HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 10-17Meridian City Council Meeting October 17, 2000
The regularly scheduled City Council Meeting of the Meridian City Council was
called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 8:15 p.m. on Tuesday, October 17,
2000.
Members Present: Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Ron Anderson, Cherie
McCandless, Keith Bird.
Others present: Shari Stiles, Tom Kuntz, Bill Nichols, Gary Smith, Bill Gordon,
Ken Bowers, Steve Siddoway, Will Berg.
Corrie: I’ll open the regular City Council Meeting for October 17, 2000, at 8:15,
and I’ll have roll-call, please, Mr. Berg. Let me say welcome to the City Council
as late as it might have been other than 7:30.
Item A. Approve minutes of June 20, 2000, City Council Meeting:
Item B. Approve minutes of September 5, 2000, Special Pre-Council
Meeting:
Item C. Approve minutes of September 26, 2000, Special Meeting:
Item D. Tabled from October 3, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-039 Request for Conditional Use
Permit for planned unit development including continuing care
retirement community, single- and multi-family residential and office
and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers – Joseph A. Billig –
east of St. Luke's between Franklin Road and Interstate 84:
Item E. Tabled from October 3, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 00-006 Request for
annexation and zoning of 12.73 acres from R-T to L-O and R-15
zones by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc., for proposed
Valeri Heights Subdivision – northeast corner of Pine Avenue
and Ten Mile Road:
Item F. Tabled from October 3, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 00-005 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision
with 10 building lots and 2 other lots on 12.73 acres in proposed L-
O and R-15 zones by Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc. –
northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 2
Item G. Tabled from October 3, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 00-014 Request for
Conditional Use Permit for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision
for a 128-unit apartment complex, townhouses and office on 12.73
acres in proposed L-O and R-15 zones by Vicki Welker / Gold River
Companies, Inc. – northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Ten Mile
Road:
Item H. Tabled from October 3, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 00-013 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 12 lots on 5.60 acres in an R-3 zone by
Bond and Shelli Campbell for proposed The Hollows – north of
Ustick Road ½ mile east of Meridian Road:
Item I. Tabled from October 3, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 00-021 Request for a
variance to not pipe an open ditch that borders the subject parcel
on the west boundary in The Hollows Subdivision by Bond and
Shelli Campbell – north of Ustick Road ½ mile east of Meridian
Road:
Item J. Tabled from October 3, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 00-022 Request for a
variance to use Meridian City water for irrigation in The Hollows
Subdivision by Bond and Shelli Campbell – north of Ustick Road
½ mile east of Meridian Road:
Item K. Tabled from October 3, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 00-013 Request for
annexation and zoning of 5.4 acres for proposed Elliot Industrial
Park Subdivision for office and shop in an I-L zone by Chuck
Elliot, The Elliot Group – south of Fairview Avenue and east of
Locust Grove Road on Wilson Lane:
Item L. Tabled from October 3, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 00-023 Request for a
variance of the required 20-foot to a 10-foot wide planting strip in a
proposed I-L zone for proposed Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision
by Chuck Elliot, The Elliot Group – south of Fairview Avenue and
east of Locust Grove Road on Wilson Lane:
Item M. Tabled from October 3, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 00-015 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 2 building lots on 5.4 acres for
proposed Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision in an I-L zone by
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 3
Chuck Elliot, The Elliot Group – south of Fairview Avenue and east
of Locust Grove Road on Wilson Lane:
Item N. Tabled from October 3, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 00-033 Request for a
Conditional Use Permit to construct an office and shop for
proposed Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision in an I-L zone by
Chuck Elliot, The Elliot Group – south of Fairview Avenue and east
of Locust Grove Road on Wilson Lane:
Item O. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 00-
041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a Fred
Meyer’s Gas Station facility with a canopy, five multi-product gas
dispensers, cashier’s kiosk and parking lot improvements in a C-G
zone by Barghausen Consulting Engineers – Fairview Avenue and
Locust Grove:
Item P. Water Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Item Q. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: Request for a
Variance of the requirement to tile the Safford Lateral by the
Brighton Corporation for Ashford Greens Subdivision – north of
Cherry Lane and east of North Black Cat Road:
Corrie: Council, you have the Consent Agenda in front of you. How would you
like to work that one? Any changes?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent Agenda, with the approval of the Council and Mayor, I’d
like to table Item D to November 8, 2000; Items E, F and G to November 8, 2000.
I’d like to move Item J to the Regular Agenda as Item 1J. I’d like to move Item O
to the Regular Agenda as Item 1-O and Item P, the water, sewer and trash
delinquencies to Item 1P on the Regular Agenda. With that, I would move that
we pass the Consent Agenda.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to pass the Consent Agenda with the
substitution for D, E, F, G, J, O and P. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg, roll call
please.
Roll-call: McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; De Weerd; Bird, aye.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 4
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 1J. Tabled from October 3, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 00-022 Request for a
variance to use Meridian City water for irrigation in The Hollows
Subdivision by Bond and Shelli Campbell – north of Ustick Road
½ mile east of Meridian Road:
Corrie: I would also like to welcome Troop 190 with us today. Thank you for
coming, fellows and Scout Master. I hope we can give you some good tips on
how the City Government works. We’ve moved Item 1J to the first item. No. J is
tabled from the October 3
rd
– Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law –
request for a variance to use Meridian City water for irrigation in the Hollows
Subdivision by Bond and Shellie Campbell – north of Ustick Road and half-mile
east of Meridian Road. Council, I believe there is a request on that to have the
applicant clarify something with the Council. So, if the applicant is here –
Manship: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I’m Jeff Manship, Pinnacle
Engineers, 870 North Linder Road. What my client and I are wanting some
clarification on was if we were required to pay a well development fee. The staff
comments from the Preliminary Plat didn’t indicate they had to pay one. When
the Findings of Facts came up, they were giving us the day of the last City
Council Hearing and that’s what we want to get clarified. I forgot to pay that fee
and there was no cost amount to what that fee was. That’s kind of where we’re
at. That’s going to be an issue.
Corrie: Okay. Gary, do you want to handle that one?
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. Provision to the ordinance
for the pressurized irrigation system allows an alternative for the developer to
construct or participate in the cost of a City Well for irrigation purposes. In the
past, that option has been known as a Well Development Fee. Right now that
fee is in the amount – I can’t give you an exact number, but it’s somewhere little
in excess of $600 per lot. That is an option that’s available if the requirement for
pressurized irrigation system is waived by the Council. In this particular case,
this subdivision does not have adequate water for a pressurized irrigation
system, so the applicant was requesting a variance to use Meridian water and
had agreed to – or volunteered to construct a pressurized irrigation distribution
system that would be connected to City water and was not apparently aware of
the well development fee requirement at the time that they agreed to construct a
pressurized distribution system. So that’s the reason it wasn’t discussed at the
hearing, as I recall. That’s the reason for their appearance tonight is that they
would be willing to do one or the other but are opposed to doing both.
Corrie: Comment.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 5
Campbell: Mayor, members of the Council. That variance hearing was the night
of the Valeri Heights public hearing that went really late that evening, if you
remember. As Gary said, the volunteering of the distribution center was
something that we understood to be in – for lack of a better term – lieu of the well
development fee. Upon receiving the Findings and Facts, I looked through the
Findings and Facts to see if I could determine a well development fee – what the
amount and where it was included in those Findings and Facts and could not see
that. After a meeting with Gary and the adjoining subdivision, I came to the
realization that the well development fee was in addition to what I had
volunteered to do and that my neighbors weren’t planning on doing the
distribution center. Basically, what happens is I put in this distribution center and
they don’t. From our cost estimates from the engineers, that’s $18,000 that I
volunteered to spend on my subdivision which looking back didn’t have to do that
or wasn’t required to do that. I guess at this point, I am still willing to do that, but
if I spend that money, I guess what I’m asking for is to not pay the Well
Development Fee. Also, in talking to these other developers and their reasoning
for not wanting to do a single-point connection, they bring to light a very good
point. That is that a single-point connection has to be split evenly amongst the
lot owners. That has a tendency to create, in their experience, in a similar
situation, a lot of disruption and a lot of problems because you have certain
people in the subdivision abusing the water. Everybody’s paying for it and it’s
kind of a snowball effect. Pretty soon you have feuding neighbors. That’s how I
end up back here tonight asking for either one or the other versus both and
understanding that one is part of your ordinance and one isn’t -- so leaning
towards paying a Well Development Fee and not doing the pressurized irrigation
system with the single-point connection. That is basically it, in a nutshell. I might
add that in past, as Gary said, the City has not required – This would be the first
subdivision, to my knowledge, Gary, that would have a distribution center
installed by the developer on a subdivision that applied and received a variance
for pressurized irrigation. Is that right?
Smith: That’s correct.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: Just a comment, Mr. Mayor. When we had the previous meeting, we
talked about putting in the pressurized irrigation system. I was thinking, “Boy,
that’s great because we’ve finally got a developer who is progressive enough and
willing to step up to the plate and do that.” I had indicated that the subdivision
that I live in currently, the developer has paid the Well Development Fee and
didn’t put in the pressurized irrigation. As a homeowner there, it’s been a real
pain in the neck ever since because we all water with City water. It’s very
expensive and nobody is happy with that system. We much would have rather
had the pressurized irrigation system at the time, so I don’t particularly care for
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 6
our ordinance in this case and how that offers that as an option to the developer.
I was hoping that maybe we could find a way around that, but it doesn’t look like
we have in this case.
Campbell: In response to your comment, it’s still City water. My concern is that
people are going to abuse it more than if they each had their own connection
because it’s being split up amongst the 12 lots. Your neighbor may not be as
cautious as you are to waste water because he’s just basically distributing the
cost amongst his neighbors. That was the point of Mr. Glenn and his people in
the subdivision where they had – I guess a similar situation in that they had years
later or a year later or much after the development -- unhappy neighbors calling
them and saying that there’s some problems with this system – who is managing
it, who is overseeing how much water is being used. It’s not like a pressurized
irrigation system that you see in typical subdivisions where basically it’s an
unlimited use of water. This is going through a meter so it’s a lot different
situation.
Anderson: I guess my hopes would be that if you had put in the system that
there’s going to be other development that happens around you. That might not
be feasible for your size project right now. Eventually there’s going to be enough
development around you that you could tie in with some other development that
occurs. It could put in a regular pressurized irrigation system and you’d already
have the piping and the ground work done.
Campbell: Yes. See, I don’t think I would be here if Mr. Glenn and his
development was willing to participate in the connection – the back-flow device
and the connection because we probably wouldn’t have gotten to this point and I
wouldn’t have gotten their input if they had wanted to participate in that
connection, but they don’t. They don’t want anything to do with a one-point
connection like that. I guess I can see their point, too, because they’re taking 26
lots and combining them with my 11. You’re getting that many more people that
would have the opportunity to abuse this water, I guess.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: The only question I have is this doesn’t affect any of the surrounding
properties around your development – is that correct?
Campbell: Yes. This wouldn’t have any effect on any other surrounding
developments.
De Weerd: Okay.
Campbell: Are there any other questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 7
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. You have your Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law for the variance request. Discussion on –
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess there’s one more question for Gary. Gary, you don’t see any
other way around this other than the old method that we’ve been doing this –
Well Development Fees in lieu of?
Smith: Councilman Anderson, Mayor and members of the Council. I don’t see
an alternative outside what the ordinance allows. Obviously, if there was a water
supply available, then he would be willing to install a pressurized irrigation
system. I think that his argument concerning the distribution of the cost for the
City water into a pressurized system is probably valid with using City water. With
water used from the Irrigation District, there is so much water that is available.
It’s a flat number that’s distributed to the property owners. I think they even
distribute it on the basis of the size of their lot. There could be quite a variation in
how much water people use and how fairly they think they’re being assessed for
the water usage. I guess it’s a bit of a concern that way on the one hand. On the
other hand, as you say, the system could be installed at this time for use at a
future time. I don’t know unless – and I think it is a double-hit on the developer
unless the system could be installed at this time and it could be labeled as a dry
system and not utilized and allow the individual lots to connect without the
Development Fee, so that the system was installed and available for future use.
I guess that could be another option.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, that would be the same cost?
Smith: Well, he mentioned earlier that he had an engineer’s estimate of $18,000
for the system, and as I mentioned, the Well Development Fee is somewhere in
excess of $600. Even if you use $700 on 12 lots, that’s $8400 for the Well
Development Fee. I don’t know the cost of the distribution system – if it’s
$18,000 – I mean these are fairly big lots and the amount of piping is probably
going to be a little more per lot than your R-4 lots, for example. Years ago, it
seemed like it was almost a trade-off on the cost of installing the distribution
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 8
piping in an R-4 subdivision versus the cost of the Well Development Fee, but I’m
not positive of that.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I have a question of legal counsel. If we’re to this point on this item
and this is a request for a variance, then do we go ahead and deny the variance
or do they withdraw the application for the variance? How do you proceed with
this from this point on?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, members of the Council. Looking at the
ordinance, it simply says that in order to grant a variance, one of your options is
to require the Well Development Fee or a well site in lieu of the Well
Development Fee so that you’re offsetting this impact on the City water system
by imposing an impact on the developer that’s commensurate. The single-point
source connection system still uses City water. So, in a sense, you’re not even
really requiring – so if you do both, you are adding more than what you implied
with others under the circumstances. The variance was granted because of the
practical impossibility of installing a pressurized irrigation system using irrigation
water because the water was only delivered to the property once every ten days.
So, it wasn’t practical for a pressurized system. You could simply modify these
findings – adopt modified findings by eliminating, for example, the single-point
connection condition and substitute, therefore, payment of the applicable Well
Development Fee. Mr. Mayor, that would be on page 7, under the Decision of
Order, paragraph 2. That could be amended to read this variance as conditioned
upon and subject to payment of applicable well development charges.
Anderson: Isn’t that also back on page 2 under 10? 12-5-2N?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, members of the Council. Paragraph 10
that begins on page 2 is a recitation of the ordinance. I believe the only place
where it mentions the single-point connection is beginning on page 7 and
continuing on page 8.
Anderson: I think I know what I want to do, Mr. Mayor, but I’m not sure, so one
more question for the attorney. Would the motion then to be approve the
variance with that condition or to deny the variance? Because they are not going
to hook into the City water now at this point.
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, members of the Council. This is how I
see this. I could be seeing it wrong, but this is the way I see it. The variance
that’s requested is a variance from the requirement that there be a pressurized
irrigation system which is not hooked to City water. That’s the variance request.
So, it would be a motion to approve. These findings say, “No, you don’t have to
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 9
hook up to a non-City source.” So it would be granting the variance and one of
the conditions is payment of the Well Development Fee in lieu of a single-point
connection.
Anderson: Okay. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would like to make a motion that we approve the Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law for a variance request to use Meridian City water for an
irrigation in the Hollows Subdivision by Bond and Shellie Campbell – north of
Ustick Road, one-half mile east of Meridian Road with one change in the
Decision of Order and that to be change Item 2 on page 7 and 8 to read the
variance is conditioned upon and subject to the provision of the developer paying
the standard Well Development Fees and the elimination of the single-point
hook-up to City water. I guess that’s it.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to accept the Decision of Order to approve
the variance with the conditions set by the motion. Any further discussion?
Hearing none. I’ll have roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 1O. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 00-
041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a Fred
Meyer’s Gas Station facility with a canopy, five multi-product gas
dispensers, cashier’s kiosk and parking lot improvements in a C-G
zone by Barghausen Consulting Engineers – Fairview Avenue and
Locust Grove:
Corrie: Okay. The next item we have is O.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: To be consistent with previous actions, I would like to step down from
this project.
Corrie: Okay. Does Council have no objections?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 10
Corrie: No. O is a Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law – request for a
Conditional Use Permit to construct a Fred Meyer’s Gas Station facility with a
canopy, five multi-product gas dispensers, cashier’s kiosk and parking lot
improvements in a C-G zone. There has been a request by the developer, Mr.
Tom Bowens to try to explain a little better what he thought we heard last time,
so I would invite Mr. – Tom, are you here? Okay. We’re going to have a
different one.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 East Park Center
Boulevard, Boise, Idaho and I’m with the Dakota Company and I’m here tonight
on behalf on Fred Meyer Stores, the applicant. Our request for reconsideration
would be to allow us to make a presentation that would present about 9 or 10
different items more factually and more accurately since they were, in our
opinion, presented in error at the last meeting or not presented at all. Your
decision and your Findings were based on some information that was incorrect or
misstated. I am prepared to go over all of those things this evening if you desire.
Our request was that you reconsider and have another public hearing – however
you would like me to go forward on that.
Corrie: Why don’t you just go ahead and give us your facts and then we can
make that determination?
Durkin: I have them numbered, Mr. Mayor and they’re very brief. The actual site
of the project was not accurately discussed. There was some discussion, if you
recall where the site was located and the numbers were 105, 110 – 120 feet off
of Locust Grove – on the fact that it’s 1000 feet east of Locust Grove where this
is being located. The description of the use was not presented properly by the –
Fred Meyer hired an architectural firm from Seattle to handle a number of these.
This person flew into town and it was just not – he didn’t present it accurately. It
isn’t a C store. It isn’t a car wash. These are pumps. You can see right through
them, see to the store. There’s very little, if any clutter. The traffic – the access
for these goes perpendicular to Fairview Avenue so there’s no conflict with any of
the other driveways in the center or any of the other uses in the center. The
traffic information was not stated correctly. The traffic for this – the traffic
information that we have from Doby Engineering, which did the original traffic
study for the whole center is that this would generate less than 400 trips a day.
The bulk of the traffic are people that are buying their groceries at Fred Meyer.
They’re going to McDonald’s. They’re going to the other uses in the center. It
isn’t a promotional use. There isn’t a building. You’ve looked at Albertson’s and
you’ve looked at some of the other ones where they have a great big 5,000
square foot store and a car wash. This is not that type of thing. This is simply a
fuel service for the customers of the center. Landscaping answers are stated
incorrectly. There’s no removal of any landscaping. There’s some relocation of
existing landscaping and there’s an additional landscaping to the center. There’s
a net gain in landscaping. His answer to you is, “I don’t know. I’m not sure. I
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 11
haven’t looked at the plan.” The tab support was not stated correctly.
McDonald’s – when this first came up to Planning and Zoning, their request was
that it be relocated further east away from their drive-thru because they
suspected there were some conflicts there. It’s been moved about 459 or 500
and some feet away. I don’t have the plans in front of me, but it’s been moved
drastically to the east and they’re in support of this. Subway is in full support of
this – the Subway Franchisee is in full support. You may recall, if you drive
around the valley, McDonald’s is closing locations and opening them up so that
they can be teamed up with a fuel service. Subway is doing the same thing. If
you go to Chevron, Texaco and Stinker, you’ll find either McDonald’s or Subway.
The fuel purchase, the sandwich purchase – that type of use is a real compatible
mix and their both – they feel it would be a real benefit. There were no negative
comments or calls with the new plan. The question was asked and the answer
was, “I don’t know.” On the record, there were some negative comments on the
original plan, but at the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning, it was
relocated down next to the Subway where it was represented. The traffic lanes
were modified – those concerns. There were no negative outcries. The P and Z
request that the relocation to the site next to Subway – that was their request. It
was redone at their request and as a result of the testimony. Fred Meyer is
committed to the community and as responding to actual customer comments
and requests. In addition, there are other tenants in the center that will benefit.
This use will actually take traffic out. There is a Chevron station close by. You
have to leave the shopping center across the street to go to – This service is
provided for the customers of Fred Meyer, the customers of the other shops in
the center and they’re in favor. Ada County Highway District had no negative
comments – no review that was in compliance with their concerns. Finally, the
request is in full compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian.
I think it’s fair to say it had staff support and it’s a critical component for Fred
Meyer to have this service. It’s important for some of the other tenants in the
center and we respectfully request that you look at the decision again and look
favorably. The result, if not – there could be some other tenants leaving. I’m not
saying Fred Meyer will leave without it. The recommendation by you in the
Findings that they relocate behind the Subway – that’s a private street. Recall
the testimony that this is a 24-hour day operation that’s not manned. It’s card
activated. Fred Meyer is sensitive to the security issue of putting it behind that
other building for the lighting issue. It’s not visible from the street where traffic is
patrolled and Avest Way, which circles around the center is at the request of the
City at the time, and Ada County Highway District – it’s a private street. So, the
patrol is on Fairview. It’s important that if the service is going to be in the center,
it be on Fairview and that concludes my comments. I’ll happily answer any
questions that you may have.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 12
Bird: I have got two questions, Larry. How far off of Fairview does the site start?
Durkin: Mr. Bird, the site, technically – and I want to be careful. It technically
starts at the property line on Fairview. The building setback –
Bird: That’s what I’m talking about. How far back were the canopies – the
canopy?
Durkin: The canopy is setback – Mr. Bird, I wasn’t prepared for that question.
It’s in the packet. I might –
Bird: What we had didn’t show anything like that. What is the overall size, then,
of the site?
Durkin: It’s an 18-acre site.
Bird: No. I mean how big is this filling station?
Durkin: The canopy itself is about 1900 square feet around on the top, which is
significantly smaller than the Chevron one on that corner.
Bird: That’s all I had.
Corrie: Any other questions or comments?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, Larry, you say it’s next to the Subway. Is that across
from that so-called private road?
Durkin: In the absence of the props that I would normally show you – and I’m
sorry. This is just not an adequate – Shari, could I ask you to go up to the small
site plan on the top right hand corner of that arrow? Go to the far right. That is
Subway right there. Then if you go to the left a little bit, Shari, there’s a driveway
that enters into the property. The site area that we’re talking about is that whole
hashed area. The entire property, except for the other buildings is owned by
Fred Meyer, so this is just a part of their existing Conditional Use Permit and part
of their site. There’s not a specific description. It’s almost like a kiosk. A kiosk is
a small hot, if you will, I’m trying to describe it nicer – project. It’s a – so what you
have, if you look at the project right now from the D & B Supply parking lot, if
you’re looking at it, on the far right, you’ve got a Chevron station. Then there’s
Eva Street which wraps around the shopping center. Then there’s a building that
includes Subway, the dry cleaner’s and Brueger’s Bagel. Then there’s a
driveway. Continuing to the left, that’s where this particular unit is going to be.
It’s to the left of that driveway that’s near Subway, but the traffic is such that it
doesn’t conflict with either the Subway traffic, the rest of the center traffic or any
pedestrian traffic whatsoever in the shopping center. The discussion about it
conflicting with pedestrians is just – it wasn’t explained the way the directions go
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 13
correctly at that last meeting. It’s close to Subway so that they get the benefit of
getting fuel and getting Subway sandwiches at the same time, which is important
to Subway. It’s close enough to McDonald’s, so they get the benefit. It’s close
enough and it can be secured by Fred Meyer. It’s in their visibility corridor, so it
can benefit their customers as well.
McCandless: So there’s nothing manned there to take money or anything? It’s
all credit card?
Durkin: During the daylight hours that Fred Meyer is open, there’s a person in a
kiosk to take money. There are a number of other fuel stations in the valley that
have that same thing. When Fred Meyer closes, the kiosk closes, and that’s just
credit card activated only.
McCandless: And how many pumps do you have in there?
Durkin: I am normally much more prepared than this and I was expecting you
and other municipalities to have a full hearing where I would be fully prepared,
but there are five according to the Agenda. That’s where my information is
coming from that and I believe that that’s correct. We’re building the same facility
at Franklin and Orchard – a Fred Meyer store with the same pump facility and
there are five different fuel pumps with two handles on each pump if that’s helpful
to you.
McCandless: And then at the end of the pumps you have the – where the person
sits during the –
Durkin: And that would be towards to store, so that’s away from Fairview
towards the store in the back.
McCandless: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you, Larry. I guess the question of Council is do you feel that you
want to take the appeal to have another public hearing or do you want to stay
with your decision and Findings of Facts? At this point, I guess there’s two
questions.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 14
Anderson: I guess I’d throw out my comments. I would agree with Larry that the
gentleman that gave the presentation at the last meeting was not very well
prepared and didn’t describe the project very well, but I think most of us on the
Council were able to figure out from his drawings and explanations where it was.
I did determine that it wasn’t over near Locust Grove 100 and some feet from it. I
guess my feeling on this particular project is that that whole 18-acre site that Fred
Meyer has already sold off and developed several pad sites – In my opinion, it’s
pretty full and pretty congested at this point and that was why I was not in favor
of the location. I understand all the logic, reasoning and closeness to
McDonald’s and Subway, but I felt, and I think the other Council members felt
that the last time, it would be less congestive. Our instructions were to the
applicant that we couldn’t support the project in the location where it’s being
proposed, but we could north of the Subway building. I realize that that doesn’t
give you the Fairview frontage that is so desirable. I think we do have some
traffic issues out there. The entire site, to me, is already fairly well developed. I
guess, from my standpoint, I couldn’t support that in that location. It’s too
congested there and I would still stand by the previous meeting in statement that
I would support it if they could go north and bring the traffic in on Avest, even
though that is a private street. I still think if you use the same logic that you’re
using with us – that it’s the customers from McDonald’s and Subway, there going
to be the ones that are buying the gas in that Fairview frontage isn’t as important
because those customers would still be able to see this fueling station from those
locations and could simply hit them while they’re still in the parking lot. That’s my
two-cents worth.
Corrie: Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Do you want to vote on the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law? Okay. You have the decision for the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law in front of you, which is a decision of denial with
the condition that they put it further north and off of Avest would be accepted into
Council. I’ll entertain a motion on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
on the Fred Meyer’s gas facility.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for the denial of the CUP for Fred Meyer’s gas station facility
with a canopy and five multiple-product gas dispensers.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law on the decision of denial. Any further discussion? Hearing
none. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 15
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; De Weerd,
abstained.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED.
Item 1P. Water Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Then we have 1P for the next one to come -- This is delinquency for
turn-off schedule. We need Tammy to come back. Do you know where she is?
This is the delinquency for the turn-off schedule for October 18, 2000. This is to
inform you in writing. If you choose to, you have the right to a predetermined
hearing at City Council, Tuesday, October 17
th
before the Mayor and City Council
to appear in person and be judged in the facts and defend the claim made by the
City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may obtain counsel.
The service will be discontinued on October 17, 2000 unless payment is received
in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his/her water, sewer and
trash delinquency. Hearing none. I hereby inform that you may appeal or have
the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to
Idaho State Code. Even though you do appeal, your water will be shut off. The
amount of the turn-off list is $58,238.49. Council, I’ll entertain a motion on the
delinquency turn-off schedule.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the delinquency turn-off schedule for trash and sewer
for $58,238.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the delinquency turn-off list
scheduled for October 18, 2000 in the amount of $58,238.49. Any further
discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 2. Ordinance No. 893: AZ 00-015 Annexation and zoning of ~7
acres for proposed LDS Church by Quadrant Consulting – south of
Overland Road and east of Locust Grove Road on Charolais Drive:
Corrie: Ordinance No. for annexation and zoning of 7 acres for proposed LDS
Church south of Overland Road and east of Locust Grove Road on Charolais
Drive. Ordinance No., Mr. Berg. 893, right? If the City Clerk will read Ordinance
No. 893 by title only.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 16
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Ordinance No. 893: an
ordinance finding that certain land to be known as LDS Church south of Overland
and east of Locust Grove lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City
of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho and finding that the owner has made a
request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to
the City of Meridian and zoning designated medium-density residential district,
R8 and declaring that said land by proper legal description as described below
be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho repealing all
ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith and directing
the City Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian,
Idaho and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the
ordinance and map to the areas to be annexed with Ada County Recorder,
Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of
Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Sections 63-2215.
Corrie: Okay. You’ve heard the reading of the ordinance by title only. Is there
anyone in the audience who would like to have Ordinance No. 893 read in its
entirety? Hearing none. I’ll entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 893.
*** End of Side 1 ***
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 893 – the
annexation and zoning of 7 acres for proposed LDS Church for Quadrant
Consulting, south of Overland Road and east of Locust Grove Road with the
suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 893 as stated for
the annexation and zoning of Item No. 2 with suspension of rules. Any further
discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3. Ordinance No. 894: Finance Director Ordinance:
Corrie: Item No. 3 is Ordinance No. 894 – establishing a Finance Director. If the
City Clerk would please read Ordinance No. 894 by title only.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 17
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Ordinance No. 894: an
ordinance of the City of Meridian enacting a new article F of Chapter 8 of Title 1 –
Meridian City Code creating and providing for the establishment of a Finance
Director – providing for the Finance Director’s appointment and function, powers
and duties repealing any ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in
conflict herewith and are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled and providing
for an effective date.
Corrie: Okay. You’ve heard the reading of Ordinance No. 894 by title only. Is
there anyone from the audience that would like to have the ordinance read in its
entirety. Hearing none. I’ll entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 894.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve Ordinance 894 – Finance Director Ordinance with
the suspension of rules.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 894 with
the suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote,
Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: McCandless, aye; Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4. Resolution No. 344: Approval of Salary Schedule:
Corrie: Item No. 4 is a Resolution number. Do you have the Resolution number
please? 344. This is the approval of Salary Schedule in Resolution No. 344.
Any questions, Council – any additions, corrections?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we adopt Resolution No. 344 with the caveat that we
revisit the question of lateral moves with the HR Director, Police Chief and the
City Attorney. There are still some unresolved questions.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 344 with the caveat
to revisit Section 3 to include the visitation with the Council HR, Chief of Police
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 18
and City Attorney. Any further additions or corrections to the resolution?
Hearing none. Roll-call vote on the Resolution 344 with the caveats. Go ahead.
Read the first part.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Resolution No. 344 – a resolution establishing a
Police Officer Compensation Schedule determining criteria for movement within
the schedule and providing for placement on the salary schedule of the new
sworn officers with prior experience. With that, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: Bird, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; De Weerd, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5. Tabled from October 3, 2000: FP 00-018 Request for Final Plat
approval of 61 building lots and 3 other lots on 23.02 acres for
Packard Acres Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates
Development – south of Ustick Road between Locust Grove Road
and Vintage Lane:
Corrie: Item No. 5 has been requested – that we table Item No. 5 on the Packard
Acres Subdivision No. 2 until November 8, 2000.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we table Item No. 5 – request for Final Plat approval of
61 building lots and 3 other lots for Packard Subdivision to November 8, 2000.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table Item No. 5 – the Final Plat on
Packard Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of
the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: I might add, too, to the people in the audience that Item No. 7, which is a
continued public hearing on the Waltman Court Subdivision has been requested
to continue that to November 8, 2000 as well. So if you’re here for that, you may
not want to stay for the public hearing on the landscaping, but you’re certainly
welcome to.
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from September 13, 2000: Proposed
changes to the Landscape Ordinance by the City of Meridian:
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 19
Corrie: Item No. 6 is a continued public hearing from September 13, 2000. This
is a proposed change to the Landscape Ordinance by the City of Meridian. At
this point, I’ll reopen the continued public hearing and invite Steve to speak first.
Siddoway: Mayor Corrie and members of the Council. This is the proposed
Landscape Ordinance for the City of Meridian. When it was before you last
month, we went through that ordinance section by section in some detail, which I
won’t do tonight. I will be here for any specific questions you might have. At the
end of that meeting, it was requested that staff meet with the Building
Contractor’s Association Representative, Richard McCaughy, so the others who
were into tenants who had some concerns and iron out those concerns. We did
meet and we did go through the memo from the Building Contractor’s Association
dated September 13. I believe it was a very productive meeting. We came to
some agreements and compromises which are reflected in a memo to you dated
October 16, 2000 – three pages long and that is our response. The changes that
I feel are – I recommend these changes to you as part of the proposed
Landscape Ordinance. On the last page, there’s also a section where I did also
meet with Walt Morrow and there is a single proposed revision that comes from
that meeting. You should also have a separate memo with the same date –
October 16
th
with two items on it that details to other minor modifications that
we’d like to add one requesting a reduced 11 X 17 plan with all applications and
second, dealing with a minimum five-foot wide buffer along all pathways that are
designated in the Comprehensive Plan or the Park Master Plan. That’s all I have
at this time. I am willing to take questions or anything you might have.
Corrie: Any questions, Council, of staff? Since this is a continuation of the public
hearing, I invite the public for comments at this point. Any comments?
McCaughy: My name is Richard McCaughy. Good evening, honorable
members of the Council and Mr. Mayor. I represent the Building Contractors
Association of southwestern Idaho and I’m sure we’ll have some additional
testimony from the actual practitioners in the field – that being our developers. At
this time, I’d like to state one concern. We received this memo yesterday
afternoon at which time I had to conduct a meeting of one of our membership
Councils. Tonight was the Board of Directors meeting. We have not had an
opportunity aside from myself to sit down and review this memo as against the
most recent draft ordinance. For that reason alone, I think it would be a little bit
hasty to act on this ordinance tonight. I’m sure we could have some productive
discussion. I commend Mr. Siddoway. Most of the issues that we did cover have
been addressed in this, but there still are some concerns as to how this may
actually play out. We are still concerned a bit about the criteria for accepting
storm water detention facilities to count against the open space requirements. I
am not sure looking at the memo if our concern about a licensed landscape
architect being required for the submission of landscape plans has in fact been
changed to at least 50 acres from the 5 acres, which we felt was – Number one,
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 20
we’d keep a lot of qualified people out of doing business in this area. Secondly, it
would be a real hindrance to infill projects on smaller properties. As you well
know, this city and every other city – it seems to be more expensive to develop
and redevelop infill than it is to go out on flat, open ground that was previously
unused or agricultural land, so we’re very concerned about that. At this point, I
understand the need for action, but this has gone on for some time and I think
providing us with another week or two until the Council session to allow our
people – I represent – Our membership has not had an opportunity to go through
this memo and compare it back to the most recent draft ordinance and see, in
fact, what the final document would look like. Without the ability to do that, it’s
very difficult for us to really make reason to arguments one way or another and
there’s a number of issues that we felt were more applicable and either an
administrative guideline or a policy manual that are still contained in this
ordinance and I found it very strange that your Landscape Ordinance is longer
and thicker than Boise’s proposed storm water retention – well, the erosion,
sediment, and dust control ordinance, which is a very technical document that
Boise City has been working on for almost two years, and it’s actually a more
concise and brief document than this. That is because much of the language
contains in this ordinance, we still believe should be part of administrative
guidelines or policy manual. They address the intent of the City and the basic
overview that you have of the situation and it tends – in my opinion, I think and
our association’s opinion, it tends to clutter the ordinance and makes it a little
confusing in places. But, again, as I see this, much of this is still subject to the
City Attorney’s review and approval. Where that may go, I certainly can’t predict.
I’m not an attorney myself, but that’s really what I have to say at this point. But I
think we’ve made some very serious progress and some of the things that we
really had problems with have been addressed and either changed or removed,
so we do appreciate that. It’s just that we’re approaching the last stage of fine-
tuning this and I just simply not had the opportunity to get our membership
together and to get them copies of this and to sit down with several people and
just go through it and do what I had limited time to do yesterday afternoon and
early this morning – was to sit there and take the most recent draft ordinance and
go through point by point in the memo and see how that effects the language in
the ordinance itself. As I said, our membership has really not had that
opportunity and I think I’ll certainly let some of them speak for themselves on this
particular issue, but I’ll stand for – again, I must commend staff. I must commend
Steve for – that was a very productive meeting. It lasted about three and a half
hours, I believe. But we did go through it point by point and I think we’ve got the
makings of something that will work here, but I’m just not comfortable saying
thumbs up or thumbs down at this point because frankly, I’ve not heard from the
people I represent. I’ll stand for questions.
Corrie: Yes. I have a question. We received this October 16, 2000. Why did
you not get it until yesterday?
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 21
McCaughy: Mr. Mayor, yesterday was the 16
th
. We received this document
yesterday at 1:47 p.m.
Corrie: I’m still in November. I’m sorry.
McCaughy: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I was hoping you would have
more opportunity because we did have a Developer’s Council meeting
scheduled, but I couldn’t get this information out to the members prior to that
meeting, so it makes it very difficult to focus in on what we needed to do. That’s
just what I’m saying here, but I think we’ve made some real progress, and I think
some members of the association might be wanting to testify about some specific
issues, but that’s our position at the moment.
Corrie: I stand corrected. I got my months. Anyone else?
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is David Turnbull. My
office address is 12426 West Explorer Drive and you may have noticed me here
in the second row trying to cross-reference these documents. As Richard said, I
just received my copy. I did send a letter early on in the process and I’ve been
looking to see if any of the issues that I’ve raised in that letter were addressed in
the latest drafts that I have. I haven’t seen any of those issues. Well, I shouldn’t
say “any” because I haven’t had a chance to quite review this totally, but I think
there are some issues that I still have some concerns about. I don’t know if the
Council would like me to go through those tonight. I feel much like Richard said
– that I do commend Steve for his work on this. I don’t think that that is ready to
go forward at this point. I would have hoped that when this process began, that it
possibly could have involved developers and builders, members of the Building
Contractor’s Association for beginning in a cooperative effort to come up with the
landscape ordinance that we think can be implemented in work. I would like to
say that we have been a proponent for a number of years of requiring some of
these things. I remember back in the good old days when people would develop
right up to the back of the sidewalk and you’d have your six-foot Cedar fence
right up against the back of a sidewalk on an arterial drive. I think that’s the
blight of our community. So we’ve long been in favor of street buffers and other
landscaping provisions that would beautify our city. But the restrictions, I think
that come along with this document, as I understand it – existing in the present
form – I don’t think are totally workable. I think there are some good things that
are workable in it. With some additional modifications, I think it’s something that
the City would be proud of. If you’d like me to go through some of the specifics, I
can. I guess I would be better prepared after I had had a chance to review the
document that the BCA received yesterday in conjunction with the Building
Contractor’s Association. If we would be allowed that opportunity, we would
appreciate it. Otherwise, I’ll stand for your questions and address some of my
specifics if you like. Thank you.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 22
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Just a comment. We would welcome your comments and since you
have not had a chance to read this latest document put out by Steve, I would
encourage you to sit down and read that and then just maybe contact Steve and
address your concerns with him in that format. We would like to know what
those are and we do want to proceed cautiously and get this thing right the first
time.
Turnbull: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councilman Anderson. We’d be happy to
do that.
Corrie: Any comments? Is there any – Richard, do you think the meeting on
November 8
th
will leave you enough time to get with staff and also for you to
make those recommendations to staff? These are some of the things that staff
has agreed to and maybe hear your points and other people that might be able to
talk to him. Would that give you enough time? I want to give you enough time
because this is something that the City is putting together and with your help –
David, would that be alright with you at that time?
Turnbull: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Is that a Wednesday meeting? Take an election night
off?
Corrie: The seventh is election night, so it would be the Wednesday.
Turnbull: Yes, that would work. That would be great. We would appreciate it.
Anything else?
Corrie: Anyone else in the public that would like to issue testimony at this point?
I think it’s pretty well thought – Yes, Larry. Sorry. You’re always welcome to
speak.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 East Park Center
Boulevard, Boise, Idaho. Usually when I come in front of you, I’m a lot more
prepared than I am tonight. I think I got up on the wrong side of the bed this
morning. I want you to know that at the Planning and Zoning Commission, I
testified in favor of this ordinance. At that time, I was well versed on it. I
understand from testimony tonight that there’s been some modifications to it. I
am not familiar with those modifications, but as a commercial developer – and
I’ve developed about 130 acres in Meridian in the last five years – commercial
property. I’m a proponent of landscaping and I’m glad to see that Meridian is
getting with the program in getting a solid ordinance that everyone can
understand. My concern – I don’t know what modifications, if any have been
made. One of the concerns I had at the Planning and Zoning, I encourage you to
come up with a good, solid ordinance. Large plantings are good for the city in
the long run. I have developed a lot of areas all over the country and the city that
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 23
has the courage to come up with an ordinance with a heavy planning program,
they look better. You know it the minute you drive in and I just really encourage
you to stay with that plan. I’ll happily answer any questions that you may have.
De Weerd: I was afraid you were going to bring up snow removal.
Durkin: Snow removal and trees?
Bird: We don’t have snow here, do we?
Anderson: Snow in this valley?
De Weerd: It’s an old P and Z joke.
Corrie: Thank you, Larry. Anyone else at this point. Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’d like to ask Steve just for public knowledge. Who was the committee that
laid this out, Steve – that worked on this?
Siddoway: The core committee was formed by Brad Hawkins-Clark, Tammy de
Weerd and myself. We broke the ordinance out into topics and we met on those
topics weekly. At each weekly meeting, there were professionals or specialists
on that topic. If we were dealing with tree sizes and availability, we brought in
nursery men. If we were talking about parking lot standards or storm water, we
brought in Boise Storm Water Specialists, et cetera. Each meeting, there was
the core group of Brad, Tammy and myself and then additional specialists
dealing with the topic at hand. A draft was formed and that draft was sent out to
over 50 developers, builders, engineers, landscape architects, architects,
citizens, plus dozens more that were just requested at the counter. The Building
Contractors’ Association did receive a copy of that original draft back in August of
1999 as well as two memos requesting feedback on it. The first feedback we
received was at the hearing. Unfortunately, we would have loved to have them
involved earlier on just as they testified they wanted to be. Frankly, we would
have liked that, too. But we – (inaudible) Core Committee. There were
specialists brought in and then that draft was sent out, I guess is the point.
Those comments were received and incorporated into a revised draft which then
started the hearings process.
Bird: Thanks, Steve. Nice job, too. With that, Mayor, I would move that we
continue this public hearing on the proposed Landscape Ordinance by the City of
Meridian to November 8, 2000.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 24
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the public hearing of the
proposed change in Landscape Ordinance by the City of Meridian until
November 8, 2000. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of
the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from October 3, 2000: PP 00-014
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 building lots and 1
other lot on 8.29 acres for proposed Waltman Court Subdivision
by John and Sandra Goade – Waltman Lane and SW 5
th
Street:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is a request to continue the public hearing until November 8,
2000 on the Waltman Lane Subdivision so that they can get further clarification
with the ACHD Highway Commission. Without any other discussion, I’ll entertain
a motion on that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue the public hearing for the Preliminary Plat of 5 building
lots and 1 other lot on 8.29 acres of proposed Waltman Court Subdivision by
John and Sandra Goade – Waltman Lane and SW 5
th
Street to November 8,
2000.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the public hearing on Item No. 7
until November 8, 2000 on the request for Preliminary Plat of Waltman Lane
Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8. Public Hearing: VAC 00-008 Request for vacation of the
easement common to lots 14, 15, 18 and 19 of Block 2 in Honor
Park Subdivision No. 3 in a C-G zone by Briggs Engineering –
south of Franklin Road abutting the west side of Stratford Drive
generally between Scenery Lane and Schiller Lane:
Corrie: Item No. 8 is a public hearing – a request for vacation of the easement
common to lots 14,15,18 and 19 of Block 2 in Honor Park Subdivision No. 3 by
Briggs Engineering – south of Franklin Road abutting the west side of Stratford
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 25
drive generally between Scenery Lane and Schiller Lane. At this point, I’ll open
the public hearing and invite staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is somewhat of a clean-up item from a
previous application we had for a Conditional Use Permit for the Capital
Educators Credit Union that was approved on these four lots. The initial map
that was presented with the application showed only this easement here that’s
adjacent to those lots. I did receive a new plan today. I can give a copy to you
and to the City Clerk for his files. It would also include the easement that’s on
the interior lot lines five feet each side of lots 14 and 15 and 18 and 19. They are
requesting those to be vacated so they can build the building on these four lots.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing on the vacation. Is there
anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony on this request for
vacation of easement? Okay. Hearing none. Council, any questions for the
staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: 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. 8 –
request for vacation of easement. Any further discussion? All those in favor of
the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Any discussion, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I am sorry. I move that we approve the vacation of easement
on common lots 14, 15, 18, 19 of block two on Honor Park Subdivision No. 3 in a
C-G zone – Franklin Road abutting the west side of Stratford Drive, generally
between Scenery Lane and Schiller Lane and for the attorney to draw up the
proper papers.
Anderson: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 26
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for vacation of
easements on common lots – Item No. 8 and have the attorney draw up the
proper papers for the request. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call
vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With your permission, could we have about a ten-minute break?
Corrie: You bet. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING READJOURNED AT 9:49 P.M.
Item 9. Public Hearing: VAR 00-018 Request for variance to the current
Landscaping Ordinance to permit landscaping in compliance with
the proposed Landscaping Ordinance by Power Engineers c/o
Micron Technology d/b/a Crucial Technology – off Eagle Road
between Franklin Road and Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Let’s call the meeting back to order. We’re on Item No. 9, which is a
public hearing – request for variance to the current Landscaping Ordinance to
permit landscaping in compliance with the proposed Landscaping Ordinance by
Power Engineers c/o Micron Technology d/b/a Crucial Technology – off Eagle
Road between Franklin Road and Fairview Avenue. At this time, I’ll open the
public hearing and hear staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is a request for a variance on the Landscape
Ordinance and it’s only the portion of the existing ordinance that requires three-
inch caliper trees. Three-inch caliper trees are very hard to come by, particularly
at this time of year. A lot of the projects we have are just simply not able to
provide those trees. We have, in the past, allowed as a policy, that if they can’t
meet the three-inch caliper tree requirement – if they exceed the total caliper
inches required by ten percent, we would allow them to go down to two-inch
caliper trees. They are proposing a total of 127 – the ordinance calls for 127
three-inch caliper trees. They currently have 11 existing trees on site and they
are proposing an additional 121 trees. As you can see from the plan, they pretty
much maximized where they can put the trees. It will be a very nice landscape
plan. The only trees that currently exist are along the frontage of East
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 27
Commercial Court. Albertson’s Sundries will be providing trees on their portion
of their lot where the Sundries Center is, and as you can see, they are providing
trees all around the perimeter and also within the parking lot. So staff
recommends approval to reduce the caliper requirement from three-inch to two-
inch. Thanks.
Corrie: And that’s with the 121 trees?
Stiles: It would be a total of –
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, is that – is the 11 existing – are they two or three-inch caliper?
Stiles: They’re probably – some of them getting to three or four. They’ve been
there a while. They were there when Richardson Labs was there.
Corrie: Any other questions for staff? Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there
anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none.
Council, do you have any questions for the public hearing record?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing none. 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. 9 –
request for a variance. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: All right, Council.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order in favor for the request for variance to the current landscape
ordinance to permit landscaping in compliance with the proposed Landscape
Ordinance off of Eagle Road between Franklin Road and Fairview Avenue for
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 28
Micron Technology – Crucial Technology and that is 11 existing trees and 121
two-inch caliper trees.
De Weerd: Second.
Bird: Motion made and seconded to approve the variance request and have the
attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with this – having
the stipulation of 121 trees with two-inch caliper. Any further discussion?
Hearing none. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; De Weerd, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10. CUP 00-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
telephone call center in an I-L zone by Power Engineers c/o Micron
Technology d/b/a Crucial Technology – off Eagle Road between
Franklin Road and Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Item No. 10 is a request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a telephone
call center in an I-L zone by Power Engineers c/o Micron Technology d/b/a
Crucial Technology – off Eagle Road between Franklin Road and Fairview
Avenue. Is this the public hearing?
Stiles: No, it’s not.
Corrie: Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is a request to change the use of the building
so it is entirely office. They are using it for their call center – Micron call center
for Crucial Technologies in a light industrial zone. Strictly office use is prohibited.
It needs to be a combination of warehouse and office. That was what it was
previously. They desire to convert it to entire office use and that’s the reason for
the Conditional Use Permit. We would ask that you approve the Conditional Use
Permit with the comments noted in our staff report.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari, I noticed in the recommendation from Planning and Zoning –
1.16 on page 4 that you had asked for five-foot wide sidewalks and the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended that they not be required. Do you have
any concerns about that?
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 29
Stiles: We had, as a standard comment, asked for that. That’s just one of our
typical comments that we include. However, as you can see in this, this was a
county subdivision and when the subdivision was platted, no sidewalks were
required anywhere within the development. Coors is up here and Albertson’s
Sundries is back here. It’s not likely that there is going to be a lot of pedestrian
traffic, so staff would agree with Planning and Zoning Commission’s
recommendation to not require the sidewalk because it would just be limited to
this area right here.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, 1.14, just above that – those are three-inch caliper trees.
Stiles: That was a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
They don’t act on variances and so if those recommendations are – I mean,
that’s just their recommendation. It didn’t need to be included in the Findings.
Corrie: Any other questions of staff? Is the representative from Micron here
today?
Kaiser: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Richard Kaiser. I’m an
architect with Power Engineers. We’ve been brought on to do the design of the
remodel of the Crucial Technology building. Currently – just go over briefly what
the building is now – approximately 1/3 of it is a call center. It currently holds
approximately 120 people. In the office space, which is the space on the right of
the plan – east side. The west portion of the building is currently warehouse light
manufacturing shipping facility for their products going out of there. That area
holds – right now houses about 30 employees. The idea here is over the next
approximately two or three-year period, in phases, we would expand the call
center office areas to the west to ultimately take over the remainder of the
building - to an ultimate population of about 500 – 500 employees in there. We
were just approved for another stage of the office phase which brings us right to
about 50 percent once that’s built out – 50 percent built out to this call center.
That will bring us roughly to 160 employees in the call center area. Once we got
to that point, that was kind of the threshold between it being an accessory use
and actually being more in use of the call center. I’m open to any questions you
might have in that regard.
Corrie: Any questions, Council. Hearing none. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 30
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I have a question for the attorney. On 1.14, we don’t have to
eliminate that because the variance addresses it. Does that not?
Nichols: Councilwoman De Weerd, Mayor, members of the Council. As I
understand, the variance application applied to this particular property and
therefore, that condition would be modified by the variance.
De Weerd: So we don’t have to modify the recommendations.
Nichols: But you could go ahead and modify the recommendation in accordance
with the variance and that way, anybody that looks at these findings knows
what’s required.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we instruct the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order to approve the request for
Conditional Use Permit to allow a telephone call center in an I-L zone by Power
Engineers c/o Micron Technology doing business under Crucial Technology and
to note the change on page 4 of the Planning and Zoning recommendations to
include in 1.14 a note to modify in accordance with the variance granted.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit
subject to changes as noted in the motion 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. Berg.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11. FP 00-020 Request for Final Plat approval of 29 building lots and 3
other lots on 9.27 acres for Ashford Greens No. 5 in an R-4 zone
by Brighton Corporation – north of Cherry Lane and east of Black
Cat Road:
Corrie: Item No. 11 is a request for Final Plat approval of 29 building lots and 3
other lots on 9.27 acres for Ashford Greens No.5 in an R-4 zone by Brighton
Corporation – north of Cherry Lane and east of Black Cat Road. We had a letter
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 31
here from – I believe the Brighton Corporation requesting a couple of requests
and comments on the others. Staff, you first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. We do have a couple of items on this project.
This is the project that you just approved the variance on for the piping of the
Safford Lateral. The Safford Lateral runs between Golf View and Ashford
Greens No. 5 Subdivision. I don’t believe it runs all the way over here, though. It
stops right around there. The applicant has responded to our comments and
there are – looks like really three real issues. On Site Specific Item No. 2, staff
has requested that water assessments be paid for a back-up water system to tap
into the City for a secondary source which is required by City policy. The
applicant does not believe that they will ever need to use that system and that
the irrigation system that they will have in place will serve the project. The
problem comes when there is a dry water year and they – or else it’s an
unseasonably warm year when the water is shut off and there is no water to
provide irrigation for those common lots. That’s the reason for having the
secondary source. Staff would not agree to delete that requirement. Site
Specific No. 4, we had asked for perimeter fencing. The perimeter fencing is
required adjacent to the Safford Lateral. It is proposed as chain-link and that is
how it’s approved on the variance. However, if they have an alternate, non-
combustible fencing that they would like to provide, staff would approve of that.
They take exception to our requirement asking for perimeter fencing adjacent to
the golf course because that was not required in previous phases of the
development. I believe they have provided it adjacent to James Place. They
have put – I believe it’s rod iron all adjacent to that. We have tried to be
consistent at least recently in requiring the perimeter fencing. Part of it, not that
this developer – we haven’t had a problem in this particular development, but
when they have these lots that are adjacent to the golf course, sometimes it’s
represented that they have property further into the golf course than maybe they
really have. The perimeter fencing just serves to delineate their property line.
We’re not asking for a site obscuring or a solid fence of any kind. The only type
of fence we’re asking for is something that will delineate that property line – be it
a three-foot high or a rail-imposed or something like that that we would defer to
whatever the City Council thinks is appropriate there next to the golf course. On
Site Specific No. 5, we have asked for a common lot for the Safford Lateral. The
reason for this, we have tried to consistently require common lots wherever there
is an existing easement that has to be fenced off – that the property owners are
not able to use. The property owners – when they know that their lot actually
extends maybe to the center of that ditch, they tend to tear down the existing
fence and try to go out and extend their fence to the ditch and it creates problems
with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. They also did not want to accept
maintenance of that easement area as it is for the use of the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District and they feel the Irrigation District should be responsible for
maintaining it. Staff’s position is that Nampa/Meridian is not known for
maintaining those areas and we would like to be able to go to one entity and I
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 32
can see in the future that if the weeds grow up tall, and they have a hard time
getting Nampa Meridian to respond –
*** End of Side 2 ***
Stiles: - make the maintenance responsibility be the Ashford Greens Owners’
Association – that tends to help that problem. There is, on the north side of the
lateral, an existing roadway that the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District uses to
access that ditch and maintain it. So we would still like the common lot that’s
created along the Safford Lateral Easement to be owned and maintained by the
Ashford Greens Owners’ Association and for the Association to put the
responsibility on Nampa Meridian on whatever kind of maintenance they believe
they should be performing over their easement. Site Specific No. 5, note 12,
they have agreed to relocate the storm sewer into the right-of-way and out of the
20-foot planting strip that is required adjacent to Black Cat. Site Specific No. 11,
we’ve asked for an encroachment agreement so that wherever that fence is, the
fence that is built will need to either be on the easement line or we will need to
have a copy of an encroachment agreement indicating they’re able to encroach
within that easement to put their fencing. If they can encroach on that, they could
increase their lots a little bit. Without an encroachment agreement, they will just
be at the minimum lot size for the R-4 zone. They are also requesting Nampa
Meridian maintenance of that. We believe these items are fairly minor. Gary
may need to address the Site Specific No. 2, but we would ask that you
specifically address the fencing along the golf course and whether you deem that
appropriate and would ask that you approve the Final Plat of Ashford Greens No.
5 Subdivision with staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Gary.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members. I don’t think I have anything to add
beyond what Shari said on that issue of the back-up water and the water
assessments. It’s just a standard detail that we request for sprinkler irrigation
systems to make sure that water is available when the ditch water is not. The
applicant is probably correct. Most of the time, when the water goes out of the
ditch, they quit irrigating. But there have been years where water has gone out
of the ditch early and it was consequently needed at that point. I think that’s all I
have to say about that item. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Any comments or questions from the Council to staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: David, anything that you want to address to Council?
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, David Turnbull, 12426 West
Explorer Drive. I was watching the debates earlier this evening and practicing
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 33
my powers of persuasion. Gary will understand after working with him for 10
years or so that I always object to Item No. 2. We always end up paying it, it
seems. But I think my point in here is more philosophical discussion. Maybe
once in every ten years, you need to have any kind of back-up source and it
seems like we pay a pretty steep price for that – something that gets used very
seldom. I don’t pretend that I’m going to change that policy here, but I think that
tonight, on this application, but I think it’s something that the City ought to look at.
Site Specific No. 4, on the perimeter fencing of the northerly boundary, I can only
say that I wish the golf course had fenced off the property before they started
construction, then I wouldn’t have any T boxes or greens on our property, but
that’s just kind of a side joke. I do have one suggestion, though. Perhaps it
would be appropriate – I guess what I’m saying in my letter here is that I don’t
know of any other golf course community that requires fencing around between
the private home sites and golf courses. In fact, most people buy on a golf
course because they just like that uninterrupted green going out of their
backyard. Now I understand that we want to respect property boundaries and
maybe one of the things that would work is if we placed a wood post – not
necessarily a fence all the way across, but a wood post at each property corner
and that would help delineate the property boundaries of a more permanent
nature than a re-barb pin that’s stuck in the ground that might get buried up. I’d
offer that as a suggestion to help find those property boundaries a little bit better
if the Council would approve of that. Not only a point on the Safford Lateral – I
talked to Shari about that. I have no problem with creating the common lot for
the Safford Lateral. I think that’s appropriate. We want to be able to work with
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and maybe – I doubt that we’ll need the City’s
assistance in that, but to reduce that where appropriate so that they don’t have
any more easement than they absolutely need. We do feel that that is an
easement for their benefit. They are required, I believe, to take care of their
easements and maintain them and I think by placing a requirement on the
Ashford Greens Owners’ Association that they maintain it—you’re basically
letting Nampa Meridian Irrigation District off the hook for something that is and
should be their responsibility. I have no further comments. I’ll yield for questions
from the Mayor or the Council.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Just one observation with your suggestion on the post, I don’t know if
everyone golfs like I do, but they may confuse that for the out of bounds area and
to think that the yard is part of the course.
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, Council member De Weerd. We weren’t proposing to paint
them white.
De Weerd: A post is a post.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 34
Turnbull: But that is typical of most golf course communities that the typical
situation is there’s probably no fence. Some people do desire to fence off their
properties, which I think is fine. I think in most instances, you’d find that people
do not fence City owned golf courses – such as McCall’s is that way. Most of the
public courses around here that have surrounding development are that way. I
don’t know of any golf course that requires fencing between the golf course and
the private properties.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On that subject, David, you’ve done a lot of development. I don’t recall
we’ve had a subdivision come through to this one that required fencing on the
golf course. Have we?
Turnbull: No, not in our case. We did provide it around the James Place portion
because James Place is a gated community – as a security measure. That’s
why we provided it there.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I do have a little concern. It’s not a question, but I have a concern about
that landscaping maintenance on that lot. It’s going to be a headache for a lot of
people living back there. If they don’t and we try to get them to do it, I don’t know
whether the people that live there would be even happier to be part of the
association to keep it clean or to fight the maintenance people.
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, I’m not suggesting that they probably wouldn’t do it if it
came to that. I just think that if you require it of the Owners’ Association, it’s not
appropriate. It would give Nampa Meridian the signal that you guys do whatever
you want and somebody else is going to clean up your mess. It’s the easement
given to them for their benefit and I think that they should take care of it. All back
position, I’m sure that the Owners’ Association probably would take care of it if
the Irrigation District weren’t. I don’t think that it’s appropriate to ship that burden
to an Owners’ Association for another government body’s responsibility.
Corrie: I agree with you in principal. I just know the practical part of it. Let the
record show that I agree. It’s like a crap shoot. Any other questions? Anything
from the staff?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 35
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You brought up a very good point, David. I’d hate to see Nampa Meridian
get off, but I’ve seen some of the things they leave out there. Staff, how are we –
have we had anything like this where we’ve given stuff like that and then who has
taken care of it? Has it been the homeowners or – I’m like Mr. Turnbull. I don’t
believe we should let Nampa Meridian off, but I also know how they take care of
their parcels. Just drive down Cherry Lane and you can find that out.
Corrie: That’s exactly right.
Stiles: And that’s the prime example of why we want the homeowners to be
responsible for maintaining that. The first place they’ll call will be the City of
Meridian and they’ll want us to solve their problem. They won’t call Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District. They’ll want the City to fight their battle for them and
try to force Nampa Meridian to clean it up. If it’s noted on the plat that their
responsible for the maintenance of that. You know. They can individually fight
with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and say, “This is your responsibility to
maintain that.” Nampa Meridian is not typically going to look at a plat and say,
“Well, it’s your responsibility to maintain it.” The only thing Nampa Meridian is -
concerned about is maintaining it for access to their ditch. The don’t care about
the weeds and I think the homeowners will be much more responsible and do a
much better job than Nampa Meridian Irrigation District.
Bird: I agree with you, Shari, but I also think that by putting on the Final Plat that
it’s up to the homeowners, we are letting Nampa Meridian off the hook and they
can care – if they’re not responsible, they could care less what kind of mess they
leave out there.
Stiles: Can we put Nampa Meridian’s phone number on the note, then?
Bird: Well, I just wonder if we couldn’t put Nampa Meridian on the Final Plat.
What I’m asking is have we had this situation before and what have we done on
these easements?
Stiles: We’ve typically required it to be a common lot owned and maintained by
the Homeowners Association. That’s what the note on the plat says.
Bird: Okay.
Stiles: I know Mr. Turnbull had suggested that we turn over – that he turn over
the ownership of the whole easement area to Nampa Meridian but I would hate
to see that when the opportunity may exist for some kind of a pathway. Even
though it is a live irrigation ditch, it will be a nice place, I think, for people to walk.
I’m sure they will.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 36
De Weerd: They already do.
Stiles: If it’s turned over to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, that’ll just give
them more ammunition to say, “You’re on private property. Get off of here.” If
it’s owned and maintained by homeowners, its –
Bird: Yes. How about the walker staying –
Corrie: If I live over there, and knowing what David does in his lots and his
homes, I would be willing to pay because he’s top-notch over there. But that’s
personal. That’s personal. I’ll let you have one more chance at it, Dave. Go
ahead.
Turnbull: When I uttered those words to Shari yesterday on the phone, she said
– I won’t quote what she said, but she said something to the effect that she’d
hate to see that go to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for the reason she just
stated. I have to agree with that. I came to my senses. I think if the opportunity
ever avails itself on the Parks Department or an agency of the City were able to
make that into a walking path, I think that would be fine. Don’t get me wrong. I’m
not opposed to – whatever you decide here is fine. I just – I think that the City
probably has a Weed Ordinance and I don’t know when the City gets a complaint
on Irrigation District – rights-of-way or easements. I don’t know why the City
shouldn’t be the one to call Nampa Meridian and say, “Get this thing cleaned up.”
Stiles: They’d go to the owner.
Turnbull: That’s just – I’d hate to see them get off without any responsibility. It’s
for their use. They ought to take care of it. But, whatever you decide.
Bird: Mayor, I think Mr. Nichols wants to reply.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. For Mr. Turnbull’s benefit, since
Nampa Meridian only has an easement – an easement for irrigation works, the
person that would get the ticket for the weeds would probably be the owner.
When you say that they should maintain their easement, they maintain their road.
They maintain their ditch. But it’s a fine line as to whether that may be growing
between the edge of the road and the edge of the property – whether that’s really
their responsibility or not. So I can appreciate your frustration with them.
Everybody knows how difficult they can be to deal with. But in the long run, it’s
probably a more practical solution to recognize that all though there is an
easement there, those people will own all the way to wherever the next boundary
line is that the easement lays over the top of that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 37
Corrie: There’s a sample right on Cherry Lane. You see that fence that keeps
encroaching and encroaching more. Then half of them are over here. They do
come and mow it. Around the telephone polls – and that is growing six feet of
weeds and you have to, like the attorney said – we write the ticket to the
landowners and it gets to be a real kicking contest. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Discussion of Council. Alright. Then I’ll entertain a motion on the Final
Plat on Item No. 11 – Ashford Greens No. 5.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Final Plat approval of 29 building lots and 3
other lots on 9.27 acres for Ashford Greens No. 5 in an R-4 zone by Brighton
Corp. with comments from staff and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Anderson: Second.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Yes, Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I would have a question on the perimeter fencing on the northerly
boundary if you –
Bird: I’m sorry. I would like to add to that no perimeter boundary. That will be on
the north side. That will be up to the property owners – each individual property
owner.
De Weerd: Don’t you want those brown posts?
Bird: I don’t even think we need brown posts.
Anderson: Second definitely agrees.
Corrie: Any further discussion? The motion is to approve the Final Plat of
Ashford Greens No. 5 with staff comments with the deletion of the requirement
for a perimeter fence on the north side and the rest of the staff comments to
apply. Further discussion? Okay. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 38
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12. FP 00-021 Request for Final Plat approval of 129 building lots and
22 other lots on 68.44 acres by Bear Creek, LLC, for Bear Creek
Subdivision – east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland Road:
Corrie: Item No. 12 is a request for Final Plat approval of 129 building lots and
22 other lots on 68.44 acres by Bear Creek, LLC for Bear Creek Subdivision.
Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the Bear Creek Subdivision Final Plat.
I don’t see from their response that they have any issues with our comments. I
would like the Council to make their recommendation. We talked about
perimeter fencing in the previous application. We have the issue of the fencing
around the park site. The Parks Director informs me that they have agreed to
provide rod iron fencing adjacent to the park site. Our comments only indicated
that the fencing had to be provided at this point adjacent to the building lots,
which would be here and along these lots here. The applicant was responsible
for having a parking area in this location here. They are proposing not to provide
that paved parking area until such time as they have access through the public
street system. The Parks Director has indicated he would also like the rod iron
fence to be installed completely around the park with this phase of the
development. I don’t know if Tom has any other issues. We would ask that you
approve the Final Plat of Bear Creek Subdivision No. 1 for 129 single-family
building lots with staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Gary.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members. I’d like to bring one issue before you
as far as a condition of approval on Bear Creek No. 1. That has to do with
construction of the off-site sewer, which is a requirement because of the lift
station and pumping into the Ten Mile Creek drainage. At previous meetings
with the applicant – or at a previous meeting with the applicant, we discussed the
timing of this construction and I don’t believe – at least from our notes that a
decision was ever made as to when this would happen. The only decision that
was made by my department was that they would allow the development plans
for the subdivision to be submitted for review and approval as long as the plans
for the extension or the off-site sewer improvement were underway. The
question that the applicant has asked is when does the offsite sewer need to be
constructed. After conferring with my staff today, our suggestion and request to
you and to the applicant is that the off-site sewer plans need to be completed and
approved by the City of Meridian prior to City Engineer’s signature on the plat. I
know they’re underway. We’ve met with the engineer and preliminary plans.
He’s developed Preliminary Plans. I don’t think there’s much – well I don’t know
how much there is left to finalize those, but that was a week ago, I believe that
we met with him. We would further request that construction of the offsite would
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 39
begin no later than one year from the date of the Final Plat approval by City
Council and that the developer would post surety in favor of the City of Meridian
for 110 percent of a contractor estimate to construct the extension. There is
more urgency in developing and providing this relief sewer because of the
significant interest in development of property on the Ten Mile drainage in the
Amity Road area – Locust Grove Road area, so that’s why we want to make sure
this offsite sewer gets constructed in a timely fashion. This phase of this
development is approximately half of the overall project, so it’s a sizeable Final
Plat at 129 building lots. Also, another situation that needs to be dealt with is the
resurfacing – the proposal by the highway district to resurface Franklin Road
from Linder to Ten Mile next year. Because this offsite sewer crosses Franklin
Road at Linder, that could become an issue that will need to be dealt with the
Highway District. This crossing would need to be made ahead of that pavement
overlay. Of course, that depends on where the overlay starts. If the overlay
starts at the taper of – or the end of the taper of Franklin Road, then that is west
of this intersection and it wouldn’t be a problem as far as the overlay. However,
this pavement is less than five years old. That cut crossing still needs to be
approved by the Highway District as that section of street is under a five-year
moratorium. Those are all my comments on the offsite sewer.
Kuntz: Mayor and Council. There’s only two unresolved issues right now in
regards to the Parks Department and we’re in the process of trying to come up
with a workable compromise. One is irrigation water to the park site. It has to
come from a distance – from a shared pump house. There has been no
resolution yet on who is going to pay for that piping to the park’s property. The
second item which we haven’t resolved yet is an easement with ACHD on the
drainage swells contained within the park. Those are the only two issues that are
unresolved right now. We are meeting with the developer to come up with a plan
to construct the two parking lots and get the rough grading accomplished as well
as the irrigation system and the grassing that the developer has committed to.
Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Tom, on that rod iron fence, you want it to go across the south
boundary of the park, right? Up the east?
Kuntz: All the way around the perimeter of the park.
Bird: That’s what I’m saying – to cross the north. How about the west down the
road?
Kuntz: Yes, sir.
Bird: You want it a complete circle.
Kuntz: Yes, sir.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 40
Bird: Okay.
Kuntz: Not down Stoddard.
Bird: That’s what I mean. So you want it northeast and south perimeter.
Kuntz: Correct. We want the park open to Stoddard Road.
Bird: That’s what I thought. Thanks, Tom.
Kuntz: Thank you.
Corrie: Any questions of staff? Any particular comments from engineering?
Arnold: Mayor Corrie, members of the City Council, for the record, Steve Arnold,
Briggs Engineering, 1800 Overland Road. I’m representing the client, Bear
Creek, LLC here tonight. One point of clarification that we would like to ask for –
Mr. Smith indicated that it would be that our bond that we provide for 110 percent
be from the time that City Council approves the Final Plat. Assuming that that’s
done tonight, what we’d like to request is that because we are currently working
with the City Engineer and staff, we’d like it to be the one year from the signature
of the City Engineer if that’s acceptable. The Bond.
Corrie: Gary.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council. Our ordinance requires that all improvements
that aren’t constructed prior to the signature on the plat have to be bonded.
Arnold: That’s what I thought, but I thought it was from the approval from City
Council that you stated.
Smith: The construction, one year from the date of approval begins – the
construction begins one year from the date of approval. From the time that I
would sign the Final Plat, until construction, a bond would be in existence
guaranteeing the construction.
Arnold: The other issue – the irrigation – we have been working with Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District’s John Anderson, and unfortunately, he has been out
hunting this time of year and we have not completed this. We think what we
have worked at with the Parks Department, except for the – and in addition to the
parking lot that is not served by any public street at this time, we feel that we’ve
got acceptable solutions with the parks. I have no further comment. I’ll stand for
questions.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. No questions. I’ll entertain a motion on the Final Plat.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 41
Bird: Mr. Mayor, may I ask Tom one other question? Tom, on that rod iron
fence, how high do you want it? Do we need to specify that or what kind of a –
Kuntz: Well, I think in the negotiation process, we were talking about four-foot or
five-foot maximum.
Bird: Thank you. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Final Plat for 129 building lots and 22 other lots
on 68.44 acres of Bear Creek Subdivision – Stoddard Road and Overland Road
with the specifics offsite construction of sewer will be bonded for 110 percent
prior to signature of Final Plat by engineer and construction to be started by
October 1, 2001 and on the northeast and south boundaries of the park to have a
four or five-foot rod iron fencing all the way around and for the attorney to draw
up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Final Plat of the Bear Creek
Subdivision – 129 building lots and 22 other lots based upon the motion that was
given including staff comments.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; De Weerd, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Parks and Recreation Director – Tom Kuntz:
1. Patio Lease for Smoky Mountain Pizza at
Generations Plaza:
Corrie: Department Reports. The treasurer is not here. She did it last month –
the last meeting. Our Parks and Recreation Director, Tom Kuntz.
Kuntz: Thank you , Mayor and Council. Item No. 1 that you have in your packet
is the patio lease for Smoky Mountain Pizza at Generations Plaza. After review
by the developer and by the Parks and Recreation Commission, who
unanimously voted in favor of this lease at last night’s meeting – there was one
item which they would like to see changed and that pertains to no gates in the
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 42
perimeter fencing around the patio. They would like to see that stricken from the
agreement.
Bird: Where’s that at, Tom?
McCandless: I believe it’s page 5.
Bird: Yes, I see it. So what you want is any gates and the fence must be
approved in advance by the Parks and Recreation. Is that what you want
stricken?
Kuntz: Actually, as long as it’s left in there, that’s fine and then I just won’t
approve them. I thought it was worded a little differently than that. The second
and last item, which they would like to see changed, and this was from a phone
conversation with Scott Stewart today. They need to have a minimum of a ten-
year lease with Smokey Mountain and if they don’t, then they’re in violation of
their agreement with Smokey Mountain. As you can see, the way this is written,
the first five years is actually less than that. It commences on December 1
st
and
goes through September 30
th
, which should be about – Is that eight months?
Nine months? Ten-month period, and the reason that we structured this lease to
go October 1 through September is to revolve around our fiscal year, and both
the City Attorney and myself agree that that is the best way to structure this
lease. So, as a compromise, what I proposed to the developers today, so that
they can live up to their ten-year lease is that the first lease period would actually
be five years and ten months, so that it would go through – the first segment of
the lease would actually go through October 1, 2005, which would be five years
and ten months. Is my math right here?
Bird: Four years and ten months. You’re actually in five years, but you’re not in
five fiscal years.
Kuntz: Okay. So, we need this to run – the first term to run five years and ten
months.
Bird: So you need to go to 2005, then.
Kuntz: Correct.
Bird: Okay. You’ve got your ten months on 2001. You’ve got your first year on
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Kuntz: Okay. So we would need to amend the amount, and I believe that
amount was figured on a four percent increase per year, and then take that
through October 1, 2006.
Bird: You need to change the dates.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 43
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Tom, as far as the option to renew goes, would it be an additional five-
year term beginning at the end of that five year and ten months?
Kuntz: Yes, sir.
Nichols: So we’d need to change those dates as well.
Kuntz: I did have one other issue. It’s on page 9, Item No. 15. This pertains to
the garbage dumpster, and as you can see, Item No. 15, mid-paragraph. Leasee
will allow the leasor to dispose of six bags of litter per week. That’s based upon
that will have six garbage can receptacles there in the Generations Plaza when
it’s complete. In exchange for allowing them to access their dumpster, the
leasee will also be responsible for keeping the dumpster area clean and in an
orderly fashion. Shari’s office has gone through about three or four different
changes. To acclimate you, this is Pine Street traveling from 1
st
, traveling down
Pine Street. This is their new parking lot, which you can pull in. This is the alley.
This is 1
st
Street here. This is the vacated portion that we have discussed
extensively and this is the existing City Pine Street parking lot, which right now,
runs this direction and will be rerouted at their expense to run the opposite
direction. What we’re looking at, as an option to make it safest for the garbage
company, and we’ve met down there with representatives a couple of times now.
They’ve actually brought a garbage truck down there, which is a front load
machine. Originally, the dumpster was here, but it was turned so that they would
come into the new parking lot, come into the dumpster and then I believe they
would have to back out of this parking lot because this turning radius from the
parking lot into the alley way was not enough. It would come in here and grab
the dumpster in the front of the load here, and then since this radius wasn’t wide
enough, they’d have to back out here. Shari, you can jump in here anytime you
want to. What we felt was a safer solution is they would come down the alley this
direction and across this City property here to gain their – dump the dumpster,
then back up into the alley and then pull out our parking lot. So, in exchange for
allowing them to come across this, they’ve agreed to let us dump the weekly
trash from here, which they will be generating from their building. Anyway, to
allow that into the dumpster. Shari may have some comments.
Stiles: We just told them that we were not going to allow them to have the
Building Permit for this until this whole issue was straightened out because
instead of three or four, it’s probably been 10 or 12 different versions of this I
have seen. After this parking agreement arrangement was approved by Council,
or that’s what you felt your approval was, Ada County Highway District said, “No
way are we going to allow you to do that.” So I think they finally did go back to
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 44
Ada County Highway District and got this configuration approved. I know that
Tom was able to negotiate with them to get that. I think that that’s the least they
can do is allow you to dump the garbage there. What we were concerned about,
too, was their clean-up of the area, particularly since these little things here are
grease barrels that will be used by the restaurant if there’s a restaurant here and
Smokey Mountain Pizza – and wanted to make sure and I see that he’s included
in the lease agreement that if there’s any clean-up of that area required, that
they’ll be responsible for doing that. Hopefully –
Bird: Those are grease barrels?
Stiles: So, I don’t know. It was more out of consideration for Sanitary Service
Company than for this development. Otherwise, they’ll (inaudible) – they would
have to go down the alley here and then come out and then they’d have to come
out here just to pick up the one dumpster and then come back around – wanting
to cooperate for Sanitary Service’s sake and that’s why that proposal was
considered. We told them that we’re not approving any site plan that show this
configuration unless the City Council approves it.
Bird: How big of a dumpster holder is that? How tall is the things and
everything? It’s not going to be able to be accessible by kids, is it – coming over
the top, if you’ve got grease barrels in there?
Stiles: I don’t think they’ve shown any plans on it. I would imagine that’s going to
be six-feet high. It’s a six cubic-yard dumpster, which is the bare minimum.
Bird: Yes, but what about the grease barrel?
Stiles: Well, it almost looks like it’s some kind of a gate here.
Bird: Are they going to cover that?
Stiles: It looks like they have a wall that goes around on the three sides here –
Bird: Yes, to cover the dumpster with a gate.
Stiles: And it also looks like there’s a gate here.
Bird: The grease barrels are going to be in a separate area, aren’t they? We
might want to look at enclosing that.
Anderson: It is. It just doesn’t have a roof over it.
Stiles: Well, it would be enclosed because it has a fence around –
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 45
Bird: Well, I mean does it have a roof over it – a complete enclosure. I think
you’re required to do that in Boise, but I’m not sure. There’s a lot of things. I
think Ron will vouch for this. It’s very susceptible to flame. Kids could start a fire.
I think, in Boise – in fact, I know the restaurants my brother owns – they’re
completely enclosed and roofed over – if I remember right – for the grease
things. I think we’d better look into it, Shari. I think you and Tom ought to find
out if that is – Maybe Ron can answer. I don’t know.
Anderson: I don’t know what type of barrels these are – whether they’re all
*** End of Side 3 ***
Anderson: -- bring them out full and set them there or whether they’ll be going
out periodically and putting more grease into them or –
Bird: They have to be separated. They want them separated from the actual
garbage can. That’s actually a separate enclosure that’s hooked to it, Tammy. It
needs to be enclosed.
De Weerd: So, why – does it have to be by the garbage can? Can that –
Bird: Why can’t it be next to the building – back of the building?
Stiles: They don’t want it next to them.
Bird: It’s for fire, probably.
Anderson: It’s flammability.
Bird: I know. My brother’s are all off the building.
Kuntz: The other issue that I guess I’ll just touch on because it came up at the
Commission meeting last night and I was asked to address it last week -- Their
plans with Public Works show the drainage from the roof of this building is going
to be piped to this seepage bed underneath their parking lot, but instead of
running it in their attic, they were going down the back of the building to the
seepage bed. They ran it down the side of the building in two spots and then
piped it and asked for a permanent easement through this flower bed, as well as
their waterline – instead of running it in the floor of their building, they want to put
it underneath the patio and run it through this flowerbed and into the side of the
building. The Parks Commission, last night, voted unanimously not to allow them
to do that. I contacted Ward today and told him that they need to include all of
that in their building and not on our property. Now, I don’t know if that needs to
be included in the lease. I didn’t think it did.
Bird: That wouldn’t be in our part of the lease.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 46
Kuntz: But we will be making sure that that happens.
Bird: What was their objections to coming down like that? I know one on the
commission that’s done it in buildings before.
Stiles: What they initially proposed, when they brought in their site plans is all of
their storm water in City property.
Kuntz: A seepage bed.
Bird: I understand that, but to picture your roof and stuff – what they’re doing is
bringing it down the side of the building and coming down into a deal and then
they’ll run it into the seepage bed over there. It’s probably because of the
contour of the roof that they want – that it meets better at that location – than it
does in the back to get the stuff drained with all of your units and stuff on top. I
don’t see any problem with going through a flower bed. I believe this is done
quite commonly in the building business, but that’s strictly up to Planning and
Zoning and not me.
Kuntz: Well, we just thought it was strange that they wanted to do all that on our
property.
Bird: Well, you rent it by the square foot, don’t you?
Kuntz: The area that they want to run that through, Council member Bird, is not
included in this lease.
Bird: I know, but it would be a taken easement to go through that and actually,
what’s it going to hurt in your flower bed?
Kuntz: Probably nothing, until they need to tear it up.
Bird: Well, as long as they tear it up but they have got to replace it to back to
normal.
Stiles: They know that they can’t vacate it clear to here.
Kuntz: Right. So, on the lease tonight, I’m asking for your approval with the
changes on the first lease period and the dates being changed.
Bird: And also, the gates were okay. Isn’t that right, Tom?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 47
De Weerd: If there are no further questions or comments, I would attempt a
motion. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the lease for Smoky Mountain Pizza at
Generations Plaza with the suggested changes as noted by Parks Director, Tom
Kuntz and to also have them pursue enclosure on the trash and oil area and
have the attorney draw up the appropriate papers and have the Mayor sign and
the Clerk attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Good job. Motion made and seconded to approve the patio lease of
Smokey Mountain Pizza at the Generations Plaza with the changes of Mr. Kuntz
and also full enclosure of the grease area and have the attorney draw up the
proper order and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Any further
discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Kuntz: Mayor and Council. Just clarification for myself on the waterline and the
drain from the roof. If they can’t work out a system – especially on the drain to
where they can retain the piping inside their attic of their building and come down
the back, I just want to make sure I’m clear on your direction as far as how far I
should take this issue.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I think that as long as there is an agreement in place that anytime
those need to be repaired that they would pay for putting things back as they
were, we should be okay.
1. Update on Master Pathway Agreements with Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District:
Kuntz: Thank you. The next item is just a really brief update on the Master
Pathway Agreement. The Meridian Parks Department met with Boise City Parks
and Ada County Parks approximately three weeks ago. The Boise City Attorney
was also in attendance. We went page by page over the Master Pathway
Agreement and made some changes. Ada County and Boise City Attorney met
with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District’s attorney, Dan Steenson and those
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 48
changes were taken to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District Board today for
adoption, and then once that is in place, then we will get a clean copy that I will
forward to our attorney. Then we’ll be bringing back to you for your review at
some point in the near future.
Corrie: Any other questions for Tom?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: None. Thank you for your work on that, though.
3. Approval of Master Plan for Chateau and 56-acre
park:
Kuntz: No. 3 is what we covered in Pre-Council. I am requesting approval of
Master Plans for Chateau and the 56-acre park so we can proceed with RFP’s to
hire a landscape architect to do the design work.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tom, are you going to put both of them out for bid at the same time?
Kuntz: Yes, sir, but we will separate them so that a company can bid on both or
do one or the other.
Bird: Can I remind you to make sure in your bid documents that you get the
insurance – the Builder’s Risk Policy cleared up so that it is covered by the
general contractor – in your bid – if you don’t have other bid documents, we can’t
get with Mr. Gigray or Gary. Builder’s Risk Insurance, we would like to see
covered by the builders now and not by us.
De Weerd: The design –
Bird: Oh, the design is something else. These guys are going to be drawing up
the bid documents.
Kuntz: Correct.
Bird: And so this is just something to look – we would, as a Council, I believe
would like to see the Builder’s Risk Insurance covered by the general contractor
or the Construction Manager or however you do it. We’ve got to make sure we
get that in our bid documents or we can’t force it. Just a warning.
Kuntz: Is that a boiler plate type of thing that we need to have from now on?
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 49
Bird: It’s something I think that Mr. Nichols can – and Gary can certainly show
you what we need. Whoever you decide to hire, Tom, to do this, when they
prepare – I’m sure they’re quite familiar with it.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Tom, you know when Gary gives us this kind of stuff, he even gives
us the motion that we’re supposed to make, so you might consider that in future
correspondence.
Bird: He’s just getting bids, though. He don’t have one in particular right now.
He will come back that way.
De Weerd: What kind of motion do we need here? To approve the Master Plans
and give Tom approval to put it out for bid.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Wait a minute. You want to select a landscape architect first, don’t you?
Kuntz: We will do that from the RFP’s, Council member Bird.
Bird: That’s what I thought. But you’re not putting it out for bid now?
De Weerd: Does the second agree?
Anderson: Yes.
Corrie: Motion made by Mrs. De Weerd and seconded by Mr. Anderson to
approve the Master Plan for Chateau and the 56-acre park and RFP’s. Further
discussion?
De Weerd: Just with my apologies to Shelby.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
4. Approval of Consultant for Parks Comprehensive
Action Plan:
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 50
Corrie: Item No. 4 is the approval of consultant for Parks Comprehensive Action
Plan.
Kuntz: You should have in your packet memorandum from me dated October 13
in regards to this issue. Without reading it word for word, basically what
happened is after we got the Final Draft from Norm Landerman-Moore
Comprehensive Plan, it was still deficient in several areas. The Commission felt
like instead of trying to get blood out of a turnip, that we would ask for Norm’s
electronic files and then pay him for the balance that we owed him. Since we
were deficient in a plan that I felt like the City Council would approve and too
would not enable me to use the plan on a day-to-day basis when planning for
future park sites with the developers. I moved ahead and found a consultant who
I thought could finish up the component of the plan that was essential and that
was an action plan. Unfortunately, I did not go through the process of getting the
Council’s approval. Now I’m back-peddling. In your packet, you should have an
Exhibit A, which actually shows the work program and what the consultant will
provide for us that will be what we envision an addendum to the Comprehensive
Plan that Norm has provided. This went to the Parks and Recreation
Commission last night and they recommended approving the agreement with
Jerry Draggoo, who is now MIG. As it’s stated, we’re bout 20 percent completed
with the process. Again, I apologize for this coming to you after the fact.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tom, I take it this agreement, Exhibit B is not to exceed $10,000?
Kuntz: Yes, sir.
Bird: But the date up here, September 19
th
of I don’t know when until December
31, 2000 and you’re telling me that in August they were 20 percent done. I don’t
believe that the attorney would recommend that we sign a contract after the fact.
So that September 19
th
needs to be moved back to whenever you hired him. So
whenever you hired him, Tom, we need to change that front date there on
September 19
th
. The agreement shall not exceed $10,000. Is that comfortable
with you guys?
Kuntz: Yes. Actually, we’ve paid a percentage to where last fiscal year, we paid
them about $1,700 so the balance of what we owe him is about $8,000.
Bird: Okay, but you need to date that back to whenever you hired him.
Kuntz: In August.
Bird: Whatever date in August until December 31
st
. If there aren’t any more
questions, Mayor, I would move that we approve the agreement with Moore,
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 51
Iacofano, Goltsman, MIG; Incorporated for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to
attest.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the MIG Proposal Action Plan
and change the September 19
th
date to the August correct date and the Mayor to
sign and the Clerk to attest and not to exceed the amount of $10,000. Any
further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Has the City Attorney reviewed this?
Corrie: Yes. Any other questions? Hearing no other questions. Roll-call vote,
Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye.
C. Public Works Director – Gary Smith:
1. Creekside Arbour Easements
Corrie: Public Works Director – Gary Smith.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. The first item I have is an
easement request to approve an easement for a waterline. That is constructed in
the Creekside Arbour Development Apartment Complex. This easement is
necessary because all of the streets within the development are private streets
and this allows us access to the city-owned operated and maintained water lines
and sewer lines. This easement has been signed by Mr. And Mrs. Levelle and
the legal document describing the easement as well as drawings for the
easement are attached. They should be attached to your copy. I would request
your approval of the easement and acceptance of it so that we can record it. If
you have any questions –
Bird: I have none. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we accept this Creekside Arbour Easement and approve it.
Anderson: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 52
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Creekside Arbour Easement.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2. City Resident Water Service – Turn-off of Delinquent
Accounts:
Smith: Thank you, Mayor and Council. The next item I have is a request to
amend our turn-off of delinquent accounts. The letter that you have attached to
my transmittal sheet is a policy change that was drafted by John Shawcroft, our
Wastewater Superintendent and Water Superintendent and Leslie Howard, our
Billing Supervisor. It really centers around being around – being more – having
more of a convenience factor for our water users – our customers – them being
able to make their payment on the last day – Black Wednesday as it’s lovingly
referred to. This proposal would allow Water Department Personnel to accept
funds in the field at the point of turn-off, which it comes down to sometimes. This
payment would have to be in the form of a check or a money order. No cash
could be accepted and the Water Department personnel would need to be
bonded in order to do this. Also, it would involve allowing two staff members
from the Building Department to stay until 7:00 p.m. on turn-off day at City Hall
and payment after 5:00 p.m. would be accepted through a drop box so that there
wouldn’t be any access inside City Hall for security purposes. I think that we can
accomplish this by installing a mail opening in the glass – either door or side
window inside the vestibule. Also, a proposal is to raise the turn-off fee to $50
which would be collectible prior to turning the water service back on. Those four
items constitute the policy change request and the Water Department, with your
approval, would implement the policy changes for turn-off in November, which is
on the 29
th
because of the Thanksgiving Holiday. I think the only thing of all of
this is it really impacts the customer the $50 turn-on fee. That’s a substantial
increase over what presently exists and I’m sorry that I can’t tell you what that
number is. It’s not much. $10, maybe.
Corrie: $10.
Smith: Yes. $10.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Do we need a public hearing on that one?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. We need a public hearing in
order to raise the fee more than five percent and the other thing is we’d have to
have a basis for why that fee is $50. You’d almost have to do a cost accounting
of all the things that are associated in connection with that to show that the cost
is $50.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 53
Smith: We can do that.
Bird: I think that’s been done already, hasn’t it, Gary?
Smith: Yes. I don’t have that breakdown for you this evening, but it has been
done.
Corrie: You have to have a public hearing, but you could have all of it – I mean
do you want to do it in November without that $50 until that comes in –
Bird: What do you think? Do you want to try it? I think it’s a good idea.
Corrie: To try it, yes.
Bird: We have to leave that turn-off at $10, but do you want to try it?
Corrie: They can’t do anymore than holler at us anyway.
Bird: No, I mean with the $10 turn-off, but try this thing.
Corrie: I think so. We’ve discussed it with Gary and John and Leslie and I in a
couple or three meetings and we thought this would probably be the best way to
do it. Of course, with the fee, you can increase that later. We’d like to try it.
There are people that get off work at 5:00 p.m. They come here and it’s closed
and then they get frustrated and call me and everybody else. I would
recommend that you’d give it a try.
Bird: Well, you’ve got to administer it, so –
Corrie: Yes. Having what I said before – Leslie and John – we discussed this
and we figure that that’s really accommodating more people.
Bird: I think it’s a good idea myself.
Corrie: We’re meeting them halfway with this and you’re always going to get
somebody hollering no matter what. I think it’s a pretty good deal, myself.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: My only comment would be that I think the policy is good and the
changes that you’re recommending are good, but in addition to having the public
hearing – I guess the implementation time for me – I would like to make sure that
we give plenty of advanced notice and would send out notices with the bills going
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 54
out in November. I guess I would like to see us maybe shoot for more like a
January 1
st
start date on something like that and give them a couple of months
advance notice that this policy is going to be changing. That would also give us
time to do the public hearings.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I would say that we aren’t actually – Ron, as far
as – the only thing we were changing was the $50 shut-off fee, which we know
we can’t do that. This actual policy is a help to the people with their turn-offs. I
have no problem with when you want to implement it.
Anderson: It sounds like, from what I’ve been hearing from Billing is that there
are some people that are just habitual with this and the $10 is not significant to
them. So, if we give them a couple of months of saying, “Okay. That’s ending.
It’s going to be $50 and they can’t come whine. Well, they will, but at least you
take some of the wind out of their sails when they do come whining because you
could say –
Bird: So you want to implement this in January?
Anderson: That would be my preference.
Bird: Now, do we have time to get the public hearing in so that we can get the
increase.
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the Council. I think there’s kind of
two issues. One is you’re talking about the policy changes about having your
Water Department personnel being able to accept payments and those sorts of
things and you can make that effective as soon as they’re bonded and so forth.
What I heard from Councilman Anderson is the $50 charge needs to have more
lead-in time so people aren’t surprised. You can make that effective in January
and hold your public hearing whenever you need to in the next month in order to
have enough time before that comes into play. I also had a question which is
what is your fee for a bounced check?
Corrie: You accepted checks, not cash because there are some people – we
accept only cash from them because they have bounced them before.
Bird: Yes, but we can’t accept cash out on the job, Mayor.
Corrie: I understand that.
Nichols: But that’s my point, though is that – Mr. Mayor and members of the
Council. If you’re going to have a fee hearing on your $50 shut-off fee, and if
you’re only charging $5 for your bounced check, then you figure out your cost-
accounting on what you have to deal with on that bounced check so that when
somebody says “Don’t shut off my water. Here’s a check.” And they know
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 55
there’s no money in the account and the check bounces the next day when
Leslie takes it to the bank – or Rita or Janice or whoever. There’s an additional
kicker there as well as the shut-off thing coming into play again.
Bird: That would take another complete policy change though, wouldn’t it, Mr.
Mayor.
Nichols: Well, I think it’s just a fee change in terms of the – what the City
charges for an NSF check.
Anderson: I would think that – I mean – you’re already kind of giving marching
orders that they need to go back and justify the $50 accounting. As part of that,
they could figure out what our costs are going to be on dealing with a bounced
check and make that all part of the ordinance or whatever we have to do to pass
that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Anderson, do you agree with that? Let’s get the policy
change in November and then the fee change – structure change and then it
plays in January?
Anderson: Yes, I would agree to that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the policy changes in the City for turn-off
delinquent accounts and to implement the policy change in November if the
people are bonded.
De Weerd: As long as they’re bonded.
Bird: If the people are bonded – and that we implement the turn-off fee raise to a
cost-effective dollar amount by the end of January, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
De Weerd: Did that include the NSF charges as well?
Bird: No. That would be a cold City policy because we get – we get non-
sufficient checks besides other places – besides – They probably get a billing
department or stuff like that, too. That would be something that the treasurer
would have to do.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 56
Bird: The Police Department probably gets to collect on those.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve with the conditions as stated and
start in November with the people bonded and implement the fee raise cost-
effective by January 1, 2001. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the
motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
3. Water Hookup for Jerald S. and Jane E. Frank:
Corrie: No. 3. Water Hookup.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a Water and Sewer hookup request.
Actually, it was initiated as a sewer hookup request for Gerald S. and Jane
Frank.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Gary, have you received a letter requesting hookup from Mr. Frank.
Is that what the issue was last meeting?
Smith: Yes, that’s correct. I have not received a letter. I sent a letter to Mr.
Frank on October 4
th
to the address at 2310 South Locust Grove and it came
back undeliverable. The gals in the Permit Department had a – apparently a
renter lives here at this address and they had an address for Mr. Frank because
of the assessment that he had paid for the facility, so they resent the letter and to
this date, I have not received a written request.
McCandless: Oh.
Smith: I don’t recall when that letter came back. It hasn’t been that long ago. It
seemed like it was the end of last week.
De Weerd: But he paid the fee?
Smith: Yes. He paid for the sewer hookup fee. Correct. Apparently, both of
those were emergency requests and they came in immediately after the
telephone calls that Bruce Freckleton made to you. They came in immediately
and paid the fees and filled out the paperwork. I can’t say for sure, but I assume
they’re connected.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols, can we not approve this agreement subject to the letter?
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 57
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I’d say approve the agreement
and we get the signatures on the agreement. It’s the same thing as a letter of
request. We’ve got them bound with regard to issues of annexation and the
other things that we needed done.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the water hookup for Jerald S. and Jane E. Frank
on Locust Grove Road and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Corrie: Is there a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to the agreement for hookup of City of
Meridian Water and Sewer by Jerald S. Frank and Jane E. Frank and for the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Any further discussion? All those in favor
of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Will the City Attorney send the agreement out to
Mr. Frank or am I to do that? How would we do that?
Nichols: Mr. Smith, our office has not, in the past, marshaled the signatures on
that.
Smith: I can do that.
Corrie: Get that done. Okay.
Bird: Is this Jerry Frank from Petra?
Smith: Yes, sir.
Bird: Out in Black Eagle.
2. Water Hookup for Marvin A. and Violet Werth:
Smith: The last item is the water and sewer hookup for Marvin and Violet Werth,
also on Locust Grove – 2150 South Locust Grove. It’s a similar situation, with
the exception that Mr. Werth was at the hearing before you and requested that
he not be required to connect to water until October 30, 2002. That item is
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 58
included in this agreement. So I would request your approval of this connection
agreement and I will send it to Mr. And Mrs. Werth for their signatures.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we have no questions, I move that we approve the water and sewer
hookup for Marvin A. and Violet Werth at 2150 South Locust Grove Road in
Meridian, Idaho for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the water hookup for Marvin A.
and Violet Werth and the Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign. Any further
discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Human Resources Director – Pauline Skeggs:
1. Approval of Salary Adjustment Schedule:
Corrie: Approval of Salary Adjustment Schedule. Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I think you’ve pretty much already
done this. This was the – I am still a little bit confused and I need to talk to
Pauline some more. It was my understanding that Council approved a 2.7
percent cost of living adjustment and also authorized up to an additional three
percent increase based on the midpoint range issue for merit to pay in
accordance with the compensation system. I think there was a motion from the
Council to that effect. I don’t – I’ve looked at what Pauline has given me on the
current compensation resolution and I’m not sure anything other than what the
motion the Council has already passed is necessary. I mean we don’t – the
three percent merit raise was dependant upon the employee evaluations and all
of the stuff in the Compensation Plan. The 2.7 cost of living was across the
board, so I thought that had already been done.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’m like Mr. Nichols. I thought we had done that and we also understand
that there is quite a bit of difference that we will have to make up in our budget
adjustment next year – NO1 – that, we’ll just do at the end of the year. I thought
we had accepted this and we were working on – throughout this year, some kind
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 59
of a step program that we could implement for next budget year for the rest of the
city kind of like the one we’ve got for the police. We’ve probably confused
Pauline so much.
Corrie: Shari.
Bird: Gary’s got a question.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, I just had a question. I don’t have the paper with me and my
memory is not doing really well at the moment, but there was a handout at one of
our staff meetings that showed a different percentage of increase for merit based
on the results of the evaluation. Did I misread that? I thought there were three
different levels of increase. If you were evaluated at a three, there was a certain
percent of merit increase and four and five were a certain percent.
Corrie: There’s a total of 5.7 percent with the COLA.
Smith: How does that evaluation figure into that three percent? Was it three
percent based on a five or a four or a three or -- because there were three – I
remember three different levels of merit increase, but they were based on the
results of the evaluation.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, if I recall, I thought that was something that we had to
discuss later and that it was – For lack of time, it was just decided to do the three
percent average and let the department heads base it on performance. I would
imagine three percent would be average and or below nothing, so I don’t know.
Smith: So departments are allocated three percent of the total salary budget to
distribute however – is that how you’re saying?
Anderson: Why don’t we talk to Pauline before –
Corrie: She is basing it on 5.7 percent.
Bird: 2.7 of that is automatic to everybody.
De Weerd: Right.
Corrie: The three percent was based upon the merit.
Bird: She’s got a scale, and I’m like Ron. I think we had better just stay away
from it or we’ll put our foot in our mouth as usual.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 60
De Weerd: We also got recommendations from Gary. We had a couple of areas
that were of wanting further information on and Gary has provided a
recommendation on how to deal with his engineering tech positions and I would
like to have that integrated in here as well. I thought we had asked that one of
the planner two be listed as a planner three on this final sheet. That hasn’t been
done, so there’s still a couple of changes, in my opinion that need to be made on
this.
Corrie: Okay. Number three has already been in there. It’s just a matter of
putting it into planner three, because the scale is already there? Am I correct?
Stiles: Well, I hope so because I’ve made commitments to Steve based on what
Pauline has told me, so I was relying on the numbers that she gave me.
Corrie: That’s the number she got –
Bird: Excuse me, Mayor. Shari, what – now you say Steve. How about Brad?
Stiles: Steve – I don’t know if all of you know. Steve had received a job offer
from Boise City and it was approximately $41,000. So he wanted to know where
he would be with the City should he decide to stay. I got those numbers from
Pauline and she said there was an equity adjustment that was made based on
her reevaluation of equity in the Treasure Valley for planners. That would be a
certain percentage for an increase, and also, he’d get the 2.7 percent COLA.
That wasn’t including his three percent that he may be eligible for in January,
which is when his evaluation is. That will still put him above Brad if I make him a
Planner Three, which is what I intend to do, so I would have to go out of
guidelines to give him a little extra based on his lead position as a Planner Three.
De Weerd: Wouldn’t he get the increase when he was – when he moved to the
Planner Three? That’s why I understood the position was created – the Planner
Three position was created – for your next person in line.
Stiles: He would get an increase as a Planner Three, but that would still leave
him making less than Steve with the way it’s run now. So I would have to go out
of guidelines to make sure that Brad got a couple thousand more than Steve will
be making. Steve will be at approximately $39,000 something.
Corrie: Are you the liaison?
Bird: For what?
Corrie: For Planning and Zoning.
Bird: No. Tammy is.
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 61
Corrie: You need to get together – what you feel should be done – either in
guidelines or out of guidelines.
De Weerd: Okay.
E. Planning and Zoning Director – Shari Stiles:
1. Update of results on the complaint by John Wasson of
the lighting at the strip mall at the corner of Linder
Road and Cherry Lane:
Corrie: Shari, you had a Planning and Zoning Director update on the complaint
by John Wasson of the lighting at the strip mall.
Stiles: I drove past that Cherry Lane Center yesterday. There are still no shields
put around the lights. I have called Roy Brown, who is one of the owners of the
property at least twice a week for the last three weeks. I have had no response.
My last call was yesterday and it was a little more firm. I told him again that I
needed to make a report to the Council on where he was on getting those shields
installed. Since I had heard no response from him that I would need to turn it
over to the City Attorney at this point. He hasn’t even returned my calls. He
doesn’t answer his cell phone. He had promised me weeks ago that he would
put shielding around all the remainder of those lights and has made no attempt to
do it. It can’t be anything difficult to do. I could do it myself. I could get some
aluminum foil and at least make some attempt to do it.
Corrie: Bill, can we work something out with a summons or something to get this
taken care of?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I’ll remind you that you’ve built
into the retainer this year some civil code enforcement and I think the step would
be for Shari to get a file together and we’ll get it up to Larry Moore and Larry will
send out a Notice of Non-compliance. We’ll get their attention, and if that doesn’t
work, then we’ll start laying the ground work and we can get pretty nasty.
Stiles: So at first, it would just be a Notice of Non-compliance. Notify your office
within 10 days or whatever.
Nichols: We’ve crafted to the circumstance given why you’ve documented in
your file you’ve done about trying to call this person and let them know what is
required, and then we –
*** End of Side 4 ***
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 17, 2000
Page 62
Corrie: Okay. We’ll take care of it. That being the last on the Agenda, I’ll
entertain a motion to adjourn.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:45 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK