 5:00 or thereabouts. They’re going to enter the streets. I also mentioned before that this
is like a Clocktower clone. Clocktower was a professed, at least, to be luxury apartments off of 36th Street in Boise. I lived there while my home was being constructed here. What
you often times find is that it just doesn’t end up being a family-type environment. So that is targeted (inaudible) put the amenities in to attract the families. It just doesn’t fly
after awhile. It gets to be a younger crowd, a very social atmosphere. Families move out. Well, you need to keep those $800-a-month apartments rented because that’s what pays the
bill, that’s what the property comes from. So what you find is three single persons occupying an $800-a-month three-bedroom or two single persons, each having to work. So now on a
per-dwelling basis, per-unit basis, at least on the twos and threes, you’ve got two or three cars entering the traffic patterns in the morning. So I understand that there are some studies
in some text books that suggest multi-family dwellings have more traffic patterns, and in some cases that holds. But in a case like this, ma’am, it just doesn’t. It doesn’t hold.
It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Thanks for the opportunity.
deWeerd: Well, I actually agreed with you until I got debated, and smart growth actually has statistics that will back it up because I had the same opinion that he did.
Pearson: Well, there are some theories, ma’am, in some text books that might lead that way under certain circumstances, but I don’t think that you’d need a text book to tell you that
pay that kind of rent if you’re going to live in there and be as a family, you have to go to work. I mean, who pays $700 or $800 a month in rent if you don’t go to work? The predominate
work force is 8:00 to 5:00 or thereabouts. You have to enter the traffic stream. Somebody does to pay that rent. But what I’m saying is where it gets further compounded is you don’t
have one family or one working member per household. You often times have two and three. That’s what occurred at Clocktower, and this is a clone. That’s just not conducive to family
atmosphere. They start out that way and amenities do attract some families. I think in my Clocktower experience one retiree, but that is short-lived. It’s just short-lived. Then
in that relatively social environment it’s often times two and three young single persons per residence, and you’ve got a pool and a basketball court. Friends tend to show up in mass.
So it isn’t within the normal traffic pattern. The peak times, at least, but it sure is in those Friday and Saturday evenings. This is simply a clone to that. I really don’t believe
that there is any evidence suggesting that it would be any different. They could say
that in their occupancy plan is going to be family, but families don’t stay in a place like this, and they have to keep them rented. Single folks will show up. So there are instances
that I would agree with the theorists that provide you an argument that would prevail. Not in a case like this ma’am.
Corrie: Thank you. Anybody else to testify anything different? We’ve still got the other side to rebut.
Schraeder: My name is Margie Schraeder. Mayor and City Council, we own a property in Thunder Creek Subdivision on North Gray Cloud. The only thing that I would like to just make mention
of is that when the homeowners and the builders chose to build there, there was nothing there. They’re being asked to compromise their property values and their quality of life for
this apartment complex and the office building. I agree with the current homeowner that a single-family dwelling or a person that’s going to buy a single-family home does not necessarily
want to be backed up against an office building; however, you’re asking them to compromise with townhouses and apartment complexes and office buildings. My suggestion, and if the City
Council is to decline this and look at something as a transition, a single-family and possibly cluster townhouses or something against the office so that the property owners in that
Subdivision does not have to compromise their values and the developer at that point in time can deal with people making that decision to choose to buy or build up against an office
complex or something. My – I think it would be much better served for the community to have single-family up against Thunder Creek Subdivision and surrounding area. I’m not necessarily
against the office building, but I think that the townhouses and the multi-use should be clustered up against the offices and not against the single-family subdivision. I ask you to
decline this as it stands. Thanks.
Corrie: Anyone else? Sir, if there’s nobody else testifying, you had a point that you wanted to raise. If you’ll come up here and give your name again, and I’ll allow that. You want
to talk yet? Okay. Come up and then I'll –
Meyer: My name is Seth Meyer, and I live on Roper Place which is in the Haven Cove Subdivision which is actually connected to the Thunder Creek. My question to you is: Does the City
have a plan for the use of the property in the City and when they annex, when they add sections to the City, do they have a plan for what sections of the City are going to be what type
of use?
Corrie: That’s the Comprehensive Plan.
Meyer: It is. And in the Comprehensive Plan, it allows for apartment complexes in this area?
Corrie: Under mixed use.
Meyer: It does? Under mixed use? And so are there apartment complexes in this area currently?
Bird: I don’t believe so.
Meyer: All my question is I know that it’s allowed, but I just wonder about how when you approve things, if you look at how everything’s laid out. A friend of mine is a developer,
and he was looking at buying a ten-acre parcel which is in between 10th Street and 12th Street which is on Pine, same street. It’s on the south side of the street, and he was planning
on putting commercial and apartment buildings in that property. There’s a complex called Sunbridge, I believe, which is a care facility. I don’t know if any of you are familiar with
this property. It’s got a big sign and it says 10 +- acres. That does not have the problems of the irrigation canal to have to put curb and gutter next to – the expense to develop
that property is going to be a lot less than the corner that this developer is looking at. You know, if he wants to look at a property, why not look at a property that would make more
sense to do it on? Anyway, that’s my comment.
Corrie: Now your comment.
Lambert: Just a quick comment. It’s been said quite a few times tonight – Rick Lambert. It’s been said quite a few times tonight that the 1993 Comprehensive Plan has it zoned as mixed
use. It is zoned mixed residential. There is also a problem with that during the Planning and Zoning meeting, and there was comments made to the 2000 plan, the March 2000 draft which
is medium residential. I noticed that even tonight you also – one of the items on –
*** End of Side 3 ***
Lambert: -- you mentioned medium residential on the rezone of Item No. 1 which is the 2000 plan which the Planning and Zoning pretty much threw out of hand because it hasn’t been adopted
yet, but you’re referring to it. So the only point I want to make is that it’s been zoned residential, and mixed residential or medium residential depending on which plan you wish to
adopt.
Corrie: Okay. You have about 10 minutes to answer questions from the developer – answer any questions that might come up from the Council – might come up.
Dolby: Mr. Mayor, Council members, my name is Pat Dolby for the record. I just would like to take a minute to respond to the traffic issues that were raised. The first one was the
issue of cut-through traffic through the adjacent residential subdivisions. There is nothing in the site circulation to encourage vehicles to cut through the adjacent subdivisions.
This is something that was reviewed with the Highway District and with the addition of the signal and (inaudible) proposed, it
will probably reduce the amount of cut-through traffic instead of increasing it. The other thing is mixed use developments like this reduce travel demand. They provide employment opportunities,
they provide services on site to the local market area, and it will cut down on the amount of traffic that’s impacting the system. This is a fairly progressive mix of land uses for
a site like this especially on a future arterial like Ten Mile Road. The existing road conditions on Ten Mile Road and Pine Avenue to a certain extent, a typical of urban fringe areas
in development communities. This is really no different than conditions that exist at most arterials before development came along. As you know, sidewalks are provided by developers,
and the Highway District is not very proactive about building new capacity in anticipation of growth. As a matter of fact, they’re quite reactive. Capacity, according to the transportation
plan and their policy is paid for through impact fees and direct development contributions of improvements. The contribution of the lanes, the sidewalk and the traffic signal at this
location will be an incentive for the Highway District to speed up and accelerate development of Ten Mile Road. In addition, this project is going to pay approximately $250,000 in impact
fees in addition to the cost of site-required improvements. Monies that could be earmarked and eventually will be used to improve roads in this general area. As far as the scheduling
and the current program for improving Ten Mile Road, you know, priorities change. This – ACHD moves projects around in their five-year work program twice a year. They do tend to react
to hotspots. Where the growth is occurring is where the capital flows. Thank you.
Corrie: I had a question. The ACHD, Terry Little sent a memo to us that the Planning and Zoning added the (inaudible) to developer to construct the traffic signal before occupancy,
and I believe that was one of the recommendations to the Council. It says that if the Commission does not approve the ACHD participation; in other words, we’re willing to provide the
hardware if you design and construct the traffic signal. But if they don’t, then you’ll have to do the responsibility, the developer, entirely to put that signal in. Is that your understanding?
Dolby: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: They don’t participate – you’re going to do it all?
Dolby: I think ACHD – yes. If you, the City, were to make that a condition of approval, you know, and tie it to a specific development phase, then that’s obviously something that would
have to be complied with. I think ACHD’s policy is pretty clear on participating to a certain degree in this type of improvement. These are both system roads, and there is an enormous
cost that’s gained by the Highway District by having the developer put the signal in at this point in time. So I would assume that when it got to the Commission that they would be consistent
with the way they’ve done business in the past, and they would
provide the hardware. Now, withstanding, if you should make it a condition of approval and something that’s going to have to be lived with.
Corrie: But if they don’t, you will. I don’t know what ACHD Commissioners – if they say no and we require signalization, you’re going to have to do it all?
Dolby: That would be my understanding.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. I don’t know if this is appropriate for you, but the sidewalk that you guys showed along Ten Mile, does that go up – is there a sidewalk in
from of Thunder Creek? Does it connect to anything?
Dolby: I don’t know.
Anderson: There’s not sidewalk in front of Thunder Creek?
Unidentified: Yes, there is, but it doesn’t go anywhere. It just ends on both ends.
Corrie: Okay.
Bailey: David Bailey again for the record. I guess I want to touch on a couple of issues. The answer to your question, Council member Anderson, is yes there is a sidewalk in front
of there that we’ll tie to. That doesn’t get us all the way to Cherry Lane, but as it develops in between, that’s the intent that we get that sidewalk to Cherry Lane and down to however
far it needs to go to the south as those properties develop. I just wanted to touch on a couple of issues real quick and then answer any questions you have. On the drainage issue,
I have done the preliminary drainage calculations on the site and am confident that the drainage swale areas that I show on the site be sufficient to handle the drainage. Of course,
we have a detailed plan and intend to meet all those requirements. Just for example, the rain on the site would be, and Mr. Blaser brought this up before, the issues, the rain on the
site would be 16,000 c.f. of rainfall that could accumulate. The drainage areas that are shown on the site are about 23,000 s.f. just in those drainage areas shown there. So if it
was all retained just in those without any infiltration or any other, the run-off from the site, we would expect that to be about eight inches deep in those swale areas, the water that
would be held in there. I don’t know that I can add a whole lot to what Mrs. deWeerd came up with on or presented or – I don’t know exactly how to address that, but I think it’s really
important to the concept that we believe that this project will improve the conditions in the area significantly, and our single-family development would not be required to improve the
conditions like this is. I don’t think a developer could afford to do it if they were going to do a single-family development. We’d be talking probably 50 homes in there which would
produce about 500 vehicle trips per day, and we’re producing 1320 vehicle trips per day with this development. That’s what the text-book numbers come up with. So we’re talking about
increasing the traffic by less than 10 percent from the numbers we have for
Pine and Ten Mile, but we’re talking about tripling the capacity – it may be more than that of that intersection. I think that it would serve to reduce the traffic through the neighborhoods.
I do see this as, in trying to look objectively at it, I see it as a benefit to the general public, I see it as a benefit to the City of Meridian in providing the apartments that are
needed, the mix of housing that’s needed in the City of Meridian. I see it as a benefit to the neighbors to the north in reducing the cut-through traffic. I see it as a benefit to
Albertson’s in having more people to go there. There are a lot of benefits. The one problem that I do see is the neighbors directly to the north will have some impact on their properties
due to this development. But that’s what the Comprehensive Plan says, and the people to the north, I guess you can’t expect everybody to understand what the Comprehensive Plan means
when they buy a house and what it means may happen on the property next door, but it’s our responsibility, and we’ve done what we’ve thought is our best to make this the best transition
we could within this project. I was going to talk about the timing of the signal, but I think you’ve already discussed that, so I’d be glad to answer any questions you might have.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Anybody else in your group? I think you wanted –
Marceeze: Again, my name is Michael Marceeze. I represent property management. I’d just like to address some of the statements that were made regarding the number of cars that an
apartment property generates, the number of children that live in a size of apartment property. We’ve heard statements or some of these letters that there would be 150 additional children
out of 136 units. There’s another statement that there would be 500 more people live there and 250 more cars. What we’d like to do is invite the manager of Aspen Hills Apartments,
it’s 120 units, to come up and just state for the record how many children she has, how many cars she has come and go and just clarify accuracy on those statements.
Bird: No.
Corrie: No. We’re not going – I’m not going to do that. You don’t need to. You made your point.
Marceeze: It’s significantly less than the statements being made. Just a final comment: Not every property has to be a clone of the Clocktower. The Clocktower has been poorly mismanaged,
and not every property – Aspen Hills as an example. There are many large apartment complexes. Aspen Hills is a 120 units. The Clocktower is 310 units. It’s definitely been mismanaged,
and that’s what has caused the problems there. Thank you.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for the gentleman. Who are some of your prospective retail clients down here in this office area? Do you have any at this point?
Marceeze: Not at this point. I’m more dealing with the residential rather than the commercial management, but at this point, there aren’t any – until the project’s approved, you can’t
market it. Obviously, not liquor stores and high traffic kinds of things that aren’t conducive to residential desires.
Anderson: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. If you’re done with your – Council, questions? Anybody at this point?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I just wonder – Keith Borup is here, the Chair of Planning and Zoning. Does he have any comment?
Borup: I don’t think so. You got the recommendation. The recommendation was not unanimous. There were five Planning and Zoning and three voted for the recommendation. I think everything
else is on record and included tonight.
deWeerd: But the intent of the P & Z was that that traffic signal be put in before occupancy; correct?
Borup: Is that the way the motion was written?
deWeerd: That’s the way I read it.
Borup: I think that came about because of testimony from the applicant. I don’t believe that we tried to put words in their mouths, but they made a statement, and we decided that was
part of it. If the applicant feels differently than that, maybe they ought to express that.
Corrie: I think they expressed that they would.
Borup: I mean if they felt different than they had proposed it, they had proposed it and we agreed and made that part of the recommendation after their proposal.
Corrie: Any questions of Council?
deWeerd: Just one more question for Shari. Shari, what are the rear setbacks for R-8?
Stiles: They would be 15 feet.
deWeerd: What is a usual buffer between residential uses?
Stiles: Between residential uses?
deWeerd: Yes, between a single-family and a multi-family. Are there required buffer areas?
Stiles: No. The Comprehensive Plan talks about transitional densities, but in the general consensus in planning is that residential uses, whether they be multi-family or single-family
are compatible uses. They’re both residential. It’s not considered an incompatible use.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other comments, questions?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to make one comment. The same like every time something comes up, it’s the schools involved. I invite all the people to go find out how many school
children we have in the City of Meridian. I think you’ll find it’s less than 30 percent. The crowding of the schools can’t be blamed on all of the development within Meridian. In fact,
there’s more of our Meridian School District facilities inside the City limits of Boise than there are in the City of Meridian. That’s a scare tactic that a lot of people like to use
like we do on some of our other service things. So with me it doesn’t bring any water.
Corrie: Comments, Council? Okay. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing – excuse me. Mr. Attorney.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the record should reflect any of these other letters that have been received by the Mayor and Council that should be included in the record.
Corrie: That’s correct. And all testimony from all the people in three of these for the request for the annexation and zoning, the preliminary plat, and the Conditional Use Permit
would be entered as testimony by all of them. Thank you. Hearing no other comments, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Items 7, 8 and 9.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearings on the request for annexation and zoning, the request for preliminary plat and the request for the Conditional Use Permit for
Valeri Heights Subdivision on the corner of Pine and Ten Mile.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 7, 8 and 9. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay, we’ll go – take these one at a time. Item No. 7 is the request for the annexation and zoning of the 12.73 acres from R-T to L-O and R-15 zones. Council, comments? Discussion?
Okay. Hearing none, then I’ll entertain a motion on the request for the annexation and zoning.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess I’ll start off. I would like to make a comment. Give me a chance to gather my thoughts a bit. I think looking at this project from the time it came before
us a while back, I think they’ve done a considerable amount of improvements. I like the fact that the developer is willing to step forward and make some necessary improvements that
are needed at the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine Street. I, too, happen to be a resident and live in that area and travel that area quite often, so I am very familiar with that area.
I have some concerns as well as a lot of the neighbors about the streets around there and the capacity and the fact that the sidewalks go nowhere. At this point, there’s not a lot
of connectivity in that particular junction. Again, I think that will come, but at what time, I have no idea. I’m kind of like you. We don’t have those dates firmed up. I do have
some concerns about the mix of the office with the apartment complex. I guess my preference would be to see the office portion of this come out of here and to maybe do some of that
transitioning with the project around the other subdivisions where we did some transitional things with some less density and somemore single-family or duplexes and then merge into the
apartment complexes. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad area for the complexes or for the apartments. I do still l have some question about the term using – using the term “luxury
apartments.” I have a hard time equating a three-story apartment with vinyl siding as luxury. It just doesn’t match in my book. I think luxury apartments might do very well in this
area, and probably would be more acceptable to the neighbors if there was some transitioning that was involved here. So I guess I’m still kind of up in the air on this project. It’s
better than it looked a few months ago, but I still think that it could have some improvements. That’s my comment.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, since we’re making comments, I may be by myself on these, but I do think it’s a beautiful concept. It’s well thought of and well put together. I agree with
Mr. Anderson that I really don’t see the need for business buildings out there. I don’t know what they’d put in there unless they put in an ice cream store or something of that sort.
Maybe a pizza. But as far as – it’s pretty far out for regular businesses. To say that businesses would certainly add to the traffic since you were all talking about the traffic.
My major concern is I don’t care how you put it, how many traffic lights, how many stop signs or anything else you put out there, Ten Mile is still a two-lane road, and Pine Avenue
is still a two-lane road. I know how slow these things go. Somebody
said something about a Ten Mile Interchange. Well, we’ve been trying to get that out there for a long time, and I don’t think it’s been in the works for at least 10 years. I am afraid
I’m going to have to vote no on it for those reasons.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Bird: I don’t have any, but I’ll go with the motion if you want.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess I’m the lone soldier up here who likes a mixed-use development. I see a lot of value in having services where residents live, and looking at traffic and
those kinds of concerns, I don’t think right now those services are going to serve a huge population. I’ll tell you what. We’re growing west, and eventually – well, I think those
were the comments that they had about the doctor’s office on the corner of Ten Mile and Cherry Lane as well. That practice is flourishing. So are the businesses that are residing in
the commercial strip next to Albertson’s. I don’t think that’s an issue. I don’t think that filling in that office space with additional apartment buildings is really the option here
either. Really, that’s what they would do. If you don’t have office there, they’re going to fill that space, and they’re going to fill it with apartments. I think that a neighborhood
office is certainly more compatible than another two huge buildings sitting in that spot and residences that are going to be going in and out of there. I don’t see that the office itself
is going to hamper this, and it probably will have neighborhood services that will service the residents in that area, but who knows. We should put restrictions on what type of businesses
can go in there, and I think staff has addressed that in their comments. So I think that good planning is starting to utilize the neighborhood office in a better way to have more services
closer to home.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I guess I can give my two cents’ worth, too. I agree with Tammy to the fact that I don’t – I think that offices are designed offices, and I think that’s what you’re
going to see. I doubt that you’re going to see a whole lot of retail out there. We are moving out there. Cherry Lane has proven that with the office complexes and retails we’ve had
there have been successful. If we worry about infrastructure, folks, I hate to tell you since 1973, Meridian had another thing outside of the boundaries that they had in 1973, and we
haven’t gotten very much from Ada County Highway District since then. So infrastructure is not a big – it is a big deal, but it isn’t something that you’re going to get in before you
can develop. I guess with that comment, if the Mayor will take it, I’ll make a motion that we approve the annexation and rezone of 12.73 acres from R-T to L-O and R-15 for proposed
Valeri Heights Subdivision for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: I know where this is going. Okay. Excuse me. Motion has been made to accept the request for the annexation and zoning of R-T to L-O and R-15 zones. Any further discussion?
Mr. Clerk, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, nay; Anderson, nay; Bird, aye.
Corrie: I guess I get to vote. Well, I think that the project is a lot better from the one we saw the first time. I can’t make anymore comments on that because it’s already done.
I do think that we’ve got some very difficult traffic problems here. Having worked with ACHD, they’re rather slow. The developer says that he will put the signal in. That’s good.
Sidewalks are good on one side, however on the other side we don’t have sidewalks yet. It sounds like they might connect over there. I would like to see a little different design
here if approved the zoning. I don’t know that I like the back end of the buildings facing the streets, and listening to all of the testimony tonight, there’s been good and there’s
been bad. Everybody has good ideas of what they’d like to see the neighborhood at. I know that if I vote no then it will kill the project as far as the zoning is concerned at this
point. It may have to come back with – try again with a different plat and what they have the idea. So saying all that, I’m going to vote no. So we have tie with two ayes, two nays,
and a vote of no. The annexation and zoning is defeated at this point.
MOTION CARRIED: TIE BREAKER: TWO AYES TO THREE NAYS.
Corrie: Item No. 8 which is a request for preliminary plat. Can’t do that because we don’t have a zoning. I guess if Mr. Attorney, you can draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law on the annexation and zoning, we will vote against the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Is that correct? Next time? In relationship to Items 7 and 8, am I correct
that’s a moot point? 8 and 9. Sorry.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my recommendation would be that if you’re going to deny what you have, the annexation and zoning, then you vote – I mean, it may be a moot
point, but they’re still entitled to a decision of order on these other items. You would need to vote on each of those as well.
Corrie: Okay. Then I’ll entertain a motion then on Item No. 8, the preliminary plat.
Bird: I move that we deny the preliminary plat of 10 building lots and 2 other lots on 12.73 acres for the proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision NE of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road and
for the attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law showing the denial.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to deny the application for preliminary plat. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Item No. 9 then is the Conditional Use Permit for the Valeri Heights Subdivision.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order denying the CUP for 128-unit apartment complex, townhouses
and office on 12.73 acres for proposed L-O and R-15 zones, NE corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to deny the Conditional Use Permit for the Item No. 9, townhouses and office of 12.73 acres for proposed L-O and R-15 zones. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we take a five-minute break.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we take a five-minute break.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(Meeting reconvened at 10:42 p.m.)
Corrie: Okay. We’re back from recess.
Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 00-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.68 acres from RT to L-O for proposed Carol Professional Center by J-U-B Engineers, Inc. - west side of Eagle
Road between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road:
Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 00-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct 8 office buildings on 6.68 acres in proposed L-O zone for proposed Carol Professional Center by
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
– west side of Eagle Road between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road:
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 00-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of eight lots on 6.68 acres in proposed L-O zone for proposed Carol Professional Center by J-U-B Engineers,
Inc. – west side of Eagle Road between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road:
Corrie: Item No. 10 is a public hearing, request for annexation and zoning of 6.68 acres from R-T to L-O for proposed Carol Professional Center by J-U-B Engineers, west side of Eagle
Road between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road. At this time I’ll open the public hearing on Item No. 10 and invite staff comments first.
Bird: Mayor, can we do 10 and 11 together and 12?
Corrie: 10, 11 and 12. Okay, I’ll open the public hearings on Items 10, 11 and 12. One is for the annexation and zoning, second is No. 11 for a Conditional Use Permit, and 12 is for
a preliminary plat. How come – out of order here. Well, we’ll catch it back when it comes in. Shari, we’re – public testimony now on Items 10, 11 and 12, Carol Professional Center.
Stiles: Could we combine all three of these, too? Oh, they did that already. This is for 6.6 acres on Eagle Road. It’s the remainder piece that is left over when the Elementary School
– School District took this, and they’re building the River Valley Elementary. You got a copy of Brad Hawkins-Clark’s memo dated May 15th? Brad had reviewed the Findings – the Recommendations
of P & Z, the issues that were still remaining were the opticom device. I believe that Mr. Barnes didn’t want to make a commitment at that time because he wasn’t sure of the cost of
it. Chief Bowers informed me that that device is $3,000 each. So if they had to have one on the east-west road, that would be $3,000 and another $3,000 for the Eagle Road for future.
He was wondering if he could be reimbursed for that cost, but I believe that would probably be up to Ada County Highway District if they were going to provide any reimbursement of that.
The plat – that didn’t show up very well. This is Eagle Road. They have a roadway coming in that would be adjacent to the Kleiner Property, and they’re proposing a roadway that would
go into the side here. However, this property here is owned by the Meridian School District. Staff was concerned that the Meridian School District needs to be signatory to the plat
in order for that to be dedicated as a public road. They currently are not. I don’t – Nancy Taylor can address that as part of her presentation. On the parking stall sizes, it’s hard
to see – is this the revised plan, Nancy? It’s real hard to see. The applicant was proposing some compact stalls that would be less than our minimum requirement for compact stalls.
They were showing some landscaping kind of bumped out, but there’s plenty of room for landscaping without that. We would like that landscaping to be removed and for the compact stalls
to be minimum of 15 feet and also to provide
an island in this area to kind of break up that asphalt area, parking lot. Showing the street sign, this is the elevation. Front and rear elevations of the buildings. Okay. This
is a little better. This is actually showing the proposed building footprints. They would have 20-foot planting strips adjacent to the residential use. They have some setback requests
for variance – not requesting specifically a variance, but as part of this planned development, the setbacks here would be less than minimum. Other than those three issues, staff doesn’t
have any additional comments beyond that and would recommend approval with the Planning and Zoning Recommendations and a clarification of the opticom and whether we can approve this
plat without the consent of the Meridian School District since that is part of the proposed roadway system.
Corrie: Shari, about the setbacks, why aren’t these where they’re supposed to be?
Stiles: This is a planned development. They did come in for our Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a mixed/planned use designation. It was approved. As part of a planned development,
when they provide the 10 percent common area, they can propose things that are less than Ordinance requirement.
Corrie: Thank you. I missed that earlier. Thank you. Okay. Testimony on the public hearing – we’ll have the developer. Good to see you again.
Taylor: Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. I’m Nancy Taylor with J-U-B Engineers, 250 South Beechwood, Boise. You’ve seen this project. Unfortunately, these aren’t very
good drawings, and you should have better ones in your packets. Actually, I have a handout for you that may help just a little bit. This tabulation that you may find interesting on
the project. This is actually on your drawing (inaudible – walked away from the mic) Quickly, these just give you the outline of the eight buildings, the land area for each building,
the building area. So the two buildings along Eagle Road. You can see that north area. The two buildings along Eagle Road will be each about 26,000-plus s.f. The building coverages
of the buildings, 50 percent is allowed and we have under 30 percent. You’re probably not interested too much in the asphalt area. That’s on calculating landscaping, but we did address
the parking, and we do have as staff said 87 more parking places really needed. So we’ll be able to remove those compact spaces easily, and we will as one of the conditions as for here
make some adjustments in the parking on Item No. 3 in the memo of 5.15. That can easily be handled with the amount of building area. So 3 is easily taken care of. Let’s – we should
jump up to 1. The item on the opticom, I think – Shari, if you’re telling me correctly, that’s – I think that the City Clerk suggested around $5,000 last time, so that was pretty close.
You’re saying $6,000?
Stiles: For two devices.
Taylor: For two? And I’m sure that that would meet with Mr. Barnes’ approval. So that would be fine. Item –
Anderson: Excuse me. I have a question. You said that would meet with his approval, and that would be fine, but what he’s asking here for is the possibility of being reimbursed later
on. Are you saying that he would waive that?
Taylor: Yes. I’m saying that he agreed to the $5,000 when he was here at the last meeting. It was an approximate amount of $5,000, and if it – I don’t know. Around $6,000 or $7,000
not to exceed that, I’m sure that he would be agreeable, and, yes, to forego the reimbursement.
Anderson: Thank you.
Taylor: On Item No. 3, excuse me, 2, this was just called to our attention about this road, and I did talk to the owner, Don Barnes, this evening. His feeling is that the School District,
this will certainly be taken care of, but he believes, but he could not reach the School District, but that it’s already been dedicated to ACHD. So one way or another, either as a direct
dedication by the School District to ACHD or as a signatory on the plat will be taken care of, yes. And the only other item that is not on this list was I believe the Mayor mentioned
that reduced setback along the west property that’s adjacent to the school yard. We adjusted that because we felt that there were no buildings there and it was going to be open. It
seemed, in fact, to be an amenity. So we just requested that setback. There was one of the neighbors here tonight to speak tonight, spoke before in favor of the project, and he was
in your notes if you read the minutes from the prior meeting, and I don’t – I believe he left. It’s getting late. The neighborhood, we’re just very pleased that that neighborhood to
the north which the first three houses are affected by this project, are very supportive of the project and the landscaping. They have already discussed with Mr. Barnes’ the type of
fencing they’d like along there. So it’s very amicable. I believe those are the items unless I’m missing something. I’d be happy to answer any other questions. We’re very pleased
with the project. The landscaping along Eagle Road will be 35 feet of landscaping there. It will be installed prior to building permits being issued.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I just want to compliment you with this. I know when it came through on your amendment, there were a number of neighbors who had concerns, and it looks like you
worked well with them, and this is a nice project.
Taylor: Thank you. We think so, also. Since Mr. Barnes does live in that neighborhood, that was also an assistance.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions of Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Anyone else that would like to issue testimony on these items? Okay. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion from Council to close the public hearing.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing on Item 10, 11 and 12.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 10, 11 and 12. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Now some further discussion? If not, we’ll take Item 10 first, the request for annexation and zoning, AZ 00-007.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 6.68 acres from R-T to L-O for the proposed Carol Professional Center, ask the attorney to draw up
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and to include the additional staff comments dated 5/15/00.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the request for annexation and zoning and have the attorney draw up the proper forms and to include the staff comments. Any further
discussion?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, question for Director Stiles. I don’t see anything in Mr. Hawkins-Clark’s memo about the parking island. Is that covered somewhere else
in there?
Stiles: It’s not in a written comment; no, it’s not.
Nichols: Thank you.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
deWeerd: That was in the intent in my comments to include that as well. How about the second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: The second approves. Okay. 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
Corrie: Item No. 11 –
*** End of Side 4 ***
Corrie: Do you have something, Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I forgot one item on probably best with the plat. I would like Nancy to be able to answer this. Ada County Highway District’s comments were that they
had to provide on this road coming in off Eagle Road, they had to build half of the roadway plus 12 feet, and that’s not shown. I mean, the – they show half the roadway, but the other
12 would be on the Kleiner property, and I was just wondering how that would be taken care of. Are you going to have to shift everything over on the plat? Can we open –
deWeerd: We’re not on the preliminary plat yet.
Stiles: I thought we did them all three.
Corrie: We’ll have to open up the preliminary plat, get your questions answered and we can close it again.
Stiles: It’s kind of related to the CUP. I’m sorry.
Corrie: Is it? Well, we can open it up right now, if you like, and get it done. Council, can we open –
Stiles: It would affect both of them if it’s going to require a change.
Bird: On the annexation and zoning and stuff, too, wouldn’t it? Or is it the CUP and preliminary plat?
Stiles: Well, the annexation and zoning would just address that comment that they had to provide that, but the actual plan, I think, is where it’s more –
Bird: What’s in the plat?
Stiles: The plat and the Conditional Use Permit. I don’t know – Bill’s annexation, too?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council, I’ve got about two questions to answer. The annexation and zoning primarily goes to just those issues: What’s the acceptable zone. The preliminary
plat does address what the site’s going to look like, and the Conditional Use Permit, how it’s going to be operated, so to speak. I think that’s the appropriate time to cover it. Then
the question can you re-open the hearing, and my answer is yes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, with that, I move that we re-open the public hearing for the preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit on the proposed Carol Professional Center.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to open up the Conditional Use Permit and preliminary plat – public hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Ask the question again and we’ll have it answered.
Stiles: This was again addressing the roadway. I’m assuming the roadway is dedicated as part of the school site already, and I’d just like Nancy to be able to explain how they will
provide the half of the roadway plus 12 feet without encroaching on the Kleiner property.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Shari, that’s – as far as I know as of this evening, because Jim Carberry was not around, but that the School District has already arranged
for that Kleiner property. Yes. That’s our understanding. So I think what we should do is just put that as a condition of the approval is that we resolve, but it’s been Mr. Barnes’
opinion also that the School District has that right-of-way, has acquired it. So I don’t have a final answer for you, but that’s what I believe to be the case.
Stiles: If that roadway has been dedicated, will you include that on the plat so it’s shown on that plat?
Taylor: Yes, certainly.
Stiles: Okay. That’s the only – sorry. I just –
Taylor: Just a new turn of events has occurred. I know the School District’s been trying to get that right-of-way, so I don’t have any final information for you. That's the best that
I have for you right now.
Stiles: I think we can be satisfied. John Priester’s not going to sign it without it being all taken care of. Thanks.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion, then, to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Then we’ll go with the – do the preliminary plat first. The request for preliminary plat for Carol Professional Center.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the preliminary plat for the eight lots on 6.68 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Carol Professional Center and for the attorney to draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and that the right-of-way down Kleiner’s property line for the road be clarified before this is enforced and include the
staff comments from 5/15/00 and also the escape islands or the islands, also.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made to accept the preliminary plat as stated on record. Any further discussion? Okay. Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now, for the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 00-020 to construct eight office buildings and 6.68 acres in a proposed L-O zone for the Carol Professional Center.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order to construct an
office building on 6.68 acres in a proposed L-O zone called Carol Professional Center and for the staff comments dated 5/15/00 be included. Any more, Tammy?
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit, and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and include staff comments.
Any further discussion? Roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 13. Public Hearing VAR 00-009 Request for a variance to defer landscaping and asphalting of the parking lot for up to 24 months to allow applicant to design and construct a building
in an I-L zone by James Aimonetto – 2204 E. Lanark St.:
Corrie: Item No. 13 is a request for variance to defer the landscaping and asphalting of the parking lot for up to 24 months to allow applicant to design and construct a building in
an I-L zone by James Aimonetto. I’ll open the public hearing on VAR 00-009 and have staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for property located out in – it’s off – okay, Locust Grove Industrial Subdivision. This is the site that was previously occupied by Gem State
Truss. They have since moved out. The applicant is requesting a variance – not requesting a true variance. They’re asking for a variance to forego the landscaping and asphalting for
up to 24 months to allow the applicant to design and construct a building. You will be seeing a Conditional Use Permit application for a temporary modular building out on the site for
temporary operation up to 24 months is what they’re requesting. This is where the school buses park. This would be the Meridian Academy at the end here. This is also occupied by the
School District, I believe. City well site is here. The Evans Drain runs back along here. This is the drain that was also required by RC Willey to put up money for the tiling of it.
When I’d met with the applicant and Boyd who was marketing the property before, the discussions were that they would install full landscaping at this time to allow the time for it to
mature, and as you see in the plan they submitted, they’re showing four trees. I don’t know about where they’re showing the gate whether that’s existing or what that is. I don’t believe
that Ada County Highway District at this time would allow two different driveway locations if they’re constructed that way. I really have a problem with these temporary buildings. We
have very few building permits requested if we just allowed temporary buildings everywhere. You’ve personally witnessed some of those problems that we’ve had. But the variance – some
of the things that have to be found by the City Council are that where the profit and convenience are the sole reason why the variance is requested, and I have a hard time seeing that
that’s not the case. That the only reason that they’re asking for the variance is that they don’t want to spend the money for it. So I guess I would recommend denial of the variance.
I guess the applicant can make is case for other reasons. There aren’t any physical reasons that the property can’t be landscaped and
paved. Typically a variance only applies to unusual topography conditions or some problem with an existing structure that maybe doesn’t meet setback requirements, those types of things.
But I don't believe that this is a candidate for a variance.
Corrie: Thank you. Applicant, this is a public hearing.
Glencoe: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Matthew Glencoe. I am an employee of James Aimonetto and have been for four and-a-half in operating the company which he has
made the purchase of this property to help sustain and move forward. As far as the issue of profit and convenience, I’m not sure that that’s necessarily – I don’t think that quite begins
to say it. If we had a little more time, we probably wouldn’t be standing here requesting a little bit of latitude in what is the normal procedure and process in building and doing
all of that. The nature of our business is we distribute products for Dairygold. We have done that via two locations, one at which we have our offices, and one is actually on Dairygold’s
property; however, we are finding that that is limiting our abilities, our options to be able to continue to move and grow and be a successful operation both because of the separation
in the two locations. Also, the nature of the relationship of Dairygold has changed substantially in the five and-a-half that we’ve been operating here in Boise, and we feel considerable
urgency to get out from under their control and that’s why we’ve made some very rapid decisions. So the cart may be a little before the horse, and that’s why we’re asking for a little
bit of latitude to help us get that turned back around. It is not our intention to sit there, and I know what Shari’s concern is. You’re right. If everybody was allowed to put up
temporary buildings, they would, but that is not what I’m asking for you to do. I’m just trying to consolidate our operation on one location to get us – but I need to do it now because
to wait I might lose the opportunity entirely, and that’s why we’re trying to do it as we are. It’s just to give us the latitude and the time that we need to put things forward. I’m
not sure what else I can indicate. I did notice in the – in here there was an issue from the Fire Department about 70,000 pound capacity (inaudible) to hold up a 70,000 pound vehicle.
Well, you know, that was a requirement of ours before we even approached them or looking at selecting a property. I’m a little bit surprised by Shari’s comments because when Mr. Boyd
and I sat down with her and the question was very much one of what would the recommendation of staff be, it was, as Jim and I understood it, that it would be toward approval under the
condition the understanding is a limited time frame of time for doing this. So it was given that understanding and that that we went ahead and made the purchase and proceeded so far.
I’m a little bit surprised by their reaction tonight, but that’s – love to have comment or question or any response that I can offer.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question for you. Up to 24 months, what kind of building are you going to put up?
Glencoe: We will need approximately 1000, 1500 s.f. of office space, and probably about 10,000 s.f. on the roof, and at least 5,000 of that under chilled storage. Obviously if we handle
dairy products, it’s got to be chilled.
Bird: Have you got an architect in the design process now?
Glencoe: At this moment we do not. Part of it we’ve been waiting and pending on some of these other things as we’ve been moving ahead.
Bird: You have purchased this ground?
Glencoe: Yes. Mr. Aimonetto does own this property as of this time.
Bird: Okay.
Glencoe: There’s a 1031 exchange involved there for – and our deadlines and that’s the thing. Some decisions had to be taken. Again, that decision was based on comments and conversations
that we had with staff prior to closing on the property.
Bird: Okay. So basically once you get your building design and through the building process, at that time you would have your site plan and could do your landscaping and asphalting,
and you – I can’t imagine that being from the public’s side – the private side – that it’s going to take 24 months if you’re this pushed to get your doors open. Public, that would just
be design let alone getting it built. I agree with Shari. I don’t like seeing these things, but also, with the same token, I understand where you guys are coming from. I think 24
months is a little long, but I would think that to give you a variance, we could variance it until you have your site plan and can start doing that. At that point you can start laying
your asphalt. In fact, if it’s in the fall or something, you will even lay the asphalt before you break ground for your deal so that you can get it down.
Glencoe: If I may, part of the approach is that I, as quickly as possible, wish to consolidate my operations; getting off of Dairygold’s property opens up some business opportunities
to me which I don’t enjoy now. Obviously, they have a say, they’re going to say we don’t want you bringing in a new supplier because you’re on our property. We’ve made the approach
that we have again so that I can as quickly as possible consolidate what we’re doing, and then as soon as I’ve done that, begin to make the other steps that are necessary. I personally
have already kind of looked at the layout of the property. I have some ideas already in my office ready to go to an architect, and, you know, that end of it as far as what I need, even
if it’s just an interim thing in such a way that it could easily be expanded and that sort of thing. So I don’t feel that I’m really far from that, having that to you, it’s just trying
to clear these hurdles so that I can get off of their site and out from under their thumb, and then be able to move on ahead.
So, like I said, this is just sort of the first hurdles that I’m trying to clear before we cross the next bridges.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I have a question of legal counsel. If we did approve this variance and if this business didn’t do that well – we’re sitting on two years from now, and they hadn’t
done the things, what would be our options at that point?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, members of the Council, unless you require some sort of letter of credit to cover the estimated cost of landscaping this area, and unless in the
Conditional Use Permit on the temporary structure you put some conditions in with regard to what’s going to happen and when, then you can have the situation kind of strain out. There’s
no site plan, there are no building plans, anything at this point. So to give a 24-month waiver, you can be 24 months and not have anything there and still temporary structure and so
forth. I mean, the question if I may, Mayor, ask the applicant –
Corrie: Do so because if you don’t I will. Is that what you were going to ask?
Nichols: Well, have you got financing for a building? Have you got – when would you make the move? I mean, all of these things go into this sort of thing that you’re asking the Council.
Glencoe: Financing should not be a problem given the amount of equity that we have in the property and those sorts of things. Again, the biggest push is simply to obtain occupancy.
Given the way that the situation developed, we’re having to do it very rapidly. You know, the landscaping and particularly the paving is just a matter of we don’t know – we don’t want
to commit to paving and some of these things until we know that we want the building here, we know it’s going to be this square footage, we know that we’re going to have this much parking
or we’re going to lay this much asphalt. It’s, again, the biggest push that we’re trying to make is simply to get an occupancy of the property and to do it the legal and proper way.
Then to clear these other hurdles as we go from there. I do not foresee problems with that as far as what you’re indicating from financial situations and that.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, well, with your urgency, why are you two years down the road, then?
Glencoe: That’s what was taken under recommendation by Jim primarily, Mr. Boyd, as far as the timeframe. I guess minimum we were thinking if we sat down today with an architect that
before taking occupancy the building would probably be a year by the time – it just wouldn’t be a shell particularly because of the needs of the duration. That sort of thing. It was
just a – what appeared to be a comfortable level. Without it being strung out internally and yet allowing enough time to get through all the hoops of design approvals and permits and
construction.
deWeerd: So would you be in favor of a lesser time which you will have needed to start the process by the time it expires?
Glencoe: I don’t see that. I probably am not the ultimate decision-maker in that regard. I would probably be willing to say that, yes, we could do that and if there’s a problem, then
I would know tomorrow if there were a problem or concern in that regard.
deWeerd: Pretty quick.
Glencoe: Yes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I have another question along the lines of Tammy’s. If we were to put a variance on, a revocable variance for one year depending upon landscaping, maybe not asphalt,
one year would put you – depending on what kind of winter, maybe you couldn’t get that in, but at least within the 12 months you would have the building started. Now I don’t – with
a refrigeration building, I don’t know. Maybe it takes a little longer to build it because you probably have to have much more (inaudible) AC. Would you be favorable to something like
that? I hate hanging out two years on a variance.
Glencoe: Well, the idea is that with the two years – it wasn’t two years before we get started, but it was two years to get it finished.
Bird: Yeah, but the problem is if we give you a 24-month variance, you don’t have to start for two years because you could start on the 23rd month. Once you start –
Glencoe: The thing is though, that is all against my business interest to string it out that long.
Bird: I have to agree there.
Glencoe: I don’t want to see that any more than you do.
Bird: That’s why I’d be in favor of putting the year limit on it. The 12 months.
Glencoe: Okay.
Corrie: I have a question. If I’m understanding this correctly, you’re going to be putting a temporary building up there until you put your permanent building up?
Glencoe: What I need is simply an office space. Yes, the most expedient way of accomplishing that is modular. The type that is typically used in construction sites. A 12 by 60 or
12 by 56, I guess are the true dimensions. Because I’ll still
need to operate out of there while the construction goes on on site. Most of my operations are movable in terms of what we’re doing. We receive product, break it, put it in smaller
trucks and then send that back out.
Corrie: So you’ll be doing this some other place other than here?
Glencoe: No. That’s where the urgency comes in. I should be able to do, maintain operations on site even while construction is going on.
Corrie: With that small of building and what you’re asking for is 10,000 s.f. building? Something is wrong here for me. You’ve got a small building and you’re using it, but you need
a 10,000 s.f. building to do what you want to do.
Glencoe: Again, part of that is in terms of the construction isn’t just based on what I’m doing today, but what I am going to be doing in the future. (inaudible) little bit not based
on exactly what my capacities are today with – I don’t need a huge amount of cold storage currently because we turn our products every two days, actually, so everything that we receive
on one day is gone and we’re loading new stuff two days from – Monday, Wednesday and Friday. So in the interim as we are building, it is a relatively large lot for what we need. I’m
not foreseeing that as being a difficulty.
Bird: What are you doing now? What would you be doing? Leaving your product in a refrigerated semi?
Glencoe: Basically.
Bird: And then as you break it down and send it out, so – actually we’re going to have a lot of semis sitting on that, one or two semis a week sitting on that lot, too?
Glencoe: Probably two, three, four –
Bird: Because I have the same question the Mayor did is how – you know, you’re moving off of, you’re using the cold storage of Meadow Gold.
Glencoe: Actually, that is what I’m doing now.
Bird: You’re working out of semis? How long do the semis sit there?
Glencoe: It’s basically permanent. It would come and go in terms of we would pull it off the truck and take it across town to load up and we’d probably receive into it – we have straight
trucks for medium duty trucks that are approximately 30 foot on the outside. But the loads are broken down into the individual routes as they get shipped out.
Bird: (inaudible) They must leave it in the semi, then. But you’re only talking about one semi at a time out there?
Glencoe: Probably two at a time.
Bird: That is a large lot. Didn’t Gem State Truss have some office buildings on there?
Glencoe: They actually had exactly that. Even in the corner they had two that was right there and then the other. There was a smaller one that was facing east-west.
Bird: Why’d you take it off?
Glencoe: It was theirs. They took it.
Bird: I knew that they had the same kind of office. They had temporary buildings for offices.
Glencoe: For awhile, the cosmetics of it and such, I don’t – for that matter, even in the next three months, I don’t have a problem putting some landscaping in that buffer area between
the street and the fencing and the other side of the fence. There are two gates in it at present that Gem State Truss used – they had a circuit through there. I don’t even have a problem
getting that started before ink’s dry on the blueprints.
Bird: I think the landscape, once you get your site thing, your site plan ran through and approved, I don’t see any reason why the landscaping can’t start and the asphalt at the same
time.
Glencoe: That is our intent.
Bird: I have no other questions.
Corrie: Any other questions, Council? Okay. Anyone else from the public like to issue testimony? Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 13. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I guess the question is are you convinced that the variance request is not of personal gain and also do you want to do it for 24 months?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’d like somebody to define what personal gain is. In business you’ve got to have personal gain to keep your doors open.
Corrie: That’s not what I’m talking about. Shari.
Stiles: The variance application speaks to whether the purpose is for profit or convenience. If you’ll read the other parts of the variance requirements, it’s pretty much a physical
impossibility to comply with the Ordinance. I would also like to state that at no time did I indicate to the applicant that I would recommend approval of this. I told him all the way
that it would be a hard sell and that he’d have to really try to convince Council. So there was no misunderstanding. When they came in and talked to me about it, they were going to
put landscaping all the way around the site, all the way around the perimeter, just do some great landscaping. We’ve got four trees. So I just wanted to set you straight on I’m not
doing an about-face now, and it should be no surprise at all.
Bird: No, it’s closed.
Corrie: Closed public hearing, I’m sorry. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Questions, Council? Okay. Then I'll entertain a motion on the request for variance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve a variance to defer landscaping and asphalting on the parking lot of the Gem State Truss Company for up to 12 months and at that time landscaping
and asphalting will e underway or this variance is revoked.
Corrie: Okay, do I hear a second on the motion?
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Okay, motion is made and seconded to approve the variance to defer landscaping and asphalting on the parking lot for 12 months only then you must have the landscape and asphalt
in, is that in?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: You must have it in or the variance will be revoked. Any further discussion? All right. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, nay; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
Corrie: Okay, three to one that you have the variance then for 12 months.
Item 14. Public Hearing: RZ 00-002 Request for rezone of 76.24 acres from I-L to R-4 for all phases of Crossroads Subdivision – ¼ mile south of Fairview Avenue on the east side of
Eagle Road:
Corrie: Item 14 is a public hearing, request for rezone of 76.24 acres from I-L to R-4 for all phases of Crossroads Subdivision, ¼ mile south of Fairview Avenue on the east side of
Eagle Road. At this time I’ll open the public hearing on Item No. 14 and invite staff comments first.
Stiles: This application was initiated by staff due to the fact that the entire Crossroads Subdivision is currently zoned light industrial. It’s caused us a lot of problems, it’s caused
appraisers a lot of problems. Every time an FHA loan or HUD loan comes up in that subdivision, they call and ask us what is wrong with Meridian to approve a subdivision in that zone.
So Brad Hawkins-Clark initiated it, and we’ve got a legal description prepared. We’ve proposed an R-4 zone for the entire subdivision. There are some slight variations from the R-4
zone in that they were complying with an old R-4 zone when they developed this which allowed 70-foot frontages; however, they were still required to meet the 8,000 s.f. minimum lot size.
They do have 10 percent open space within this development, and it’s really just to clean up to take some workload off of us when the requests come in.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess I have a legal question. Doesn’t that require someone to request that you change the zoning and isn’t there some notification stuff that has to go on?
Stiles: We did do notifications. We did public hearings, we notified everybody within the subdivision when the parcels are less than the five acres, I don’t think there are any restrictions
on rezoning property at the request of the City.
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, members of the Council, the City can initiate a rezone. The City has the power to do that. As long as the other requirements are met with regard
to notice and also with regard to the lots which may not meet the current subdivision requirements, they would be what’s commonly called Grandfathered in as non-conforming uses with
regard to those particular lots anyway. So there’s no legal impediment to the rezone.
Anderson: So all our legal notifications have been met with the property owners?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, members of the Council, I haven’t personally checked that, but, I mean, that’s Ms. Stiles’ duty to double-check all those notices and publications
along with Mr. Berg who actually sends them to the newspaper. So if they say they’re done, they’re done.
Corrie: For the record, are they done?
Stiles: Yes, they are.
Corrie: Thank you.
Bird: Property noticed and everything?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Okay, I’ll entertain a motion then to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing.
Unidentified: (inaudible)
Corrie: Oh, sure you can. I’m sorry. Come right up here and give us your name.
Yehle: My name is Ray Yehle. I live at 3607 East Congressional Drive.
Corrie: Would you spell your last name for us, please.
Yehle: Y-E-H-L-E. As President of Crossroads Subdivision, I just want to say that most of (inaudible) there’s no objection, and we’re very happy to see this settled and be R-4. It
gives us a better chance to enforce our covenants out there because a lot of people seeing that it has been industrial, I-L zone, they refuse to obey our covenants and so forth which
are for R-4 zoning. The only thing that I have a question about: Are we including the common areas which some of those have been annexed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District.
Down in the future, if they wanted to sell those common areas and so forth, we have some stipulations, but we can agree to do something with that property with the 260 homeowners who
own it. If we wanted to turn it into something else so – are we saying that the common areas are being zoned as R-4 as well as our housing areas? Right now they’re all included with
the R-4, I mean the I-L zoning. So that’s one thing, and the other question I have is don’t we have to have a residential access to that property? All our streets are commercial
streets. That’s the only access we have. We don’t have a residential access. We used to have, but when the developer sold East Presidential Drive out to the developers, that was approved
ACHD, and they turned that into a commercial street. We would not have a residential access. Harding Street could be a residential access off of Pine Street when Pine Street’s developed,
and if that’s the case, then I would ask that one of the conditions would be in an R-4 zoning that we get a traffic signal light at Harding Street and Pine Street. That’s the two questions
I’m concerned with in this subdivision.
Corrie: Do you want to tackle that one, Shari?
Stiles: Sure. As far as the zoning, the entire subdivision would be zoned R-4. The condition of the plat was required of those common areas, so they can’t be sold off and used as
something else. They have to remain common area. As far as the streets, a condition of the Family Center was when they got to 450,000 s.f. of development around there that’s when they’ll
be required to have that light in at Eagle and Pine; however, down here at Harding, it’s unlikely that will be signalized. Unlikely. Well, at this time just due to – it wouldn’t warrant
a signal at this time. The first locations they usually try to go at the half-mile, but that’s all determined through Ada County Highway District when they do traffic counts, and they
have to actually warrant that as signal as needed. It wouldn’t appear at this time that it would be needed there for quite some time. Maybe something would happen when this Van Auker
piece to the south of you developed depending on what kinds of volume it generated from that development, but, did that answer your question?
Yehle: (inaudible) residential street access to a subdivision or not (inaudible) R-4?
Stiles: No, you’re not required to have a residential street access. What we call – these roads within the subdivision are called local streets, and that sets the design criteria
for how wide and how it’s constructed, but that’s not a requirement to have a residential designation on the street in order to access your subdivision.
Corrie: Okay, any questions?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing on the rezone for 76.24 acres.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 00-002. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay, request for rezone. Any other discussion? I’ll entertain a motion.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request for rezone of 76.24 acres from I-L to R-4 for all phases of Crossroads Subdivision and to ask the City Attorney to draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the request for rezone of 76.24 acres and have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the next meeting.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. FP 00-008 Request for Final Plat approval of 50.9 acres with 164 building lots and 41 other lots in an R-4 zone for Woodbridge Subdivision by Woodbridge Community, LLC – east
side of South Locust Grove ¼ mile south of Franklin Road:
Corrie: Item No. 15 has requested to be tabled until June 6th.
Anderson: Do you need a motion for that?
Corrie: Yes. Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we table Item No. 15 until June 6th.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table Item No. 15, the final plat FP 00
008, until June 6th. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. TE 00-003 Time Extension on the final plat of Gemtone Subdivision No. 4 by Becky Bowcutt Planning Services at NE ¼ Section 8, T3N, R1E (west of Hickory Avenue between Pine
and State):
Corrie: Item No. 16 is a time extension on the final plat for Gemtone Subdivision No. 4 by Becky Bowcutt Planning Services at NE ¼ Section 8, T3N, R1E, west of Hickory Avenue between
Pine and State. Becky bailed out on us? Okay. Do you want to take it over?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property that’s located just west of the Blue Cross facility. Here’s Blue Cross here. As I explained earlier, their initial final plat
that they submitted for this included all of Pine Avenue, and the final plat was approved with Pine Avenue on the plat. Then they submitted a revised final plat that took out all of
Pine Avenue. The Council instructed Ms. Bowcutt to go back to the original plan and get that done. They – the final plat they originally submitted would have had to have been recorded
by May 4th this year. I guess they’re requesting a one-year extension. I don’t know if that meets with the plans to extend what we would like to have the time for Pine to extend.
But I guess the Council could approve either a one-year or a lesser time if that was your desire.
Corrie: I guess my question is why a year?
Stiles: Pardon?
Corrie: Why a year? I mean, just keep the plat and do it right.
Stiles: They can request up to a year. That’s the maximum.
Corrie: That’s what they’re requesting?
Bird: Their letter doesn’t say that.
Stiles: It doesn’t ask for any time.
Corrie: Okay, take a look and see what it says here. (inaudible) give them ten days, I guess. Was there any indication of what she needed or wanted other than a year and why?
Stiles: She didn’t ask. Apparently they’re trying to market it to whomever might purchase the property, and I guess –
*** End of Side 5 ***
Stiles: -- even if you made it ten days, they can let it lapse and just start over. So one way or the other I guess it really doesn’t matter for the time.
Corrie: Okay, Council, make your decision. Are you recommending a year?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we allow the time extension on the preliminary and final plat on Gemtone Sub No. 4, NE ¼ Section 8, T3N, R1E, west of Hickory Avenue between Pine and State
for six months.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Thank you. Motion’s been made and seconded to extend the time on TE00-004, Gemtone Subdivision for approval of six months’ extension. Any other comments? Roll-call vote,
Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 17. Amendment of Ordinance No. 857: AZ 99-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 20.05 acres to I-L by Albertson’s, Inc. – east of Eagle Road, north of the railroad tracks and
south of Settler’s Canal:
Corrie: Item No. 17, Amendment of Ordinance No. 857, AZ 99-024, request for annexation and zoning of 20.05 acres to I-L by Albertson’s, Inc., east of Eagle Road, north of the railroad
tracks and south of Settler’s Canal. That’s housekeeping, isn’t that correct? Need to make that change in the wording. It needs to be west instead of east. It should be east, not
west; is that right, Mr. Attorney?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, there was an error in the legal description which was not caught until after the Ordinance was already done. I can’t – it may have been
the Assessor’s Office that caught it. At any rate, we need to pass this with the correct legal description in place.
Corrie: Mr. Clerk, if you’ll read the Ordinance No. 857 by title only, please. Is that okay? Do we need to do that?
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The State Tax Commission notified us that the legal description did not close; in other words, it was open, so they sent it back to us. So that’s why we
have to amend this Ordinance with the correct legal description. Amended Ordinance No. 857: An ordinance finding that certain land lies contiguous or adjacent to the City limits of
the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land be annexed to the City
of Meridian and zoning made light industrial district, I-L; and declaring that said land by proper legal description described below be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada,
State of Idaho; repealing all Ordinances, Resolutions, Orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith; and directing the City Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the
City of Meridian, Idaho; and directing the Clerk
of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the Ordinance and the map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and the State Tax
Commission of Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: Okay, you’ve heard the reading of the amended Ordinance No. 857 by title only. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have the Ordinance read in its entirety?
Okay, hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the amended Ordinance No. 857.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the amended Ordinance No. 857 for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the amended Ordinance No. 857 for 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
Item 18. Tabled from May 16, 2000: Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Item 18, tabled from May 16, 2000, water, sewer and trash delinquencies. This is to inform you in writing if you choose to you have the right to a predetermined hearing at
7:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 16th, 2000, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged in the facts and defend a claim made by this City that your water, sewer and trash
bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. This service will be discontinued on May 17th unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or
her water, sewer and trash delinquency? Yes, Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a follow-up on the gentleman that came to our meeting last meeting on May 2nd that has a 60-day extension because of HUD and the process of buying
the property. His name is Michael Kohntopp at Blue Heron Street, and he asked me to talk to the attorney about a 60-day extension and felt that in that 60 days either HUD would pay
or he would agree to pay it. I can give you the account number 34-0830-1 in the amount of $292.59.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, what’s the reasoning? Who was the water – who was living there? Who owns the property? Who was the previous owner?
Nichols: Mr. Bird, Mayor, members of the Council, from talking with this fellow last time, if I recall correctly, he bought this through a HUD foreclosure, and the title company did
not pick up the delinquent water account when he closed the
sale, and so he’s got a commitment from HUD or their in the process since they were the quote, owners, they were going to have to pay that and said if he couldn’t get them to pay it,
he would. He just didn’t want to have his water shut off in the meantime. First time in any of these meetings that somebody appeared on one of these.
Bird: The only question that I’ve got, Council members, is I don’t know who the title company was or who closed it or anything, but I think that they should come right forward. I mean,
we’re not in the banking – I realize that $292.59 isn’t that much, but we’re not in the banking business for sixty days. HUD don’t let you have 60 days to pay them. The amazing thing
is we’ve already paid our subcontractor that did the trash, and then, like I say, it’s not – you’re not talking about a large amount, but, you know, this month happens to be pretty good,
but other months we’ve had quite a large accounting of what needs to be turned off. I don’t know.
Nichols: Another issue, Mayor, members of the Council, is that MUBS is trying to get the title work on these to call them every time they have a sale and (inaudible) so that we can
try to pick up some of these that have slipped in the past so that – I have talked with Leslie and her staff about doing that, and so they’re working on improving that part so that it
doesn’t happen.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got one question for Mr. Nichols. What would be the amount of money that would be feasible to file the lien and how – like the water, how long do you have before
you can file a lien?
Nichols: Councilman Bird and Mayor, members of the Council, one thing that I’ve got to look at is it’s been a long time since I’ve looked at the case, but there’s an Idaho Court case
that came out of the City of Grangeville over delinquent sewer and water accounts, and I think that the result of that was that you couldn’t lien the property. You could just deny the
service. So I’d want to look at that before I could answer your question.
Bird: I understand that. Do you need a motion?
Corrie: I need a motion to approve the delinquency turn-offs and then another motion to –
Bird: Do you want two or can it be one?
Corrie: I think it better be two. We can do the second one a 60-day extension to Michael Kohntopp.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve the delinquency for turn-off schedule for 5/17/00.
Bird: I second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the delinquency turn-off list for 5/17/00. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now I’ll entertain a motion for the request for extension to have HUD pay the bill or he’ll pay it in 60 days.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion to grant the extension for Mr. Michael Kohntopp, 984 East Blue Heron Street, for an extension for him to pay the water bill or HUD to pay
the bill.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the 60-day extension on the Account No. 34-0830-1. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 19. Department Reports:
A. City Treasurer – Janice Smith:
2. Refund of Latecomers:
Corrie: Tammy, I guess. We need to – Janice is first. We need to have a motion for the refund approval on the one that she gave us.
Bird: On the latecomers. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the latecomers refund of $267,635.09.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the latecomers refund in the amount of $267,635.09. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
3. LID – 1535 East 1st Street, $2,070.14:
Corrie: There’s another one here about LIDs. Gary, are you going to present that one to us?
Smith: I’m sorry, what was that?
Corrie: Well, I’m hearing conversation down at the end there. On this LID, I guess Terry Woodward that she’s asking that we work with the attorney and put a lien on that property?
Okay. And then the hearing department is making some changes on No. 11, Tammy Shoemaker? They’re working on a payment schedule?
Smith: Right. I’ve got to get that squared away with Tammy Shoemaker.
Corrie: I guess we need a motion, then, to have the attorney follow up with State Code and attach a lien to the property tax if not received by the end of June of this year.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we instruct the attorney to proceed with a lien on property No. 15 which is Terry Woodward, 1535 East 1st Street, for the $2,070.14 if payment is not received
by June 30, 2000, for LID.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay, motion is made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the proper papers to put a lien on the property if payment is not received by June 30 by Mr. Woodward. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
B. City Councilperson - Tammy deWeerd:
Tabled from May 2, 2000: Pathway Master Plan Committee / Sub-Committee of Parks and Recreation Commission:
Corrie: Tammy.
deWeerd: Well, this hasn’t changed any since you saw it on May 2nd; although, Nancy does have a last name. It’s Gardner, G-A-R-D-N-E-R. The timeliness of this pathway sub-committee
has been seen just as early as tonight with Tarawood Subdivision and the need for a plan so that we can ask developers to participate in seeing that it happens. Also, I know Nampa Meridian
has made comments at COMPASS meetings about wanting cities that want to work with them to have a master plan. So it is a very timely issue. I did get this to you two weeks ago. I
did get a comment just tonight about one of the committee members that he was opposed to. I wish I would have had the comments before I took it to the Parks Commission yesterday, but
if anyone is opposed to any of these members, please let me know and we can take them off.
Corrie: Let me clarify something here. I told Tammy, Jan deWeerd, I really wasn’t paying any attention to it. I guess I should have. But on Jan deWeerd,
It’s Tammy’s husband. I, at one time, put my son on a committee, sub-committee, and I caught all kinds of flack. I just don’t want Tammy to go through that because I know that you
will, but that’s your choice. That’s the only reason. I had nothing against Jan. It’s going to cause some – maybe it won’t, but it sure did when I did it back earlier, and that’s
the only reason that I didn’t want you to do it. You guys can do what you want, but I thought I’d just better let Tammy know that there may be some flack on that. I don’t know who
it will be, but it did on mine. That’s the only reason I say that.
Bird: Is this the one – actually, this is an (inaudible).
Corrie: I wouldn’t think so.
Bird: They’re working under the Parks and Recreation Commission, aren’t they?
Corrie: Correct me if I’m wrong, Tammy, but they’d make the recommendations to the Parks and Recreation Commission and you come back with the recommendation to the Council; is that
correct?
deWeerd: That is correct. They’re only ad hoc. We’re directing with the Commission and the Commission (inaudible) for any recommendations through the liaison which is ad hoc.
Corrie: Does anybody have any problems with anyone on here?
Anderson: I don’t have any objections, and I don’t know what the possible conflict could be, but there could be those that gripe. How hard was it to find people to get on this committee?
Was it hard? Did we turn people away?
deWeerd: No.
Anderson: I think if we turn people away and then your husband shows up, then we’re probably going to have some problems.
deWeerd: No. I had to go out and recruit. Actually he said with the pathways we have in Holland (sic), you guys might be able to utilize my expertise.
Corrie: Okay. Does anybody have any objections to these people? I’m going to leave it up to you. I just don’t want to see you hurt. Okay. Are you through? They can – okay.
C. City Engineer – Gary Smith
Biosolids Dewatering Facility Project Change Order No. 2:
Corrie: You’re up.
Smith: There’s a memo that I sent to you that has the three different items attached to it. Brad Watson prepared a little dissertation outlining what these three items concern. The
first item is the Change Order No. 2 for the Biosolids Dewatering Facility. It had to do with applying a waterproof coating to the inside of the masonry walls of the restroom, centrifuge
and polymer rooms. It wasn’t included in the original specifications, but after they got to that point, staff realized that it was going to be necessary in order to facilitate washdown
in the area. Once that equipment was in operation. So we did authorize because it was – had to be done before the equipment was installed, there was some facility equipment being
attached to the walls, and so we went ahead and authorized the cost ahead of the approval by City Council in order to facilitate the construction process. And the amount that the contractor
bid to us was less than what we and our consulting engineer estimated that it would cost, so we felt that the price was reasonable, and that’s why we proceeded with that. Do you have
any questions concerning Change Order No. 2 for the Biosolids Dewatering Facility?
Bird: No.
Smith: Our recommendation would be for your official approval of Change Order No. 2
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Dewatering facility Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $5,200.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Biosolids Dewatering Facility Project Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $5,200. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
WWTP Trunk Sewer – Creason Lateral Crossing Change Order No. 1:
Smith: Second item has to do with the crossing of the Creason Lateral, also a Change Order to that contract with Brown Construction. This contract involved installing a casing pipe
under the Creason Lateral ahead of the irrigation water for this season, and the casing pipe is going to carry a 36-inch diameter sewer trunkline that will be constructed across property
that’s being developed by Ed Bews’ mini-storage facility. It will ultimately be connected to the White Drain sewer. Once the contractor began finishing up the crossing, it was found
that we needed to install more concrete in the channel of the Creason Lateral to line it as required by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District than what was originally bid. This was because
of the steep bank of the south bank of the lateral. Steeper than
what was shown, what we originally depicted on the drawings. So there was an additional $2999 involved in concrete lining and riprap (sic) at each end of the liner that the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District required after the fact on the riprap also. As Brad noted, the bid that we received from Brown was substantially less than what the second bidder bid to us, and
so we don’t have a problem with this request for Change Order No. 1.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve Change Order No. 1 on the Creason Lateral in the amount of $2999 for additional concrete work and riprap that was required.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Change Order No. 1 for the Creason Lateral Crossing in the amount of $2999. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
3. Year 2000 Sewer Line Cleaning / TV Inspection Project Contract
Award:
Smith: Thank you, Council. The last item is the contract, bid results for a contract that we have for Year 2000 sewer cleaning and TV inspection sewer lines. We had two bid plan holders,
but only one submitted a bid, and that is the Municipal Services Company, Inc., who has been doing our work for us for the past four or five years. The bid amount was $37,644.10; the
unit prices that they submitted are less than what they had submitted to us on previous projects. We think that it had to do with the fact that there was another plan holder who had
been very aggressive in bidding against this contractor in Boise for some similar types of work. So we would, based on the results of that bid, we would recommend award of the project
to Municipal Services Company, Inc., in the amount of $37,644.10.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the contract with Municipal Services Company for the sewer, 2000 sewer cleaning, TV inspection project for the sum of $37,644.10 and for the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the 2000 sewer line cleaning and TV inspection project in the amount of $37,644.10 and 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
Mayor Robert D. Corrie:
1. Accident Insurance:
Corrie: I’ve got a couple things here that I didn’t get on yours. One is the insurance for the volunteer firefighters that Pauline gave us about AFLAC. American Heritage. Ron. I
guess I’ll let you speak to that.
Anderson: I just got to talk with Pauline briefly in the breakroom there, and she was going to get me a breakdown of the price quotes that they got and how they did the comparison on
the coverages, but the Committee recommended that they go with AFLAC to simply better coverage, slightly a little more money than the American Heritage, but that’s what Committee recommended.
I wouldn’t have any reason to go against what our employee committee would recommend there. I guess I would recommend that we approve purchasing the (inaudible) insurance from AFLAC.
deWeerd: Is that a motion? I second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to use AFLAC for the volunteers and the City employees for the insurance. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Resolution
Corrie: One other. There was a resolution that was going to be drawn up for approval tonight on the Police Department and pay scale. Found some discrepancies in that in both areas,
the Fire Department and also the Police Department. Do you want him to re-do it? What do you want him to say? How do you want him to say it? Do you want him to bring it back to you
on the 23rd?
Anderson: I’d like to have it re-done so that we’re looking at it accurate.
Bird: We need it put to rest, though.
Corrie: I think if we do it the 23rd we’ll still get it in line –
Bird: The 23rd is our workshop.
Corrie: I think it’s a special meeting, too.
Bird: You’re right.
deWeerd: And the recycling program.
McCandless: Keith, don’t we have a meeting workshop on the 25th also for goals?
Bird: Yes, the 25th.
Anderson: We forgot to let Will know when we were in that meeting when we were finishing the Executive Session.
McCandless: What time is it?
Bird: The 25th? That’s just a workshop.
McCandless: What time?
deWeerd: Six o’clock.
Bird: Six o’clock is great with me on the 25th.
Corrie: Got that, Will?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make some things clear. On the 23rd we have a workshop.
Corrie: We also have a special meeting.
Berg: Yes. On this workshop at whichever time we decide to have it, we’re going to have a budget software presentation, we’re going to have the Fire Department evaluation. At 7:00
we have a special meeting for the recycling public hearing and for the Development Agreement for the Murdoch-Howell property plus an Ordinance for annexation. Then you can go back to
whatever else you want for your workshop. Those are the critical things.
deWeerd: Like the Finance Director?
Bird: We’ve got that, and we need to work on that. Everybody got a copy of that. You’ve got a full agenda unless you want to stay here half the night again.
Berg: Then you are having a workshop on the 25th at 6:00.
Corrie: Which is goals only. We decide how we’re going to do the Department Heads meeting.
Bird: Also, Mr. Mayor, I gave you guys a copy of our proposals from the banks regarding our financing. I’d like to look that over and see what you think. I’d like to discuss that.
Also, Lombard Conrad came back with a new bid. I believe the
Chief got that to everybody; the new prices for drawings, Chief. You got that to everybody? Lombard Conrad’s new deal?
Corrie: Yes, he did because I did it for him.
Bird: Anyway, we need to look that over. There are some things we need to make our decision on and get going on. So take a look at it and see if we can’t decide. Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the resolution on overtime was my stab, apparently, ill-placed stab at trying to have a thing that you can focus on. I can see I made an
error with regard to the firefighters with what’s in their contract. That’s easy to fix. But it would help me if you would tell me what you want me to do on the rest of it. I feel
pretty confident about the court-time for the law enforcement personnel, but on Item B with regard to those – see, I broke it between a 10-hour shift and the 8-hour shift, and I know
the Chief has some concerns about a breakdown that way. I just need to – if you’re going to tell me to change or not to change, I’d be pleased to change it and send it back to you.
McCandless: Somehow, Bill, they need to be the same. You can’t pit one group of officers against another. That’s what that’s doing. In other words, if the 8-hour officers got 40
hours a week and they went 42 hours, then they get paid 2 hours overtime. If they took next week off for a week’s vacation and then the following week they came back and get paid overtime
for whatever they worked overtime on that week, with 160 hours in 28-day period, they don’t have that advantage. Do you see what I mean?
Nichols: I understand, and I recall one Council member commenting on something less than the FLSA standard of 171 hours and having it at 160 hours in a 28-day period. So what I’m saying
is I’m asking the Council to tell me whether it’s all of the sworn officers at 160 hours in a 28-day period or all of the officers on a 40-hour in a 7-day period.
Anderson: We’ve got to find that deal and look at what number you put in there. We could probably figure out –
Bird: It’s 160, Ron, on a 28-day. I thought we had decided at that point that – well, I think you –
Nichols: Caution. You just didn’t decide anything. You all stated your comments.
Bird: Right. We didn’t decide a thing.
McCandless: We agreed on 160 hours in a 28-day period.
Bird: 160 hours in a 28-day period, and I thought that included the 40-hour people, too.
McCandless: I did too.
Bird: I didn’t think we separated them.
Anderson: Well, if they’re working 10-hour days, but they’re only working 4 of those, it would actually equate to the same thing as an 8-hour employee working 5 days.
Corrie: But here’s the kicker here. Like she said, if they take a week’s vacation in between that time and they come back, you’re only going – they’re only going to get paid if they’re
working a 7-day period and 40 hours. You’re penalizing one group and you’re not another. So you have to do it equally for all of them. You either go all of them at 160 hours in 28-day
period whether it’s an 8-hour or a 10-hour or do them all on a 40-hour regardless of what it is. So you have to clear that up.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I thought we had cleared it up that all sworn officers which included the 5-day, 8-hour day shifts worked on 160 hours in a 28-day cycle.
Anderson: And the 8-hour employees work off of a 40-hour.
Bird: Non-sworn.
McCandless: Yes. The non-sworn.
Bird: Because sworn officers work their 40 hours in a 5-day period. They’re based on the 160. That’s the way I understood it.
Corrie: So if you worked a week and you took a week off, then you wouldn’t get any overtime. Only if you worked overtime hours in that week.
Bird: No, it’s if you work over – now, Ron, you’re going right back to what the Mayor just said. We’re separating. Non-sworn. All sworn officers, whether they work the 40-hour, 5-day
week or whether they work the 10-hour shifts, the 4 10-hour shifts are paid based on 28 days, 160 hours. Right? Isn’t that what – this is what I understood. Then all non-sworn personnel
work on 40-hour week. Okay. That’s the way I understood it, Bill. I didn’t think – I thought we said we weren’t going to make it different for non-sworn officers. They’re all going
to be on the same basis as all the other city employees are.
Corrie: Non-sworn.
Bird: The sworn officers were on the same program, too, whether they worked the 8-hour or the 10-hour shifts.
McCandless: What I’m concerned about is having them all the same.
Bird: Having them all the –
McCandless: Having the sworn officers all the same.
Corrie: It would be 160 hours.
Bird: They are all the same.
McCandless: No, they weren’t under the –
Bird: That’s the way I understood it, Cherie. I think that’s what Ron had stated that all sworn officers were based on a 28-day, 160 hours.
Anderson: I may have said that (inaudible) 8 hours versus 10 hours.
Bird: And we meant that whether it was a 10- or 8-hour shift, if you were a sworn officer, you worked under 28 days, 160 hours. Am I not right? Isn’t that what was discussed?
Nichols: Let me see if I can bring this to some closure, if I may, members of the Council. First of all, let me fess up. I have now officially failed mind-reading. With regard to
this particular resolution, if under sworn law enforcement personnel, if it simply says all time worked in excess of 160 hours within 128-day period not including any paid leave such
as sick leave, vacation, et cetera, shall be compensation at a rate of 1-1/2 times the regular hourly rate of pay. That’s it for the sworn people. Then under C, it’s all other non-exempt
personnel including non-exempt, unsworn law enforcement, it means public works, it means MUBS, all the other non-exempt people are on a 40-hour, 7-day period. Is that the direction?
McCandless: Can we have Bill talk for just a minute?
Gordon: I thought the original idea was to make everybody in the City the same. If you hold police officers to 160 hours before they get time and-a-half, they’re not the same as your
non-sworn personnel. You’re holding everybody else to 40 hours before they get overtime, but you’re holding the police officers to 160 before they get overtime.
Anderson: And that’s the same thing that FLSA does – they do it 171 hours. They’ve come to the conclusion that there’s a different how police and fire work. We’ve gone through this
umpteen times in there with HR and payroll and with
you, and that’s what we’ve come to. Do we have to keep arguing this point over and over?
Gordon: Ron, you don’t have to argue anything. You make the decision. I’m telling you that if you go the 160, you’re causing me a morale problem. I’ll do what you tell me to do,
but I think you’re wrong, and I think time will prove that.
Anderson: Maybe so.
Gordon: You guys make your decision. I’ve had my say, and I’m like you. I’m tired of arguing. Just make it. Let’s move on.
Anderson: We think it’s a compromise. We didn’t go with the FLSA at 171 hours. We were more lucrative than that, but we didn’t set it that they were getting paid overtime on each
shift, and we didn’t make it to 40-hour. We made it 160.
Gordon: And I explained to you –
Anderson: There are people that will disagree with that. No doubt.
Gordon: The reason they came up with that 171 hours was for the smaller departments. The same with the fire with the 212. They did that because when they first enacted Fair Labors
and Standards, small departments with 10, 15 officers could not cover their shifts. You’ve got to cover 24-hour, 7 days a week. Firemen, it’s easy. You go 24-hour periods. Police
officers don’t do that. So they made the exception that 171 hours. That’s why they did that. The fact that police officers are different, yeah, they are. So are the firemen. You
work different shifts. But when you reach a certain point when I can’t cover shifts, that 171 hours is really a moot point. You can do that, but it’s not being fair. What you’re doing
is you’re penalizing police officers. You’re holding them to a higher standard now on time. They get to work longer than your average lawnmower driver.
Anderson: I don’t think that’s –
Gordon: Forty hours overtime.
Bird: Forty hours on 28 days, that’s 40 hours within a 7-day week.
Anderson: It’s based off a 40-hour week consistently, then they’ll get overtime.
Bird: If they’re working overtime throughout their weeks, their four weeks, they’ll get overtime. The only thing I can’t see is why they’re special to the point that I worked today
my 10-hour shift. I take tomorrow off for half a day, get called in for
six hours, but I’ve been off with vacation or something, but I get two hours overtime in that shift. That’s the (inaudible) –
Gordon: No. That’s what was (inaudible). What I’m saying is your regular 40-hour employees, they can work 41 hours this week, and they get overtime for 1 hour. If you take a police
officer, he works 48 hours this week, he takes vacation next week, he doesn’t get overtime for that eight hours for this 28-day period, not for the week.
Anderson: That’s right.
Gordon: And you think that’s even and fair?
Anderson: I do. You take time off and you’re taking vacation or whatever, and yes, I think that’s fair.
Gordon: Your 40-hour employees don’t do that. They get overtime for that week.
Anderson: We just talked about all the differences throughout this.
Gordon: Well, like I say, you guys – I’m done arguing. You guys are causing me – you’re going to cause some morale problems, and that’s all I’ve got to say.
Corrie: You’ve made the decision here. One thing – do we – no, you haven’t made the decision. Sorry. Now, I’ve got a thing I’ve got to sign tomorrow that is going to go in effect
the first of June, and they’re going to pay all the overtime and everything else like they said before. Okay. So they’re going to get all the – whatever they had before until June
1st.
Bird: February, March, April – what was it?
McCandless: March, April and May.
Bird: February, March, April and May, right?
Corrie: And then they haven’t been paid that yet.
Gordon: That’s correct.
Corrie: That’s the one that we’ll be signing to make sure that gets done. Okay. You understand where we are?
Nichols: Given the fact that it’s 20 to 1:00, I believe so.
Corrie: Anything else?
Bird: I move that we adjourn.
deWeerd: Just a couple of things, Mr. Mayor. Jeff Wasson, he’s the guy that complained about the light shining in his house. I did go look at them, and he asked us to, right? Did
anyone else?
Anderson: I did.
deWeerd: You don’t think they shine up too far? I think that one shield – out. Okay. If the shield that is covering the light by Meridian Floral were put on it, it’s just a simple
piece of steel. Put on the rest of those and they would shine down and still light up that area enough for security reasons, and I think he had mentioned that right off the bat when
he started talking about it. I don’t see why the –
*** End of Side 6 ***
Anderson: -- some security issues there, but I think the downcast light would still provide enough light for security and wouldn’t cast so much light back into the neighborhood. But
with all them fixtures in the back (inaudible).
deWeerd: Or just surrounded by that piece of metal. Or there was one that had a lot dimmer light to it that wasn’t so offensive, so I guess that would be the real easy way. Why they
just can’t put those simple three-sided steel covers over it, that seems like it’d be fairly easy. Edinburgh Subdivision – are we going to ignore that letter?
Corrie: we’re not going to ignore it, but (inaudible) time. They didn’t get it back. It’s a different setup. So the Council will have to look at it the 6th of June.
deWeerd: I’d just like to remind everyone about the Chamber auction on Saturday. Are you going? And the AIC meeting, we need to fill those out and get them in to Will?
Anderson: Do we have to elect a delegate to be our lead person there?
deWeerd: How’s everyone getting up there?
Corrie: I’m driving up, so you can drive up with me. I’m going back Saturday. If everybody would like to (inaudible)
Anderson: (inaudible) elect a delegate, and that’s why I didn’t know (inaudible)
Corrie: You don’t have to, but would you like to be a delegate?
Anderson: We’ll all be there anyway.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: I will venture a guess that you will (inaudible) – all those in favor of adjournment say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:45 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVE:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK