HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 09-19Meridian City Council Meeting September 19, 2000
The City Council Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by
Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 19, 2000.
Members present: Robert Corrie, Keith Bird, Tammy De Weerd, Cherie
McCandless, Ron Anderson.
Others present: Bill Nichols, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Will Berg, Tom Kuntz, Bill
Gordon.
Corrie: I’ll open the Meridian City Council meeting for the night at 7:30 p.m. and
I’ll have the City Clerk call roll, please. First off, I want to thank everybody for
being here tonight. I told the Fire Marshall to leave town for awhile and so he
won’t be interrupting our seating arrangements here. First off, I would like to
thank Mr. Foomer’s (sic) high school government class for being here this
evening and also for giving up the seats. They’re going to be leaving at about
8:00 and they said they didn’t want to interrupt as much as possible, so they
were standing in the back and – Thank you guys for coming – young adults, I
should say. Also, we have Troop 138 – is also represented here to see how
government works. I am anxious to see how it works tonight, as well. Also, one
little item that I want everybody to know is that we’re celebrating a birthday up
here tonight. Cherie McCandless’ birthday is today. So Cherie, congratulations
from the Council and the audience and Happy Birthday to you.
Bird: Let’s sing to her.
Item A. Approve minutes of August 10, 2000, Special City Council
Meeting:
Item B. Approve minutes of August 22, 2000, Special City Council
Meeting:
Item C. Approve minutes of August 24, 2000, Special City Council
Meeting:
Item D. Tabled from July 5, 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 September 5, 2000: Amended Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-032 Request for Conditional
Use Permit for 6.36 acres for a proposed Park-and-Ride Lot for
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 2
100 vehicles by Ada County Highway District currently in a C-G
zone – southwest corner of Meridian Road and northeast corner of
Overland Road:
Item F. Tabled from September 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-009 Request for annexation and
zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire
Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC – southwest corner of
Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Item G. Tabled from September 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law: PP 00-009 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval for 78.4 acres with 263 building lots and 12 other lots for
proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties –
southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Item H. Tabled from September 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law: VAC 00-005 Request for vacation of the
alley intersecting East 1
st
between Pine Avenue and Idaho Street
on the east side currently in an OT zone for Generations Plaza by
Gary Benoit – East 1
st
and East Pine Avenue:
Item I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-016 Request
for annexation and zoning of 10.19 acres from RT to R-8 for
proposed Wilkins Ranch Village planned-unit development by
Steiner Development, LLC – south of Ustick Road and east of
Black Cat Road:
Item J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-016 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 building lots with 1 existing home
and 5 other lots on 10.19 acres for proposed Wilkins Ranch
Village planned-unit development by Steiner Development, LLC –
south of Ustick Road and east of Black Cat Road:
Item K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-040
Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed Wilkins Ranch
Village planned-unit development consisting of 48 single-family
lots ranging from 5,252 s.f. to 9,525 s.f. in a proposed R-8 zone by
Steiner Development – south of Ustick Road and east of Black Cat
Road:
Item L. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-017
Request for variance from the maximum 1,000-foot block length for
Bear Creek Subdivision by Briggs Engineering – east of Stoddard
Lane and south of Overland Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 3
Item M. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAC 00-005
Request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation
easement along common lot line between Lots 22 and 23 of Block
10, The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 6, by Ron Leslie:
Item N. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAC 00-007
Request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation
easement along common lot line between Lots 35 and 36, Block 17
of Haven Cove Subdivision No. 9 by Glenn Blaser – east of Ten
Mile Road and north of Pine Avenue on Ebbtide Street:
Item O. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-013
Request for a variance of the 1,000-foot maximum block length for
proposed Bridgetower Subdivision by Primeland Development
Co., LLP, in a proposed R-4 zone – north of Ustick Road and east
of Ten Mile Road:
Item P. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-017 Request
for annexation and zoning of 52.90 acres from RT to R-4 by
Primeland Development Co., LLP, for proposed Bridgetower
Subdivision – north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile Road:
Item Q. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-017 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval for proposed Bridgetower
Subdivision with 106 building lots, 1 HOA recreation center, 1 park
lot and 19 common lots on 46.2 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by
Primeland Development Co., LLP – north of Ustick Road and east
of Ten Mile Road:
Item R. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-043
Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned-unit
development consisting of 106 building lots by Primeland
Development Co., LLP for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision –
north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile Road:
Item S. Development Agreement: Packard Acres Subdivision with
Packard Estates Development, LLC:
Item T. New Beer and Liquor License: Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill
& Bar by Restaurant Concepts II, LLC – 1460 North Eagle Road:
Item U. Resolution No. 336: For first addendum for franchise agreement
to perform solid waste collection for SSI to provide for the addition
of recycling program:
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 4
Item V. Resolution No. 337: To provide for the increase in rates and set
solid waste collection rates:
Corrie: Okay, Council. You have the Consent Agenda in front of you. What
would you like to do with that?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Item B we’d like to table to October 3, 2000; Item D tabled to October 3,
2000; We’d like to pull Item F to 1F on the regular agenda; pull Item G to 1G on
the regular agenda; pull Item H to 1H on the regular agenda; and U, the number
is 336, Resolution No. 336; and V is Resolution No. 337. With that I would make
a motion that we approve the Consent Agenda as noted.
McCandless: I’ll second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with Item B
being tabled until October 3
rd
and Item D to October 3
rd
and F, G and H would be
pulled and be the first items on the regular agenda. Is there 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 F. Tabled from September 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-009 Request for annexation and
zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire
Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC – southwest corner of
Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Corrie: Now, the Regular Agenda. We will take up Item F which is pulled from
the Consent Agenda. This is the Item – Findings of Facts Conclusion of Law:
AZ 00-009 – request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for
Autumn Faire Subdivision. Staff, comments.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The revisions to the proposed
findings after I received a letter from the attorney for the applicant pointed out
some corrections that needed to be made. I can go through those fairly quickly.
This is on the annexation and zoning. Page 1, we had incorrectly listed Langley
Farms as the applicant, when in fact it was Gem Star Properties, so we made
that correction. Then down to page 6 – what previously was Item 16.8 and 16.10
in the previous ones were duplications, so we just left 16.8 and moved the rest of
them up. Then, the next item, which was also on page 6, which is Item 16.13 in
the revised findings, they wanted us to designate where this pathway was going
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 5
to be so that they’d know exactly which lots were to be shortened by 10 feet.
That was what the testimony was. It was only along that southern boundary
where the Sky Pilot Drain is. So, it’s just a further clarification on the pathway
that was going to be provided as part of the development. Then there was
another duplicate portion which was eliminated that had to do with the donation
of the park site or in lieu thereof – in lieu of the impact fees the letter of credit. So
I simply just straightened that part of it up. Those are pretty much the only
revisions that were anything of substance that were made. Of course, the
corresponding conditions were also changed.
Corrie: Okay. Council, with those changes, do you want to motion for accepting
the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on
the request for annexation and zoning for 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for
proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC with comments
from legal counsel.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law of the annexation and the conditions of the Preliminary Plat
on G. with the corrections that were made by the attorney. Any further
discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote please, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item G. Tabled from September 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law: PP 00-009 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval for 78.4 acres with 263 building lots and 12 other lots for
proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties –
southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On Item G, again, there were
some corresponding clean-up of the proposed findings. Again, in reference to
Dean Langley, we incorrectly noted him as the applicant when he was the
representative of the owner, rather than the applicant. That was a change that
was cleaned up. On page 6, under Item 2.9, which had to do with the landscape
buffer, the minimum is 20 feet. They were proposing 20 feet, and we had down
as 30, so it should reflect the 22 feet that’s shown on the plat. So that’s a
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 6
correction that we made there. Then, in the revised Preliminary Plat that had
been submitted, one of the longer blocks had been broken up by a micro-path
which eliminating the necessity of going for a variance on the block length. So
we needed to reflect that in the findings. Then there were some items with
regard to streets that referenced ACHD recommendations which needed to be
revised slightly and then referral reference to the proposed park which is actually
in proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision 2, which has not yet come before you, but
that needed to say Autumn Faire No. 2 and we had to make that correction. I
believe there was another one which had to do with when the stub, street, sewer
and water to the proposed park site would be constructed that we didn’t have the
correct phase noted. So all of those things are not substitute – the major
(inaudible) changes just simply cleaning it up.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order for the Preliminary Plat approval for
78.4 acres – 263 building lots and 12 other lots proposed by the Autumn Faire
Subdivision by Gem Star Properties with the comments the City Attorney has
incorporated.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law on Item No. PP 00-009, Item G. with the comments of the
attorney included. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, Mr.
Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item H. Tabled from September 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law: VAC 00-005 Request for vacation of the
alley intersecting East 1
st
between Pine Avenue and Idaho Street
on the east side currently in an OT zone for Generations Plaza by
Gary Benoit – East 1
st
and East Pine Avenue:
Corrie: Okay. Item H was also pulled. This was tabled from the September 5,
2000 meeting -- Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law – request for vacation
of the alley intersecting East 1
st
between Pine Avenue and Idaho Street on the
east side currently in an OT zone for Generations Plaza by Gary Benoit -–East
1
st
and East Pine Avenue.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 7
Kuntz: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. We had a meeting with the
developer on September 6
th
and addressed a couple of issues that were still
outstanding that pertain to the Findings of Fact pertaining to this project. In the
memo that I gave you in the Pre-Council tonight – the biggest one is probably
Item No. 1 on that memo and I’ll try and explain it as briefly as I can. The total
value of the vacated alley owned by ACHD is $10,400. Originally, we were
recommending that that entire amount be paid by the developer to ACHD. Since
that time and as a result of this meeting on the 6
th
, we plan on trading a
permanent easement through the City’s existing parking lot on Pine Street
straight across for the vacated alley-way – the $10,400. In return, we will own
half of that vacated alley and the developer will own half of the vacated alley.
The developer will reimburse the City half of that cost, or approximately $5,200.
They felt it was unfair that they should have to pay for the City’s half of the alley
when the City would still retain ownership of that alley. In a spirit of compromise,
the Parks Department would go along with that proposal with the understanding
that the developer is still responsible for the improvements and the maintenance
to the entire 16 feet of alley as already outlined in the Findings of Fact No. 10.3.
I’ve also attached a drawing of the alley improvement designs with an
approximate construction cost. Those construction costs would be born by the
developer. The other issues, too, just to clarify and add to these Findings of Fact
that the developer will pay for half of the cost to replace the sewer line now since
Public Works has designated it needs / should be replaced now prior to putting a
new surface down in that alley way. And No. 3 is more for information than
anything. We plan on having a meeting out at the site tomorrow with Idaho
Power and FCC to look at the turning radiuses out of those parking lots and into
the alley ways.
Corrie: Any questions, Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Mr. Kuntz, what was the flow plan that was approved by ACHD? The
flow plan is to enter the new parking lot that will be built by the developer off of
Pine Street, come to the back of the alley and turn left and exit through our
existing parking lot. In addition, the alley way will stay the same direction it is
now and it will exit through our parking lot. There will be “Do Not Enter” signs
posted at the end so you can’t get into their new parking lot. You have to exit
through our parking lot.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tom, is that going to be a right-in and right-out?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 8
Kuntz: No, sir.
Bird: I think we need to discuss it with our Traffic Safety Committee and the
Police Department on that.
Kuntz: I think once we moved it down to egress from our parking lot, we’re far
enough away from the intersection whether we’re going to allow left and right
egress.
Bird: I’ve still got some concern because you have got people – you’re bringing
in right in at theirs, which is only 60 – 70 feet off of the corner where their parking
lot will begin. You have one that stops there to turn in and the other one behind
it, they’re going to come and (inaudible) try somebody come out on the left. I’d
still like to look at it going right in and right out. I think before we make that
permanent, we need to check with our Traffic Safety Committee and our Police
Department.
Corrie: Chief, do you agree with that?
Gordon: I don’t have a problem with that.
Corrie: Of course, the ultimate will be up to ACHD, but we can give them the
input from ours. Gary? Any other comments?
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I’ve just got one other. Is Mr. Benoit –
Corrie: Yes, he’s here. Gary, would you come up here? I want to make sure
that we’re all on the same page with you in agreement with this alley and
exchanging monies and what have you.
Benoit: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Gary Benoit, Stewart Laney Benoit
Company. I’ll feel questions or make comments. I guess I would make, first of
all, comments and perhaps that will answer some of your questions. Thank you,
Tom and his department in meeting with the Mayor. We appreciate the
adjustments that were made in the Facts and Findings and we agree with all of it
as Tom had stated. More specifically, Keith, to answer your questions regarding
the right-in and right-out, we did have Larry Sales over here. As a matter of fact,
they went over and walked the site and looked at it and measured it. That’s kind
of how we came up with that final configuration. The first driveway into our new
parking lot is a right-in only, and there is no exit out of it, and then the other one
would be a right or a left-hand turn. They felt like it was far enough back from the
intersection that they were comfortable with it. They did specifically look at that.
Bird: And you say it’s right-in only. We’re not going to cross traffic going in,
right? You say right-in only?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 9
Benoit: On the first driveway into our new parking lot is right-in, and then the exit
out of the City Parking Lot is a right or left.
Bird: But you can’t come in left. You can’t cross traffic coming into the parking
lot. Like if you’re going west on Pine, and want to turn into your parking lot, can
you do that?
Benoit: Yes, you should be able to do that.
Bird: Well, then it’s not right-in only.
McCandless: That would be left-in.
Bird: That would be left-in.
Benoit: Well, you’re right.
Bird: I have some problems with the left coming in. That was my main concern.
If we don’t have any left going out – but if you’ve got a car sitting there waiting for
other traffic to come, I think you’re going to have a real bottleneck.
Benoit: I think they probably looked at that and anticipate that there be a lot of
traffic.
Bird: What do you got between the two – the entrance and the exit of ours –
What are you going to have? 100 feet between them? A couple of car lengths?
Benoit: Yes, about 85 feet.
Bird: About 85 feet – a couple of car lengths. I think you have a real bottleneck
and then 100 feet down, you’ve got a stoplight. I don’t think it’s anything to shut
a project down with, but I think it’s something from safety viewpoint we need to
take a look at.
Benoit: I think their concern was probably more with the traffic that would be
heading east on Pine Street and turning into our parking lot. I don’t know that
they gave a lot of consideration for traffic going west on that particular street.
You know there’s ample stacking room. It’s not like – the concern with stacking
up, if they stack – if they were going east on Pine Street and they started
stacking the distance between our driveway and our corner.
Bird: The only way you’re going to stop that is right-in and right-out.
Corrie: Probably the only way you can do that is to put a barrier down the middle
of the street, because people are going to turn left into the parking lot –
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 10
Bird: That’s what I’m afraid of, Mayor, and I’m afraid that’s going to –
Benoit: I would wonder if it isn’t a situation that we could kind of watch, and if it
did become a hazard, that a barrier out in that street would solve that problem.
That wouldn’t be as great a concern to us as being able to get in and turn off
right, because that’s where most of the customers will come from.
Bird: I think it’s something we ought to have our Traffic Safety Committee and
our Police Department involved to make sure that is the way and have it – you
know, like you say, watch it. If we have to change, we have to change. That’s
my only concerns.
Corrie: Okay. That phone call that you’ve called me – that was what it was
about. Okay. Thank you.
Benoit: Any other questions?
Bird: You’re just happy with these agreements now?
Benoit: Yes, we’re fine with that.
Corrie: Thank you, Gary.
Bird: Is that what we’re approving?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: If there is no further comment, I am prepared to make a motion.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law for request for a vacation of alley intersecting East 1
st
between Pine Avenue
and Idaho Street to include the memorandum from Tom Kuntz, dated September
19, 2000 and to incorporate the suggested changes into the findings.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law – request for vacation of alley on VAC 00-005 and to include
the memo from Tom Kuntz and also the changes that were made. Any further
discussion? Hearing none. Roll, call vote, please.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 11
Roll-call: Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; De Weerd, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 2. Ordinance No. 890: AZ 00-014 Request for annexation and
zoning of 2.297 acres from R1 to R-4 for Randy Ware – Franklin
Road and Linder Road:
Corrie: Alright. Into the Regular Agenda, Item No. 2 is the Ordinance No. 890
for request for annexation and zoning of 2.297 acres from R-1 to R-4 by Randy
Ware, Franklin Road and Linder Road. Mr. Clerk, if you’ll read Ordinance No.
890 by title only please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Ordinance No. 890. An
ordinance finding that certain land to be known as the Randy Ware property as
lies contiguous or adjacent to the City limits of the City of Meridian, County of
Ada, State of Idaho and finding that the owner has made a request for
annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of
Meridian and zoning designated low-density residential district, R-4 and declaring
that said land be property. Legal description is described below: be a part of the
City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho repealing all ordinances,
resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith and directing the City
Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho
and directing the clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the
ordinance and map of the area to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder,
Auditor, Treasurer and assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of
Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: Okay. You’ve heard the reading of Ordinance No. 890 by title only. Is
there anyone from the audience who would like to have the Ordinance No. 890
read in its entirety? Okay. Hearing none. I’ll entertain a motion on Ordinance
No. 890.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 890 – a
request for annexation and zoning of 2.297 acres from R-1 to R-4 for Randy
Ware at the corner of Franklin Road and Linder Road with suspension of the
rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made to accept Ordinance No. 890 – a request for
annexation and zoning, Item No. 2, AZ 00-014 and to be approved with the
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 12
suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote,
please.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; De Weerd, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3. Ordinance No. 891: Proposed change to the Notice of Mailing
Ordinance by the City of Meridian:
Corrie: Item No. 3 is an Ordinance No. 891 – proposed change to the Notice of
Mailing Ordinance by the City of Meridian. Mr. Clerk, if you’ll read Ordinance No.
891 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. Ordinance No. 891:
an Ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Meridian City code Sections 11-
15-5B, 1B, Section 12-3-3I1 and Section 12-3-5B, pertaining to mailings of
notices regarding hearings on land use applications and providing that such
mailings shall be by regular first class mail and providing an effective date.
Corrie: Okay. You’ve heard the reading of Ordinance No. 891 by title only. Is
there anyone who would like the Ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none.
I’ll entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 891.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 891 – the proposed change to the
Notice of Mailing Ordinance by the City of Meridian with the suspension of rules.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 891 – the
proposed change to the Notice of Mailing Ordinance by the City of Meridian. Any
further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I just wanted to take an opportunity to explain a little bit about this
ordinance because there is a lot of people in the audience tonight. One of the
issues that’s going to be coming up later tonight, and one of the factors in that
was notifications. What our current ordinance has said that when we notify
adjacent property owners, the requirement is 300 feet within the property that is
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 13
being affected. They have to be notified by Certified Mail. What we’ve found by
Certified Mail is with a lot of couples that work today, a lot of times, that mail was
undeliverable because there is nobody at home in the daytime. This ordinance
will allow us to send out notifications by ordinary mail so that will be in the
mailboxes now and you won’t have to be home or go to the Post Office to get
that. So we feel like this is an adjustment just to bring us up a little more modern
and hopefully get the word out a little bit better about projects that are being
proposed.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Any other comments? Okay. Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. Just one more
comment. Since we do have a lot of retired people in our community, the first
class mailing allows it to be forwarded to their winter home as such, so it is a
better assurance that the mailings do get to the right people. Thank you.
Members of the Council, roll-call vote.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4. Resolution No. 338: Transfer of AT & T to Cable One:
Corrie: Item No. 4 is a Resolution No. 338 – transfer of AT & T to Cable One.
Just for the audience, modification on this one – this is just a name transfer from
AT & T to Cable One. It’s just a formality. If we don’t vote on it, it becomes okay
anyway, so I guess that’s government in its best form. Council, you’ve seen
Resolution No. 338. Any comments or discussion. Okay. I’ll entertain a motion
on Resolution No. 338.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve Resolution No. 338 – the Transfer of AT & T to
Cable One with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made to accept the Resolution No. 338 – transfer of AT
& T to Cable One. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 14
Item 5. Resolution No. 339: Schedule of fees for Fall 2000 Classes by
Parks and Recreation Department::
Corrie: Item No. 5 is Resolution No. 339. This is the schedule of fees for Fall
2000 Classes by Parks and Recreation Department. For the people in the
audience, it sets up the fees for men’s baseball league, Christmas Rubber
Stamping Class, Parents / Child Tumbling Class, Three-year Old Tumbling
Class, 12 and Older Tumbling Class and a beginning Boys’ Gymnastics,
beginning Girls’ Gymnastics and Cheerleading.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve Resolution 339 – schedule of fees for Fall 2000
Classes by the Parks and Recreation Department with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Resolution No. 339 for the
schedule of fees for the Fall Class of 2000. Any further discussion? Hearing
none. Roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; De Weerd, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2000: 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 7. Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2000: 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:
Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2000: 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:
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 15
Corrie: Item No. 6 is a continued public hearing from August 22, 2000. AZ 00-
006. Request for annexation and zoning of 12.73 acres from RT to LO 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. I will open
the continued public hearing at this time and we’ll try to set a few ground rules
here so we’re not here all night going over a lot of the same thing we did for the
last year and a half. This is primarily – we’re trying to get one of the Council
people that wasn’t here at the last time to read the records, listen to the tapes
and get brought up into the Council’s agenda here. We need to review letters
and testimonies and so forth. I will call on the City Attorney to kind of give us a
little background on what we’re looking for here and then I’ll add a little bit extra
to that and then we’ll start with the staff to give us a brief run-down and then I’ll
go from there.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Can we continue these 6, 7 and 8 all at one time?
Corrie: Oh, yes. Okay.
Bird: It’s all the same thing.
Corrie: It’s all together. One’s the annexation and zoning, Preliminary Plat and
Conditional Use Permit, so we’ll do all this. Okay, Mr. Bird. Bill?
Nichols: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. First, Mr. Mayor, I
would ask that any additional written submissions which had been tendered to
any of the Council members or the clerk up through this moment since the date
of the last meeting be added to the record.
Corrie: Mr. Bird, do you have any? Mrs. de Weerd? Some of these are going to
be duplications. I think we all got them but we’ll just turn them in and he can
separate them.
De Weerd Okay.
Corrie: These, by the way – the Council has – each one has got these, so we’re
getting the same thing but we’re giving them to the Clerk to stamp them and
make sure that we’ve received them for him. Okay. Council, was there any
personal interviews with anybody other than letters. You’ll have to go through
them. I need to go through one. I did have on September 14
th
at 3:00. It’s a
Thursday. I did meet with Shirley Fuller in my office and she wanted me to hear
some of her side of the projects, so that was done in my office. Cheri?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 16
McCandless: I have had no more interviews. One other that came in today, I
believe it was – we had a video and we need to run that for the Council. I don’t
know if the Council has seen it. I have. It takes about five minutes. Bill?
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council. I suggest that we do that before taking
any additional testimony. The next item on my checklist here was for
Councilman Anderson since he was not here at the beginning of the previous
portion of this public hearing on the other date to disclose any ex parte contacts
his had with any party to this development application and to describe who was
there and what was said. I believe the other members of the Council have
already taken care of that in terms of – they did it at the last meeting and also
with regard to any subsequent contact since that date. Then I would expect after
Councilman Anderson is done with the disclosure, he then can ask any questions
of the staff or the applicant that he has and also ask him to state on the record
what materials he has reviewed in preparation for tonight because I believe he’s
reviewed all the public record – the tapes and so forth. He needs to say that on
the record. Then we can take additional testimony. My recommendation would
be to the Mayor and Council that you take additional testimony primarily from
those that have not testified before. Redundancy is not a virtue in these
proceedings and I think there are ways of people that are here that agree with a
particular point and show their support and not by clapping but I mean by – we
know that traffic has been a concern in the previous testimony and they can be
counted. There is some mechanism for doing that. We have – there are some
who’ve testified before that believe they have new information to bring to the
Council. I would recommend that the Mayor and Council to consider allowing up
to five people who have testified before to bring that new information to you,
whether they be proponents or opponents – five on each side, I guess you’d say.
That way, someone who has testified before – if they have something new to say
or new to bring, they can do that. I would also recommend that you stick to the
three-minute time limit just like you did last time.
Corrie: Okay. Is there any objection from the Council with the recommendation
of the counselor?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I would like to reiterate two things. Try to keep it at three minutes for the
new ones and the testimony. Keep the clapping and the shouting down
whenever somebody agrees with them. That takes time and it doesn’t do a
whole lot up here. We’re after facts and that’s what we need. Okay, with that
being said, I would like to have the tape that was been entered in – shown at this
time, so City Clerk, if you’ll do that for the Council.
Bird: We get to watch TV.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 17
Corrie: Do you have that narrative too, so that when it shows what they’re
looking at –
McCandless: It’s in our packets.
Corrie: Okay. What you’re seeing here, Council, is filmed at Ten Mile and
Franklin on September 15, 2000 at approximately 7:30 a.m. Ten Mile and Pine.
Ten Mile and Linder, right. Okay. It’s the wrong (inaudible). Okay this is the Ten
Mile and Franklin. They’ve got it. Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Okay. First, I’d like to apologize to everybody for not being at the
meetings I was supposed to be at. I wasn’t told about them until I had already
had other commitments before that. If I could have possibly been here, I would
have. I am here tonight and I did hear some comments on the tape that this is a
done deal. For those of you who have that opinion, I would like to state, as of
tonight, I have not made up my mind. So I would appreciate it if you don’t
prejudge what I’m going to do before I actually make the decision. I would like to
disclose –
*** End of Side 1 ***
Anderson: -- received or any conversations that I have had with anybody
regarding this project, so I’ll just – I sorted through my stack on Valeri Heights
and it’s pretty sizeable and I’ll just start with the first one. The first one I have is
dated March 9, 2000 from a Brett and Stephanie Nelson. The second one I have
is from Colleen Calhoun and it is dated June 10, 2000. The third one is from a
Tony and Tracy Garner and it’s dated July 11, 2000 and I have one from a
Jacqueline and Gordon Cooper, dated July 12, 2000. I have one from David
Atkinson and Erma Atkinson and Jessica Atkinson dated July 15, 2000. I have a
letter from Vicki Welker and Jeffrey Struther dated July 18, 2000. I have a letter
from David Atkinson, Erma Atkinson and Jessica Atkinson dated August 11,
2000. I have a letter from Steve and Lynn Martin, dated September 12, 2000. I
have a letter from Susan Wildwood, dated September 13, 2000. Then I have a
couple of – it looked like a pre-made up Post-It note that somebody has filled out
and one is from a Rodney Hall, dated September 11
th
. One is from Anita and
Marshall Townsend, dated September 12
th
. I have a Chelsea Ghasserani dated
September 13
th
and I have one from Jacqueline and Gordon Cooper dated
September 15
th
and a newspaper clipping that I read. Another one from
Jacquelyn and Gordon Cooper, September 15
th
– signed the Meridians for
Intelligent Growth, dated September 18
th
, Steve and Lynn Martin again on
September 18
th
and a couple more of the Post-It notes from David Newman and
that was on the 19
th
; Catherine Morton on the 19
th
; John Morton on the 19
th
;
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 18
the first time with Vicki Welker. She called me the next day after the Council
meeting and asked if she could meet and discuss the reasons why we had
turned the project down and I told her that I didn’t feel really comfortable about
meeting with her on that – that I didn’t want to hear any particulars on the project
or try to be persuaded that way. I did have a conversation with the City Attorney
about and he explained that we do need to explain to developers when we turn
down a project why we turned down their project. So I received a second phone
call from Mrs. Welker and I did agree to meet with her and her representative,
David Bailey. I met with fellow Councilperson Tammy de Weerd and we met with
the developer and her representative to explain why we turned the project down.
I relayed to her that my reasons for voting “no” on the project were very similar to
a lot of the testimony that we had heard that night – concerns over traffic and the
impact and the safety concerns for children being able to get to the school and
adequate sidewalks. I was concerned about basically the design of the project
and some of the density issues. As we relayed these issues, I instructed her – I
said “In my opinion, you need to go back and you need to resolve several of
these issues with the neighborhood and with the surrounding community there.”
Those were basically my walking orders to her is to try to work out these
differences and resolve them. Later on I had a conversation with David Bailey,
her representative where he just called to inform me what was being done to
work out those issues and we didn’t talk any specifics. It was simply to let me
know dates that they had scheduled meetings with the homeowners and the
surrounding neighborhood people. I had two conversations with him and they
were all very similar to that – no specifics on the project. Recently, within about
the last two or three weeks, I did have one phone conversation with Mr. Fuller,
the owner of the property and we didn’t really talk any specifics about the project.
We actually talked about another city matter, so there was nothing there. Then I
talked with a very nice lady on the phone, Chelsea Ghasserani. Who’s Chelsea?
Again, I told her that I could not talk any specifics on the project. Anything that
she wanted to tell me, I needed to hear it in a public meeting so that all the
Council members can hear it and everybody else can hear it so that I don’t have
any information that somebody else doesn’t have. She respected my request
and I appreciate that. That’s the extent of all of my conversations and
correspondences. I have listened to the tapes and I thank the Council and you
people for those lovely tapes. It was entertaining driving back and forth to work
each morning listening to those tapes. Some of it was kind of light hearted
humor and some of it was kind of serious. I have listened to those and heard all
the testimony that was given that evening.
Corrie: Does staff have any comments at this point?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 19
Anderson: I did have one other question that came up in the testimony. There
was a question of the Fire Department and the developer about an island in the
cul-de-sac and has that issue been worked out any?
Bowers: Mayor Corrie, City Council members, Councilman Anderson. No,
nothing has been discussed about that cul-de-sac or the driveway. Nobody has
approached us on it.
Corrie: Do you have any questions of anybody? Now, let’s – the developer – do
you have any new testimony in this tonight?
Bailey: Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is David Bailey. My address is
6417 Santa Cruz Drive in Boise. I don’t have any new testimony to present and
I’ll be quick in the spirit of doing this. I just think that it’s appropriate that I voice a
couple of issues. It was my understanding when we left this meeting on July 22
nd
that the purpose of holding the vote off until this meeting was to allow
Councilman Anderson the time to review the comments and ask questions
associated with that. I got to be honest. I feel it is somewhat inappropriate to
add additional testimony to the public hearing, and of course, that is your call to
do that. I think that the reason was to wait for Councilman Anderson to be
present in order to make the vote and not to allow the public the time to go recruit
additional support for the cause. We’ve held this hearing. We’ve deferred the
hearing. We’ve heard from people over a significant period of time and we’ve
met with the neighbors as much as possible. Some of these people here, we
haven’t even seen before. They’re going to come in here and testify to things
that we had no opportunity to address. And we would, and we have. We think
that several of the significant opponents to this project in the early part of the
process have seen what we’re doing and have changed sides. You’ve seen that
in the testimony and in the previous hearings. I believe we could do the same
thing with the rest of them. I just don’t know when that point is going to stop, so I
would like to make my point and answer any questions you might have. Answer
any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: You will have the opportunity to answer some of the others that have
come in here as last one. The point here is being made is that being a public
testimony – a public hearing, anybody has a right to give testimony. If we don’t,
we cut it off – they can probably go to court and this thing could go on forever. I
am sure that everybody will be cooperative with this and not give us other than
new testimony. What I’m going to do, and I think the counselor’s suggestion is to
have five people on either side to reiterate any new material that has come up,
and if the people agree with it, we’ll show of hands and what have you. We do
need to do that to make it sure that we don’t leave anybody’s testimony that
wants to testify in this case. I understand your side of it, but you’ve got to kind of
bear with us on that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 20
Bailey: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor and Council members.
Corrie: Let me show of hands anybody that hasn’t testified before that wants
absolutely new testimony. I don’t want to hear the same thing over the traffic or
what have you. Okay. So we’ve got one, two, three, four, five, six, probably
seven, eight, nine, ten. Okay. If you haven’t testified before, this is for the
project at this time. If you have those, then we’ll have you come up here. This is
“for” the project first.
Feierfeil: My name is Jennifer Feierfeil at 2723 Muskrat Avenue. I believe that
Dave and Shirley as well as the project managers and everyone who has been
included “for” the project has jumped over every hole that has been in front of
them and every hoop also that you guys have asked them to go through. I know
that it has been a long and drawn out process. Meridian is growing and it’s not
going to stop. Traffic is always going to be bad. It doesn’t matter where you’re
at. The only thing that could help flow traffic better is also in the project would be
that light. I just know that this project has had a lot of time and effort put into it
and the next project if this one is be fine. The next project probably won’t. The
next City Council members might decide that it’s the right thing. I just think that
the neighbors that are surrounding the house and the lot aren’t understanding
how much time and effort and – I myself, not being a direct neighbor, being a
niece and nephew of the Fullers have even attended the meetings – one held at
the Meridian Library. It was one of the last neighborhood meetings that was
held. Every member that was there – every person that was there – it was very
productive and all the questions were answered and all their concerns were met.
I just think this should go through based on the simple fact that everything has
been taken care of and everything has been done properly by the Fullers and
Vicki Walker and I think it should go through.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else with testimony that hasn’t done first?
Calhoun: My name is John Calhoun. I live at 10111 Seneca, Boise. I’ve lived
here in Meridian most of my life. I still own the property here on South Linder,
which we lived there for over 27 years. These people that’s – again, everything
that comes up – if I had been again everything that comes up, they wouldn’t be
here in the first place. When I came to Meridian, the streets were dirt. Anyway,
the Fullers have been good people. They’ve been good neighbors, hard workers
and I think they deserve to get all the money they can for their property. It’s
impossible for a farmer to make any money on these small acres, especially. I’ve
tried it, and several others have too. I thought the developer, as far as I’m
concerned, what I was saying, has bent over backwards trying to meet all of the
regulations to improve the recommendations you folks have recommended for –
even put in over a half-mile of sidewalk, a stoplight at their expense and I don’t
know whether these people down there want that stoplight would be willing to
pay for it themselves or not. I doubt it very much that they want the tax payers to
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 21
pay for it and I think our taxes are terribly high anyway. But anyway, I’m “for” the
project and I think it would be a good asset as a community as far as the plans
that I’ve seen. I’ve seen them approve 110 acres or 1 acre down the road and
another 74. Where’s all that traffic going to go? There’s going to be traffic, and
I’ve never heard of Ada County, or anybody else going out and building a
highway and then expecting the people to move out there. It’s going to come
after the people are there, whether they like it or not, until it gets to where they
can’t handle it and then they’ll approve the roads. That’s the only thing that I can
see. I know that we all hate this traffic. We all hate these roads, I guess. I do. I
hate (inaudible) like Jim Fuller when he developed all this Cherry Lane. That
was all farm ground, you know. I hated to see all of these farms cut up into little
housing lots, too, but it’s going to happen. People has got to live somewhere.
So I don’t think we can stop the growth. We’ve got to make arrangements to
improve the traffic flow as far as I’m concerned. I guess that is all I have to say.
Corrie: Thank you, John. Anyone else?
Fuller: Mayor, City Council members. My name is Vickie Fuller. I reside at 890
North Ten Mile. My parents are Shirley Fuller and Dave Fuller. I believe I speak
for the younger generation right now and also for a lot of the high school people
that are here tonight. I think it’s very important for this development to come. It’s
not right to just – I know in the previous testimony – that the apartments – the
neighbors don’t like it because they are afraid of the younger generation coming
in and living in these apartments. I don’t think that’s right at all. This is
something very close to my heart and I think I speak with Keith Bird saying that
the Fuller’s have been jacked around long enough, and it’s true. So that’s all that
I would like to say and I hope that you pass this tonight. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you, Vickie.
Welker: Good evening. My name is Robert Welker. I live at 1203 Northwest 7
th
Street. I have lived my entire life in this town and when I grew up on West 7
th
Street, you could look across the street and there was nothing but fields. There
was no traffic. Unfortunately, that’s not the town we live in today. We could take
to video that we looked at and we could go out four miles any direction away
from that and find the same traffic. It’s not this project that is going to make the
traffic worse. I believe one of the Council members and the Mayor said last
meeting that the traffic is a concern. I would defy you to find two or three projects
that have ever had the streets equal to the traffic and in the project way. It just
doesn’t happen that way. People come in and then improvements are made.
There didn’t used to be a lot on the corner of 8
th
Street and Cherry Lane. Now
there is. That didn’t happen before the traffic improved. This project is looking at
improving the area by a sidewalk and also improving by putting a light in at that
area. Secondly, there is a – my last issue that I’d like to speak of is there was
talk that if this project goes in, what’s going to happen to the schools. Well, it’s
the same thing that’s going to happen if the subdivision goes in a mile down.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 22
You increase the tax base and the schools have to go. It’s part of the progress. I
know people like looking out into fields and being able to see that, but if we did
that back in 1961, Meridian would stop at West 7
th
Street. There wouldn’t be a
high school. There wouldn’t be a junior high past that. The progress goes on
and a lot of people’s lives are enriched because of this. There’s a lot of thought
going into this project. It’s got a business center in there. It goes along with the
business center that started on the corner of Fairview and Ten Mile with
Albertson’s down there. It’s been added to. Hoops have been jumped through
for this. I would ask that you vote in favor of this. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Kerns: City Council members, my name is Amber Kerns. I reside at 1504 East
Sherman. I think this is a great project. I can’t believe all of the young people
tonight. I know that they really didn’t know about the project. The people that
oppose it are out there handing out and saying “Say no.” These people don’t
even know anything about it. I don’t think that that’s fair at all. I have already
spoken to several of the students. They told me they had no clue that this was
even going on. This was an assignment for them to come here. I went to
Meridian High School. I think as far as the traffic goes, I mean, obviously – you
have to have development before they better the roads. It’s been stated before
that there was a girl seen roller-blading along the road there. Well, now she
could have sidewalks if this project gets approved to go there. There’s all kinds
of kids that go along there. Yes, it’s a danger that they’re going to get hit.
Sidewalks are going to help prevent that. This is an excellent project. The
Fullers are great people and I just hope that everybody continues to be adults
about this.
Corrie: Yes, sir.
Strother: My name is Jeff Strother. I’m Vickie Welker’s business partner in this
matter. I understand questions have been raised about her capability of closing
this deal if this is approved. The issue is not her ability, but it’s my ability and I
can assure you that I have the ability to close this deal. It will go through if this
project is approved. The second point I would like to make is that I’ve looked at
some of the transcripts and some of the remarks and these letters that have
been submitted in opposition to this project. A lot of them focus on the
undesirability of apartments because of crime and trash and what not. I’m a
professional. I practiced law in Boise for 24 years. When I got out of school, I
started in an apartment. I started in an apartment because that was all I could
afford. I was single at the time and could not afford to buy a house. I wasn’t a
tramp and I wasn’t a crook and a drug dealer. I was just a young kid who had
graduated from Law School and that’s all he could pay for. Apartments are
necessary to a city. They are necessary as a stepping stone from people who
later buy homes and contribute significantly to the tax base. If you ignore those
young people and I was one of them at one time. They don’t have anyplace to
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 23
live and they go elsewhere. That’s one reason why this project should be
approved. I am the guy who has paid all the bills on this thing. I am the guy who
has authorized the commitments that have been made. I understand that those
commitments are necessary and I hope that you understand that apartments are
necessary for people like me to get started in life so that we can later become tax
payers and contribute more meaningful to the community. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else that has not testified before?
Rady: Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Carrie Rady. I live at 2657
North Turnberry Way. When I came in here tonight, it was out of curiosity. I do
developments mostly with Ada County and I’m sure you remember not too long
ago, the moratoriums that were being put on non-farms. Those are what I work
on. My son goes to Chaparral. I don’t live very far from this and the one thing I
am not hearing is personal property rights that the Fullers, who I don’t know and
never met – they have the right to sell their land. These farmers cannot make a
living anymore, especially with small farms. If the developer has gone through
and done everything that the ordinance has asked him to do, I think that it should
be approved. That’s even with my 10-year old son riding his bike. There will be
more traffic. There is traffic all over town. I think if you look at legally and there’s
ordinances put in place and if they’ve abided by all of those, then this should be
passed.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else that hasn’t testified that is “for” it? Last chance.
Now, if you have not testified against and you’re not for it, you have three
minutes and the first one step up and – this is “against” now.
Bailey: Mr. Mayor, Council. I am Miller Bailey. I live at 1180 North Ten Mile
Road. I am very much opposed to this subdivision because it has been inferred
to me by Mr. Bailey – no relation and Vicki Welker that they had our approval, my
approval that they could put a sidewalk in front of my home. In fact, Mr. Bailey
stated and harassed me, I felt, about this situation so I did not talk with him any
further. I told him I was absolutely against it. Because, for one thing, it would
take out my well, perhaps, in front of my yard and a lot of trees. That’s not the
important thing – as the well. Then I have – I am adjacent to Thunder Creek
Subdivision to the north. I have a letter from Rex Harrison to the City Council
and he is to the north of my property. It says: Dear sirs, I have been told that the
developers of Valeri Heights Subdivision are saying that the property owners
along Ten Mile were in favor of putting a sidewalk across the front of their
property. I have been contacted twice by them and each time I stated that I
would be opposed to putting in the sidewalk. I remain opposed until ACHD
secures the right-of-way and widens the roads in the proper manner. We feel
very strongly about this and I hope you will consider our opinions coming from us
rather than from another party.” Would you like this letter from Mr. Harrison?
Gallivan: My name is Nancy Gallivan and I am here on behalf of Stonehouse
Evangelical Church that is at 1450 North Ten Mile Road here in Meridian. The
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 24
church pastor is out of town. I am the church secretary so he asked if I could
come. I have a letter that is written to you. I’ll just read a portion of the letter for
the sake of time, but I’ll give you the whole letter. It says – This is from Roy
Filletti. “Vicki Welker contacted me early last summer about the Valeri Heights
development and the proposed temporary sidewalk. She told me that Ada
County Highway District would not be involved in the planned sidewalk. She also
stated that it would probably be a temporary black top path that would not
encroach upon our current property. I told her I would consider this but that all
decisions must come through our board of trustees. I told her I would discuss it
with them and that she could come and present it to them. I called her later to
ask her how the neighborhood meeting went, but did not receive a returned call.
I am not sure how my conversation with Vicki has been represented to the City
Council, but I want to make my position clear with this letter. I cannot make any
decisions without the authority of my board of trustees. We have not met on the
matter and Vicki has not presented her request to them. It is doubtful that they
would support this at the current time until it is ACHD’s requirement based on the
need of increased traffic.” We were told that it was reported that we were in favor
it, but we hadn’t given any consideration because we didn’t know much about it,
so we just asked if we could meet with them, hear more about it and then
consider it. We were told that it had been reported that we were in favor of it, but
we had not been given that information. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Atkinson: Mayor Corrie, City Council members. My name is Jessica Atkinson. I
reside at 1124 North Lightning Place. I am adamantly opposed to this project for
three main reason. The first one is the traffic. I get on the school bus at
Forecast and Ten Mile each morning at 7:30. I have seen the traffic back up for
a half-mile. Even with the promised traffic signal, Ten Mile and Pine Streets will
still be two-lane roads. Traffic will still get backed up. The second one is the
height of the buildings. It’s not right for them to build three-story buildings which
will look down to the backyards of our neighbors. Would you like someone to
build three-story apartments next to your house? The third one is the schools.
The schools. The schools are already over-crowded. I go to Meridian Middle
School and it is over capacity. My brother goes to Chaparral Elementary and it
was supposed to be less crowded with a new Peregrine Elementary opening, but
Chaparral is still over capacity. Lastly, Mr. Fuller says he wants to be
remembered for what he did with his property. If that was true, he would donate
it to the City so that they could make a park. Thank you.
Hochstetter: I’m Lynn Hochstetter. I live at 2495 North Tangent. Between my
father and mother and myself, we have had about 100 years of apartment
experience. I hear the gentleman. I understand people like I did it in an
apartment so that I could get a house. Boise is right next door – plenty of
apartments. They can still move into Meridian. I have also found that people
living in apartments – too many are uninterested in the community – uninterested
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 25
in what happens to the community. Robbers and thieves – they don’t own
houses especially if they deal drugs because they can lose their house. They
don’t care about an apartment. I’ve seen crime go up. I have apartments been
built near my home in Reno and the crime went up – the shootings. The type of
people that live in apartments – unfortunately not all of them are very nice and
most of them can afford homes, thank goodness. I moved into this community
because it was a community. It had homes and families and land and space. I
know we need to go into the future, but as you tell the children, we don’t need to
grow up that fast. Let’s be young as long as we can. Adults – it is coming fast
enough.
Corrie: Anyone else? Yes, sir.
Tamas: Mr. Mayor, Councilmen. My name is Bert Tamas. I live at 1125 Roper,
which is just out the back door of this apartment complex. You’ve heard all about
the traffic. You’ve heard all about the crime and the whole nine yards. Well, it’s
there and I’m nervous. I’m not happy at all about this. I’ve talked to a lot of
people. We sat up in front of Albertson’s the other day. There was a lot of
people that lived in the subdivisions around there that have never heard anything
about this because it was not on the news, not in the newspapers and when we
told them about it, they were all very mad about it. We’ve got – I don’t know how
many cards that people signed and I think it’s Council that’s supposed to go
according to what the members of the community want – not what they want –
not what they’re going to get out of it if they have a business that could profit from
this. If I found out in any way that any member on this Council does profit from
something like this, I am going to do everything I can to have them impeached
and voted off of the Council or whatever. They’ll never sit on – I’m a voting
member of Meridian and it’s just not right that all of these people are against
something like this and Council members vote good for it anyway. That’s just
ridiculous. Thank you, sir.
Corrie: Thank you. You’ve done good so far. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Miller: Mayor and Council, my name is Jennifer Miller. I reside at 617 North
Tidwell Way in Meridian. It’s in the Merrywood Subdivision – kind of across from
the high school. I hadn’t really heard about any of this until a couple weeks ago.
This is all new to me. I moved to Meridian about five years ago. We bought a
house, our very first house with a four-year old little boy thinking we want to be
settled so he has one school. He has changed schools three times and we
haven’t moved. The properties have just gone up and they’re skyrocketing. The
schools can’t handle it. If they put a subdivision in, there would be less housing.
There would be less children that were going to be involved. With apartments,
the children are going to be just tons. My son was in Chaparral and now he is
going to be in Peregrine. I just can’t see how we can keep putting more and
more developments in and how we can have children in schools that are so
overcrowded that they have to learn in the hallways. I think we need to stop and
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 26
think about where we are going to put the children in an apartment complex.
Thank you.
Long: Mayor and City Councilmen. I’m Lavon Long and I’m having a house built
on the corner of Forsythe and Gray Cloud. 3030 will be the address. I moved
here because of the traffic in California where I was out. I had a car come out of
my front yard and this was teenagers that were living in apartments. I hadn’t
been moved in after I bought my home down there. I moved up here because it
was a quiet neighborhood. My children were up here and this was what I
expected. Then they told me about the apartments being built just about a block
from where I am building my house now, which I am definitely opposed against. I
have lived around apartment houses. I know what kind of people they bring in
after awhile. I lived in an apartment house when I was first married. We have to
start somewhere, but then some of the people gets a little bit rowdy. If the school
goes in over at Nampa, we’ll have those college kids over here. We’ll have
midnight parties on weekends. I’ve taken a survey and there is several senior
citizens that live in this area. What are we going to do? We don’t have money
enough to sell out and buy a home somewhere else. I wish you would take a
little bit consideration for us senior citizens and help us out some way. Don’t vote
for this deal, please. Thank you.
Sprague : My name is Sarah Sprague, and I live at 998 West Newport. All of us
teenagers back in the back – we just wanted to let you know that we do know
what is going on. We’ve talked about this in our class and we have taken
journals and we have done notes and we have studied what’s going on. We do
know. At least everyone I have talked to is against it. We just don’t like the idea
of all the traffic and our schools getting more crowded. We do have an opinion
and we’re not being persuaded. Just like when we walked up into the door.
That’s not when we made our opinions. We made it before we got here.
Corrie: Thank you, Sarah. It’s nice to hear that teachers have minds, too.
Cartell: My name is Michael Cartell. I live at 3331 West Park Creek. When I got
here tonight, I had no intentions of speaking and I just want to speak on one
point. The point was made that the people who own this property have the right
to make whatever they can possibly make off of this property. I agree with that. I
think what needs to be considered is what it does to the property value of
everybody else around them. United States is a country that is run by and for the
majority of the people. It seems like this would be something that would benefit a
few number of people and hurt or impair a large number of people. It seems like
it’s fairly simple to do the numbers and to understand what the impact is on the
public versus a number of individuals. Thank you.
Corrie: Down here. You’re next.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 27
Maldonado: Mayor and Council of Meridian, Idaho. My name is Pete J.
Maldonado. I just moved over here from Denver, Colorado. It’s been a year that
I have been here now. I have got a wonderful place with a wonderful view. I
oppose it because we have got so very little open land with everybody moving in.
That’s why I left from Denver. It was getting to congested – too much crime and
traffic. I come here and I find a really nice place here and I enjoy it. I feel that
more housing and people in here is just going to crowd the few open spots that
we have, in which we’ll induce more crime. Schools haven’t got room for them
and they’re overcrowded as it is. That’s all I have to say is just that I enjoy what I
have. I have got good neighbors. Who knows what kind of neighbors we’d get if
we put more people in here?
Homan: Hello. My name is Bill Homan. I live at 3265 West Park Creek Drive. I
didn’t plan on speaking here tonight here, either. I didn’t know much about this
whole project until just recently. One of the things that concerned me that I heard
someone brought up earlier tonight is that they’re talking about progress. A little
bit of history – I moved from my last house because there was an apartment
complex built behind my property. I have recently talked to the person who
bought my house and they are very unhappy about the living conditions they are
in right now. We’ll get into that. We talked about progress. Meridian is one of
the best cities I have ever lived in my life. We all ought to be very proud of the
city we live in. You can take a map like the one you have there and make it ten
times as big and take a really good look at what Meridian looks like and why
people move here. To me, it’s a little bit more different city that I have ever lived
in before. There’s a lot of subdivisions around. People like living is subdivisions.
We need to be conscious of that and continue that. We are making progress.
There are places for people to live. We are not hindering process by not
approving this apartment complex. As a matter of fact, we ought to develop
more land for more people to build their homes. I think that some of the other
things that we have to deal with – that’s something that we need to look at.
Thank you.
Eberhardt: My name is Amy Eberhardt. I bought the house at 1150 Gray Cloud.
I guess I don’t have a lot to say. I just wanted to voice a couple of concerns. I am
not opposed to apartments, per say, but I think there’s plenty of other places in
Meridian that apartments could be built – maybe closer to Boise. There’s a lot of
land that I’ve seen driving to work where they would be perfect – not right next to
a subdivision where there are single-family homes. I am pretty disappointed that
my street is going to be associated with the complex. I am not too crazy about
my street being a thru-street. I have a four-year old daughter who I would like to
have out front with me if I am working on my yard or something like that. We
won’t be able to do that. At least I won’t feel comfortable doing that. We’ll be
stuck in the backyard all the time. I guess I just wanted to say that. I don’t think
it’s the right spot for it and I think there’s plenty of other places that apartments
would be appropriate. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 28
Corrie: Thank you, Amy.
Corkill: I too, was not prepared to speak. My name is Katie Corkill, and I live at
1333 North Deer Creek in Parkside Creek Subdivision. After hearing a lot of the
people speaking here tonight, I pretty much determined what my opinion would
be in this matter. My father owns apartment complexes down in California, so I
know first hand what does happen in the apartment complexes. It was a very
nice complex when he bought it, but as things progressed in the Santa Rosa and
Santa Clara area – he owns several. The growth expanded into those areas.
The type of people that started moving in were more transient and they left
damage to the apartments. They didn’t care. They left without paying their rent.
If we do allow the apartments and overcrowding of our schools, I have had two
children here through your schools. I have one that’s finishing high school.
What’s going to happen is with the overcrowding from the people that are renting,
they do not contribute to our tax base. I am a homeowner. I am a taxpayer. I
am supporting these public schools. I personally resent the fact that you will
allow overcrowding in the schools from these apartment complexes where they
will contribute nothing tax-wise to the schools because renters are not a tax face.
So that’s my argument for it and one other thing on crime, we live in the Parkside
Creeks Subdivision which does have Fuller Park there. That is a beautiful park.
I walk there all the time. My daughter roller-blades there and just recently in the
past couple months I’ve noticed kids of maybe 16 to age 20 smoking pot and
taking drugs down by the canal where the cows are right now. That really
bothers me and so my concern is with the apartments being so close that
eventually they will mainstream into our park that’s in our subdivision and it will
become the hangout. I can see selling of drugs and things like that occurring
right there in my own beautiful subdivision. Parkside Creek is a family oriented
subdivision. I love it there. It’s the nicest subdivision I’ve ever lived in and I’ve
lived in four. I don’t want to move. I can tell you right now. If this passes, my
house is going up for sale and I’m moving to Eagle. Thank you.
Corrie: You’ve done a good job, yes.
Glines: My name is Mark Glines. I am a resident of the Parkside Creek
Development at 1267 North Sawcreek. I am also one of those despised people
that moved here from California. I moved here for exactly for the same reason
that you’re trying to put forth on us tonight. My house was half a mile from
attractive land that was earmarked for high-density housing because the powers
around wanted more low-cost housing for low-cost jobs. They wanted it at this
one piece of area because it was right next to a mass transit system. What it’s
done in San Jose has destroyed neighborhoods. It’s destroyed traffic flows. We
have more traffic driving through neighborhoods to get past the stoplights that
they had to put in to control the traffic. You have not addressed the issues of this
traffic light that may get put in. You need the complete access to Fairview, to
Franklin, to Linden. You need all those accesses completed before you can add
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 29
128 units. It has destroyed what was a very nice neighborhood very similar to
the Parkside area when we’ve added first 120 units. Then –
*** End of Side 2 ***
Glines: -- who wants to get the best for the land he’s had there so long. We do
have one property owner on the other side of our development who owns 360
acres worth close to $500,000,000. He is of the mind that I thought many people
of this valley were – and that is stewards of the land. He has fought and fought
and fought City Hall to make sure his land, for perpetuity would never be
developed. And it has been earmarked for open space and for a farm to educate
the children. He chooses to leave a heritage behind. There’s no heritage to a
high-density property when there’s plenty of opportunities in this valley to
appropriately place that high density property. This area is a community of small
neighborhoods – tracks of homes on 1/3 acre – ¼ acre. That’s the way it should
be. That’s the way people who have moved here want it to be and their request
should be honored.
Corrie: Okay. Let me have a show of hands how many more we got, so we
don’t stand here until midnight. This is for “against”.
Jensen: My name is Rick Jensen. I live at 3720 West Pine in Meridian here. I
am concerned about the dope smoking down by the ditch because those cows
are in my pasture. I’m concerned of the drug effect of those livestock when I sell
them. Growth is going to happen. We all know that it’s going to take place and I
think you people have a really hard decision as to determine what kind of growth
is going to take place. It’s a gamble, isn’t it? Whether it’s a subdivision or
whether it’s one level of apartments, two levels, three level apartments – high
density and low density. It’s all a gamble. There’s nothing guaranteed as to
whether any project is going to succeed or not. So what you do is you end up
taking risks. You’re taking chances. You’re trying to gamble with informed
decisions on making the best decision. I think by a project like this, high-density
project that you’ve already heard testimony about from peoples’ opinions and the
increase in crime-related incidents that that’s a higher risk and you’re going to
plot that project down right in between. If you just plot it on a map, it can’t be
anymore one distance to the high school than it is to the elementary school that’s
across the street. You’re putting that risk of that taking place right in the middle
of a real high-density of the people who are going to be the citizens of the future.
These teen-age kids who are coming in and trying to express themselves and
make a point. You are placing those people – I believe at Jeopardy when you
take an informed risk on this type of project. I think there are other ways to go. I
think that profits can be made. I think people can make money and we still move
our community head in a sane planned and low-risk type of project. Thank you.
Trampleasure: My name is Sharlene Trampleasure and I’m from the Cherry
Lane Subdivision, 3565 West Tupaloe and I never planned to speak in public, so
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 30
I’m really shocking myself to be here, so anyway – I love Meridian and we’ve
been here for about eight years. As we’ve watched other cities grow and other
places we’ve been, I think that it’s really important we take very careful planning
of where you put what, or else we end up with a hodge-podge of apartments and
single dwelling homes that cause all of the problems that we’ve already talked
about here today and businesses where we don’t want to have businesses. I get
concerned about the residents of that subdivision where the apartments are
going to be just for the noise factor. We need to put that many people and that
condensed area – you almost never have a nighttime where elderly people or
even young people have time to even go to sleep. The noise – and I concern
myself with the noise too. I don’t think that we’ve even addressed that issue with
the noise that will come from that many apartments and that many people that
happen when you have apartments. I think another thing that you ought to take
into consideration are the number of people that are here in support of a no-vote.
I know this is after the fact, but the more people that hear, you’re finding the more
people that are against this whole issue. Now they’re coming out to show you
that they really don’t want these apartments either. The one other issue that I
thought of tonight as I’ve listened to the different testimonies, is there’s obviously
a lack of honesty in some of the reports that you’ve heard – talking about
sidewalks and saying the people are in support of even that issue of building
sidewalks down Ten Mile and you’ve heard reports from residents and they were
not in support and didn’t authorize to be told. Thank you.
Egan: Hi. My name is John Egan and I live at 2258 Ebbtide near the affected
area. Like pretty much everybody else, I wasn’t planning on speaking either.
About six years ago, I had the good fortune of moving to this area from Missoula,
Montana and the greatest thing that attracted me to this area is it’s possible to
buy a house here. In Missoula, we’re talking 65 –70 percent rental versus almost
complete opposite ratio here. Rentals do – when you put that many people in a
small area, it does increase traffic much quicker than it would single-family
housing. Everybody here is speaking about how much they love Meridian and I
think one of the biggest reasons is because so many people own homes here.
They have a stake in the community, whereas with renters, you do not get that.
What this community needs more of is affordable housing that you can – home
ownership is far more desirable goal than apartment dwellings and I hate to see
this area turn into another Missoula where people rent than own their homes.
Thank you.
Webb: My name is Darrell Webb. I live at 1128 North Roper. Basically just
hearing everybody speak and hearing the comments, I don’t have anything else
to say, but more have a question. I don’t know. Can that be done? Just about
the process – when you guys decide this is a process of what the ordinance are
to build, or are you guys making the decision to rezone this to allow those
ordinances to start to take effect? I don’t know who can fill that question.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 31
Corrie: Okay. What we’re doing here is if we zoned and first off -- annexation
and zoning and they’re asking for an R-15 which would allow apartments. The
next one would be the Preliminary Plat for what you see on the board here. The
third would be a Conditional Use Permit.
Webb: Is the zoning – I know there’s a lot of personal feeling and objection. Is
the zoning based on those comments or is the zoning based on meeting certain
criteria and certain laws?
Corrie: Meeting certain criteria – in other words, right now, It’s RT, which is
County. It’s Regional Transit so if the Council approves the annexation and
zoning it would be an R-15 and then they go from there. They have to have that
zoning before they can go into that area. It’s not if the Council says no, then they
can come back with another zone or whatever the case may be.
Webb: I guess my question is are they guaranteed to be zoned if they meet
certain requirements?
Corrie: Yes. If they were approved at R-15, that’s the zone they have. I hope
I’m answering your question.
Webb: Well, it’s like people are opposed. Does their opposition have any effect
or is it just the laws that have already been made that are going to finalize this?
Corrie: I think most of them that are objecting is because they don’t want
apartments there. That’s what the zone would be. It doesn’t necessarily mean it
has to be apartments. You can have 15 houses to the acre in an R-15 as well. It
would be smaller homes.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, if I may. The Comprehensive Plan
designates various areas within what’s known as the area of impact, which is
outside the city limits, but within an area that the city has negotiated with Ada
County as being likely to be developed in a 10-year period. The Comprehensive
Plan designates different portions of those undeveloped areas as a specific use.
In this particular case, it’s my understanding this area is on the Comprehensive
Plan as it exists today – is designated as mixed residential use and Mrs. Stiles –
it’s not designated single-family residential – R-4 – it’s designated as mixed
residential use, so it can be a variety of uses within that area and that could
include up to – could it not, Shari – up to an R-15 zone for mixed use?
Stiles: It could. It’s not specifically spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan, but it
was intended for something other than strictly single-family residential there.
Nichols: So, to answer your question, Mr. Webb, there is a Comprehensive Plan
which was adopted back in 1993 which is currently under review for revision
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 32
because it has to be updated every so often and that’s a projection in terms of
where growth is going to go and what those anticipated uses would be.
Webb: My next question, just for future reference – sorry to drag this out but for
the people to have a say in how that Comprehensive Plan is setup, that goes
before review, I’m imagining when it was –
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, there will be public hearings
with regard to the Comprehensive Plan. There have been open houses already
with regard to the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Draft Plan. All of that
is the process before this body adopts it.
Webb: I think my feeling was that for future reference for those that are here that
are opposed, that they can take an earlier stand and kind of shape their
community in the planning process before it actually comes to this point.
Corrie: Okay. Anybody else. Okay. We have one more here.
Myer: My name is Seth Myer. I live at 1122 North Roper Place and what I have
are just a few quotes that I want to read to you. Some of them are from previous
meetings and some of them are from people in the community. First of all, I
wanted to give you this map and the area that I’m going to be talking about is this
little triangular shape parcel right here. This is Pine and this is Ten Mile. This is
the Valeri Heights Project is right here. Ben Jefferson’s residence is right here so
it’s right next –
Bird: That was the Eddie Project, wasn’t it?
Myer: That was the Eddie Project. Haven Cove no. 7. That was submitted in
June of 1997. I am going to read you a lot of the same concerns. The reason I
bring this up is because this is almost in the same location as that project was. It
was a three-acre parcel. It wasn’t twelve acres and they were proposing
townhouses – two-story townhouses – not three-story apartments. I just want to
touch on the few of the things that came out in those meetings. The meeting of
June 18, 1997, Mr. Dave Fuller from 890 North Ten Mile in Meridian stated the
following. “We would prefer single-family dwellings rather than townhomes. He
also stated “I am already R4, but as soon as you let R-15 go here, it is going to
go right on down the street. He also stated the traffic problems is something I
believe Planning and Zoning and Ada County really needs to take a look at. Like
I said, I have talked with the developer, and before you guys make any firm
decisions, we would like to really push you hard on the R4 rather than the R-15.”
So here’s a citizen of this area who was against an R-15 in right next door to him.
The second thing I have is the Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law. It was
submitted by the Planning and Zoning after this first Planning and Zoning
meeting and it states – this was on June 18, 1997. Again, I’m reading this. “The
applicant is proposing the R-15 zone adjacent to existing residential property.
While higher densities along major transportation corridors should be considered
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 33
by the city, consideration must also be given to the existing residents. Buffering
for this use will be hard to attain. On that particular project, the buffering that
he’s referring to is there was a canal, the eight-mile lateral was between the
residential and that project, but that project had no streets connecting to the
residential. The only street dumped directly onto Pine Avenue and I feel like the
buffering for this is this is much more intrusive than that project was – also from
the same Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law, it states the following and I’m
quoting again: “It is concluded that the development of the entire property as an
R4 low-density residential district would be more compatible to the development
and surrounding area.” When they did take the vote on it on July 8, 1997, three
of the four City Council people voted against the zoning of R-15 of that property.
The only one person who voted for it was Mr. Borup and I don’t know why he
voted for it, but perhaps those of you who know him would understand why he
did. The only other information I have to present are Items concerning the
ACHD. The ACHD letter dated August 15, 2000, Point No. 2, Letter C states
“prior to any construction, all street improvements must be completed to the
satisfaction of the ACHD or a surety agreement must be executed. There is no
guarantee that a surety agreement will be executed.” In other words, street
improvements are not guaranteed to happen. Also, ACHD sites specific
requirements Page 6, No. 3, Letter D. states “Pine Street shall be paved back a
minimum of 50 feet from Ten Mile Road.” On page 6 of the August 22 City
Council minutes, Mr. Bailey stated “ They, the Episcopal Church, are willing to
accept a proposal from us on that.” However, there is no evidence of an
accepted proposal from the Episcopal Church. There is no guarantee that Pine
could be extended to allow for a full intersection which would allow the placement
of a traffic light. Also, in an ACHD Planning and Development Report, page 1,
first paragraph stated: “This development is estimated to generate 1320
additional vehicle trips per day.” In other words, this will only make the traffic
problems worse. Also, this has already been covered about the sidewalk, but I
need to read this also. ACHD Planning and Development Report Facts and
Findings Letter P states: “All off-site sidewalk should be located to match existing
improvements, 41 feet from center line to near edge of a sidewalk and will be
constructed at the developer’s expense.” Also, Brian Harris, ACHD Public
Relations Manager states “Sidewalk on Ten Mile to Cherry Lane will be
constructed to its ultimate location as if Ten Mile was a four-lane road.” The
Meridian City Council minutes dated August 22, 2000, page seven, Mr. Bailey
states: “As of right now, we have verbal agreement of all but two of the property
owners on the east side of Ten Mile Road to extend that sidewalk.” That is the
quote. If they don’t wish to sell it this time, ACHD will accept an easement from
those property owners in order to construct that sidewalk. That’s all at the cost of
the developer. This is what Mr. Bailey stated. However, in a conversation with
an ACHD representative, we learned that ACHD will not condemn and take over
the property on Ten Mile to force the construction of a sidewalk. There are four
property owners on Ten Mile whose property would be effected. Rex and Elma
Harrison, which you have heard a letter by them – Miller Bailey – you’ve heard
her personal testimony. Greta Hewitt and Pastor Roy Filletti – they all
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 34
emphatically deny ever giving verbal agreement allowing the installation of a
sidewalk on their property. Furthermore, they express at this point to being
misled to think the sidewalk would be constructed adjacent to the existing lanes
on Ten Mile rather than 20 feet into their property as required by ACHD. In
conclusion, as of this afternoon, the changes promised at the neighborhood
meetings have not been followed through. Therefore, it is apparent that a surety
agreement or a letter of intent addressed to the concerned residents dealing with
these issues has not been a priority to the developer. We are concerned that the
intentions of the developer may not be as sincere as they have been put forth.
Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else that hasn’t testified before?
Nelson: Council members, my name is Marion Nelson. I reside at 3295 Falcon
Run. I was born in this town. I have lived in this town in the same house my
entire life and I’d just like to say that there has been three subdivisions go up
around my house – one including a rent trailer home thing that didn’t succeed
because of too many complaints by the neighbors and so forth and I feel that if
those kind of things can’t make it where I live. I live between Victory and Amity
Road in Eagle. This apartment complex can’t make the residents happy if it’s
close to an overcrowded school already. I feel that if the developer would like to
bring this kind of thing in, that’s fine, but I think that he should build this for the
coming students. Right now, Meridian High School – I go there every day. It’s
so crowded. I get claustrophobic in the hallways. It’s horrible. I feel that a
school should be built before a developer can make an apartment complex that
will bring more students in. It’s just absurd that this would be allowed when our
community needs so many other things instead of more people at the current
moment. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else?
Atkinson: Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is David Atkinson. I live at
1124 North Lightning Place. I’m a little nervous so you’ll have to excuse me. I’m
not a public speaker, but I’ve been involved in this and followed this project since
well over a year ago. The majority of those in support of this project stand to
gain financially from your approval of this project. Many of those supporters will
be gone from this area if you approve this project. The majority of those opposed
to this project are residents who plan to be here for a long time. We have to live
with the decisions you make tonight. Our petition, last Spring, had over 300
signatures from residents who live in adjacent subdivisions. Mr. Fuller’s new
petition that has been submitted and we reviewed – if you’ll look closely, it’s
signed by few local residents and a lot of people who do not even live in
Meridian. Mrs. de Weerd, I wanted to address an issue from the last meeting
where it appeared that you felt there was a consensus with the developer and
people that lived in the subdivisions next to it. There was not a consensus. I’ve
never heard any hard facts, any hard numbers of who was for or against this
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 35
from those meetings. I applaud them for meeting with us. I think that was very
big of them. I think that Mr. Bailey and Mrs. Walker were very good to do that
and – but there are issues that they were not willing to budge on. Nothing
personal to Mrs. Welker, but how do developers be held accountable? If they
come in and promise things, they can’t come back and give variances for those
promises, changes to those situations without very much input from us if they’ve
already got their project rolling. So, there is now confusion over an area where
the traffic light would go in at Pine Lane and quite possibly who owns that area of
land. That puts that entire street light – traffic light in jeopardy because there is a
lot of confusion. Some of this has been brought up also before. There is
confusion over who will and who will not allow sidewalks to be put in. Without
those sidewalks, Valeri Heights is an island with sidewalks connecting to
nowhere. Residents including children will be walking in already overburdened
roadways. There has been no specific number, as you pointed out in the last
meeting, Mrs. de Weerd, as to how deep those buildings can be sunk from that
consensus from those meetings with the neighbors. We’ve heard no hard
numbers, no promises and seen nothing in writing what they can and can’t do.
There was confusion over whether the Fire Department could access that. I think
Mr. Bowers addressed that earlier, so that’s not an issue. What recourse will
adjacent subdivisions have if apartment buildings are built and promised privacy
is not there. What recourse does the City of Meridian have if you grant approval
and the developer cannot put in the traffic signal and sidewalks. What if they get
into this and say, “Gosh, we can’t do this any longer.” They need to have those
approvals prior to that and I don’t see where those approvals have even been
reached or bargained or however you would like to call that.
Corrie: Three minutes are up. Thank you. Anyone else that has not testified
that wants to do it?
Ferner: My name is Roger Ferner. I’m currently residing at 2947 West Willard
Street, which is the home of my son. We are property owners of a plot at 4078
West Teeter and we’re currently constructing a home which was to be finished in
about a month to a month and a half. We’re concerned about the added traffic.
My son’s home is close to the proposed project and he’s concerned about the
extra traffic and so forth that will generate for him because he’s closest. We’ll
also see more traffic in our neighborhood as well as along Ten Mile and so forth.
We would urge you – myself, my wife and my son to not approve the R-15 zone
for this particular project. I think we need to keep the density down in this
neighborhood. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else at this point? Council, do you want to take a five-minute
break and then come back to the – we’ll have the – we have five people that
have already testified – five on each side. Then we’ll have the developer answer
any questions that might have come up on the other testimony tonight?
Bird: Do you want to take a break, Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 36
Corrie: It’s up to you.
Bird: I move we take a ten-minute break and come back at ten ‘til.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded.
(Meeting reconvened at 9:47 p.m.)
Corrie: As I mentioned earlier, we’ll take five from each side that may have any
new testimony that they want to bring in or otherwise – limited to three minutes
and then we’ll have the developer answer any questions that may have come up
from the testimony. Okay. We have – I need five hands of who wants to talk “in
favor” of this. Okay. We’ve got one. Okay. Steve, first on the four –
Bravo: My name is Steve Bravo. I reside at 3715 West Pine. I’ve been following
this pretty close. Initially, like I said before, I was against it, but hearing all of the
testimony, I just can’t help but feel that most of this boils down to “not in my
backyard.” These complexes and these subdivisions are going to keep coming.
They’re not going to – we’re not going to be able to stop them. I don’t think it’s
right to have the attitude of “not in my backyard.” We’re going to have to play
catch-up with the roads. We understand that. We got a chance here to get a
little bit of help. Down the road, we’re going to get a little more tax base to the
City without homeowners’ exemption, so it’s better than homes going in as far as
income to the City. It’s more efficient use of the city services – sewers, water –
things like that and I just think it’s something that you guys got to let go through.
I think it’s just going to help in that area of town. A lot of my neighbors don’t like
the idea, but I’m looking forward to getting some of the services that will come
with it and save trips into town. Being a business owner, it’s going to bring more
people – maybe help my business. It’s a little selfish, but that’s what we’re here
for is to make a living. The old days are gone. I didn’t like it when the
subdivisions went in. I’ve lived here for 25 years. I’ve got subdivisions all around
me. That’s progress, folks. I’ll have to move farther out or something, but the
land value is going to stay up there with the development going in. I don’t think
it’s going to harm these houses – short-term, possibly but long term – I don’t
think it’s going to have a detrimental effect to the people that already own
houses. It’s helped my property value with their developments coming in and I
just feel that we ought to let it go and bring it on.
Corrie: Anyone else?
Fuller: I wasn’t going to speak tonight, either because I thought I had a pretty
good presentation last time, but I’ve been watching a little bit on the news – some
of the theatrics, so I thought I would add just a little bit tonight and I kind of
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 37
apologize for that, but my daughter is a pretty sweet gal. What I’ve noticed on –
what people and this whole community – not just Meridian, but in the whole
Treasure Valley – the big issue from the people that have been here for quite a
while is the traffic. In this project, we’re trying to do something to help with the
traffic. You can’t solve it all, but we’re trying to help with it. The second biggest
number one complaint was the newcomers from the old folks that have been
here. The second newcomers are the complaint. We’ve heard an awful lot from
newcomers tonight. I’ll tell you what. This gal here with the private – what
happened to her? Anyway, she has moved. The property owners have rights,
too and this does come down to the law. Everybody has got an opinion, but it
comes down to the law when it’s right basically there. We’re not trying to do
anything to hurt the neighbors, but I’ll tell you what. If it doesn’t go, we’ve got
some new planned advancements on our farm that they’re not going to be happy
with and Ron probably won’t be happy smelling them, either. We’ve already
checked with the County, and we’re allowed a lot of hogs and we’re going to
bring them in. It’s not retaliatory. We’re just going to try and make a business
out of it. If you don’t like it, maybe you’ll vote for the people instead of the hogs.
This Wal-Mart deal that we’ve all been watching in the news – 1200 signatures
against that. Talk to me about ridiculous. That property was already zoned
commercial. Yes, it was a different type of commercial, but it passed. It shows
you that you have got to work hard and there’s a lot of opinion and a lot of
opposition. Keith Borup of Planning and Zoning – he told them to bring on 2000
signatures. Well, they’ve been out there working hard. They’ve got a lot of
signatures and they’ve got a lot of opposition. But is the opposition – is it really
going to help? If you accept the opposition on the traffic and on what their
feelings are and on the newcomers coming in, what does that opposition do to
me by downing this project and affecting my legal rights? I own the property. I
have a right to build on it. All we’re trying to do is work with the City on it and do
what we can for the City. Now, I’ve been – my wife’s been down there, Tammy.
We’re going to be down there again. If this doesn’t pass, we’re going to go for
commercial. I don’t care how many years it takes to go for it. We’re going to go
for it because we’re not going to fight all these neighbors again over these
apartments. It’s just plain stupid. You guys are setting up the base here, and
we’re trying to follow it. As far as the Bailey or Harrison on the sidewalk issue,
no, they don’t want the sidewalk there. But I talked to Harrison. He said, “Dave,
that’s your property. Build whatever you want to on it.” I said, “Well, what about
the sidewalk?” He said, “Well, as long as it’s on the County right-of-way, I
haven’t got anything to say about it.” But I do want money out of that County
when they come through and they put the regular relation in. You’ve heard a lot
of stuff tonight about lies and dishonesty. Most of it is coming from the
opposition. Crime --–hey have no proof there’s going to be all kinds of crime. As
a matter of fact, the police patrol that area right now in the County. Cars going
by there all the time – police cars because it’s the loop. It should be in the city.
That development – they’re already there within a minute’s notice to protect or to
have any calls. So they’re already patrolling it. You talk about crime and I don’t
believe crime is the issue. More people – more crime no matter where you put
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 38
them. I’m not going to get into it too much, but like the other gentleman
mentioned, you’ve already talked about a couple hundred acres west of me.
Shari, you mentioned this was too far out. That’s just plain ridiculous. You’re
letting them go miles beyond Black Cat. It’s not too far out. Let’s the inner core
and do it with a good project. If you are going to have them 400 more cars or
400 more homes there and they’re going to travel right down there by me to the
high school. You’re not doing anything to fix that dangerous corner and here
we’re trying to do something with it. I just mentioned to Mr. Anderson that yes, I
did vote against Mr. Blaser’s townhouses a few years back or however long it’s
been. If you look at the map, that’s our single-family – white – on the map, it’s
single-family. It wasn’t mixed use or mixed-residential or anything else. It was
single-family. If you would have held neighborhood meetings and said, “Hey,
we’d like to change this.” Maybe he could have made some headway and done
something with that – changing it. He never held no neighborhood meetings.
You guys could have walked over me on that by saying, “Hey, I was just one
testimony. I didn’t run around the neighborhood putting up banners saying to
stop this or that.” The school bond was tonight. I am pretty sure it’s passed.
This school issue is a done deal, man. We’re going to build new schools, so I
don’t want this project denied because of schools. I’m tired of hearing that.
Discrimination – you’ve heard – one more sentence. Former apartment dwellers
– they’ve testified up here that they’ve been in apartments and they’re testifying
against themselves on discrimination. I tell you, it’s pretty disheartening. Have a
good night.
Corrie: Anyone else? They’ve got three more. Three minutes.
Marquesi: Michael Marquesi. I am with Summit Real Estate Services and I just
want to cast a vote towards renters – that’s my profession. I’ve managed
apartments for 20 years. There are professional ways to manage apartment
buildings where you don’t attract crime – where you can screen residents out. I
know you’ve heard this before, but it’s kind of rebuttal to what’s been said that
the sense that every renter is going to be overcrowding and a bad resident and
not a good neighbor and that renters aren’t taxpayers. Of course you know that
the owner is a taxpayer and where does he get his money? He gets it from the
rent from the people that live there. That didn’t fly either. There are multi-family
crime-free programs. There are neighborhood watch programs. There are
plenty of ways to professionally manage apartment buildings. I’ve done that for
many years. I managed the Aspen Hills Apartments – 120 units here in Meridian.
I just kind of want to cast a vote. I am a renter myself and so renters aren’t all
bad people. I am sure you know that and I just felt kind of rebut some of the
statements that were made. Thank you.
Kerns: My name is Amber Kerns. I’d like to say that I am a renter. It sounds to
me like there has been a lot of discrimination on renters. The apartment complex
that I lived in was in Boise. It was Parkwood Apartments. It is the most quiet –
it’s more quiet than the neighborhood that I live in now. There is a professional
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 39
way to run apartments. It has been stated before that it’s very easy to buy a
house now. Not everybody has to rent. Well, I’m 22 years old. Do you expect
me to go out and buy a house? I have tried. It’s really hard and I have a very
good paying job. I just haven’t been able to do it yet. You can’t expect people
my age to just live with their parents until they can buy a home. It’s just
impossible for young people today – I mean houses start at $90,000 and go on
up and you expect us to just be able to go out and start purchasing. Well, then,
you know all of us young people are going to be claiming bankruptcy because we
can’t afford it. Meridian is a very good town to live in. That’s why a lot of people
are coming here. I personally would rather live in Meridian than Boise or Nampa
and I would rather rent just because that’s what I can afford right now. Thanks.
Corrie: One more.
Calhoun: My name is Colleen Calhoun. I am working with the Fullers on the
sale of their place but that is not my only motivation. I have lived in Meridian for
over 30 years. I still own numerous properties in Meridian and I have rentals in
Meridian. I am pretty well versed on the whole go-around on it. I kind of take
objection to anyone looking down their nose at renters. I’ve had some renters
that have lived in properties for eight years and have been excellent renters.
They’ve got some of the best looking yards and the best kept houses in the
whole neighborhood that they live in. I think it’s really discrimination. They need
a place to live for whatever their reason. It doesn’t have to be that they can’t
afford a house. It can be just choice and they should have that choice. A lot of
people love to live in Meridian and there isn’t enough jobs in Meridian to put all of
these Meridian people to work. They have to drive to Boise. But how many of
these people that came from California, Colorado and so on and so forth that
they bring their kids and their cars – you know. We have got to make room on
the roads and we’re going to have to make it whether these apartments go in or
not. The videos that we have shown tonight – it has to be done. This will help
the road in the interim. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. We’ve got five for the against.
Ghasserani: Mr. Mayor and City Council members. I am here tonight not
threatening you. I am here as a concerned citizen. I’m Chelsea Ghasserani,
Haven Cove Subdivision. Unfortunately, we’re a little out of order due to the
restrictions put on us, so we hopefully will present this presentation as best as
possible. We’ve spent hours and hours trying to let our community know that we
felt our community had the right to know about this project. It was not theatrics.
We were not trying to upset any people involved in this project. The information
was simply that – information that we were trying to let our neighbors know. I
think we’ve been well represented tonight. I’m here tonight representing the
Meridians for Intelligent Growth. My challenge to you tonight is not only to hear
our words, but listen to the issues that we have addressed. From the first
paragraph of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan 2000, it states, and I
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 40
quote: “The purpose of the City of Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan is to integrate
the concerns and the expressions of the community into a document that
recommends how a city should grow and develop in order to maintain its small
town character and charm. Please understand that we are not opposed to the
growth in Meridian – specifically apartments. As other people have stated, we
feel that there are better places for them. We support completely Mr. Fuller’s
desire to sell his property. We did not feel at the time we became a coalition that
they were approachable. However, the project proposed for this location will not
improve our traffic situation. It will not make our streets safer for our children. It
will not enhance our community, and in conclusion, this project will not provide
intelligent growth in Meridian.
Clark: Hi. My name is Jody Clark, and I reside in the Haven Cove Subdivision
which is near where this proposed project is going to be placed. I am up here in
regards to a lot of us here tonight on the traffic issue and I’m not up here to
repeat a lot of information, but instead give you a lot of facts and figures that we
actually came up with to prove that there is a major traffic issue going on. The
traffic and surrounding areas of Meridian that would be generated from Valeri
Heights Project is of great concern to many of us here tonight. The streets that
we’ve talked about – Ten Mile, Franklin, Linder and Pine in Meridian already
have difficulty handling the capacity of traffic due to the major unplanned growth
of our community. This additional proposed growth from Valeri Heights will
create 134 dwelling units plus 26,000 square feet of commercial office space on
the 12.73 acres. This means that there was an estimated 420 cars that would be
in addition to that project. Coming up with a number of 1,455 car trips additional
in that area. So that’s 1,455 additional car trips just from this proposed project
alone. These streets aren’t equipped to handle the additional volume that Valeri
Heights would create. Some of the facts and figures that I have come up with
were from ACHD reports. In August of 1997, ACHD conducted the following
traffic survey. In August of 1997, there was a proposed 6,072 cars that traveled
on Ten Mile Road. Just in November of 1999, they did a repeat more current
updated study. That was increased to 8,551 cars traveled over that area per
day. In the two years alone, that’s an additional 2,479 cars just on Ten Mile
alone. They also have another additional study on Pine Avenue, which was done
again in August of 1997. This was 1,838 cars per day traveled in that area
compared to a more current updated traffic survey, which was done on January
6
th
. That survey showed 4,678 cars per day. Again, if you do the difference, it’s
2,840 more additional cars in the two-year period alone. Let me remind you that
these traffic studies were done while Meridian High School was out of session.
There’s approximately 2,100 students that go to Meridian High School plus
additional staff. All that traffic that concurs through that time was not included
from the Meridian High School students. That’s basically everything else. There
was also a separate traffic study that was done for Valeri Heights project by
Dobie Engineering. In that study, he sites, from the COMPASS Forecast study
that was done in 1985 for the protected future traffic – the following traffic
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 41
projections were stated: On Ten Mile Road, they estimated by the year 2005 that
we’d have --
*** End of Side 3 ***
Clark: -- during that time. But, in fact, the actual study they did was 8,551 which
goes to show that we have already exceeded the 2005 traffic projection and
that’s not including this project. The same traffic study done by Dobie
Engineering, he sites that Valeri Heights Development will generate the 1,455
new car trips. He states alone that left-turning traffic exiting to Pine Street will
experience severe delays. Everybody keeps talking about the streetlight
improving things. Well, we have quoted here, in a letter, too that they have set
the addition of dedicated left-turn lanes will improve this condition. We’re not
talking about putting in turn lanes. All they’re talking about is a light, so it’s not
going to improve. The intersection of –
Corrie: Jody.
Clark: Basically, I’m wrapping it up. You’ve seen the videos. I also have
additional pictures that document all the traffic if you guys would like to see
these. This project will just complicate current congestion that we already have
and pose many safety issues. It’s the main intersection for entrance to
Chaparral. Meridian High School is near. There is no sidewalks and all that so --
Thank you. Would you guys like these pictures?
Corrie: They’ll become ours, so unless you want –
Dailey: Members of the Council, my name is Chris Dailey (sic). I live at 1167
North Gray Cloud. One of the things that I wanted to touch on just briefly was
some information that I came across when working with the Police Department of
Meridian trying to get some information based on the amount of traffic that’s in
this area and what that really means. Based on just a one-month pulling period,
there’s a – between the combination of citations, violations and traffic accidents,
there’s a total of 137 instances in a 31-day period. If you average that out, that’s
a little over four per day. Those accidents total about one per week. That’s with
the existing congestion that we have today. There have been some statements
made that if we build it, ACHD will come in and fix it. However, I see a problem
to that. That is that if we increase the traffic in that area, we only increase the
probability of a serious traffic accident for the residents, the school students and
those that live around in that area. I think that through a process of this
development, it could hinder and stop some intended progress to increase the
roads prior to coming in. I don’t know how the whole process works, but I would
appreciate you taking that into consideration on your vote tonight.
Eberhardt: City Council, my name is Devin Eberhardt. I reside at 1150 Gray
Cloud in Meridian. First I would like to rebut a statement made by a young lady
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 42
“in favor” of this project. Up until a few months ago, I was 22 years old. Now I’m
23. I own my own home in the Thunder Creek Subdivision. Schools –
everybody has talked about overcrowding so I won’t go too much into that, but in
past meetings, the Valeri Heights Project has been compared to the Aspen Hills
Apartment Complex by the developer. Aspen Hills Apartment Complex on
James Court in Meridian – it has a total of 120 units. Just to give you a
breakdown as to how many children – if it has a 48-unit one-bedroom apartments
– it has 60 two-bedroom and 12 three-bedroom. Now if there were one child per
two-bedroom apartment and two children per three-bedroom apartment. That
would be a total of 84 children. Now, you go to the Valeri Heights Project and it
has 18 single apartments. It has 82 two-bedroom and it has 36 three-bedrooms.
So if you go by the same numbers, you get 82 children in the two-bedrooms and
you get 72 in the three-bedrooms, which is a total of 154 children adding right
there on that corner with that commercial development with the traffic as it is with
no guarantees of sidewalks being put in at all until the widening of Ten Mile is
taking place and ACHD provides the sidewalks for Ten Mile. That’s all I have.
Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. One more.
Martin: My name is Steven Martin. I live at 2885 West Forecast Street, just
north of the development. My first presentation to the Council is 103 cards, Mr.
Mayor. The consensus of the people signing these cards aren’t necessarily
those that have previously signed petitions. We have over 95 percent of the
people signing those cards as non-signing anything prior before. Each person
that we talked to signing these cards would like to go on record that that card be
submitted as a legal letter – not just a petition. In statistics again tonight, we
have over 203 people signing the opposing record book. You have 103 cards.
You have 100 people here tonight in addition to the cards. You have 27 people
that signed in tonight only “in favor” of this project and five undecided. I’m not
normally a closer, but I will give it my best shot. We are not against growth. We
are in favor of intelligent growth. The one thing that has come positive out of this
development is the fact that the Meridian residents have now consolidated and
made a coalition. What you have seen tonight will just be a beginning. We will
then be at the Comprehensive Plan at Planning and Zoning and we will continue
this process. And I say again, if one thing positive has come out, this is what it
is. We have banned together. We have created what you now call Meridians for
Intelligent Growth and you have not seen the last of us. The third thing that we’d
like to talk about is honesty. Mr. Anderson has sustained his vote for basic
issues that would be addressed. I did not receive a notice for the first town hall
meeting. I did not receive a notice for the second town hall meeting. I went by
word of mouth. I can honestly tell you from the meeting that I attended, not all
issues wanted to be heard by us residents. As you heard tonight and I don’t
want to repeat it again, there are five landowners north on Ten Mile and you’ve
heard from three of them. We have written confirmation from the fourth. There is
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 43
not going to be a sidewalk authorized by these owners. We are not against
growth. This project is not in the right location. Thank you very much.
Corrie: Thank you, Steve. Council, any questions of anybody? Yes, the
developer. My apologies, Mr. Bailey.
Bailey: Mr. Mayor, Council members. David Bailey again. I think we had to
clear up the issue of the sidewalks and I’ll go through the history of that so that
we can discuss what we talked about on the sidewalks. When we met with the
neighbors, we talked about several different issues and several different ways to
provide pedestrian traffic up Ten Mile Road. The neighbor suggested that a
sidewalk would be good. Among a group of things that they suggested, I thought
we were as honest as possible in telling the neighbors that there are some things
we can do and some things that we can’t do. The things that we can’t do – if we
could try to do them, we would try to do them. What we specifically told them in
that meeting is that we would ask the neighbors if it was possible to put a
sidewalk on the east side of Ten Mile Road going to Cherry Lane. We went out
and talked to the neighbors. I can’t say “we” because I did not do it. I had a
discussion with Millie Bailey – Mrs. Bailey and I apologized to her outside and
she didn't accept my apology. She thought I harassed her on the phone and I
certainly didn’t intend to do that. I asked her some issues about how we could
move that sidewalk and how we could make it work. Vicki Welker had informed
me that she had talked to the rest of the neighbors and that the rest of the
neighbors were open to it. This is my fault in not doing the research on this and
finding out exactly who and asking the questions, but she had talked to the
neighbors and felt very good except for Mrs. Bailey and another gentleman who
said that he would not let us build a sidewalk unless ACHD bought the right-of-
way. When I made my statement in the meeting, that as of right now, there’s a
verbal agreement. All but two of the property owners on the east side of Ten
Mile Road to extend the sidewalk on the east side of Ten Mile. It was my
impression that that was the truth and I understand that it was the truth when I
said that to you and that’s reading right out of the minutes here. ACHD had
approved purchasing that right-of-way with funds from the Ada County Highway
District. We don’t have this all locked up. We don’t have a lot of things all locked
up on this project and I challenge you to find any developer who has everything
locked up when they get their Preliminary Plat approved. It’s just impossible to
do. We couldn’t go buy that ground. ACHD won’t buy it. We couldn’t go
negotiate for anything until we have an approval to move forward in at least a
zoning on the property on this thing. That’s just the nature of the business we’re
in and the nature of the business that you’re in, for that matter in that you provide
us with conditions of approval that we have to meet. If we can’t meet the
conditions of approval, we can’t build the project. That’s the point of the process
as I understand it and that’s signed for by the City and the developer in the
Development Agreement. We have made certain promises in this. We have
provided those promises in writing as to what we’re going to do. That list of
promises and it’s repeated again in the letter that you received from Susan
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 44
Wildwood – the developer’s attorney who couldn’t be here tonight – those lists of
promises that we made are listed in there and we fully expect that those would
be delineated in the Development Agreement. If we can’t meet those conditions,
we can’t do the project. These are things we promised to do and we’re willing to
agree to them in writing. Those have been delineated. Those have been passed
out. That list was also developed from the meetings that we had with the
neighbors on what we could do with this project to make it work – to make it
acceptable with the neighbors. We’re chasing a moving target here because we
get additional people who come in all the time – people who said that they
weren’t at the meeting and couldn’t be at the meeting, weren’t invited. We
noticed people in a 700-foot radius from the property for our second meeting.
That is well beyond the requirement of the 300 feet. We tried to get everybody
involved. We posted notices in the neighborhood to get people involved in that
and we felt in leaving that meeting that we had a consensus of the people who
were at that meeting that if we met that list of conditions – we certainly got a
good list of them – that if we met those conditions, that this project would be
acceptable to them. Erma Atkinson was one of those and Laura Wilder was one
of those who was early on and all the hearings that we went through and
reported themselves to be representing at least in some fashion, the neighbors in
that area as far as what they were doing. The other one was Mr. Walter – Reese
Walter was at that meeting and we talked to about these issues. We can’t get
everybody’s agreement on everything, but we sure as heck have tried the best
we could to do what we can that’s right. I guess at this point, I think we meet all
the requirements. I think we’ve jumped through all the hoops. I think we’ve done
everything that’s asked and we don’t know what to do else to make this thing
work. We’ve been honest about what we can and can’t do and we’d ask that
you’d vote on this tonight and let’s all get back to our lives on how we do things
and we would certainly prefer to have this project move forward. We think it’s the
right thing and we certainly hope that you, as a City Council will do what we think
is the right thing for Meridian, which is improve that intersection and provide
apartments in that area and provide help to the City – something that’s going to
help. If this comes back single-family, there’s no way there’s going to be signal
there. You’re approving projects to the north and west to this project that are
going to add traffic to that intersection and there’s going to be no help for that.
Other than that, I’d be glad to answer any questions you have.
Corrie: Okay. Questions?
Bird: I have none.
Bailey: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Okay. I believe that’s the final one, right? Questions on the record for
public? Any questions you want to ask the public or staff?
Bird: Do it now before we close.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 45
Corrie: No further questions. I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the public hearing for the 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 for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision. And also close the
public hearing on the Preliminary Plat approval for proposed Valeri Heights
Subdivision with 10 building lots and two other lots for 12.73 acres in proposed L-
O and R-15 zones by Vicki Welker and Gold River Companies. And also close
the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit for proposed Valeri Heights
Subdivision for 128 unit apartment complex, townhouses and office on 12.73
acres in a proposed L-O or R-15 zones by Vicki Welker, Gold River Companies.
De Weerd Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 6, 7 and
8 as directed. Any further comments? Hearing none. All those in favor of that
motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. Comments.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I will make a few comments since it appears that I’m going to
be the swing vote and depending on which way I go, you might be a swing vote.
This is a really tough decision for me. I, personally, of all the Council members
and the Mayor live the closest to this project so I’m probably impacted as much
as anybody because I live in the Parkside Creek Subdivision also. Given the
history of this project, I did vote “no” against it the prior time that it came before
us and there was a number of issues, all of which many of you have eloquently
stated over and over in testimony and letters, but I think there are a lot of new
people here tonight that have been brought in to this process since this all
started, so I guess I would like to explain some of that history so that you can
understand a little bit where this is coming from. I know there has been a lot of
drawing lines in the sand on both sides and unfortunately, we’ve seen a little bit
of ugliness come out in this meeting tonight from both sides. I hate to see that
because those types of things aren’t productive and do nothing but divide our
community. With some of the original proposal, the biggest concerns that we
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 46
had heard were traffic problems on an already congested intersection and
arterials that were only two lanes wide. I agree with that, and I don’t think there’s
anybody on this Council that disagrees with that. I think it’s important that we all
understand how roads get improved in Ada County because we’re all part of this
system and that’s something that we’ve created for ourselves. Several years
ago, we formed something called Ada County Highway District and as
development goes in, there are impact fees paid by development and those
impact fees are then used to widen streets and make the necessary
improvements. In this particular case, the developer has offered to pay for
improvements in the intersection. But I agree with a lot of you. Just simply
widening an intersection doesn’t solve the problem. We’ve still got two-lane
roads leading up to and away from in several square miles here. So the real
solution is major widening of all the arterial streets in that area. The only way
that’s going to happen is if we get the support like what we’re seeing at this
meeting here tonight for everybody lobbying Ada County Highway District to get
these roads improved. That’s probably not likely to happen. You guys have all
heard their statements – that until the traffic counts reach a certain number, they
don’t make improvements. We, as a Council, don’t have a street department.
We don’t have money that we could go out and widen the roads. We would love
to do that and we would love to be proactive and do those things ahead of time.
Unfortunately, we can’t make the decisions for another government agency.
You, as citizens, voters and taxpayers, can lobby those people and you can
request those types of things. So we have a developer who is willing to make
some improvements in an intersection and I’m not going to shine you on there. It
sounds like in a testimony – they’re not paying all of that. Ada County Highway
District would put up the money for the equipment and they would put up the
money for the installation is what I heard in the testimony. So we may make
some improvements right there in that intersection which would definitely help
flow when cars are turning with the left-hand turn lanes that would be put in
there. That, in my mind, would be an improvement. The piping of the ditch in the
corner and the elimination of the concrete barriers there would also make it much
safer for anybody going through that intersection. I’m concerned about that
because I travel through that intersection a lot and my wife and kids travel
through that intersection a lot. Some of the other concerns were with the streets
that ran through into the subdivision to the north. I think the developer has made
some pretty good changes there with the approval of Ada County Highway
District that the cul-de-sac that we see coming off of Ten Mile goes in and dead-
ends. That used to go through in the first plan. That eliminates some traffic flow.
I think they’ve also done some things with the design of the parking and that so
that the intent is to reduce the amount of traffic that would head north on the
other road that does connect. The island was an intent to also limit and restrict
and help to slow the traffic that would be going north. There were other concerns
and that was the buffering and the view and things like that. They have done
some things with moving the garages. They’ve moved them back. They’ve
broken those up a little bit to make it more attractive. They’ve done some
improvements in the apartments themselves. They were first taunted as luxury
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 47
apartments and I even made a comment in the first meeting that I didn’t think
they looked too much like luxury apartments to me. They have some substantial
improvements in the amount of landscaping, the architecture, the bricks, the
retail area out in the center. I don’t know if that’s a good idea or not. I guess I’m
like you. I kind of like single-family residents, but I think I might be not
necessarily a majority on the Council and I don’t know that we can rubber stamp
everybody and say that everything in Meridian has to be an 8,000 square foot lot
and that every house has to be “x” number of square feet. I don’t think we all
want to live in the exact same type of house. I guess my view on apartments is
that there probably are people that can afford a home to start out with and maybe
living in an apartment is the solution for them and I think the developer stated
very much – this is not a developer from out of state who is going to come in,
throw a development in, take their money and leave. This is a developer that
grew up in this community. It’s a developer that plans on staying in this
community and living in this community -- possibly even living in this complex at
some point, so I don’t think her intent is to put in a shabby complex. They’ve
done a lot to dress this thing up. As I heard the testimony and as I listened to the
comments that you people made, it became very apparent to me that they
started addressing your concerns one on one and they started to resolve those.
Then it boiled down to the bottom line here – you just don’t want an apartment.
You don’t want an apartment complex behind you. So it doesn’t matter whether
that sidewalk went all the way up Ten Mile Road. It doesn’t matter if there was a
sidewalk on the other street. There would be other reasons why you don’t want
this apartment complex. Then we started hearing all kinds of rhetoric and we
started having to sort through what is meaningful. I live in the area, too. When I
look at the claims about – this is going to decrease our property values. If it
decreases our property values, it’s going to decrease mine, too. I personally
don’t believe that that is what’s going to happen. I’ve seen apartments go in
other areas and I haven’t seen the values of the property drop. So
fundamentally, I have to ask myself – it’s just apartments. We also heard about
the process here tonight and we talked about that Comprehensive Plan. That
was developed in 1993. It’s going through a revision right now. Believe me.
We’ve advertised the dickens out of that thing and we have begged and pleaded
to get this kind of a turnout that we have here tonight for you people to come and
comment on that Comprehensive Plan. That’s the thing that determines whether
apartments or what’s going to be allowed to go in behind you. Unfortunately,
nobody seems to really care until it’s in their backyard, and then we all care. We
don’t want it in our backyard so now we come out. Why aren’t we out there
ahead of time? Why aren’t we out here at Ada County Highway District lobbying
for wider roads? I ran for City Council because I have strong concerns about our
community. You have strong concerns about this particular issue. I wish you
would take those strong concerns and carry them into some other things in the
community. I’d like to see a bunch of you running for City Council or attending
those Ada County Highway District’s or attending those Planning and Zoning
meetings. This is not an enviable position to be in. I don’t like making these
types of decisions. Depending on how I decide here tonight is going to probably
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 48
determine whether I sleep on the couch for the next week or whether I’ll be called
honey and dear and get breakfast cooked for me. It’s a real struggle and I think
the videotape we saw – we’ve got traffic problems and I don’t think anybody here
would disagree with you. This project – yes, it’s going to have some more impact
on that. Every two weeks we have a Council meeting and I can tell you that
every two weeks, we’ve got subdivision after subdivision and project after project
that we’re approving. So that traffic is going to continue to get worse on that road
whether this apartment complex is here or if it’s one a mile up the road and all
the people are coming through this same intersection. So we really need to
address this problem and traffic more than with just this one project and denying
this. I’ve vacillated back and forth up here about three or four times tonight as
I’ve heard you guys’ testimony. Some of you have made some really good
points. Some of you have made some really ridiculous points. We listened to all
of those and I guess it’s our job to make those tough decisions and I guess we’re
prepared to do those at this point. Mr. Mayor, I would therefore make a motion at
this point that we approve the annexation and zoning request for the 12.73 acres
from rural transition to L-O and R-15 for Vicki Welker and Gold Rivers,
Incorporated for the proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision and instruct the City
Attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
and Decision of Order subject to staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law for the request for annexation and zoning on Item
No. 6 – 12.73 acres from RT to L-O in an R-15 zone by Vicki Welker. Further
comments?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I too, appreciate you guys coming in here and I’m like Ron. I wish we’d be
more enthused about other stuff within the city. I happen to set through most of
the Haven Cove deals even though I wasn’t on the Council. I can tell you that if
the Council at that time would have taken a public consensus, you wouldn’t be
living in Haven Cove. Parkside – when it went in, Jerry Lane – we didn’t want
him out there because of the traffic. We know we have a traffic problem. I
happen to work in Boise. I invite anybody to drive down Fairview Avenue from
6:00 until 10:00 at night, or Emerald or anyplace else. ACHD knows that they
have a formula, I guess, that we don’t agree with, but there’s not a whole lot we
can do about it because they’re another entity. Anyway, I want to thank you guys
for coming out and showing your support or negativity against it. But anyway, we
appreciate you coming out and at least letting us know how you feel. Thank you.
One more issue. While we’re on schools, our bond did pass very high. You folks
– if you’re going to rag on the schools, you’re ragging probably on the worst
group to rag on about overcrowding. Less than 30 percent of the kids in the
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 49
Meridian School District live within our district that we control. You need to be at
Eagle, Star, Boise and Ada County if you want to worry about the overcrowding,
just as much as us.
Corrie: Anything else?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I’d just like to say that I’ve heard a lot of people talk about
discrimination. I don’t think there’s anybody in this Council that feels that we’re
looking down on renters. Renters have their place in any community and I, for
one, don’t believe that renters necessarily breed crime and drug use and things
of that sort. I don’t think that’s even an issue. I do, however, think, and I haven’t
changed in my opinion, that traffic is an issue in this particular area. Many
people said “Well, traffic is bad everywhere.” Is that an excuse to add to it
because it’s bad in other places? I don’t think so. That’s a very strong issue for
me, and I, too, appreciate everybody coming out. We’ve listened to this for a
long time. There’s strong feelings on both sides. But I still maintain that this is
not the location for this project.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else.
De Weerd: Okay. I’ll give my two cents’ worth. When the 1993 Comprehensive
Plan was established, it was also looked at for not only planning purposes. We
need a plan by our documents and we need to plan by our public input and our
city ordinances. This plan was put together and it should be revisited every
couple of years because our Comprehensive Plan is a living document. It
changes. We went through these issues – or previous Councils have gone
through these issues as your developments have come forth. So this is not a
new thing for Council to have to sit up here and make sometimes some
unpopular decisions. But we also have to look at the way we grow. We’re
growing from the inside out and that does eliminate sprawl. One of our letters
introduced created some pretty important issues on sprawl. Higher densities,
mixed density help address some of those issues that are created by sprawl.
Higher densities do address better and more efficient use of our resources with
water, sewer, traffic, police and fire protection. I won’t disagree with the
comment that crime will come. It’s pretty – as I talked with the Chief, it’s pretty
indicative into high-density areas, but I was an apartment dweller until I was 33
years old. I was also an apartment manager. We had no problems in our
apartments. We had some little ones, but I think it also has everything to do with
good property management as well. There will be conditions placed on this
development through a Development Agreement. As you’ve heard Mr. Bailey
said, if certain aspects are not done before this building has asked for a permit, it
will not happen. That’s probably the good point. In our new Comprehensive
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 50
Plan, we are looking at going more towards the village center zones as some
communities look at it. That is bringing a mix of densities and bringing services
into those development so that you don’t always have to get into your car to get
to a doctor or to a dentist or to your grocery store and that sort of thing. That is in
the new age of smart growth. That is as it has been defined in many things.
What it comes down to is we have a Comprehensive Plan and ordinance that we
make a lot of our decisions on. However, the people factor is an important issue.
You’ve affected this development already considerably with a lot of the changes
that the original neighbors have affected. Those are positive changes. We all
desire different types of housing. I have a neighbor who doesn’t want to care for
her yard or do her own repairs. She is looking at apartment dwelling. Now, I
don’t think that she’s of the type that’s going to go create a bunch of crime. But
there are -–and I also have a son who is looking for apartments. He is a good
kid. I don’t think he’s out looking to create something, but he might. I guess
what it comes down to is it’s a good use for the corner. It complements our long
range planning as a potential for transit users. It’s within 1000 feet of a rail
corridor and this development will use less land and will support our public
transit. I would ask for additional requirements to Mr. Anderson’s motion – to
address some of the concerns about this project and it might be solved. I would
propose that the approved plans must run with the land and that if the approved
plan is not built, that the property be deannexed and revert back to the previous
zoning prior to annexation. I would also recommend that the access onto
Thunder Creek Subdivision on Gray Cloud Way be closed to only for emergency
pedestrian bicycle traffic and that we incorporate the COMPASS
recommendations as noted on their June 14
th
letter.
Corrie: Okay. I think that would come in the other request. This is for
annexation and zoning. We’ll keep that in –
De Weerd: Well, the first point would be.
Anderson: I have no problem with that and add it to the motion.
Bird: Second don’t have any problem.
Corrie: I still would like to thank everybody here and for being here – for being
such a good crowd because it – anytime you have an emotional issue like this,
we need to have control, which you had. Regardless of how this vote turns out
tonight, you are a group. I’d like to see you here at every meeting we have.
Whether you will or not, I don’t know. If you have strong ideas, don’t give up.
This Council has listened a long time here and they’re going to make their
decision here, so you’ll have to make up your mind on how you feel about that. I
just want to say thank you for being here. Whether their opinion is what mine is,
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 51
we act as a body. So, with that, I am going to call for the vote. The motion has
stated that the City Attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law with approval with the understanding that if they don’t do the – it’s the
annexation and zoning will go back to what it was in the motion, so with that, Mr.
Clerk, would you do Roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; McCandless, naye; Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE.
Corrie: Item No. 7 is the request for Preliminary Plat approval of proposed Valeri
Heights Subdivision for 10 building lots and 2 other lots on 12.73 acres in
proposed L-O and R-15 zone. Council, any discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing that, I’ll entertain a motion on Item No. 7 – request for
Preliminary Plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the 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 zone by Vicki Welker and Gold River
Companies, Incorporated for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and incorporate staff and public
testimony within as being necessary.
Corrie: Do I hear a second? Motion dies for lack of second. Do I hear any – did
you second it?
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: Okay. Any other motions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Would this be the place to put additional conditions on? Or in the
conditional use permit?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 52
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, if you’ll tell me which ones you’re
talking about. Some of them would go in the Preliminary Plat and some of them
would go in the Conditional Use Permit, if I heard them correctly.
De Weerd: One of them would be that Gray Cloud would be closed off at the
property line and accessed for emergency pedestrian and bicycle traffic only. I
guess another one I would look at is to the furthest apartment building to the
north be limited to two stories.
Corrie: Will those both be on the Preliminary Plat, Bill?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I would like Mrs. Stiles’ input on
this, but I think the Gray Cloud item would need to be addressed on the
Preliminary Plat and the height of the northern most apartment building would be
addressed in the Conditional Use Permit. Do you agree?
Stiles: Yes. I am also not sure whether the Ada County Highway District would
approve of that only being a temporary – I mean only an emergency access. Did
we have something from them that indicated that that would be okay?
Corrie: I have nothing.
De Weerd: I think it would just be the direction of the city that that would be our
desire.
Corrie: You can give it to ACHD and they’ll make that decision with our
recommendation. We put it in the plat. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to
be there.
Stiles: I do think that’s going to have some implications for that subdivision that
there’s going to be an emergency turn-around provided on this property if that
road is going to be stopped. I don’t know, but without having some input on Ada
County Highway District on that, they’re going to have to meet approvals of Ada
County Highway District for terminating that existing street. I don’t know that they
would let that happen to just dead-end it there and I don’t know what the Fire
Department requires there, but I think that’s something that we need to consider.
De Weerd: Yes. A gate could be put in there?
Corrie: You need to put that on there. Is that correct, Bill – that you could put
those stipulations on there as long as ACHD approved it. I don’t know whether
they would or not. And not taking Gray Cloud as a close off. It sounds like
ACHD wanted that through, so we can make the recommendation to them, and
they would either approve our recommendation or tell us no. Any others that you
have there?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 53
De Weerd: Well, to incorporate the COMPASS recommendation for the
transportation plan. I guess I would have one more – that the light, the turning
lanes and the sidewalk be put in before a building permit is granted.
Corrie: Anything else? Okay. Then does somebody want to make a motion for
the Preliminary Plat with the Conditions that you have stated? Gray Cloud – we
know the recommendations as ACHD.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I know the issue with regard perhaps security gate with – I
don’t know if it would be – I believe there are ways with the security gates so
emergency vehicles have access, the gates open. We’d put that in the
preliminary plat so that that is in a sense a condition of the plat before Final Plat
approval could be done. The COMPASS transportation plan – I’m not sure what
you’re after there. I need you to tell me more on that one.
*** End of Side 4 ***
Nichols: While you’re looking for that, the stoplight – Okay, go ahead.
De Weerd: They’re recommending development of a transportation
management plan in coordination with the ACHD commuter ride program and I
can give you a copy of that. That would be the specific item.
Nichols: Okay. I have this letter. I would say that should be part of the
Conditional Use. The stoplight, the turn lanes and the sidewalks before a
building permit is issued – I would suggest that as part of the Preliminary Plat
and the Development Agreement so that those things are in place before any
building permits could be issued for structures on this site.
De Weerd: So that item, as well as the road?
Nichols: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we recommend the request to approve request for
Preliminary Plat 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 to include all staff
comments, the letter from the attorney with the commitments by the developer to
incorporate testimony and add the following recommendations to develop or
install the stoplight and road improvements and sidewalks before any structural
building permits are granted and that it also be stated in the Development
Agreement as well that Gray Cloud Way at the property line between Valeri
Heights and Thunder Creek Subdivision be for emergency, pedestrian and
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 54
bicycle traffic only and to instruct the City Attorney to prepare the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: What streets are we improving? Ten Mile?
De Weerd: Ten Mile and Pine.
Corrie: Motion been made. Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Just questions of our legal counsel. Then, Bill, adding additional
conditions – I heard Tammy use the word recommendation when she said that.
Are they recommendations? Are they conditions? Are we on legal ground
adding these additional things to it?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, members of the Council. Ask
Councilwoman de Weerd. I believe she meant Conditions of Approval or
conditions of the development or having recommendations, but she can clarify
that, but on the stoplight, the road improvements and sidewalks as part of the
Preliminary Plat approval, that’s clearly within your per-view to do so. On the
issue of Gray Cloud Way, given Ada County Highway District’s jurisdiction over
the roads, we can put that in there as a condition that would be subject to
approval of ACHD. That would satisfy that part of it. I think – and it’s within your
per-view to do so. You’ve heard testimony that people are concerned about the
traffic that would come off Pine Street through the subdivision if they didn’t like
something was happening down at the intersection and this would be a way to
limit and eliminate that as a possibility, so I think that’s a reasonable thing and if
ACHD will approve it.
De Weerd: My intent was conditions.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 55
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, naye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE.
Corrie: Item No. 8 is the Conditional Use Permit – request for proposed Valeri
Heights Subdivision for 128-unit apartment complex / townhouse and office on
12.73 acres in a proposed L-O and R-15 zone by Vicki Welker and Gold River
Companies. Any further discussion on this?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for
proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision for 128-unit apartment complex /
townhouses and office on 12.73 acres in a proposed L-O and R-15 zones by
Vicki Welker to include the additional all staff comments and correspondence and
testimony that we have received as well to add the following conditions: that the
apartment building on the furthest northwest side closest to the Thunder Creek
Subdivision will be reduced from a three-story building to a two-story building and
to incorporate COMPASS recommendations noted in their June 14
th
letter
regarding development of the Transportation Management Plan in coordination
with ACHD.
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit and
with the conditions as stated in the motion. Any further comments?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, Shari has a comment.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. I just had a question. What will the number of
units be when that is reduced? How many apartments? I mean is it –
De Weerd: I don’t know. I haven’t seen their building, so just eliminate the third
floor.
Stiles: Which would reduce the overall number of units.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 56
De Weerd: Yes.
Stiles: Okay. I just wanted to make it clear so that the applicant didn’t think that
they could move those somewhere else.
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: So there will be less than 128 in the apartment complex.
Bird: Okay. What is the count going to be? I want an exact count before I vote
on it. Seriously, I do. Are they eight-plex?
Stiles: The applicant’s representative indicates that would be a total of 120 units.
Bird: 120. Okay. Do you change your motion to that?
De Weerd: Yes, please amend my motion to note that it will be 120 units rather
than 128.
Corrie: Does second approve the change?
Anderson: Sure.
Corrie: Okay. Motion as stated with the correction of 120 units rather than 128-
unit apartments. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, naye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE.
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from September 5, 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: It’s 11:00. No. 9 has been requested to continue until October 3 to
continue the public hearing, and with that request, I’ll entertain a motion for the
Council to continue the public hearing until October 3
rd
on Item No. 9.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue the public hearing for PP 00-014 – request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 5 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.29 acres for
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 57
proposed Waltman Court Subdivision by John and Sandy Goade to October 3,
2000.
De Weerd Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second to continue the public hearing on
Preliminary Plat approval of Waltman Court on Item No. 9. Hearing none. All
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. We’ve got the continued public hearing on the Hollows and the
public hearing continuance on the Industrial Park and the continued on the Elliot
so where do you want to go with the rest of this. We’ve got 10, 11 and 12 other
items.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would suggest that we just continue the rest of the public hearings
tonight. By the time we make motions to table all of them and move into the
department reports, we’re going to be another hour. It’ll be midnight as it is.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We’ve tabled some of these from August and everything else, and I agree
with Councilman Anderson but we’ve got next week – next Tuesday set up – the
26
th
for a workshop and also a meeting. I don’t know. I feel sorry for these
developers and stuff that come in here and do all their work and get the stuff into
us and then three months down the line, we’re still moving it on. I realize that
after the first of the month, we’re going to make a change and we hope to make a
change in that and go to it. I would have no problem if the other Council went
and yourself – you’re definitely the one that would call it. I would have no
problem with taking what we think we could do in a couple or three hours. I don’t
particularly want to be here the 26
th
until midnight, but something that we could
get between – we’re already going to have to enact upon the deal that we’re
discussing the 22
nd
– that our meeting is about the 22
nd
, so if we’re going to be
here for a meeting, I would have – I think some of these older ones, we need to
get there and then maybe take the rest of them on October 3
rd
. But how many of
them that’s going to October 3
rd
– we’ve already moved some stuff to October 3
rd
already. I’ll throw that out to the Council – whatever they want to do. Mr. Mayor,
the clerk has a question.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 58
Corrie: Mr. Berg.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Just a comment. There are some
new hearings that are connected with some of the continued hearings. If you’ll
notice, the Hollows has some variances and so does Elliot Industrial Park, which
were continued in a way to go with these new hearings on the variances that
would complete the projects. So, yes, some things have been continued, but
they have been to match up with the new public hearings. I understand your
concern to keep tabling some of these items, but some of them have been
connected. So, continuing to another meeting next week, we’d probably try to
keep those grouped together so that we could approve the whole project or see
the whole project.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with the clerk, and I realize that, but we keep putting these to our
regular meetings and we’re getting a lot of meetings – just like – we’re getting a
lot of agendas coming in on that. Tonight, we had 23 items plus the 3 – that’s 26
items plus our department reports. In the department reports, we’ve got some
contracts that we need to do. We got a water and sewer and trash delinquency
thing we’ve got to enact upon. I don’t like having meetings any better than
anybody else, but I do believe we got plenty of days. If we’re not, we’re going to
be here for three or four days in a row doing this stuff. So, I would have no
problem if the other Council don’t have a two or three-hour Council meeting on
the 26
th
– a regular Council meeting taking care of some of these items instead of
delaying them to the 3
rd
.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I don’t have a problem with meeting next Tuesday night, but I guess
the other three Council people are at a disadvantage since the Council President
and the Mayor set the agenda for the strategic planning workshops that we don’t
know what’s on it at this point. I don’t know whether there’s important things that
we need to take care of there.
Bird: We don’t have anything on that other than what we will be presented,
which we had all discussed that. We’re meeting Friday night, the 22
nd
to present
the package and then we’re going to meet the 26
th
and have that as part of our
actual meeting as I understood it – to do that and then have our workshop and
our workshop was – we were going to go over some ordinances and stuff like
that. I’d like to get rid of some of these things.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 59
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I am willing to do – go through Item 17 to clean up some of this, but I
agree with Mr. Bird that that may not make sense. I would like us to address 14
and 15 since this is something that we kind of committed to getting through this
process and it seems to still drag out. I do know that we committed to those
applicants to try and make it a little speedy and it hasn’t been and delaying it yet
another week is another week, so I would like to at least suggest that we listen to
14 and 15.
Bird: I agree with you.
Corrie: Would you be willing to do 14, 15 and 16? We’ve also – Carl’s Jr.
Restaurant and I don’t think it’s a controversial thing, but they’ve –
Bird: 14, 15 and 16 tonight? Sure. You bet.
Stiles: Could we do 17?
Corrie: Okay. Then let’s have a motion to table 11, 12, 13 – we’ll do 14, 15 and
16 and then 17, 18,19 and 20 continued -- We’re trying to figure it out so that
we’re not here until 3:00 a.m.
Stiles: Are we going through 14 – 17?
Corrie: 14, 15 and 16.
Bird: What’s 17?
Stiles: Could we do 17? We’ve got the final phase of Packard so they can get
that ditch piped and get that over with – that 40 acres. They’ve addressed all of
our concerns.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Maybe we ought to ask the people if anybody else is here with
any other item? Is there anybody?
Stiles: We have people here prepared to talk on Item 10 that is also tied to 18
and 19. We can’t act on the plat of the Hollows until the variance about not
piping the ditch and using Meridian City Water for irrigation are addressed on the
variances. Elliot Industrial Park – I think we’ve really worked out most of the
issues on 11, 12 and 13 – do have some comments to make on that, but –
Corrie: All right. Let’s just go until we drop.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 60
Stiles: I’m sorry. If we’re dealing 11, 12 and 13, we also have to act on 20
because it’s going to have –
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing: 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:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 10 – 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.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor. On this one, we do need to deal with the variances prior to
acting upon the preliminary plat.
Corrie: Deal with the variances? That’s no. 18. How come it’s down there?
Okay. So we ought to do the variance. You say we have to do the variance,
first?
Stiles: Before the Preliminary Plat is approved that we need a decision on those
two public hearings on 18 and 19 because the conditions of the plat – what the
ordinance requires is that the ditch be piped and that they use pressurized
irrigation and not City water. They are proposing to do that. That will change the
conditions of the Preliminary Plat.
Corrie: Okay. Counselor? Are there any objections to us doing this? We’re
getting parliamentary procedure all screwed up here because we’re supposed to
be hearing a continued public hearing before we have the new public hearings,
but if that’s the case, then we had better do it.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. If that is a concern, you can simply
move to continue this to be – Item 10 to be taken up immediately following Item
18 and 19.
Corrie: Okay.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we delay action on Item 10 – the request
for Preliminary Plat for approval of 12 lots on 5.6 acres in an R-3 zone by Bond
and Shellie Campbell for the proposed Hollows until after we act on Items 18 and
19.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 61
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to delay acting on Item 10 until we’ve gotten
done with Item 18 and 19. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor of
the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from September 5, 2000: 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:
Corrie: Item No. 11. Continued Public Hearing on Item No. 11 – Elliot Industrial
Park Subdivision – request for annexation and zoning of 5.4 acres for proposed
Elliot Industrial Subdivision for shop and office in an I-L zone by Chuck Elliot. So
that’s where we are, right, Shari? Do we have a variance on him as well?
Nichols: Item 20.
Corrie: Okay. So we need to do Item 11 and 12.
Stiles: Item 20 only has to do with the Conditional Use Permit.
Bird: So then you have got to do 11, 12, 20 and 13. Is that right?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. So we can do 11. Then we go to 20 and then 12, right?
McCandless: What about 13?
Corrie: 13? That’s a Conditional Use Permit.
Bird: We can do 11, can’t we?
Corrie: 12 is the request for Preliminary Plat – we have to wait until we have the
request for variance and then the request for Conditional Use Permit afterwards.
So we can do 20. Is that correct, Shari? 20, then 12 and then 13? And do 11
now?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: All right. Then let’s do 11. Continued public hearing. This is a request
for annexation and zoning of 5.4 acres for proposed Elliot Industrial Park
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 62
Subdivision. At this time, I’ll open the public hearing on Item No. 11 and invite
staff first for comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is a request for annexation and zoning to a
light industrial zone. It’s immediately south of what’s known as the Elm Park
Development here. This would be the Econo Lube Development, D & B Supply
here, Wilson Lane coming down – As far as the annexation and zoning, staff
could support the request for annexation and zoning provided that all uses are
required to go through the Conditional Use Permit Process. I also had some – a
request for changes on the recommendation to City Council. This is a
recommendation to City Council, but we have some clarification on that. On
page 2 of the Annexation and Zoning, Item No. 11 says there are no significant
or scenic features of major importance that infect the consideration of this
application. We believe that the Jackson Drain is a scenic feature of major
importance that should be included in the Development Agreement that that must
be protected and enhanced as part of this development. Also, on page 3 – it
would be at the top of the page at the end of the first paragraph. It says that the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the pathway along Jackson
drain be addressed in the Conditional Use Permit process for Lot 2. We believe
this also needs to be addressed in the annexation and zoning and would request
language that the applicant is to provide an easement and construct a pathway
along the Jackson Drain if the City’s pathway plan shows a path on the north side
of the Jackson Drain. We also have some concerns about some of the permitted
uses within a light industrial zone and would like to be able to work with the
developer in that Development Agreement to specifically prohibit some of the
more obnoxious uses that could be permitted in the light industrial zone.
Corrie: Public hearing – the developer at this point.
Nickel: Mr. Mayor and Council. Shawn Nickel from Hubbell Engineering, 701
Allen Street in Meridian. Those conditions are acceptable to the developer
provided that his fence company is not obnoxious use. I’ll stand for any
questions.
Corrie: Any questions, Council.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Anyone else that would like to issue testimony on Item no. 11? Hearing
none.
Nichols: Shari? In a limitation of uses, are you looking to limit uses that would
be offensive to the – Is there some existing development that you’re worried
about?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 63
Stiles: Maybe we could take some language from like the Stonebridge
Development that actually outright prohibited some of the things that could be
permitted in a light industrial zone – things such as asphalt and concrete – Well,
contractors’ yards – they are permitted outright now, but we are going to require
a Conditional Use Permit on all of these things. A lumber yard would be
permitted. Junkyard could be in there with a Conditional Use Permit.
Nichols: My specific question is if I’m going to draft this and put some specifics in
with regard to limitations in this light industrial zone, I’d like to know what those
are so that I can put those in. I can go from something like Stonebridge, but I
think the Council would need to understand that we might be back here asking
for amendment to the findings before they actually adopt them once the applicant
sees what those limitations are.
Stiles: Could I just name off some? All of them? The ones that are currently
permitted in that zone that I don’t think should be permitted.
Nichols: It would be the Council’s pleasure as far as whether you want that now
or you want us to –
Corrie: Any objections, Council?
De Weerd: No.
Stiles: Prohibit dry cleaning due to its location next to that natural waterway and
some of the problems associated with ground water contamination from those
types of facilities – truck stop. I don’t know if you have any preferences about a
service station. Asphalt and concrete should be prohibited. It also shows carpet
and dry cleaning again. It’s a separate use. Junkyard be prohibited, fuel yards
prohibited, lumberyard prohibited. I don’t think they would do it because of the
size of it. Mobile home manufacturing, recycling plant, solid waste transfer
station, and I think that pretty much covers it as far as the uses that are permitted
or – like the junkyard would be a Conditional Use, but if they could outright
prohibit that.
Nickel: Thank you. Shawn Nickel from Hubbell again. All are acceptable but
with the exception of the lumberyard. Could you explain lumberyards – why?
Stiles: I guess it’s just the size of the piece that’s left. Were you wanting it for a
lumberyard in there?
Nickel: As long as it’s not a fence company. Fence manufacturing is not
considered close enough to be a lumberyard.
Stiles: Contractors’ yards are still permitted, but everything is going to be a
Conditional Use, so I think we –
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 64
Nickel: As long as we got that on the record, then those will be fine.
Corrie: Anything else? I’ll entertain a motion for the closure of Item No. 11.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item no. 11.
Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. Discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we instruct the City Attorney to draw up
the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in favor of granting the annexation
and zoning request for 5.4 acres for the Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision for an
office and shop in an I-L zone by Chuck Elliot – south of Fairview Avenue and
east of Locust Grove Road on Wilson Lane subject to staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in favor of the annexation and zoning
with the conditions of the staff. 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 12. Continued Public Hearing from August 15, 2000: 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
Chuck Elliot, The Elliot Group – south of Fairview Avenue and east
of Locust Grove Road on Wilson Lane:
Item 13. Tabled from August 15, 2000: 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
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 65
Chuck Elliot, The Elliot Group – south of Fairview Avenue and east
of Locust Grove Road on Wilson Lane:
Corrie: Item no. 12 and 13 – I need a motion to do that one after Item 20.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to have Items no. 12 and 13 to be
moved down to after 20. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14. Continued Public Hearing from September 5, 2000: VAR 00-
015 Request for a variance allowing the applicant to lower the
finish floor elevation below the Flood Plain because of the size of
the site by Rod and Sheri Eisele / Eagle Concrete Pumping in an
I-L zone – Baltic Place in the Meridian Business Park:
Corrie: Item no. 14 is a Continued Public Hearing from September 5, 2000 – a
request for a variance allowing the applicant to lower the finish floor elevation
below the Flood Plain because of the size of the site by Rod and Sheri Eisele /
Eagle Concrete Pumping. So I’ll continue the public hearing at this time and
open it and staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. Gary Smith, I believe has some additional
information on what he’s found out regarding the FIMA requirements for building
in the flood plain.
Smith: Thank you, Mayor and Council. My conversation with Fred Eisenbarth at
the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning this issue – there are two,
actually three alternatives. One is that the building can be what IDWR FIMA calls
“dry flood-proofed.” This process or this alternative is used where the finished
floor is below the base flood elevation and it is designed to keep the water out of
the building. Therefore, all the openings in the building – doors and/or windows
that are one foot below the base flood elevation must be waterproofed. I
received a technical bulletin from Mr. Eisenbarth and I transmitted that to Mr.
Cornell Larson – the architect for the owners. The other alternative is called wet
flood-proofing and this process allows the floodwater to pass through the building
with openings that are in the walls or foundations. Facilities in the building are
elevated one foot above the base flood elevation such that no damage occurs.
In this particular case, it’s not a feasible alternative. The last thing that Mr.
Eisenbarth told me was that a variance could be granted based on a hardship
and I explained to him this site and the peculiarities with it and the use that’s
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 66
being proposed for the site and the need to contain drainage on site as dictated
by Ada County Highway District. As I calculated, presently the design finish floor
for this building is at elevation 2609.25. Flood elevation is 2611.00, so if you add
one foot to that flood elevation and you’re approximately 1.75 feet below the
flood elevation with the finished floor as it’s designed. That means that the
finished floor needs to be raised 2.75 feet above its present design. Its present
design is approximately two feet above existing curb and gutter. Therefore, in
order to qualify this finished floor one foot above base flood elevation, it would
have to be 4.75 feet above the existing curb elevation out there and that’s not
feasible either. Mr. Eisenbarth did warn us that a variance can be – or if a
variance was allowed based on hardship, that we could not look at authorizing a
variance for all of the lots in this area on the same basis. FIMA would not look
favorably on that and I don’t know exactly what he means by that but I would
assume they would come back and wrap our knuckles a little bit. One building
exists more or less across the street – Baltic Place – from this building site. It
does not meet the floor elevation requirement. It’s obvious just by visual
inspection. I don’t know what the applicant’s architect has to say about the dry
flood-proofing option. I did not read the technical bulletins so I don’t know what
impact that has on the cost of the building. It would be necessary to – on the
doorways – the windows wouldn’t be a problem, I don’t believe, but the big
overhead doors that they have proposed in the building would need to be flood-
proofed up to a height above the finished floor elevation. It wouldn’t necessarily
be the whole door and I’m not sure how you flood-proof part of a door other than
in the jams – at the bottom of the door – the thresholds. Maybe Mr. Larson could
speak to that, but I’m assuming that that flood-proofing is a costly venture and I
don’t know if the finished floor could be raised any above what exists or what
they’re proposing – to provide a little more cushion between the base flood
elevation and finished floor than what they have shown – and still maintain on-
site drainage and still maintain access into the building for their concrete
pumping trucks. I guess that’s a question that the applicant and his architect will
need to answer.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I have a question, Gary. In the first place, how the heck did we
approve this road being that elevation, and second, give us the big picture. How
many of these lots are going to be low and how many times are we going to be
looking at this as this developed? Are there buildings already built, or just the
one across the street or –
Smith: There’s just one across the street that’s built and its finished floor is
below the base flood elevation.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 67
Anderson: And how far is this going to be affected? Is it going to go down King
Street or just that very tip of Baltic or –
Smith: No. It takes in all of the end of Baltic above King Street. I can’t relate to
you exactly the limits of it. It’s a pretty good size flood plain area. The lot at the
southwest corner of Baltic and King is elevated – well let’s see. It might be the
lot next to it – is elevated substantially. I think it is safely out of the flood plain
without doing any elevation work. They’ve hauled in a significant amount of fill
on the end of the cul-de-sac down there. They’ve got quite a pile of material
that’s been stock-piled down there and I think it’s there for a reason – to elevate
these buildings. This particular lot, because of its size, as the architect pointed
out to me today, it’s just difficult to access a commercial building with vehicles as
this is proposed. If it was an office type building, it would be a different situation,
but where they have to enter the building with vehicles, and still maintain on-site
drainage, it’s difficult as far as the grades are concerned. I guess the only thing I
can say about that one building that exists out there is that it’s slipped by in this
flood plain overlay district.
Anderson: Are we in the habit of approving streets below flood plain level? Is
that something Ada County Highway District does or us?
Smith: Well, the streets are approved by the Highway District, but the streets
don’t seem to be a problem as far as the base flood elevation is concerned. The
problem is damage from a flood to personal properties, buildings – that sort of
thing. A flood would impact any storm drainage system that a street would have
either under it or adjacent to it. Again, we’re caught up in the FIMA flood plain
situation which the City of Meridian had resisted to adopt for a number of years
and we’re finally forced to adopt. You could talk to a lot of folks in the Meridian
area – old-timers so to speak and you probably wouldn’t get any records of any
floods. But nevertheless, the engineering data shows that this is a flood plain
area and it’s caused by the crossing under the railroad – a restricted crossing
under the railroad.
Corrie: Anything else, Gary?
Smith: I hope I have given you enough information. I haven’t given you any real
answers other than a variance could be allowed on the basis of a hardship and
due to the access problems on the lot. Again, the FIMA cautions us – our IDWR
representative for FIMA cautions us on granting a number of hardships in this
hardship variances in this area on that basis. Perhaps the architect and the
owner could help the situation a little bit by raising this finished floor if you so
decide to grant the variance to provide a little bit more clearance.
*** End of Side 5 ***
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 68
Larson: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. My name is
Cornell Larson. My address is 210 Murray Street in Boise. I did get a chance to
look through the technical bulletin that we received from Gary today. There’s –
as he said, not to many acceptable options to us. We could raise the building up
a little bit, but as the bulletin continues to mention that we still have to meet all
state, local, ADA access codes, drainage codes and whatever is applicable.
That’s been kind of the problem with this site in order for us to come in from the
sites so we slope in and retain our drainage on-site slope back up. We just can’t
get the building up high enough to meet the flood requirements – the numbers
that Gary had given you earlier about raising that site up approximately 4 ¾ feet
is pretty accurate basically from what we’ve looked at from our engineering data.
Right now, the site has slopes on it at about three and a half percent at the
elevation we’ve got it at. As soon as you start approaching that four percent
mode, car doors slam shut if they’re parked on slopes. Front doors – we can’t
get them open really easy. They tend to close by themselves. It makes it difficult
for a truck that has a hopper that’s 18 inches off the ground to come over the
break-over angles from the street. We start seeing problems that we just can't
solve on a small lot by just continuing to raise it up. Somebody has hauled some
fill in there since we started this process. A portion of it may be on our site, but it
isn’t something that we did – but we understand that they’re maybe trying to raise
some of those lots. We could probably get the slope or the finished floor
elevation maybe up 7/10 or ¾ foot, but we’re going to be hard-pressed to make it
work – meet the ADA requirements, keep all the water on our site and deal with
the small site that we have right now. We’ve talked with the owner / applicant in
this case about other options in redesigning the site and we just can’t seem to
come up with one that still doesn’t cause us to not be able to meet standard good
engineering practices as well as deal with the flood plain issue. As far as dry-
proofing the building, we haven’t ever, in our experience, made an attempt at that
and I’m not sure what that might entail. The tilt-up concrete building that we have
proposed fortunately has very few construction joints in it. There would probably
be three down each side and two down the short sides, so it would be pretty
durable and pretty sealable from the standpoint of everything but the large
overhead doors that are wide enough for the trucks to drive in and out of. We
can get the utilities up off the floors. We can provide devices to manually shut
the sewers off so that the flood waters wouldn’t be getting into the sewer
systems. We aren’t going to get the floor elevation up very much and make the
site accessible for the use. I guess we’re asking you to grant a variance based
on hardship. We’d like to see if you’d consider that. I’d be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
Anderson: I have one question. Gary mentioned something about railroad
tracks. Did that cause a problem? Is there something that a bigger pipe under
that or something that could be done over there that would cure this problem?
Larson: We had talked to the developer on the property sometime back and the
new flood FIMA studies that were done in the area within the last year or so –
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 69
pretty much through the Boise Valley Area indicated that there’s a culvert that
crosses underneath the railroad track that is restricted. It does not allow the
water to flow through it freely and it would need to be changed in order for these
lots to be out of the flood way. The question came up as to what that does to the
liabilities down stream and I’m not a flood attorney or anything regarding liabilities
downstream, but there were concerns that if the railroad changed the culvert out,
that they might also be liable for flooding downstream where as now, it becomes
an issue that it’s flooding property that’s known and it may be unknown down the
road. So the railroad is not really interested in changing it out, to make a long
story short.
Anderson: Wouldn’t FIMA then readjust their flood plain? I mean, they’d identify
new areas that would be in that flood plain – I mean if that work was done. So
then those people would then know that that was flood plain. Now there might be
some existing buildings, but it might be an area where it’s undeveloped yet, too.
Larson: Yes, that would be correct. It’d be pretty much the situation reversed
maybe from the upstream to the downstream, but until some engineering studies
were done downstream, I’m not sure how that change in the culvert would effect
it. I understand it is about a $75,000 change to change that culvert. The smaller
lot to the south of us is kind of in the same situation. They will not be able to get
that lot up high enough unless they have an extremely small building or a
different than an industrial use. Most industrial uses have overhead doors – they
have trucks – they have some larger vehicles. They may not necessarily have
large buildings, but they need to move some vehicles around in them, so there’s
going to be several lots in the subdivision that are going to be awfully difficult
without a mass grading program to raise them in order to get them sold or
usable. I don’t know if all the lots are sold are how they’re – I don’t know that
current status of that subdivision.
Anderson: I would think you’d have the same problem. Every time you put fill in
one of those lots, you’re creating a problem where you’re going to push that
water to some other low area.
Larson: Yes. Our worse nightmare would be kind of the fact that everybody
would build up around us and we might be low, but we don’t have at this point in
time since we’re kind of first. We don’t have any way to get up without
encroaching on other people’s lots or building retaining walls around them. Then
it becomes an issue of how we can access off the street up four feet high. It’s
just impractical.
Smith: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Gary.
Smith: May I add a comment or two?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 70
Corrie: Yes.
Smith: I think one important consideration in this request and Cornell touched on
it was the elevation of materials within the building to a point that would be above
the base flood elevation to reduce the amount of damage that a flood may cause.
I think that’s one of the things that FIMA looks at is if there is a flood, how much
damage is there going to be? How much is FIMA going to pay out in a claim? I
think if provisions were made by the building owner to elevate these things that
could be damaged if a flood did occur that that would help our case as far as – or
your case, the City’s case, as far as granting a variance if that’s what you decide
to do. Now, the other thing – Councilman Anderson’s comments or question on
the base flood elevation, I am told that if it reaches this elevation of 26.11, it will
actually be flowing over the railroad tracks onto the north. At every crossing, you
will see a similar situation with the flood plain. All of the crossings in Meridian of
a drainage way, whether it’s Five Mile Creek, Ten Mile Creek, Nine Mile Creek,
you cross a roadway, you cross a railroad, you end up with a flood plain that is
outside the banks of the drainage. You can see by the picture that Shari has on
the board the size of the flood plain and the site and that subdivision. It covers a
significant area. The next large area on the other side of the railroad is Pine.
Pine Street is a major restriction and Five Mile Creek creates a tremendously
large flood plain area. This development does not impact the flood way. You
can barely see the flood way as a cross-hatched area under the dark shaded
area, but it doesn’t impact the flood way. The flood way is a critical element. No
building is allowed within the flood way. So we have this situation whenever you
cross a roadway with a culvert or a pipe. At Fairview Avenue, you have a similar
situation with Five Mile Creek. The only time you don’t have a problem is where
a new structure has been installed along with a roadway improvement project.
Typically, those structures will pass a hundred year flood. And that’s what you’re
looking at here – the hundred year flood.
Anderson: So if I understand you correctly, Gary, FIMA recommends that any
buildings built in that flood plain then ought to be built to this FIMA standard?
Smith: The finished floor elevation is to be one foot above that base flood
elevation. That’s what their requirements are.
Anderson: We just haven’t been enforcing that.
Smith: We have, but this one building that’s existing out there, for one reason or
another doesn’t have that elevation. We’ve probably been because we have
fewer commercial or industrial subdivisions in Meridian adjacent to these
drainages. We haven’t had the situations presented to us as much as we have
residential subdivisions. Residential subdivisions probably get more attention
just because of the numbers of lots that are involved in flood plain areas. And
again, you can take these flood plain areas out of the flood plain by filling the
land and you request what they call a LOMAR which is a Letter of Map Revision
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 71
on the flood plain. But you have to go through certain process and procedure to
get that change made through FIMA.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Anyone else in the public that would like to issue testimony? Hearing
none. Any questions for anybody on the record here? If not, 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. 14 –
Variance No. 00-015. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of
the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Any further discussion on the variance request?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we don’t have any discussion, I will make a motion that we approve this
variance allowing the applicant to lower the finished floor elevation below the
flood plain because of a hardship by the size of the site by Rod and Sheri Eisele
and Eagle Concrete Pumping in an I-L zone and for the attorney to draw up the
proper papers.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the variance request and have
the attorney draw up the proper papers and forms. Any further discussion?
Hearing none. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15. Tabled from September 5, 2000: CUP 00-044 Request for
Conditional Use Permit to construct a 4,125 s.f. tilt-up concrete
building for Eagle Concrete Pumping by Rod and Sheri Eisele in a
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 72
Flood Plain Overlay District currently in an I-L zone – North Baltic
Place in the Meridian Business Park
Corrie: Item 15 is tabled from September 5, 2000: CUP 00-004 – a request a to
construct a 4,125 square foot tilt-up concrete building for Eagle Concrete
Pumping by Rod and Sheri Eisele in a Flood Plain Overlay District currently in an
I-L zone. Council, discussion on the request? Hearing none. I’ll entertain a
motion on the request for Conditional Use Permit on Item no. 15.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the Conditional Use Permit
request to construct a 4,125 square foot tilt-up concrete building for Eagle
Concrete Pumping by Rod and Sheri Eisele in a Flood Plain Overlay District
currently in an I-L zone on North Baltic Place in Meridian Business Park and
instruct the City Attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and subject to staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the CUP 00-004 and have
the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and approval
and the Decision of Order to be done at the same time with staff comments. Any
other discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16. Tabled from September 5, 2000: CUP 00-042 Request for a
Conditional Use Permit to construct a Carl’s Jr. Restaurant with a
drive-thru window by Greenstar Foods and TFCM currently in an I-L
zone – located on Pad P-3 at the Meridian Crossroads Center:
Corrie: Item No. 16 – tabled from September 5, 2000: CUP 00-042 – request for
a Conditional Use Permit to construct a Carl’s Jr. Restaurant with a drive-thru
window by Greenstar Foods and TFCM currently in an I-L zone – located on Pad
P-3 at the Meridian Crossroads Center. Staff, any comments here?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is in the Family Center, where Carl’s Jr.
would be located at this location in this Family Center site, roughly inline with
Florence Street. We would recommend approval with staff conditions.
Questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 73
Corrie: Applicant have any questions or statements?
Bauwens: Mayor, members of the Council. Tom Bauwens with Dakota
Company, 380 East Park Center Boulevard, Boise. Due to the lateness of the
hour, I’ll be brief. We’ve read the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and in full agreement with all of the conditions except no. 1.110 – I
think can now be eliminated from the Conditions of Approval. We would like to
enter into the record a memo we received this date from Larry Sales at the
Highway District lifting the mandate of the 450,000 square foot. We’ve worked
everything out with the Highway District and they’re now prepared to continue
releasing building permits on the site. And then I’d also like to draw the Council’s
attention to Conditions 1.20 through 1.56 which are basically verbatim from the
original Conditional Use Permit on the project and the vast majority of those
conditions have already been completed and we’re now in the midst of design
work and should be under construction hopefully late this year and those that are
required after the 450,000 square foot threshold. If there are any questions –
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the public? Council, you’ve heard
from staff and also the applicant. Where would you like to go?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit to construct a Carl’s Jr.
Restaurant with a drive-thru window by Greenstar Foods, TFCM, currently in an
I-L zone, located at Pad P-3 at the Meridian Crossroads Center and for the
attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
and Decision of Order and to include staff comments and also eliminate Item
1110 and also 120 to 56 which has already been done.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the request for
Conditional Use Permit No. 00-042, Carl’s Jr. Restaurant and have the attorney
draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with staff comments and
the elimination of Item No. 1.10 and 1.20 to 1.56. 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.
Bauwens: Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question?
Corrie: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 74
Bauwens: I’m Mr. Bauwens. I think it would be helpful if we could get a copy of
the Development Agreement so that we could see what the conditions of –
because I think we’re going to have a plat coming in that southwest corner of
your development that’s going to include a traffic signal at Pine and the
improvement at Pine. Okay. Thank you.
Item 17. Tabled from September 5, 2000: FP 00-016 Request for Final
Plat approval of 38 building lots and 1 other lot on 11.05 acres for
Packard Subdivision No. 4 by Packard Estates Development,
LLC – southeast quarter, Section 5, T3N, R1E:
Corrie: Item No. 17 is tabled from September 5, 2000. This is a request for Final
Plat No. 00-016 – approval of 38 building lots and 1 other lot on 11.05 acres for
Packard Subdivision No. 4 by Packard Estates Development, LLC. Staff.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the final phase of Packard Estates
Subdivision. It would be on the southeast corner of the approximate 40 acre
peace here. With this approval, they can get these ditch problems cleared up
hopefully and we recommend approval with staff conditions. Thanks.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, this isn’t Wind Gate Lane one, is it.
Stiles: No. Wind Gate Lane would actually be up here. The Development
Agreement that was on the Agenda tonight dealt with the Wind Gate Lane issue
and we’ll be seeing Phase Two of what they call Packard Acres now in two
weeks that would border Vern Almond and the south slue there.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion on the request for Final Plat, No. 00-016.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that we approve the Final Plat approval of 38 building
lots and 1 other lot on 11.05 acres for Packard Subdivision No. 4 of Packard
Estates Development, LLC, southeast corner, section 5, T3N, R1E with staff
comments and the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law and Decision of Order.
Corrie: Do I hear a second on the motion?
Anderson: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 75
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the final request of 00-016 of
Packard Subdivision No. 4 and have the attorney draw up the proper orders and
put the staff comments of approval. Any further comments? Discussion? Okay.
Roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; De Weerd, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18. Public Hearing: 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:
Corrie: Item No. 18 is a public hearing on a variance request to not pipe an open
ditch that borders the subject parcel on the west boundary in the Hollows
Subdivision by Bond and Shelli Campbell – the variance number 00-021. At this
time I’ll open the public hearing and staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a property that’s currently zoned R-3 in
the City. They are proposing not to pipe the ditch that runs adjacent to the west
property line. Apparently, the property owner here uses that ditch for irrigation.
I’m not sure if it’s irrigation or drainage. I’d like Gary to address some of the
concerns that we have with that in regard to moving it onto the adjacent property.
There is a requirement on this subdivision to have a 15-foot wide berm
completely surrounding the property and the adjacent property owner was here
earlier. I don’t know if he’s still here. Jeff, is he here? Is he here? The adjacent
property owner was here. I’m not sure if he is aware of all the implications of not
piping this ditch. He was a little concerned because he says he has sprinkler
system running all the way up nearly to his property line, so maybe Mr. Manship
can address that a little more fully, but since these were conditions of the plat,
and they are ordinance requirements, we didn’t prepare a staff report for you, but
I would like Gary to address the issue of the implications of not piping that ditch.
Smith: Thank you, Mayor and Council. The Preliminary Plat shows the property
line for this subdivision down the center of that ditch and as you know, the
ordinance requires that a ditch – all ditches crossing a property are immediately
adjacent there too are to be piped. That’s the reason for this variance request. I
am not sure how this ditch is utilized by the adjacent property owner. If the ditch
is piped, and he uses this as a live-water ditch, and it appears from the
photograph that that’s the case, then there are pertness (sic) that can be
attached to pipes to allow irrigation from the pipe, such as an Orchard Valve – or
Orchard Valves. The other issue that – if this ditch is moved off the property line
onto the property to the west, or to your left as you look at the photograph, then
there would need to be an approval by the property owner to go to the left side
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 76
for that move. It would also encumber the property owner to the left to pipe at
some future date if he so decided to develop or someone else decided to
develop – that requirement would then be with that property owner. So there are
a couple of implications with this ditch. I don’t know how much water that ditch is
carrying. It looks like a pretty good size ditch, but it’s not large enough to not
pipe as required by the ordinance, which we’ve said is a 48-inch. If it exceeds
48-inch, then its excepted.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I have got to ask the obvious question here. What’s the
problem with piping the ditch?
Manship: Jeff Manship, Pinnacle Engineers, 870 North Linder Road. This
request is by the adjacent property owner. He wants to continue doing that.
Another reason for him not wanting to pipe it is apparently he has sprinkler lines
running right up to the lip of the ditch on the left side and believes if it was piped
and equipment was in there, it would ruin it and he doesn’t want to deal with that.
He likes to continue to flood irrigate with open water like that. Currently, like I
said, this is a request by the property owner to keep that open. I did get a com
back from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. “Dear Commissioners, the above
mentioned lateral or irrigation ditch would not exceed the 48-inch maximum pipe
size under the City of Meridian’s present ordinance.” That’s the only comment
they had on that.
Anderson: I guess I’m confused. You said he has sprinkler heads run right up to
the edge of the ditch but then you were saying he flood irrigates. Is there a
sprinkler system or a flood irrigation?
Manship: I’ll let the developer answer that question for you.
Campbell: I’m Bond Campbell, 1150 East Ustick Road in Meridian, property
owner to what would be the east of this property. He flood irrigates this portion
which is basically pasture, but he irrigates with sprinklers the portion from the
front to the back of the house to the fence. So he’s got sprinklers on a portion of
it, but he flood irrigates this front and he flood irrigates a portion of the back out of
this ditch.
Bird: Okay. He’s got a pump down there?
Campbell: No pump. He just basically ferules the embankment wherever he
wants the water to come out.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 77
Bird: But how does he sprinkler? He’s got to have some kind of a pump set up
back there.
Campbell: Yes, off of his well for his sprinklers for his house.
Bird: Oh. It’s not coming off the ditch?
Campbell: No.
Anderson: And how many feet a yard is that back there at the end that he’s
doing with the sprinkler system?
Campbell: There’s probably 100 feet there and there’s probably another 100 or
more feet of pasture behind that and this is probably – deceiving from this picture
but this is probably maybe 600 feet from the edge of the grass to the front. It’s a
combination of yard and pasture split up into three sections.
Anderson: And what size pipe would it take to pipe that or tile that ditch?
Campbell: I believe, in our original Preliminary Plat, it was 12-inch pipe. Does
that show on this plat? I believe it was 12-inch pipe. Maybe 14.
Bird: That’s an awful large –
Anderson: You can move a lot of water through a –
Campbell: This ditch is deceiving because of it’s width / depth ratio. It’s a fairly
shallow ditch compared to its width.
Bird: Now tell me – I’m being dense, which isn’t uncommon, but why by tiling
that ditch is going to hurt his sprinkler system if he sprinkles off his well?
Campbell: Again, I don’t know all of his reasons for recommending to us that we
not tile that ditch. Obviously, if it were you or me, we probably appreciate that
improvement to our property. I really don’t understand his – that’s one of his
explanations but I don’t know if that’s all of his reasoning. All I can say is we’re
just trying to take care of all the property owners on this ditch situation.
Bird: Where is that ditch originally from?
Campbell: It originates from the corner of South Locust Grove and Ustick Road
and it runs –
Bird: Does it come across Dr. Johnson’s on the corner there?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 78
Campbell: It goes across – it goes north on Locust Grove to the back of Dr.
Johnson’s. Then it comes across the back of Doc Johnson’s, across the back of
Pepper’s onto my property.
Bird: Then it starts to slow down there.
Campbell: And then it actually goes north again a little ways all the way across
the northern boundary of my property and then all the way back to Ustick Road.
Bird: What about silt and stuff, Gary?
Smith: I don’t know if there’s a silt problem in the ditch or not, Councilman Bird. I
think that silt problem we had was the type of soil that they had and the type of
crop that they had – that they were irrigating and they were just running a lot of
water. In looking through the file on some of the letters that came in, there was
some concern expressed by downstream water users on the headgate area, the
northeast corner of this project, also that they were concerned that they had the
right headgate ultimately constructed and that they had access to that headgate.
I know that doesn’t really deal with this request, but it’s the same ditch. Just
listening to what Bond had to say, if the property owner to the west of this – I
mean the reasoning for not piping the ditch – I don’t know what they would be. If
he flood irrigates, the Orchard Valves can be installed in that pipe and then he
can flood out of those Orchard Valves. If they’ve got a berm scheduled for along
this west side anyway, that ditch is either going to have to be moved or piped. It
certainly can’t stay in it’s present location just because the property line is down
the middle of the ditch.
Corrie: Is the Hollows willing to give up that? It looks like the Hollows will be
giving up that eventually.
Campbell: I’m not opposed to keeping the ditch where it is and moving my fence
basically where the fence line is now. My only question is then, if there’s
property on the opposite side of the fence, that I’m basically letting him use – If
the City doesn’t have a problem with that, I don’t have a problem with that only
because my lots are all over 100 feet deep. Actually, the shallowest one – I
believe those lots average about 146 feet deep, so I thought about that and I’m
not opposed to that – if we can leave the ditch where it is, keep him happy,
satisfy the requirements of the City and just construct a new fence where the
existing fence is, I’m not opposed to giving up that two to three feet of property.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think Council just brought up a good point. You can’t put a fence over a
pipe to irrigate a pipe anyway, so –
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 79
Corrie: You’d have to put the fence on that side anyway. Anybody else in the
public? I don’t think there is. Any other comments or questions of Council and
the applicant and staff?
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: Hearing none. I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item
17, the variance.
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on the
Variance No. 00-2021. All those in favor, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Council.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: A comment. As I understand it from Mr. Campbell, with the blessing of our
department, if our staff, we could – he’s willing to just go down that existing fence
line with his property and just leave that open and – I don’t know from legalities
what you have to do. Would you have to – What would we have to do for
legalities on that? It probably wouldn’t be anything to us, anyway. It would be
between him and the owner to that. It would affect the plat, though, wouldn’t it?
Yes.
Stiles: They’ll have to increase their easements on the exterior boundary
because they’d still have to have 10 foot.
Bird: Can that be done within the staff level or can it be done when we approve
the plat?
Stiles: It could be when you do approve the plat. I would just ask that you do
one thing if you’re going to approve this variance. Since the property owner
adjacent was here wanting to testify and left – not that I’m not saying Bond’s not
telling us what’s right, but since he’s not here, could this approval be contingent
on receiving a notarized approval from that property owner to leave it open – that
it’s at his request and that he realizes that if he re-subdivides or redevelops his
property, he will have the sole responsibility for paying for that ditch. Just
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 80
because he’s not here – and he may not realize what the implications of not
piping that ditch are. No, we can’t do that.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Councilman Bird asked me if the
public hearing had to be reopened and I don’t believe so. I think it’s been stated
that the reason for the variance, and it’s in the record already is that the neighbor
requested and so if you wanted to make a condition of granting the variance that
Council – or excuse me – staff received a notarized statement to that effect, we
can write it in that way. So we’ll go ahead and (inaudible)
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: We have these City Ordinances and the ordinance clearly states that
either you tile a ditch this size or you make it an amenity and the prerequisite for
doing away with that is if it creates a hardship. To me, nobody has shown that it
creates a hardship here. It’s just a matter of personal preference. Yes, if you
have a choice to spend the money and tile a ditch, no, you aren’t going to do it. I
don’t see where the hardship has been shown in this case and I guess it would
be my recommendation that we not grant a variance here.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. I agree with Councilman Anderson. There is no proven
hardship and that’s what our ordinance and variances are for.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Let’s close the public hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I also agree that it’s in the ordinance, but when you got the guy that owns
half of that ditch that the property line is running right down the half and he don’t
want it tiled, I don’t know – maybe if they don’t want to tile it, maybe Mr.
Campbell ought to go out and deed that two or three foot of that over to him. But,
I agree if the ordinance – you know – when you don’t own the whole property and
it’s a boundary line and stuff and the guy that – I know if I was that property
owner and have that nice house sitting out there and even if I wanted to flood
irrigate, I wouldn’t want the thing piped either.
Anderson: But we’re not eliminating that. They can still have access to it by
putting the gates in the pipe and still flood irrigate.
Bird: Oh. I realize that, but –
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 81
Anderson: And it’s pretty clear to me Nampa / Meridian’s suggestion is that they
think it ought to be piped. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Just to move things forward, I would make a motion that we instruct
the City Attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law denying
this variance – that hardship has not been shown for the Hollows Subdivision by
Bond and Shellie Campbell.
McCandless: I’ll second that.
Bird: Motion made and seconded to deny the variance request and have the
attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law to that denial.
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 19. Public Hearing: 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: Item No. 19 is a public hearing on the variance request to use Meridian
City water for irrigation in The Hollows Subdivision and variance number 00-022.
At this point I’ll open the public hearing with staff comments first.
*** End of Side 6 ***
Smith: - basis and that’s the reason for the request to utilize city water for
sprinkler irrigation of the lots. These lots are 12 – 13,000 square feet. They’re
probably similar in size to a lot of the lots in Meridian Greens Subdivision.
Apparently, they have indicated that they’re going to have a pressurized irrigation
system. I’ll ask the developer, I guess, to address that, but if that’s the case and
City Water is used as the principal source, then there would be a single point
connection and back-flow device at that point of connection. With the availability
of ditch water, we’ve got to address it or may have already addressed this same
matter on Ted Hepper’s subdivision just – Is that just to the east of you Bond?
Yes. It’s the same ditch. So I’ve got a similar situation there with just intermittent
water flow. The alternative and the reason that I mentioned this pressurized
irrigation system for the subdivision is that someday, there could be water
available for this subdivision and for Hepper’s subdivision. The only issue with
that is how the distribution system is sized and laid out and where the point of
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 82
supply would be which is all a big question mark right now. Anyway, I think Mr.
Campbell wants to address the –
Campbell: Bond Campbell, 1150 East Ustick, Meridian. We’ll do that if staff
requires it – putting in a pressurized irrigation system with a single point
connection. My only concerns are what you mention there as far as the
unknowns. We don’t know when or where and so we could have this. I guess
we would still be utilizing the system either way and that would eliminate – the
advantage would be that would eliminate the need for back-flow devices on each
individual home site, and probably better pressure, so I’m not opposed at this
point to installing a pressurized irrigation system with a single-point connection. I
think we’ve been over it and over it and that’s really our only alternative for
continuous water supply, so that’s all I have.
Corrie: Questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Anyone else in the public want to testify? Hearing none. Council, any
questions for the public hearing?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item No. 00-022
variance request.
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 19. All
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: In light of what we just heard about not really having any problems
with putting in the pressurized irrigation system and being that I live in a
subdivision where we water off the City water and knowing the cost of City water
and the size of these lots that you’re putting out here probably would be a very
good selling point to you to go ahead and put in the pressurized irrigation
because a lot of people are not going to want to pay City water rates just to water
that much square footage in yard. I would make a motion that we have the City
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 83
Attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, again, denying
this request for a variance for using City Water for irrigation in the Hollows
Subdivision by Bond and Shellie Campbell.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: His pressurized irrigation system he’s putting in is going to work off of City
water. That’s the one question, before we close that I should ask. This ditch,
evidently is not – April 1
st
to October 1
st
irrigation ditch.
Campbell: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Councilman Bird. It’s on an
intermittent flow. It doesn’t flow continuously. As I understand, it’s every 10 days
that they get water in the ditch.
Bird: Councilman, I just thought you’d –
Anderson: Well, we’re just talking about the source – it’s still going to be City
waters.
Bird: The source is still going to be City, but the pressurized irrigation is going to
be – it’s like Cherry Lane’s got – only they come out of the ditch. This is going to
come out of our well – out of the City Well. So you’re not going to save any
money, but it is nice. I think we should require the pressurized irrigation in as
many subs as we possibly can. It is going to be from a single source so that we
don’t have to have a back-flow at every house.
Anderson: Okay. I guess my question would be then, maybe to staff, is can we
put some type of requirement – because you talked about the Hepper property.
Can we put some type of condition on there that says when that goes in, they
would be required to do some type of cooperative water system for that other
than City water?
Smith: Councilman Anderson, Mayor and Council. I think it’s the same ditch for
Hepper as it is for this property. So we’ve got the same problem as far as supply
goes.
Anderson: Couldn’t you put in an irrigation well for a reasonable cost if you’ve
got more than one subdivision?
Smith: If IDWR releases their moratorium on irrigation wells, yes, that could be
done. Right now, they still have that moratorium in place and it’s a restriction for
irrigation wells or wells that are drilled for irrigation. I think you can get an
irrigation well permit for water use before and after surface water is available for
irrigation, but it’s a very restricted use. Again, here, you’d still have the problem
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 84
of not having a continuous flow of water during the regular irrigation season, so
your intermittent well use wouldn’t be of much value.
Anderson: Well, I’ll withdraw my motion. I don’t think I got a second.
Corrie: You never got a second, so you can do that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, one question. Any problems with water out there – and I believe
that’s – ain’t that a well planned out there in that area anyway?
Smith: We have a well at the northeast corner of Locust Grove and Ustick right
now – Well No. 18 is right there in Summerfield and so we’ve got a good supply
right there – no problems with that.
Bird: Okay. With that, Mayor, I would move that we approve the request for
variance for the use of Meridian City water for irrigation in the Hollows
Subdivision by Bond and Shellie Campbell on one condition – that it is done
through a pressurized irrigation system with a one single source application to
the well.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the variance 00-022 and to have
the attorney draw up the papers with the approval of having a single-source
private irrigation system hook-up. 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. Continued Public Hearing: 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:
Corrie: Now, we go to Item No. 10 which is a continued public hearing on
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 – PP 00-013. We open the
public hearing and invite staff comments.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 85
Stiles: I believe this was continued just because we ran out of time last time. Is
that what happened? Or was it for these variances? Staff would recommend
approval with staff and agency comments and also that the easement needed on
the west property line accommodate both the tiling of that ditch and any needed
utility easements. Also, we do have a letter from the adjacent property owner,
the one that has the ditch on his property that he is worried about access to his
headgates for his ditch. So as an additional condition, that the tiling and access
to the headgates receive the approval of the downstream water users – as a
condition of the plat.
Corrie: This is a continued public hearing.
Manship: Jeff Manship again, Pinnacle Engineers. I would go with that note that
Shari was saying on the ditch and the access to the headgates. Show the plat
on the map. Do we have that scene? There we go. We’re proposing an
easement right here where currently – excuse me – the two headgates are right
up here. We’re going to keep an easement over here so the – either down
stream of the ditch can come and access these headgates. They’re (inaudible) –
flow of water of what they want to do and keep the easement open so they can
traverse across this back (inaudible) – fence it off so these property owners don’t
have to see people in the back going to change those headgates.
Stiles: How are they going to have a 15-foot berm, then? Jeff, could you
address how the 15-foot berm is going to be provided around the perimeter with
it fenced off and a ditch running through it? And I was just wondering where the
berm thing came from? Was that a condition of Planning and Zoning
Commission?
Manship: That’s something that Bond came up with on that –
Stiles: Oh, way to go. Way to go, Bond!
Campbell: Bond Campbell, 1150 East Ustick Road in Meridian. Shari, the berm
came up on the development agreement three years ago and I don’t know if you
remember when this application came through here three years ago. At that
time, I think it was a recommendation from staff to berm the property on the
perimeter. I am not sure why. We aren’t in big favor of that berm, so if that
something on the Development Agreement that can be changed, then I am not
opposed to that. If it can’t be changed, then it boils down to what your definition
of a berm is. If it’s a 15-foot berm and it requires a certain amount of slope, then
we’re limited to that. If we’re not required to a minimum or maximum amount of
slope, then two inches constitutes a berm. So I guess we need some clarification
on what constitutes a berm.
Stiles: I’d have to look at the Development Agreement and why that’s in the
Development Agreement. I can’t imagine that would have been a staff condition.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 86
It might have come up during the public hearings from the adjacent property
owners. I don’t know if Ted had some comment about it or maybe the other
property owners. I just don’t know where it came from, but it is going to be pretty
hard to have a ditch piped with headgates and a berm and it’s all going to be
back behind – apparently you’re proposing to have the ditch excluded from those
backyards – If I understood Jeff, it was that that berm area would be fenced off
from the lots so it would basically be unusable property to them. Then we run
into a maintenance issue of people aren’t going to maintain what they can’t use
and what they can’t see.
Campbell: Right. This is has been a struggle, also. I’ve actually made a
suggestion to the engineers – it’s not drawn on this plat, but I had made a
recommendation and if I can, I’ll go to the map and kind of explain it to you
because it’s semi-complicated. The problem is that the water comes in here and
we need access to headgates here by the road. So, one thing that I suggested
to Pinnacle was to actually bring the water into a headgate here that is diverted
pipe this way to a headgate here that can then – actually two headgates because
what we’re trying to do here is bring the water here. This headgate really doesn’t
do anything but divert the water this way. This is where we need a headgate to
divert water this way or this way. So, essentially what we’d have to do is bring it
into a headgate here, turn the water this way – provide two headgates here – one
to send it this way and one to send it in a different pipe this way so that you
eliminate this headgate on the back corner of the property. That pulls everything
out here by the road where it can be accessed without crossing the back of these
lots. Does that make sense? Do you see what we’re trying to do here?
Stiles: You’ll have two headgates out on that stub there?
Campbell: Two headgates here.
Stiles: And that’s all. No headgates back on the north property line?
Campbell: No headgates here at all.
Stiles: Okay. All right.
Campbell: I guess you’d have to have a headgate there where the water turns
the corner. But that doesn’t need to be necessarily accessed by the people
diverting water. It only needs to be accessed by Nampa / Meridian or whoever is
maintaining the ditch.
Stiles: Is this considered a Nampa / Meridian ditch – do they take ownership and
maintenance responsibility for that ditch, or do they say it’s a user’s ditch?
Campbell: Yes, I’m sorry. It’s a user’s ditch, so it belongs to the subdivision.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 87
Stiles: We’re just concerned that you work with those downstream water users
so they get their historical flow of water and that they don’t have any problems
with access to headgates. If you can make them happy, that’s all we care about.
Campbell: I don’t know what normally happens in a subdivision like this if it’s on
a back corner of a property. This homeowner’s concern was that now people
were going to cross her property to access those headgates. I think the original
intention was to fence around those headgates because access could still be
gained here. Obviously, if she doesn’t want that – because the way it is now – I
live right here. People pull in my driveway, drive around by my shops, drive back
here and climb over my fence and walk back here to change this headgate. It’s
been that way for however many years. So I guess it’s assumed that I need to
continue that responsibility to provide access from my property.
Stiles: I guess so, yes.
Campbell: That’s the assumption. Even though I am no longer even a
participant in the use of that water by piping it all the way around this project. I
don’t know if the City has – this whole issue would be resolved if the City has any
power in what happens to the fencing around this headgate.
Stiles: What do you mean by power and what happens to the fencing?
Campbell: Well, I guess –
Stiles: I mean they have to have access to that and they don’t want to go
through somebody’s backyard to get the access. No one would want somebody
coming in their backyard to go through the headgate.
Campbell: Yes. I understand the situation, but if we could fence around here,
then we wouldn’t have to do all of this – to go through all of this diversion and
have all this conversation – We have a solution, I think, by bringing the
headgates out to here. We can make that work. We can still provide access.
Then it would be from the street. It wouldn’t be on anybody’s backyard. Then it
just comes down to –
Stiles: Okay. I understand now, I think. Mr. Mayor and Council. I’d just like to
be able to kind of coordinate with them and with the Public Works Department to
see what we need to do – if there’s any extraordinary easements that need to be
provided. Still, we see some final construction plans that’s going to be a little
hard for us to determine that – and I research that berm thing.
Manship: Jeff Manship, Pinnacle Engineers. We agree upon all the (inaudible)
specific requirements. Just one question on No. 7, Shari is where fencing will be
necessary on this project. You really didn’t point it out in the –
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 88
Stiles: It’s going to be kind of a chicken and egg thing. I think Wanda’s Meadow
probably had a requirement for permanent perimeter fencing. First one to want a
building permit, or maybe you can cooperate with that Wanda’s Meadow,
depending on the construction timing – share any costs of that. I don’t know. It
is going to be an issue with where you pipe that ditch and where the clean-outs
are and this berm – if we can’t get rid of that. You will definitely need it on the
northern boundary and the western boundary.
Manship: Okay.
Stiles: Not necessarily the street boundary – it can encroach on that landscape
easement if they do want a fence. It’s more of an aesthetic buffer and a buffer
from the street with that landscaping planning strip. We don’t usually dictate that
if fence is required next to that street if you have a good buffer with your planning
out there.
Manship: Any other questions that I can try to answer or Bond could try to
answer?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone else in the public who wants
to issue testimony on this No. 10? I would entertain a motion that we close the
continued public hearing on Item No. 10.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 10,
request for Preliminary Plat No. 00-013. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Discussion or questions, Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess my question would be how do we go about a motion when
there’s still unresolved issues with the berms? Do we just leave it for staff to
work out berm requirements, ditch or headgates or whatever you define that
issue as – and fencing.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 89
Stiles: The fencing is going to be required perimeter fencing. I mean that’s what
we’ve asked for is the required perimeter fencing. That would be northeast and
west unless they can work out something with the adjacent property owner. I
think the headgates is going to have to be dealt with by Public Works Department
when they get final construction drawings. The berm – I am going to have to
research that on what the Development Agreement said and why that was in
there. It may not be a condition that can be removed. I don’t think it can be
removed if it’s in the Development Agreement without it coming back to Council.
I just have to read that. I don’t remember that.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of
12 lots on 5.6 acres in an R-3 zone by Bond and Shellie Campbell for the
proposed Hollows to include staff comments noting fencing on the northeast and
west boundaries – that the headgates need to be worked out with Public Works
and that the P and Z administrator will research the berm issue. If a
recommendation needs to be made, further action can be taken. Instruct the City
Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision
of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat 00-013 with
staff’s (inaudible) and any comments and have the attorney draw up the Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further comments? Hearing none. Roll-
call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20. Public Hearing: 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:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 20 is a public hearing – 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. So
at this point, I’ll open the public hearing on the variance no. 00-023. Staff
comments.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 90
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. With the comments from the adjacent property
owner’s representative regarding their agreement to go with a 10-foot planting
strip with trees 20 feet on center in the sizes indicated in their letter, staff would
recommend approval to reduce the planting strip requirement to 10 feet with
trees 20 feet on center.
De Weerd: The trees 20-foot on center?
Stiles: That’s what was requested by the adjacent property owner. They wanted
certain species of trees and I guess Shaun can relate whether they have some
other information.
Nickel: Mr. Mayor and Council, thanks for letting us speak. Shaun Nickel from
Hubbell Engineering, 701 Allen Street in Meridian. Yes, the developer and the
adjacent property owner did meet and came to an agreement on what types of
trees and locations along that 10-foot buffer strip. Before we -- I guess we’ll
stand for any questions you may have. I appreciate staff’s recommendation.
Corrie: Questions?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing nothing further of the public. I entertain a motion to close
the public hearing.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing in request for
variance 00-023. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we have the City Attorney draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law allowing the variance for the required
20-foot to a 10-foot wide planting strip in a proposed I-L zone for Elliot Industrial
Park Subdivision by Chuck Elliott subject to staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 91
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the variance request on VAR 00-
023 and have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
with the submittal of the staff comments. 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 12. Continued Public Hearing from August 15, 2000: 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
Chuck Elliot, The Elliot Group – south of Fairview Avenue and east
of Locust Grove Road on Wilson Lane:
Item 13. Tabled from August 15, 2000: 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:
Corrie: Item No. 13 is tabled from August 15, 2000. It’s a CUP request 00-033
to construct an office and shop for proposed Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision.
Staff.
Stiles: We would recommend approval with staff and agency conditions and
based on the Development Agreement to be executed.
Corrie: Okay. Oh, I thought we were doing 13 and then 12. I am sorry. I guess
I got it backwards. Okay.
De Weerd: I was on 12.
Anderson: That’s the one we’re supposed to be on is 12.
Stiles: And ditto for 13.
Corrie: Okay, lets back up and go to Item 12. It’s a continued public hearing on
a request for Preliminary Plat for approval of 2 building lots on 5.4 acres for
proposed Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision – PP 00-015. At this point I’ll open the
continued public hearing and staff comments on 12 this time.
Stiles: I would like to incorporate my testimony from the previous – with
Development Agreement, staff and agency conditions and variance requirements
– I mean the conditions of the approved variance requirements.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 92
Corrie: This is a public hearing. Any questions or testimony? Okay. Hearing
none from the applicant. I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, ma’am.
De Weerd: There’s a number of things or just a couple of things on the
recommendation from Planning and Zoning. On page 1, number 5, the sentence
is not complete and on page 4 –
Stiles: Which one are you on, Tammy, please?
De Weerd: On the Preliminary Plat. Isn’t that what we’re doing?
Bird: Yeah, that’s it.
De Weerd: Or is there a revised one? In number 5, the sentence is not
complete. “The proposed site of the subject property is.” Then on page 4, Item
1.12 – I don’t know. This was so long ago when I looked at this. Number 3 is –
Stiles: Tammy, can I say something about that one – the 1.12?
De Weerd: Yes.
Stiles: I kind of mentioned that in the annexation and zoning that kind of
changed that. I know that Chuck did oppose that earlier and – that the pathway
along the Jackson Drain shall be addressed in the Conditional Use Permit
process for Lot 2 and the applicant is to provide an easement and construct
pathway if the City’s pathway plan shows a path on the north side of Jackson
Drain.
De Weerd: Okay. I think just my change was instead of number 3, it’s 1.1. Her
Item No. 3 in the annexation requirements, it’s more per Item 1.1 in the zoning
one. Well, just whatever needs fixed, just fix it.
Stiles: Chuck will do whatever we want him to do. It’s really going to need to be
addressed when that back piece develops, but we want to make sure we leave
that open in case it is determined that that north side needs to be – they might
need to have a little additional easement – maybe another five feet because it
looked from the plat that that easement is only about – in some places maybe
seven or eight feet from the very top of bank. There might need to be some little
negotiation if that needs to be constructed along the north boundary of that
Jackson Drain.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 93
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Then I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Item No. 12 public hearing. All
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Preliminary Plat approval of 2 building lots on
5.4 acres 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 and for the attorney to draw up the proper Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order with staff recommendations
and the clarifications that was just discussed.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the request for
Preliminary Plat on PP 00-012 with comments. Any further discussion? Roll-call
vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Now, Shari. Item No. 13.
Stiles: I would like to incorporate my previous testimony in No. 13 and
recommend approval with all previous conditions of approval.
Corrie: Any comments?
Stiles: Now, this is just for the Butte Fence facility to manufacture and since the
variance has been granted, then they’d have that 10-foot planting strip.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 94
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: There is a number of clean-up required on this one, too. Do you
really want me to go through each of them or shall I just submit it to the attorney?
Page 2, 1.3 refers to 1.03 and 1.10 – 1.4 – it just has a bunch of duplicates.
Stiles: I had a couple things on that, too. I am sorry – on the findings.
De Weerd: And just one other thing is to incorporate the comment from Sanitary
Service as well.
Stiles: I had a couple of items. On page 1, Item 5, the reason for the Conditional
Use Permit is that the Comprehensive Plan requires it. This is designated as a
mixed-plan use area that requires all development in those areas to be done
under the Conditional Use Process. That’s why they’ve done it that way – and
not that that use requires it in because it wouldn’t require it – had it already been
a light-industrial zone. I think the opposition has been removed regarding tiling
the Settler’s. That’s still proposed to be tiled. Page 3, Items 1.10 through 1.14
are duplications. 1.18 is a duplicate. 1.19 – there was a recommendation to add
at the end of the sentence: “but permanent storage areas are exempted from the
paving requirement.” I’m not sure we have got a revised plan showing those
driveways. Did he?
De Weerd: And that’s stamped August 28
th
– is that the one we got?
Stiles: “Future access drives shown on the west boundary of Lot 1 appear to be
below the required 25-foot minimum width.” Do you remember that one? 25-foot
minimum. We can take care of that and that’s all I have. Sorry I missed that.
Thanks, Tammy.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none. I’ll entertain a motion on
the request for Conditional Use Permit 00-033.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the 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 on
Wilson Lane and incorporate staff comments plus revisions to the Findings and
Facts and have the attorney draw up the proper papers.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 95
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the request for
Conditional Use Permit 00-033 with the motion as stated. Any further
discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, please.
Roll-call: Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; De Weerd, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 21. Continued Discussion from September 13, 2000: Sale of Old
Fire Station Property / Notice to Accept Bids:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 21 is a continued Discussion from September 13 – sale
of Old Fire Station Property and notice to accept bids. I think the question was
whether we wanted to sell the old fire station property. Mr. Anderson wanted to
make sure that everybody was here and could understand what they wanted to
do.
Anderson: We advertised that to the department heads. Did you get any
feedback?
Corrie: I didn’t get any feedback, no.
Anderson: Basically, I just wanted to make sure that before we sold the Fire
Station that there wasn’t somebody that was going to come in two weeks after
we did it and say, “Oh, I have a great use or great idea for that building.” Then
we’re kicking ourselves for selling it. We wanted to ask the department heads if
anybody had any ideas for uses for that building or anything like that. What’s
that?
De Weerd: We were still going to do that.
Corrie: Boys and Girls Club will be asked two years on that – if the bank buys it.
In the bank’s letter, if they get –
*** End of Side 7 ***
De Weerd: Any comments over there?
Anderson: No comments. It’s too late for them.
Corrie: Okay. What would you like to do?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 96
Anderson: If we have no other comments, then, I would like to maybe throw out
for discussion the possibility of if we do sell it, that we earmark that money to go
for future land purchases for Fire Stations that will be needed in the future.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have no problem at all with that, but I wouldn’t want to restrict it just to
land purchase unless we absolutely have to. Why not help build a new
substation – a number 2 substation that we know we need right away. I don’t
know if we have to stay to just purchasing land or not, but I think we can always –
I think the developers will give us land – if that would be not offensive to
Councilman Anderson. No, I mean would you care whether it went to the
building or the purchasing.
Anderson: No. We could just state – I guess property and that could be
buildings or land.
Bird: I’m 100-percent behind that.
McCandless: Yes. I am, too.
Bird: And I believe when we sell the Police Department over here, that goes
toward the Police Department. Then we will need for approval to have the
attorney get the appropriate appraisal and then if we get the appraisal to sit the
notice for accepted bids and see what happens after that. Is that correct, Mr.
Nichols?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. When you get an appraisal, there
has to be a public hearing proposed sale and then it has to be sold at public
auction with the minimum price being the appraised price, and if nobody bids,
then you’re free to negotiate a sale by private treaty.
Corrie: Okay. It takes a little bit but we can get it started if the Council so
desires.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With the Council’s approval, if they agree with this, I would make a motion
that we have the mayor and the attorney proceed with the proper format that we
need and get it back to us and we’ll get proceeding on this sale of the property
and the building at the old fire station.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 97
Anderson: Did you want to put the stipulation on where the funds go? I guess
we don’t have to at this time.
Bird: I’ll be glad to do that. And any funds derived from this will go to the Fire
Department for purchase or building of new fire station.
Corrie: Okay. Is there a second to that motion?
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird and seconded by Mr. Anderson to have the
attorney proceed with the appraisal and with the stipulation that monies received
will go to future fire station building or property.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Included in that motion should be
a declaration that the property is not currently needed by the City for City
operations. That’s one of the threshold requirements. Yes, surplus.
Bird: At this time? Do we need it at this time or would that be before the public
hearing?
Nichols: Well, I think you’re starting the process and we have got to have the
appraisal so I would say yes – or just simply amend your motion.
Bird: With the second’s approval, I’ll amend that motion to after researching
throughout our departments, that property has been determined as being excess
and with no use to the City at this point.
Anderson: Second agrees.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded for the surplus property on the old fire
property. The motion is stated. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those
in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 22. COMPASS Destination 2020 Plan:
Corrie: Okay. The next one is the COMPASS Destination 2020 Plan and this is
from Brad Hawkins, the planner to make some of the changes in the 2020 Plan
to recommend a COMPASS Plan for adoption. Any questions? We have his
memo here.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 98
Stiles: You directed him to come up with a memo and make sure that he had
checked all of the other stuff and make sure he coordinated that – so you could
either recommend that adoption as they stated it there with his memo or just
reference it in our COMP Plan. I didn’t know which way you wanted to go.
Tammy may have the best idea of what you perceive as what they need.
De Weerd: We can formally adopt the 2020 plan with Brad’s comments.
Stiles: You think that’s good?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Is that a motion?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adopt Brad Hawkins-Clark’s
recommendations to the COMPASS and adopt the Destination 2020 Plan. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 23. Water Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Water, sewer and trash delinquencies. This is to inform you in writing if
you choose to, you have the right to a predetermined hearing at 7:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, September 19
th
for the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to
be judged on the facts and defend the claim made with this City that your water,
sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. This service fee
discontinued on September 20, 2000 unless payment is received in full. Is there
anyone here that wishes to contest over his water, sewer or trash delinquency.
No response. You are hereby informed that you may appeal to have the decision
of the City reviewed by the 4
th
Judicial District Court pursuant to the Idaho Code.
Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. Full-time turn-off amount is
$44,929.47. Hearing that, I’ll entertain a motion to approve the turn-off list.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the turn-off list. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 99
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
25. Department Reports
A. City Treasurer – Janice Smith:
1. Treasurer’s Report:
Corrie: The next one is the Treasury report we had. City engineer.
B. City Engineer – Gary Smith:
2. 2000 WWTP Trunk Sewer Extension Bid Results:
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. The first item I have is the
bid results for the year 2000 Wastewater Treatment Plant Trunk Sewer
Extension. This is a revision to the head works and “I” length of pipe to connect
to some pipe that has been installed previously. That will be ultimately an
extension of the sewer pipe needed to serve the White Drain and the north slue.
We had three bidders, JC Constructors is the low bidder at $61,760.00 They
were considerably under the engineer’s estimate and the other two bidders.
Initially, we had some concerns about their ability to do the job for that price bid.
So, considerable investigation was done by our consulting engineer. In talking to
the contractor and researching his references and the net result of all the
conversations and the research was that our consulting engineer is
recommending as your Public Works Department is, that the Council award the
bid to JC Constructors in the amount of $61,760.00.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before I make a motion to approve that – Gary?
Smith: Yes, sir.
Bird: Have we worked with this gentleman – has this construction firm worked for
the City before?
Smith: No, he hasn’t.
Bird: Is he just – what kind of contractor is he?
Smith: He is a concrete contractor. We received an e-mail from our engineer on
reference check at the Lander Street Plant for Boise City. I’ll just read a short
paragraph. “Our consulting engineer spoke with Chris Linder, Plant Manager at
the Lander Wastewater Treatment Plant and Larry Fetkether (sic) of CH2M Hill –
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 100
both spoke highly of JC in terms of quality of work, ability to solve complex
problems involving mechanical and structural components and low-change order
claims. Chris said JC worked very well with operation staff during construction to
avoid disruptions. It appears JC has ample experience with structural and
mechanical components of the project. They do have experience with large-
diameter yard and transfer-type piping in wastewater treatment plants.” So, their
contractors’ license is AA – allows them to bid up to three million dollar project.
They have no actions in their file to indicate any negative history. His name is
Cox – yes – his last name is Cox. He was a general superintendent for
Contractors Northwest. He was a division manager.
Bird: Out of Coeur d’Alene.
Smith: No.
Bird: They have got a division down here too, but headquarters are out at Coeur
d’Alene.
Smith: He came to Boise as the –
Bird: Jim Cox is his name?
Smith: Yes. He’s the president of JC Constructors.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: I move that we approve the contract with JC Constructors for $61,760.00
for the bid on the trunk line sewer extension for the mayor to sign and the clerk to
attest.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have JC Construction -- $61,760.00
approved. Any other comments? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. No. 2.
1. WWTP Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digester (TPAD)
License Agreement:
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 101
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. The second item has to do with the
license agreement that needs to be paid for our thermal filling digesting process
at the wastewater treatment plant. This is a royalty fee that needs to be paid for
the patented process that we’re using. I think it’s Anaerobic Bio-Systems
Corporation was developed from Iowa State Research Foundation. This amount
was originally included in the project for the thermophilic (sic) digestive process.
The amount of the royalty fee is $15,340.00 and so we would request that you
approve payment of this fee to the license holder.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the license agreement or royalty fee to Anaerobic
Bio-Systems Corporation for $15,340.00 royalty fee and for the mayor to sign
and the clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the license agreement approved as
the motion states. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of
the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Thank you. Tom?
C. Parks and Recreation Department – Tom Kuntz:
1. Generations Plaza II Request to Work Bid Results:
Kuntz: First off, I apologize for the lateness of this getting to you, but we opened
bids at 3:00 last Friday. Yesterday, The Land Group spent the day discussing
this bid with the Wright Brothers and I got this afternoon from them at 4:00. As
you can see there, there were three bidders for Generations Plaza II. The cost
estimate from The Land Group was $78,000.00. Our department budget
currently stands at $77,000.00. The low bidder was $88,000.00. The paragraph
at the bottom, reading from it, what they’re recommending at this point is that we
award the bid – the project to the low bidder – the Wright Brothers at $88,780.00.
Understanding that the project is over-budget, once the contract is signed for that
amount, we would automatically submit a change order and I’m now turning to
the second page – a change order for items listed under “A” and “B” totaling
$10,656.00 bringing the adjusted contract amount to $78,124.00. Going back to
the front page, most of the items listed in Item A, totaling $3,174.00 are items
that will be paid for by Stewart Laney Benoit as part of their landscaping around
their building and their patio. When I say “most things” there are a few things in
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 102
there that will be our cost, which are the sod, the three trees and part of the
irrigation system. We would propose that we would do the sod and the irrigation
system and the trees ourselves in house. Turning to the second page again,
showing the items listed in Items B – again, those are items that we could
purchase ourselves at a reduced rate at a later time. That later time would be
next summer. There would be a couple of ways that we could fund those items
in “B” that would be deleted at this point. The first one would be the developer
paying us $5,200.00 for his half of the alley. That money could be used to offset
the items in “B”. Secondly, we will be coming to the Council asking their approval
to sell an additional 300 plus bricks as part of this project at $100 per brick, which
would generate approximately $30,000 in new revenue that’s not been identified
at this point. Again, I apologize for this short notice. What we’re requesting
tonight is to award the bid to Wright Brothers at $88,780.00 with the
understanding that once the contract is signed, we will be submitting change
orders for $10, 656.00.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tom, now does Mr. Benoit and them guys realize that they’re going to pay
for some of this stuff out of here on Item A?
Kuntz: Yes, sir.
Bird: When do we propose starting this thing?
Kuntz: In two weeks.
Bird: And you’re proposing on the trash receptacles, drinking fountain, bike racks
and a bench waiting until next summer and putting it in?
Kuntz: Yes, late spring or summer. Those are all items that we can install
ourselves.
Bird: Yes, but you’re going to pay more if you do it when they’re not – it’s much
cheaper to do with the – and it’s got to be coordinated with the – I mean they go
within the system with the contractors. In other words, you want the contract for
$88,788.00 approved right now.
Kuntz: Correct.
Bird: Because there’s no guarantee that you’ll get that deduct item.
Kuntz: Well, The Land Group has worked out these prices.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 103
Bird: I have no doubt, but we just need to approve that contract and then you
come back with the change order.
Kuntz: Correct.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess just a comment, Tom is, I, too, don’t like to see a bunch of
change orders before you’ve even let a contract out and I know that you have
several capital improvement projects in your budget this coming year, and if
one’s a little bit high, there might be others that might be a little bit low, so they
may end up offsetting one another. I’m kind of like Keith. I’d hate to start
throwing change orders in right off the bat. Change orders end up costing you
about twice as much as if you just do it from the start, so I wouldn’t be opposed
to the part that Stewart Laney’s going to pay for. I think we ought to just let the
contract without any change orders myself.
Corrie: Just have him give us the – I’m like Ron. Let’s just get that contract for
$80,780.00 and get going.
Kuntz: Okay. The other nice thing is that Area 2, as you recall, and that’s why I
attached a map as a third page – Area 2 really won’t be done until Spring. We’ll
complete everything in Area 1 and that does include the trash receptacle and the
drinking fountain and stuff. So, Area 2, which lists things in Section A, really
won’t be done until next –
Bird: Yes. Let’s don’t even worry about it. I’m like Ron. I hate change orders.
De Weerd: You can just credit back into those accounts once you get the money
from Benoit.
Kuntz: Plus, again, we don’t want to sell bricks, and we’re hoping to raise some
substantial funds there that would offset this, too.
Bird: And these bids were so close that you know - now something like Gary’s –
the range he had there, you’ve got to wonder, but these aren’t that bad. We’re
only talking $4,216 difference in a $90,000 bid.
Kuntz: And we’re noticing everything is high for some reason – not in this bid,
but the bids we’ve opened recently. I don’t know what it is, but –
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 104
De Weerd: I move that we approve the Wright Brothers as the winning bid for
$88,780 for a Generations Plaza No. 2 and direct the mayor to sign and the clerk
to attest.
Bird: Second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the $88,780 by Wright Brothers
for the mayor to sign and the clerk to attest. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Mayor, one thing while we’re on the Generations Plaza. Tom, I’m
embarrassed over there when we can’t even spell one of our Councilman’s name
right and then we can’t spell one of our biggest contributor’s maiden wife’s name
right – I don’t care where you get the money, but let’s get those things changed
out. We were told that over a year ago. Let’s get those fixed. Get that
monument place. If they screwed it up, they can come down here and put it on
right. Charlie’s name needs to be spelled right, and so does Helen Bambi Cox.
Kuntz: Councilman Bird, Mayor and Council. I’ve had both of those stones – the
correct spelling on those stones have been in my office for eight months. I have
been promised by Guho Construction that they would be replaced eight months
ago. Finally, last week, I got a call from Memorial Monument, who Harold Cox
had approached them about fixing it. He called me and I told him I would take
care of it. So I called Mr. Guho and said, “If you can’t do it, give me the name of
someone who will.” He had his tile man call me last week and I have a meeting
with him this week to go down there and look at the site and get those replaced.
So, I apologize. Again, they’ve been in my office for eight months leaning
against my bookcase. I am not making excuses, but at least I’ve got the stones
made and ready to go. Mr. Guho told me to get done and I waited and was
patient. Finally –
Bird: Have you paid him all his retainage (sic)?
Kuntz: Yes, sir. Well, it wasn’t his fault. The misspelling was done by the stone
company and we didn’t realize it until after they were in. Anyway, I apologize.
Bird: It is being taken care of?
Kuntz: Yes, sir.
Bird: At no cost to us?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 105
Kuntz: Yes, well, the stones are done. There will be probably be some cost to
us to have those old ones taken out and new ones put in, but –
Bird: Do you have any idea how they’re set?
Kuntz: It’s just mortar. Thank you, Mayor and Council.
D. Mayor Robert D. Corrie:
1. Approval of the renewal contract for White, Peterson, Pruss,
Morrow & Gigray:
Approval of the renewal contract for White, Peterson, Pruss, Morrow & Gigray:
Corrie: The next is approval of a renewal contract for White, Peterson, Pruss,
Morrow & Gigray.
De Weerd: And Bill Nichols.
Corrie: I missed that somewhere. It must be a law firm because there’s a whole
bunch of names there.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Council. Do you want me to go to the podium for
questions?
Corrie: Council, had you read the two of them?
Bird: I have. I have no question.
Anderson: I read them, but maybe Bill could just give us a quick summary of
what the difference is between the different proposals.
De Weerd: Just talk fast.
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council. I’m pleased to do that for you. I think
the cover letter that we put with it summarizes the changes. The first proposal,
or Proposal A, which is $35,500 per month essentially factors in an increase of
$2,500 which is intended to cover a four percent increase and also to account for
the fact that we moved one of the staff people that helps the prosecution from
half-time to full-time so we have two full-time staff people there now and have
had for the last year. Increase in prosecution warranted that, so we added that
on. Also, we’ve been having pretty regularly two Planning and Zoning
Commission meetings instead of one, which was anticipated at the beginning of
the last year. I mean, what was anticipated was one meeting a month and we’ve
been having two. Then, also, we’re anticipating that you’re going to approve
changing the ordinance to have three regular Council meetings a month in
addition to your workshops. So there’s more work and so that’s why it accounts
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 106
to about a seven percent increase as opposed to just a four percent. Proposal B
has really two elements in it. One is everything I have just mentioned, plus we
want to bring over an attorney with more experience on the prosecution side. To
hire a lawyer with experience costs you about 50 percent more versus somebody
right out of school. Brent Johnson, who is improving as he goes along and is
doing an awful lot of work over there – and Dave Swartley both are relatively new
out of school. Swartley is not quite so new, but he hadn’t done any trial work or
any prosecution work. We have an attorney identified that would have
approximately 9 years prosecution experience that could assist in that role and
do that – help Brent with the prosecution and he could also help perhaps on
some of the civil things. Then, also on Proposal B, is built in up to 200 hours of
civil code enforcement work. It would cover things. For example, if we’ve got
somebody that has a Conditional Use Permit and they haven’t satisfied all of the
conditions – I mean they’re in there. They have their Certificate of Occupancy.
They’re going along, but they haven’t done everything they were supposed to do
or they’re not continuing the way they were supposed to. We send them a non-
compliance letter and they thumb their nose at us, then we can actually start a
law suit to shut them down. Or we have somebody that moves into a building
and sets something up and they didn’t get a Certificate of Occupancy, it’s one
thing to site them with a $300 fine and it’s another thing that effectively serves
them with an order that says, “You’re going to appear and show cause why you
shouldn’t be shut down” and have a judge behind you.
McCandless: Does that happen very often?
Nichols: Well, we have problems. Shari and I talked about one today where we
had a business that hasn’t complied with the Conditional Use Permit – had to do
with some landscaping stuff and the owner of the property essentially is throwing
the gauntlet down and started to tear up what landscaping he had which was
inadequate and not the amount that was required in the CUP. That just
happened today. We have those sorts of things which we can do now at $100 an
hour, but I guess what I’m looking at is if you know you have an allowance in
your retainer for these kinds of things, you’re more likely to use them. If you’re
likely to use them, then we’ll be able to get the word out that we’re serious about
some of these things. We can target some hard profile ones and go after them
and get compliance. So that was our – so, there are really two parts of the
request in Proposal B – the increase – the additional $3,500 a month over what
proposal A would be would include some for civil code enforcement and also
allow us to bring on a more experienced attorney and be able to do some of the
things that we want to do.
De Weerd: Is 200 hours of code enforcement enough?
Nichols: Well, I think it can be if you target it, and I don’t think you want to be too
– and that’s the issue is we want to be prudent about the use of that time. If
we’re successful and if we can get costs back in and recover attorney fees from
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 107
these people, then that can come back into the budget and then we can say
“We’ve used up 100 hours, but we’ve recovered “x” amount of money. Then you
can go over the 200 hours at $100 an hour, but the question is whether the
money is in the budget. Proposal B is within the budgetary allowance between
Shari’s amount and the Clerk’s amount including the $17,000 that Shari wanted
to take out of that portion in order to cover some of the other things. We’re still
within what’s been budgeted. We have done some things, but not actual
lawsuits. It’s like the Snake River truck thing that we’ve got worked out.
Technically, it was criminal, and there was also a civil element to it. We’ve got
some compliance there.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nichols: I would just close by saying I enjoy this work. I enjoy working with you
and with the department heads and staff. This is – despite the fact that it’s 2:00
a.m., this is still good work.
Bird: And the feeling is mutual, Bill. We truly enjoy you. Mr. Mayor, without
further ado, I would make a motion that we accept Proposal B from White,
Peterson, Pruss, Morrow & Gigray Law Firm for the $39,000 per month that
insures us an attorney for prosecution. I also want to stipulate in my motion that
Bill Nichols stays our lead attorney for the City of Meridian.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we have Proposal B and that Bill stays
as the City Attorney and according to the scope of the work. Any further
discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Is this where we put that he needs a raise?
Bird: Yes, he got one. And I’m sorry, Mayor – for you to sign and the clerk to
attest.
De Weerd: If we lose you, we will revoke their contract.
Corrie: All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. I guess we’re down to Shari.
E. Planning and Zoning Director – Shari Stiles:
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 108
1. Ada County Application 00-11-S/00-17-ZC:
Request to Ada County Development Services for proposed
Bristol Heights Subdivision No. 21 to include 34 single-family
residential lots and approximately 17 acres of open space to
include parks and paths as well as a zone change from RUT
to R-4 of 9.25 acres located at 2375 E. Chinden Boulevard in
Meridian – Section 29, T4N, R1E:
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I would like us to either set some time aside for
the special meeting next week or continue this to October 3, 2000. We’ve got a
lot of issues. Just to give you a brief rundown, this is the ten acres at the very
edge of our impact area that Ramon Jorgenson has that he’s proposing to
develop now. The applications do state that they want our comments by the 20
th
,
but their staff has told us that we can comment clear up to the time of their public
hearing and they will accept those comments due to –
De Weerd: When is the public hearing?
Stiles: It doesn’t have to be a public hearing. It isn’t a public hearing.
De Weerd: Oh.
Stiles: Due to recent Supreme Court decisions about Ada County Subdivisions, I
think we need to kind of strategize on this and make sure we come up with the
proper response. They are proposing Meridian sewer and water out here. This
down here would be Vienna Woods and they’re proposing clear up here that they
would propose to sewer and water – City of Meridian. We have a lot of questions
about it. Also it’s kind of misleading what they show. They’re showing less than
a 10-acre development with 17 acres of open space, but the open space is all in
Boise. They are having .23 acre of open space that would be along Chinden.
The entire rest of it would be developed as single-family homes. The next one is
for a place on Franklin Road. They’re proposing a rezone to M-1. I haven’t
researched exactly what an M-1 will allow. This is designated as industrial – light
industrial in our Comprehensive Plan, but they are proposing an office use. I
don’t think that’s an appropriate zone for an office use. Also, with our change of
adult establishments to be limited only to light industrial areas –
De Weerd: That’s supposed to be a church.
Stiles: This? No. That was next door – a couple doors down. That was another
weird one.
Bird: That was the Bronco Club, wasn’t it?
Stiles: So I kind of hate to see it go to M1 and then they establish that they’ve
got a light-industrial zone and can be annexed in an attempt to get approval for a
bar there or something, but – or a topless dancing – whatever. Whichever you’d
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 109
like, to put it the 26
th
or October 3
rd
will be okay either way time-wise. I just don’t
want to rush through it.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, do we need a motion to put these on – Let’s do them on
the 26
th
.
Stiles: So we’d start the meeting at 6:00?
Bird: We’re starting at 6:30, aren’t we, Mayor?
Corrie: 6:30, yes. Do you want to try for 5:30 so that we get out of here before
2:00 a.m.?
Bird: We’re just going to have her and that deal and then some workshops.
Corrie: Okay. 6:30 sounds good.
Berg: What kind of deal are we going to have?
Corrie: Okay. We’ll add this to the 26
th
meeting and I think you’ve got the
agenda on the 26
th
, don’t you, or do you not? You tell him what you’re going to
have on the 26
th
as well.
Bird: Okay. I’ll let him know.
Kuntz: Mayor. Excuse me. If we have something we need on the 26
th
, should
we see Council member Bird?
Corrie: Yes. Let’s just have a regular meeting –
McCandless: Are we going to have a meeting and a workshop?
Bird: We’ve got to have a meeting.
McCandless: For what? I’d like to know.
Corrie: Keith, what’s the meeting going to be on? It’s 2:00.
Bird: The 22
nd
, this Friday, we’re going to get the presentation to my AC, and we
have got to implement it the 26
th
before October 1
st
.
McCandless: Okay. We aren’t going to do this anymore. This is ridiculous.
Bird: It is, Cherie. Next Tuesday Bill’s got some plans for us so we don’t have to
stay here, right, Bill?
Meridian City Council Meeting
September 19, 2000
Page 110
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn at 2:05 a.m. All in favor of the
motion, say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:05 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK
Marion Baxter on the 19
th
, David Wright – no comments on it on the 19
th
; Donna
Reed on the 19
th
; P.J. Maltinotow (sic) on the 19
th
and a decal again with no
comments on it on the 19
th
. In addition to those letters that I have received and
read, I’ve had four phone conversations. One was after we denied the project