HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 04-03Meridian City Council Meeting April 3, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:40 p.m. on Tuesday, April 3, 2001, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Cherie McCandless, Keith Bird, Ron Anderson, Mayor Robert Corrie.
Others Present: Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Bill Gordon, Will Berg.
Corrie: I’ll open the City Council regular meeting for Tuesday, April 3, at 6:40 p.m., and we’ll have roll-call, please, City Clerk
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: Council, before we have the adoption of the agenda, we do have some requests that Item No. 21, which is the public hearing on the Ashford Greens No. 6, has been requested to
be tabled until May 1, 2001. And I believe there is two requests the attorney has made to have on the Consent agenda Item A and F taken off and placed on the Item No. 5 just before –
right after the department reports. Okay. Those that are in the public that want to testify, please make sure you sign in on the sign-up sheets in the back. We do have eight continued
public hearings tonight, and there are four new ones. I’m going to limit the developers in the public hearings to ten minutes initially, and then rebuttal they’ll have five minutes.
They’ll have a total of 15 minutes to present the project. Any questions (inaudible) limit to four minutes. I think we’ll be all right and get out of here before 12:00. We’re going
to be (inaudible) we’ll get through all of the continued public hearings; we’ll see where we are at 10:00, and if we’re just finishing up the continued public hearings, we’ll probably
do the remaining four as a continuation until the next Council meeting on the continuations. We don’t want to go much after 10:00 because we’ll make sure everybody gets a square deal
and we’re not beat. Those are the ground rules for the public hearings.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Tabled from February 20, 2001: 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
(need to approve
Development Agreement and annexation ordinance before approving CUP Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law):
B. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 00-026 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.4 acres from Ada County RT zone to R-8 for a proposed planned development
for proposed Kodiak Development by Hubble Engineering – west of Meridian Road one-half mile south of Overland Road:
C. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 00-019 Request for a variance to exceed maximum building height of 35 feet and reduce the 30-foot setback requirement to
20 feet along the 63 feet of the one-story section of the building for proposed Ameritel Inn by B & A Development – Eagle Road north of I-84:
D. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 00-053 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a three-story, 87-room hotel in an L-O zone for proposed Ameritel Inn by B
& A Development - Eagle Road and I-84:
E. Development Agreement: 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:
F. Development Agreement: AZ 99-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.801 acres for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC – south of Los Alamitos Park and north
of Sherbrooke Hollows:
G. Water Main Easement Agreement for Stratford Business Park (Murdoch Subdivision):
H. Approve minutes of March 13, 2001, City Council Workshop:
I. Approve Bills:
Corrie: At that point, for the adoption of the agenda, I’ll entertain a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that regarding to the Consent Agenda we move A to 5-A and F on the regular to agenda to 5-B on the regular agenda and to approve the Consent Agenda with those
changes.
Corrie: Item 21.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Well, 21 – will be done –
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to accept the consent agenda by moving A to 5-A and F to 5-B and to approve the rest of the consent agenda. Any further discussion? If none, roll-call
vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports:
Public Works Department – Gary Smith
1. Engineering Agreement with CH2M Hill for Water Master Plan
Project:
Corrie: Item 4 is Department Reports, Public Works Department with Gary Smith, Gary, Engineering Agreement with CH2M Hill for Water Master Plan Project.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council members. In your packets is a standard engineering agreement between CH2M Hill, Boise, Idaho and the City of Meridian to develop our citywide water
master plan. The costs for the project are broken down into four sections. The first section is the model selection, the purchase and the conversion of our existing model to the new
model. The second part is the modeling of our system using the new computer model. The third portion is the devout of the water master plan for our area of impact utilizing the new
computer model. The fourth section on that is the training of personnel to prait the model. We had six consultants that presented proposals to us for this work. The six were paired
down to three for interviews. We interviewed those three candidates at their offices reviewing their proposals with their water models and how they would conduct the update of our water
master plan. From those three interviews at their offices, CH2M Hill was selected. Myself, Brad Watson and Bruce Freckleton were the interviewing personnel from public works. CH2M
Hill has deleted the Item 6.10, consequential damages, which has been requested in the past to agreements with consulting engineers. Public Works Department recommendation to you would
be to approve the proposed contract with CH2M in the amount of $75,823. Do you have any questions I can answer?
Anderson: I just had a couple of quick ones, Gary. How often do we have to do a master plan, and the second one was when was our last one done or have we ever done it?
Smith: Yes, sir. The last one was completed in 1993, and with the rate of growth, the reason that we took in after this update now is because of our rate of growth; it’s far exceeded
projections of that master plan. We needed to get it updated to reflect where we are in life with our growth and also to better reflect where we’re going to maybe – which I hope will
be in a better projection than we were when we completed the last master plan. CH2M did do that last master plan for us, also.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion then to authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest for the public works department of the City of Meridian to enter in to an engineering
agreement with CH2M to develop our water master plan project in – not to exceed amount, Gary?
Smith: Yes, sir.
Anderson – not to exceed $75,823.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the engineering agreement by CH2M Hill for water master plan project. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Parks and Recreation Department – Tom Kuntz
2. Agreement with the Land Group, Inc., for Landscape Architect Services for the 58-Acre Park:
Corrie: Tom Kuntz.
Kuntz: Mayor and Council, in your packet last Tuesday which should have been carried over to tonight was a request to approve a contract with the Land Group to provide design and specification
for Phase I of the 58-acre community park. That appeared on your desk last Tuesday right before your meeting. It was not sufficient time for you to look it over. There was an addendum
that our City Attorney didn’t have time to look over. Since then, he’s had a conversation with
the Land Group, and there were a couple changes that he might want to address that we’d like to include in this.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Mr. Kuntz, the areas to be addressed were fairly minor. One had to do with a provision in the contract that essentially said that if there
were any changes in the contract, the owner and the contractor had to consent. Since the contractor’s not even been selected yet and not a part of the contract, we ask that be stricken,
and they’ve agreed to do that. The contract also referred to arbitration under the Construction Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. And we’ve found those generally
don’t work well on a project of this type or in this area, and so we’ve asked that they strike those mandatory arbitration provisions from the agreement, and they’ve agreed to those
as well. So with those provision taken out, we recommend approval.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion, Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the contract with the Land Group for the contractual amount – is this an amount not to exceed or a flat amount – for $82,200 for the Mayor
to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the agreement of the Land Group, architect services for the 58-acre park in the amount of $82,200 to include the changes that were recommended
by the Council. Any other discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Attorneys – Bill Nichols
3. Construction manager contract for Kreizenbeck Constructors, Inc. for the new law enforcement building:
Corrie: Item C is Bill Nichols for the construction manager.
Nichols: Mayor and members of the Council, the Council’s direction and the City has interviewed and selected a construction manager in connection with the new law enforcement building,
there’s a contract which I sent over with a memo. I haven’t heard form Kreizenbeck Constructors with regard to my proposed language change, but I don’t anticipate it be a problem since
we got the architect to agree to the same change in their contract. I would recommend that the Council approve this agreement subject to the change that I recommended in my memo of
March 30.
Bird: Article 10 (inaudible)
Nichols: Yes.
Corrie: Okay, any questions of the attorney?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing no further discussion, I’ll entertain a motion on the construction manager contract.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we enter into a construction manager agreement with Kreizenbeck Contractors, Boise, Idaho, with the sums as stated in Item A on-site CM Costs and
C the CM fee, and with the revision of Article 10.3 as written by City Attorney and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the construction manager contract for the new law enforcement building in reference to the motion stated by Mr. Bird. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. (Items moved from Consent Agenda)
A. Tabled from February 20, 2001: 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
(need to approve Development Agreement and annexation ordinance before approving CUP Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law):
Corrie: Item 5-A from the Consent Agenda that was tabled on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Touchmark Living Centers, Joseph A. Billig, east of St. Luke’s between Franklin
Road and I-84. At this point we’ll have Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. Steve Bradbury’s here representing Touchmark. Just wanted you to know where it is. The detail on the phasing plan for Touchmark
was just provided to the City last Thursday, and Gary Smith didn’t get a copy of that until yesterday, and I don’t know if he had a chance to look at that detail on the phasing plan
for Touchmark or not.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council, I did get through part of it, but I didn’t get through all of it today. I can’t give you a complete report on their proposed plan.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I think the thing to do is to put this off for another two weeks, give Gary a chance to finish his review of the phasing plan detail. One
of the items is in the original Touchmark application; there was 20 acres, which was anticipated to be sold to St. Luke's. That has in fact been sold to St. Luke’s, so we need to approach
St. Luke’s about modifying or putting an addendum on their Development Agreement to cover that 20 acres and make that 20 acres out of the Touchmark Development Agreement. Mr. Bradbury
informs me that St. Luke’s is receptive to that approach. The only issue that I need to discuss with them is the change in the landscape and sign ordinances and how that would affect
the addenda to the Development Agreement for St. Luke’s, but I don’t see these as any major obstacles to the (inaudible). We are moving forward and we are close to the end. We should
be in shape to get it done in two weeks.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, the stub to the west, was that addressed?
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, the developer, Touchmark, has an agreement with ACHD which calls for that stub street to Montvue to be put in, I think, within 18 months of pulling the
first building permit. That’s their agreement with ACHD. It would not be built in the first phase, but would be built within 18 months of taking the first building permit on any structure
in the development. So that’s where it’s at in their phasing plan.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess that is one point that I would like to check out a little better. Bill, because on here on Page 3-4 of this agreement it says that Street B is in Phase
II, and it wouldn’t start until the summer of 2003, and would not be completed until 2007. I think if Street B which is the one that we’re talking about is going to take that long,
I’m not happy with that. I think that needs to happen sooner than that, and that’s why I wanted that included in Phase I.
Corrie: Any further questions or discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to table that to the 17th of April.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we table the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Touchmark Living Centers, Joseph A. Billig, until April 17, 2001.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table the Touchmark Living Centers, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law until April 17, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
F. Development Agreement: AZ 99-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.801 acres for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC – south of Los Alamitos Park and north
of Sherbrooke Hollows:
Corrie: Next, Item F, Development Agreement for annexation and zoning of 12.801 acres for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC, south of Los Alamitos Park and north
of Sherbrooke Hollows. I believe that was requested by the attorney, so, Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the reason I asked that this be pulled off is so we have a chance to discuss it. This project was originally approved in 1999. The Development
Agreement didn’t get signed, and I don’t know – the developer represents to me that he didn’t get it for a very long time. Mr. Stopello is here, and he can elaborate on that if he would.
At any rate, this has to be – in the usual course of things, this is done before a final plat is approved and so on before the annexation occurs. Well, we’ve got a development that
is almost ready to be built, and Mr. Stopello revised Paragraph 5.1.12 reflecting a common lot along the drain which is different than the language that was in the original Development
Agreement. Because it was a change that had not been approved by the Council, if the language Mr. Stopello has proposed is to be approved, it should be approved by a vote of the Council,
and that’s why I asked that it be covered that way. I think Ms. Stiles has some comments, and I know Mr. Stopello does.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council, I’m not sure if you have all the different versions of this that have –
Corrie: I don’t think so. I got the one -
Stiles: The original Development Agreement provided for a common lot to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association along the southern boundary of the subdivision along Nine
Mile Drain to the Ridenbaugh Canal which common lot shall be of sufficient width as required by staff with pedestrian access use. The proposal by Mr. Stopello, he has gone the rounds
with Nampa Meridian on some of his issues in that development. The way it’s rewritten, a lot of that information is already on the plat or a form of the language is on the plat. I’m
not sure that needs to be worded this way to go into the Development Agreement. One thing that had concerned us was that it had been rewritten to say that the lots are to be left in
a natural state and maintained by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. As we know, that’s not really acceptable when you have a house that backs up to it. I don’t know what Mr. Stopello
will think, and he can get up and say what his issues are. I would like the wording to remain as it is in the original Development Agreement. That the applicant is to provide for a
common lot to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association along
the southern boundary of this subdivision from Nine Mile Drain to – instead of the Ridenbaugh Canal which would be approximately – this is where it comes out of Sherbrooke Village, this
is – all of this area in here is the Tarawood Subdivision. This access, this is South Grimes Creek enters into the subdivision and then there’s a 20-foot easement for a ways down to
where a pedestrian walkway is in Sherbrooke Village. Then it narrows to 10 feet, and the whole point we had approved the subdivision was this would be a 10-foot wide pathway that would
eventually connect to the pump house for Sherbrooke Village that’s approximately in this location. Because of the issues with the safety that were raised by Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District, we would be willing to remove the reference to the Ridenbaugh Canal. But I still think the intent was there would be a pedestrian walkway all the way along the southern boundary
here, and I still think the 5.1.12 as it was written meets the intent of what we had approved and what was in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. I would suggest that that remain
as it is with the change from the changing the Ridenbaugh Canal to the eastern most common lot in Sherbrooke Village. I hadn’t talked about that proposal with Mr. Stopello before, but
maybe he can address if maybe that would be acceptable like – My proposal would be to leave it as it was originally written with the exception that it would be owned and maintained by
the Homeowners Association. I will just read it entirely as I would ask it to be agreed to: 5.1.12: Application to provide for a common lot to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners
Association along the southern boundary of the subdivision from Nine Mile Drain to the eastern-most common lot in Sherbrooke Village which common lot shall be of sufficient width as
required by staff for pedestrian access use. I don’t know if that’s acceptable or if that helps Mr. Stopello any way with the issues that he had with the way that it’s written. Like
I say, as it’s been rewritten, most of that is contained in the plat. I was a little concerned about his proposal, the very last sentence, the future use as a pedestrian access lot
in the event all interested parties agree in writing to the pedestrian use, and that may be impossible to ever get – it would be our hope that someday it could be public if it was considered
feasible by the Pathway Committee and the City Council. But if you’re including all interested parties in some kind of an agreement, that could be every individual lot owner within
a subdivision plus Nampa Meridian Irrigation District plus whoever else is involved in that Nine Mile drain. Mr. Stopello could speak on what his issues are. I appreciate it. Thanks.
Any questions?
Corrie: Mr. Stopello.
Stopello: While she’s (inaudible), I won’t take a lot of time. My name is Frank Stopello; I’m the owner of Tarawood. Basically, I had to go back – subdivision is almost built. It’s
not going to be built. The streets have been compacted; the sidewalks have been compacted. Tomorrow the curb, gutter and sidewalks are going to be in. The fence has been manufactured
and will be installed in the latter part of this week. It’s wrought iron. The paving people will be back as soon as the curb and gutters are put in. I was kind of surprised because
the plat is
before Mr. Smith, Gary Smith, for final approval to be recorded, and I was notified about 10 days ago that the Development Agreement had not been prepared or sent to my engineers or
myself. As a consequence, the approval of the annexation and zoning which was done on October 5th did not get completed because of the Development Agreement. A Development Agreement
was sent over to me, and I immediately went through it, and the only thing that I noted that should be more or less changed was this section that Shari had referred to. What I did was
I took and substituted Note 11 of the plat, the final plat that’s been approved by this Council, and that final plat note reflects a lot of negotiations and agreements since October
5, 1999. What happened was it was set for September 21st for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval. The preliminary plat, I have a copy of it right here, I guess I’ll
have to hold it up. I’m going to show you the one that’s now the final plat. I’ll have to hold it up. This is the access into Sherbrooke Hollows. The access or the Nampa Meridian
30-foot eas3ement for the Nine Mile Drain started here and went up the (inaudible). The reason it started there, my engineers when they did the preliminary plat was, Sherbrooke Hollows
had moved the Nine-Mile Drain. It used to go right down here. All my drain water went in there from irrigation. They tiled (inaudible) Corps of Engineers allowed them to tile it.
This was still the access and part of the Nine Mile Drain. On the preliminary plat it had never been included. When October 5th took about, you folks approved the annexation and zoning,
denied my preliminary plat. There is a reconsideration in between October 5th and the reconsideration. I apologize, that should have been some time in November. I met with Shari and
(inaudible) direction of the Council, and we extended this a 10-foot, made this part of this lot which is the easement for the Nine-Mile Drain all the way up right to the pump house.
That is the 10-foot walkway for the future walkway. Now, the final plat was approved May 16th with this Note 11 in, and I looked down at all of the negotiating we’ve done, and this
whole language going back to September was out of date based on the agreements. Now, Note 11 isn’t a really more-or-less in detail with what I was told to do, what I agreed to do with
Shari, and it was approved by you on May 16th. It basically described that this is a lot. This whole thing is a lot, and I’ll just paraphrase, when I looked at these, I said, well,
if Note 11 on the plat and this might not be the final plat, has been approved by the Council and through negotiation with Shari, what am I doing signing a Development Agreement in March
of 2001 that should have been signed in October that now has been changed? So I wrote the letter. I’m not trying to play games with the Council or shirk my responsibility, but I wanted
it right. What happens if you go through a year or so of negotiating and trying to get this thing down, the plat is approved with Note 11 and then you sign a Development Agreement that’s
got (inaudible) language in? Does that mean all that work goes out the window? Now, let me paraphrase Note 11. I have it here. All I did, and I wrote the letter to Shari and Mr.
Nichols got a copy, and I said, you know, since that time there’s been these changes. I’ll paraphrase Note 11, which I made 5.1.12: Lot 1, Block 3, right here, and I will just refer
to this lot is an open-space lot to be owned by the Tarawood Homeowners Association or its assigns. That’s exactly what the old one says. Owned by the Homeowners Association.
Not only is that owned by it, so is this lot which is the Nine Mile going past – this is now called Grimes Street, and there is also a lot for the Ridenbaugh Canal. It says that this
particular lot that Shari’s talking about is used as a drainage lot and is covered by a blanket easement in favor of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District in favor of the Nine-Mile
Drain. Now, that’s very important. I don’t want the homeowners to assume the maintenance of that very deep Nine-Mile Drain nor do I want them to assume the maintenance of the Nine-Mile
Canal. The only maintenance that needs to be done there is what the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District does. It also goes on and says that the lots are to be left in a natural state
and maintained by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. Their future use may be used as pedestrian access lots in the event all are interested parties agreeing to the pedestrian use.
The Nine-Mile Drain is wetlands. The Corps of Engineers controls that. There are all kinds of wildlife in there. You can go down there right now. The redwing blackbirds are just
prolific. You can’t even hear yourself talk. There’s other subdivision each side that if they want to have access along there, there should be some mutual agreement. There is also,
City of Meridian is going to have to pass ordinances having a police power on that particular path because If you have people just running up there all nights and hours of the nights
without any police protection, you’ve got a lot of problems. So that was brought up in some of these hearings. Up here I’m required at the last Council meeting to give an alternate
easement in the event this gentleman doesn’t continue the Nine Mile Drain, and it also refers to a future agreement for pedestrian use. What I’m trying to say is, all I did was put
Note 11 which was approved by the Council on May 16, 2000, because it looked to me like this is older language. Shari has already said, and I agreed with it in October when I met with
her and made these agreements, that Ten Mile – 10-foot future pathway is only to go right up before the pump house. When that is a pathway, all you’ve got to do is take out two 8-foot
sections of chain-link fence, and you’re right in the Sherbrooke Hollows pathway. I’ve done everything in Note 11. I wasn’t trying to cause a bunch of grief. I wasn’t trying to hurt
myself, nor was I trying to go back and (inaudible) agreed to do. Everything in 5.1.12 that I substituted for Note 11 is the way the original one is except I clarified that the homeowners
aren’t going to maintain the Nine Mile Drain or the Ridenbaugh Canal. There’s nothing to maintain in there because it is a natural area. This particular note was approved. If you
want to go back to the old language, it almost looks like we didn’t do anything in finalizing the plat and making the agreements, which is Note 11. I’m here to – I tell you, I sure
would like to get my (inaudible) and be annexed and rezoned, but if there’s any question or anything else anybody would like to ask me, I would be happy to answer anything I can.
Anderson: I have a question. Every time I hear you talk I get more confused. All you want to do is insert the language from 11 to 12 if I was to summarize what you talked about for
the last 10 minutes.
Stopello: Yes, sir. I might summarize there’s a little if any difference other than this old language talked about us maintaining the Nine-Mile Drain; that can’t be.
That’s Nampa Meridian’s to do. I didn’t want to bind the future Homeowners Association. That’s really the only change in here because the plat and Note 11 are more detailed language
of the original language.
Corrie: Any questions of Council or Counsel?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, just to point out the maintenance of the common lot is a specific item, I think, in the Note 11 and the proposed Development Agreement language.
As I read the language, Mr. Stopello is asking for, it’s “the” lots which mean the common lots are to be left in a natural state. Then they’re to be maintained by the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District, so it would remove any maintenance work responsibility by the Homeowners Association by these common lots. Am I correct, Mr. Stopello?
Stopello: Yes, sir, and if there’s some maintenance that you can think of that we should do, I’d be glad to discuss that. Yong that there is any maintenance. Those things have been
there forever. You don’t really do anything to them other than clean them out. I can’t imagine what has to be done on the Ridenbaugh Canal that’s a road, a concrete canal. If there
is some maintenance that you’d like the homeowners to do, we’d be glad to do it as long as it’s differentiated from Nampa Meridian’s required duty to maintain those large bodies of water
and drainage.
Anderson: Are we talking about maintenance on both the Ridenbaugh and the Nine Mile or just Ridenbaugh?
Nichols: It’s both, Councilman Anderson. I think the issue is not so much the maintenance as the ditch itself, but the tops of the banks is what is the issue, not the – anybody anticipated
that Nampa Meridian would never, ever agree to a Homeowners Association ever taking anything out of their ditch.
Anderson: So we’re mainly talking about the weeds in the 10-foot easement along the side of it.
Stopello: We don’t have any problem with that as long as we’re not getting into any kind of Nampa Meridian’s maintenance.
Corrie: (inaudible) wouldn’t allow it anyway. Thank you, Mr. Stopello.
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council, perhaps I could suggest a compromise that might take care of it. If we were to use Shari’s suggested language and add to it an additional provision
that said that in this particular provision is construed to require the Homeowners Association to perform any maintenance otherwise run by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, it
would seem to (inaudible) those two responsibilities so that the weeds on the top of the bank, the Homeowners Association has to keep those knocked down if they get out of hand, but
the
ditch-cleaning and that sort of thing is done by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. With Shari’s language, it wouldn’t refer to the Ridenbaugh; it would go to the eastern-most
of Sherbrooke Hollows.
Stopello: (inaudible) I’m sorry. Sir, it would be from the southern entrance right – I’ve got it right here. Sorry. It would be; by the way, this is 30 feet because the Nine-Mile
is so wide. It’d be the 10-foot section, then?
Nichols: Mr. Stopello, the way this language would word the way I’m suggesting is applicant to provide for a common lot to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association along
the southern boundary of the subdivision from Nine Mile Drain to the eastern-most common lot in Sherbrooke Hollows which common lot shall be of sufficient width as required by staff
for pedestrian access use, and width is already determined anyway.
Stopello: Ten feet, yes.
Nichols: Provided, however, that this provision shall not be construed to require the Homeowners Association to provide any ditch maintenance otherwise provided by Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District.
Corrie: You want to leave that last sentence in, favor of use by pedestrian access lots in the event of interested parties agree in writing to pedestrian use?
Nichols: No, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, it would be just as I dictated it.
Corrie: Okay. I agree there, then. All right.
Stopello: I had one last question, Mr. Nichols, if I may. Is the Final Plat okay that has been approved by everybody except – is note 11 still all right then?
Nichols: Mr. Stopello, I would say note 11 is a – I would prefer that it be differently, but if you already have everyone else’s signature on the plat besides Mr. Smith’s I can see
where there is a conflict there. Where are you at on the Final Plat Mr. Stopello?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council and Mr. Nichols I am just in the process of reviewing it right now. I am going through the file and reviewing the plat.
Nichols: Would it be difficult to change that note 11 to match this new language that we are suggesting Mr. Stopello?
Stopello: If note 11 has been approved possibly what we could do is add part of the sentence or what you say.
Nichols: Okay, I bet we can work it out.
Stopello: We can add to it. That would be fine.
Corrie: With that in mind, I will entertain a motion to do the Development Agreement with the suggestions of counselor to be the verbiage that he stated.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Development Agreement for the request of annexation and zoning of 12.801 acres for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC with section
5-1-12 as stated by the city attorney.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made to approve the Development Agreement in AZ 99-015. Approved with the changes in 5.1.12, changes made by the City of Meridian attorney. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, a roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes, motion is carried.
Item 6. Ordinance No. 01-915: 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:
Corrie: The Ordinance Number would be?
Berg: 01-915.
Corrie: It is Ordinance No. 01-915. Will the City Clerk read it by title only.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, Ordinance No. 01-915 an Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Wilkins Ranch Village Subdivision 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 that said land be annexed
to the City of Meridian and zoning designated medium density residential district R8 in declaring that said land by proper 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 there of in conflict herewith, and directing the city
engineer to add said property official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the City Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the Ordinance and map of
the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor, and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section
63-2215.
Corrie: You have heard the reading of Ordinance No. 01-915. Is there one in the audience who would like to have the entire Ordinance read by the City Clerk? Hearing none, I will put
you on the spot this time. If not I will entertain a motion of the fore Ordinance.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that approve Ordinance No. 01-915, request for annexation and zoning of 10.19 acres from RT to R-8 for the proposed Wilkins Ranch
***End of side one***
De Weerd: -- for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 01-915 and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest with suspension of rules. Any other comments, discussion? Roll call vote
Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
Borup: All ayes, motion approved.
Item 7. Ordinance No. 01-916: AZ 99-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.801 acres for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC – south of Los Alamitos Park and north
of Sherbrooke Hollows:
Corrie: City Clerk please read Ordinance No. 01-916 by title only please.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, Ordinance No. 01-916 an Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Tarawood Subdivision lies contiguous or adjacent to the
city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and finding that 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 by proper legal description as described below be a part of the City of
Meridian,
County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all Ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict here with and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official
maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho and directing the City Clerk of the City of Meridian to file certified copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County
Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: You have heard the reading of Ordinance No. 01-916. Does anyone from the audience want to hear the Ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion then
for Ordinance No. 01-916.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that approve Ordinance No. 01-916, request for annexation and zoning of 12.801 acres by Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, and for the Mayor to sign and Clerk
to attest with a suspension of rules.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 01-916 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk a roll call vote.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes, motion is carried.
Item 8. Tabled from February 20, 2001: FP 01-002 Final Plat approval of 82 + 2 existing single-family dwelling lots and 6 other lots on 43.33 acres for Observation Pointe Subdivision
by Victory 41, LLC – north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road:
Corrie: Staff any comments on the Final Plat?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, the Final Plat was continued last time. We had not had a chance to review the application and prepare comments. We have now submitted the
commits that are dated March 28, 2001, which are in your packets. We have discussed most of the items with the applicant. Some have them have been addressed. Some of them remain to be
addressed tonight. The property is located immediately south of Meridian Greens. It is north of Victory Road, and the Kennedy Lateral runs along approximately in this location. The original
Final Plat that was submitted showed all of this area that was annexed as part of the plat. Since that time Ada County Highway District has
indicated that they would not be allowed access on Victory Road. And if they included that as part of the plat, we still maintain that they can include that as part of the plat and enter
into a non-development agreement to allow the existing configuration. Another item that was discussed last time was the choker that was approved with the original Preliminary Plat. The
configuration that was finally approved by the Planning and Zoning and the Council was to have this little median in the middle of the road. This would be where Meridian Greens is currently,
and it was an attempt to kind of slow down any cut through traffic that might occur. What Ada County Highway District has proposed is that they have a narrowing of the street there,
but they do not like to have the landscape median within the roadway at that location. They did not feel that it was safe. As for the removal of the Kennedy Lateral, the entire Kennedy
Lateral was removed from the latest submittal, and also this entire area here. There is one existing home on the lot. Our concern was that if they did not have that platted that if they
had any need for repairs or to have any kind of a building permit then we would not be able to issue any building permits because it is an illegal lot. Also, under discussion was the
20ft-landscape strip along the western boundary because there is an existing gravel pit that a portion of it is in the process of being reclaimed. The developer had offered a compromise
that they would designate a 20ft-landscape setback on the westerly boundary. Also, that they would include in their covenants that as each home was built that each individual landowner
would be required to plant two trees in their backyard within that 20ft planting strip. What we would ask is that the developer be responsible for planting that prior to completing being
able to apply for building permits on the remainder of the property for a total 22-inch caliper trees prior to obtaining building permits. The problem was that we did not enforce the
CCNRs. I do not have the minutes from the last meeting so I do not recall what happened as far as the Development Agreement, whether the Council agreed to his proposal to put that in
as CCNRs or not. He had proposed an addendum. I know that one was written by Mr. Nichols and perhaps he has a record of that, but without the minutes I do not recall what had happened
as far as that proposed addendum. They did explain the reason for the change in the lots in this location. They have reoriented the lots to take better advantage of the views to both
the north and south, and it did cause a shifting of some of the lots and made this slightly smaller different lots, but that had explained that sufficiently. They had submitted a new
plat tonight attempting to address some our concerns. There are still issues on the plat that need to be addressed; however, we feel that we could work those out with the applicant.
The major issues are whether they will be required to plat this area to the south, and they can enter into a non-development Agreement with Ada County Highway District and the City.
We do believe at a minimum that they do need to include the entire Kennedy Lateral that was shown as open space in their original proposal. They had proposed some landscaping along there.
So the issues that remain would be the disposition of this area, whether it is going to be platted, whether it will be each individual lot owner that will be required to plant the trees
and buffer in this landscape setback. This choker configuration, it does not appear to be shown on this. And those are really
I think the only items of contention at this point unless the applicant has some other concerns.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening? Okay, go ahead.
Caven: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, my name is Mike Caven, 6874 Fairview in Boise. I want to give you a small plat to look at that while we are going. If you have a copy of the
staff report in front of you, I would like to just real quick go through it and discuss anything that was there. Number one talks about the Kennedy Lateral that Shari was talking about.
The reason that that has been moved is because about 30 days I went out there and against my direction the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has cut down all of the trees on the north
side of the Kennedy Lateral and installed a new gravel road. I am not real happy about that, so that is why we have taken and moved the easement to the edge of their gravel road now,
and we will landscape up to that road. The other change was on Number two that talks about that un-platted are in the bottom. We can go through the process of putting it in a plat and
doing two non-build agreements. We would be fair to keep it un-platted and sometime in the future come back in at an appropriate time when the sewer from the Black Cat that is supposed
to serve this property is there, and maybe that property makes a good childcare facility, a good family doctor, or something like that in the future. We would just like to keep it a
separate piece from the plat at this point. We know the risk to us is an illegal lot split, which simply means that we cannot get a permit to build on there. We are willing to take that
responsibility for that. Number three talks about the 20ft-landscape buffer along the east edge. We did add a Development Agreement that Wayne had put together and I had signed it. I
do not remember the exact language in there, but what Shari has submitted here in her comments, add a 20ft wide landscape easement along the westerly boundary lots and provide 22 caliper
trees prior to obtaining building permits. And I would like to see that changed to prior to obtaining occupancy permits on the subject lots. When it says building permits that could
mean any of the lots throughout the entire subdivision. This would insure that the builder or the landowner could situate their house. Those are view lots going to the west. They could
situation their house, see their view corridors, and place the trees in the appropriate place rather than having me before hand just go out and put trees in wherever. We would like to
tie that into obtaining the occupancy permit if that works. Also, being in the Development Agreement the city can enforce that if they trees do not go in and they are required in the
Development Agreement, you can shut the subdivision down. So you have a way to reprimand that and make sure that it does happen. Number four, 4.8, we increase the 1400 square foot minimums
to 2100 square foot minimums, that will show on the face of the plat, so we have done that. Number 11 is acceptable. Number 13, we have gone ahead and deleted, 13 on the face of the
map which talked about removing storm drains that were on some of the lots, easements for ACHD. We have removed those and the storm drains will be in the road right-of-way completely.
Number 5 we will comply with, and that talks about irrigation easements in-between lots where the pressurized irrigation
comes across the streets that we put in 10ft easements along those sides, and we have done that. Number 6 we accept. That is talking about the pressurized irrigation, and we have met
with Bruce and have accepted that. Number 7 talks about the existing home on lot 4, block 5. That is the original homestead, Mr. Peterson’s home, and it talks about it hooking up to
sewer and water. We agreed to that. However, later in the general comments it talks about all domestic wells and septics, and I believe the staff and the council had approved the house
on the un-platted portion being about to maintain its well and septic. That is later in the general comments. We would like to keep that if possible. Number 8 is fine. It says provide
two revised copies of seats two and three. We have no problem with that. Number 9 talks about our landscape plan. We have hired Tom South with South Landscaping. Back in September, October,
and November, we worked with Mr. Siddoway on developing a plan, and we had completed the plan accordingly. I will let you look at it real quick, but it is quite extensive. The requirement
of the staff indicates that we would bring it up to the new Landscape Ordinance. This was designed at the time of the old Landscape Ordinance, and I am not saying that this would not
meet your new Ordinance; I do not know if it would meet your new Landscape Ordinance or not. But I did not want to take the chance of all of the sudden it says 10% open space, and I
have 5% then I have to redesign the whole subdivision. The date on this map was November, and like I said we went through it with Steve Siddoway and resolved any issues that he had at
that time. So on Number 9 I would prefer that this does not go back to the new Ordinance but that it would pertain to the old. Like I said the number of trees and so forth meets the
new Ordinance. It is the open space and some of those other issues that I am not sure if it does or not, but I would not want to open that up to that. Number 10 talks about talking about
any revisions to the Preliminary Plat. That was approved and the plat you have now I think I have addressed all of those. I guess the only other one was what Shari was saying. We directed
the lots on the top of the hill to direct more towards Shaffer Butte, so we did make that change. Number 6 on general comments is the one that was talking about keeping the well and
septic on the older home down by Victory. 7, 8, 9, and 10 are okay. We comply with No. 11; it talks about the pressurized irrigation. We are going to maintain that. The Homeowners Association
will maintain that. We are not going to turn it over to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and we will submit the appropriate operation manuals and maintenance for that. 12, 13,
and 14 we comply with. So if there are any questions I would be happy to answer them.
Corrie: What about the choker?
Caven: The choker is fine. That would be along as the city is happy and ACHD I will do what needs to be done there.
Corrie: Okay. Council questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you.
Caven: Thank you. All right any other questions of staff? Hearing none, are there questions for Final Plat approval on Observation Pointe Subdivision?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess just kind of a point of procedure, and maybe it is just because the applicant is not familiar, but it is very difficult when you come up here with the staff report,
and then just read through these and you have a lot of exceptions as to what the staff report is. I do not feel comfortable voting on something because I cannot take notes as fast as
you are verbalizing the things that you have conflicts with. I guess I would like to see something that was in writing that said we take exception to these specific comments so that
we could have a chance to review that prior to coming into the meeting so that we can look specifically and see if there is merit to those, and then ask the applicant questions as far
as reasoning at that time. I feel like there are quite a few things that he has exception to as compared to what he staff report say, and I am sure exactly whether I agree with all of
those at this point.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I also would like to see it in writing. I am like Ron, I cannot take notes fast as the applicant was talking and whether we agree with this view or not. I would like to see it
in writing, but I also have a question, this application summary was turned in March 30, 2001, which was last Friday. When was this sent to applicant?
Stiles: March 30, 2001.
Bird: March 30, 2001. We send it to him the day we have to have the stuff in for the packets. We are not being fair to the applicant because he has no time to get it back by March 30,
2001, which was the shut off day for this Council meeting.
Corrie: That is a good point.
Bird: When was this Final Plat – this is a tabled one from a week ago, when did your staff come up with these specific comments on March 28, 2001? Or is that just when you… I do not
know if the applicant has even had a chance to put in writing his agreements.
Corrie: When did you get this?
Caven: I saw it Monday.
Corrie: This Monday, yesterday.
Bird: This is not right. This was either at the first of March or the end of February. And that is what we were waiting for the staff comments at that point.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: It seems like the only issues that are really something that needs to be discussed with the western boundary of the buffer with the two trees per lot. The un-platted area not
being included and what the ramifications are of having that constitute an illegal split, and I guess I would leave that up to the city attorney. The choker of South Andros and then
something that he also brought up was in the staff comments the existing home on lot 4, block 5 is being asked to hook up. I believe I remember in discussions that that was going to
be allowed to wait until the Black Cat Trunk went through, but I do not know.
Borup: We are talking about the house down here. The Peterson’s house is up there and that was going to be hooked up.
De Weerd: And what comment is that? Is that in the comments?
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Anderson: But if we agree to exclude that piece of property of this plat then that would not be applicable anyway, would it?
Bird: No.
De Weerd: I guess I would have no problem with prior to occupancy permits for the trees and the landscaping, but I guess the question is still yet to be answered. If we leave that far
southwest corner un-platted, are we doing something against the city Ordinance?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, as I recall the Preliminary Plat was shown as a separate lot, and it was identified as an unbuildable lot because of the lack of the Black
Cat Trunk. That there was a provision that – that was one of the main provisions why the septic and well was allowed to stay on that particular lot. It may not be a problem with Mr.
Cavens now, but what typically happens
down the road is it is treated like a record of survey split. And some point down the road somebody sells the lot and somebody comes in to get a building permit and they cannot get one
or maybe one is issued by mistake, and then they find out that there is no sewer. I suppose we could amend the Development Agreement yet again, and specify that this particular area
is unbuildable and nothing can be done on it without a separate application to the city and the existence of sewer and maybe do it that way. But generally if the whole property comes
in, we want it all seen on the plat.
De Weerd: Does that answer the question for you Shari and Mr. Cavens? Is that a viable compromise?
Stiles: What is the compromise? To include it in the plat or not include it in the plat?
De Weerd: What the city attorney just said to constitute it unbuildable that they would have to come through with a separate application once there are services to it.
Stiles: That is how it was originally approved in the Preliminary Plat stage. It was a lot, and it was shown as a non-buildable lot. What has happened is they submitted this Final
Plat application with it shown as a lot. The Final Plat application showed this as a lot, and then probably just before the 20th, which is when this came up again, when it came back
before the Council and when we did not have our comments done. We had received a revised Final Plat the Friday before taking this out.
De Weerd: Well, I think I would join Ron’s comment then and let staff work this out with the applicant and have a definite answer then come back.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree also, but I want to see the applicant’s objections or agreements in writing too.
De Weerd: With anything that you contest on these comments. I do not think he falls under the new landscaping plan because this was long before we passed that.
Stiles: The landscape plan we have in our application, they were supposed to submit with the Final Plat application their plan for review and approval. Never before had one even been
reviewed. The one we have in our application in our file is dated December 13, 2000. And he worked with Steve Siddoway and he was well aware of what the Landscape Ordinance required.
I do not think there is
going to be any problem with it. The only problem that he would have with it would be the 5%, but we would review it as far as along the entryway corridors and the number of trees that
is what he would review it for.
De Weerd: And not the 5%.
Stiles: Not the landscape setback which would be 35ft in this location, but as far as the other provisions that apply to this project, yes we would review and approve it in accordance
with the new Landscape Ordinance. As far as planting requirements what they need to submit for review, those types of things, but we could not exact something beyond what they had already
had approved as a Preliminary Plat as far as the configuration and the size of the planning strips. We recognize that, but we can review it according to the remainder of the provisions
of the Landscape Ordinance.
De Weerd: And have you received this?
Stiles: What date is on that?
De Weerd: November 21, 2000.
Stiles: The landscape plan we have in our files is date December 13, 2000, and it is addressed to Steve Siddoway.
Bird: That is probably it. That is probably when it was submitted to you. It was drawn on November 20, 2000.
Stiles: No, it was the date on the plan from Tom South is December 13, 2000.
De Weerd: Can you have a review of that done by the end of the week and get it to the applicant? So that if we postpone this until the 17th he has a chance to correct or respond or do
whatever he needs to do before our next meeting.
Stiles: I do not think we will.
De Weerd: You cannot have that reviewed before the end of the week?
Stiles: I believe Steve may have already reviewed it because it appears that he has worked directly with Tom South. If Tom is faxing him, directly transmitting this landscape plan
to Steve. I image that they have already discussed it.
De Weerd: So it is all okay?
Stiles: Well, I could not guarantee that, but I would say with Tom South working on it there is a reasonable assumption that it is fine.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, you do not have to worry about this then. So the only thing that we need is – I am okay with everything now.
Corrie: You need to get together the two of you. Is the 17th enough time for you?
Stiles: We have done everything. We spent an hour on the phone today. There are three items as far as we were concerned they were the three items, and those where the three that I
outlined.
De Weerd: The choker, the trees, and the lateral. The un-platted area.
Stiles: Yes that is it.
Corrie: Does the 17th give you enough time?
Stiles: I am done.
Corrie: I am talking to you. Then to move this along I will entertain a motion to table until April 17, 2001 and to finish up the Final Plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table the Final Plat approval of 82 plus 2 existing single-family dwelling lots and 6 other lots on 43.33 acres for Observation Pointe Subdivision by Victory 41,
LLC, and that time to get the applicant’s objections or agreements with the staff comments in writing until April 17, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the applicant and the city get together and have the Final Plat either given to us in writing and finish it up for the Final Plat on April
17, 2001 meeting. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from March 20, 2001: AZ-00-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 70.72 acres to R-8 for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L Voigt Development – northeast
corner of Ustick and Meridian Roads:
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from March 20, 2001: PP-00-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214 single-family lots, 4 future office lots and 23 common lots on 69.79 acres
for proposed
Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development – northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian Roads:
Corrie: We also have a Public Hearing on the request for Preliminary Plat, so at this point I will open the Public Hearing on both 9 and 10. Any comments that the developer wishes
to make he can make them at the same time. They will be on the hearing schedule and taken as testimony and also anybody that wants to testify will testify both on the annexation and
the Preliminary Plat. So at this point I will open the Public Hearing on Items No. 9 and 10, and the staff comments first please.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council this is the proposal for a property on the northeast corner of Meridian and Ustick Roads. It was directly across the street from the new park
site on Ustick and Meridian. It is contiguous to the city with the park and also with Bedford Place Subdivision to the south. They are proposing an R-8 zone with 214 single-family lots,
4 future office lots, and 23 common lots on approximately 70 acres. They do have a pocket park shown in the middle of the subdivision that would also serve as a storm drain pond. This
is showing the photos of the area. One thing that has not been addressed that was not in the staff report, the original staff report had recommended denial of this application due to
the fact that sewer service is not currently available to the site. It would require over 2 miles of sewer trunk line to build in the White Drain Trunk for which easements have not been
obtained for any of that 2 miles at this time. The applicant has indicated that they would be willing to be annexed and knowing that they have no sewer service available. However, annexing
this property will immediately cause the adjacent property owners to submit for other annexations and other plats. Also, what was not addressed in the original staff report is if they
are proposing more than one use on the property it should be developed as a Planned Development, which would require a minimum of 10% common area in the project. They are proposing the
office use at the intersection here, which is not permitted per our current Ordinance. They would have to remain as single-family building lots only. I want to put up an arial. It shows
the overall development in the area to date. There is basically a rural residential subdivision to the east of this proposed subdivision. This would be the area in question. If the City
Council does recommend approval of this annexation and zoning, I am not sure how this can be worked out, but we would like to ask legal council if they do recommend the annexation and
approval of the plat, if the actual annexation of the property can be postponed until the sewer easements are in place, and the sewer line is available to the site. Because there is
an extreme interest in the entire remainder of this mile section, and it will just perpetuate the problems we already have with trying to react to these developments. Any questions?
Corrie: Thank you, Shari. The developer of Sundance Subdivision or representative here this evening?
Arnold: Mayor Corrie and Members of the City Council for the record, Steve Arnold. I am here representing Voigt Development. Our office address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho,
83705. I guess to give a brief description if I can, let me grab my boards real quick. What we are proposing is approximately 218 lots total, 214 single-family dwellings with 4 future
office lots. Right now all that we are requesting is an R-4 zoning for those lots because it is not consistent with your current Comprehensive Plan. We are showing them this way so that
the Council can recognize that our intent is not to have these single-family dwellings but to have them as office lots. We have run this by ACHD and run by access points for them. As
a part of the trip calculation that was assumed that these were going to be LOD zoning. We are proposing approximately a 2.44 acre pocket park a total of 7.79 total common areas, which
gives us about 4.25 acres of landscaped area that will apply towards the Landscape Ordinance which gives us approximately a 6% open space within the subdivision. Our lot sizes range
between 6500 square feet and up to 17,500 square feet. A majority of the lots have 120ft of depth. One of the reasons that we are going with the R-8 zoning was so that we could go down
to the reduced frontages. The current PUD Ordinance would not allow some of the frontages that we are proposing. Our average lot size is approximately 8700 square feet, which in an R-4
zoning that is consistent with that zoning. Our density without the office units is approximately 3.14 dwelling units per acre, 3.25 if we include the office units. The minimum house
size right now is 1300 square feet. We are providing 35ft of landscaped buffer, which we originally showed 30ft along Meridian Road, we have modified that and provided 35ft. We are providing
30ft and up to 50ft along Ustick Road along portions of the fence. We did do a traffic analysis. The ACHD analysis or our traffic engineers say that the transportation system would be
adequate to accommodate this development. We are providing a $30,000 road trust deposit for the intersection to our share of the cost of a traffic signal. Both Great Falls and our other
road out to Ustick Road will be residential collectors carrying 800 and 1300 trips respectably. To the north we have a RT zoning, south of us we have Eastbrooke, Bedford Subdivision,
Finch Creek, Granite Tract, Gem Park, and Settler’s Village. All of those are at the R-8 zoning with much greater density, about 3.8 units per acre. Across to the east we have Weaver
Acres, which is one-acre lots. To the west of us we have the proposed City Park that is approximately 58 acres, just less than 60 acres. Just real quick to show you kind of a layout
of how – I like the colors because it breaks down approximately the lots and how they are separated. The blue would be the 10,000 and above. A lot of those are at 11,000 plus square
feet. We have the purple approximately 33 lots of those, those are 9000 and above. Again most of those are 9500 to 9800 square feet. The orange, there is approximately 38 of those, those
are 8000 and above. Again, a lot of those are 8200 to 8500 square feet. Then the yellow ones are the 7000 and above. The majority of those because of our lot depth and the lot frontage
which most of them are 65ft of frontage, those are about 7500 to 7700 square feet. The white, those are at 6500 square feet and above. Based on these corner lots and the frontages that
they are showing which is 40ft, which is consistent with the zoning out here. We are allowed to go down to 40ft of
frontage in the corner lots in this area. We are assuming a lot of those will not be very desirable lots, so we will be losing some of the corners and picking up quite a bit of square
footage here and in other areas of the development. Thus decreasing the density and increasing the lot size. We are assuming that a lot of those lots in the corners will essentially
go away. We did have some neighborhood issues, and I would like to address those real quickly. One was some of the traffic that was coming out on Broadwater and the other intersection
out on Meridian Road. The issue was realigning the entrance to a future public street on the south side so that it could be signalized in the future. I did scale it off. It was approximately
650ft from Meridian Road. That is an insufficient distance for signalization. As a matter of fact, ACHD will probably be pushing further to the east for any kind of a signal. Optimal
location would be 1300ft with the best location at 1700 square feet for signalization. The neighborhood issues also the entrance and how it relates to driveways and the residents on
the south side. I did scale off. Our entrance was approximately 860ft east of Meridian Road. There was driveway at 790ft and 915ft respectively. Based on those calculations and I looked
at an arial of where the house laid out in relationship to the south. It appeared that the outbound traffic would miss the house but there is some tweaking room if it is aligned up with
any kind of windows to kind of avoid the headlight issues that would be seen from this subdivision. The other issue that we received a letter for –
***End of side two***
Arnold: -- of the LOD zone at this time is because one, it is not consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. Your current PUD Ordinance does not allow for the mixed use, and I am aware
that is in the process of being changed, but that is why we did not submit it with LOD in the corners. I guess the offsite issues that were discussed tonight, we obviously like the previous
recommendation from staff and Planning and Zoning allowing this development to go forward knowing that we are going to get these easements to the site. It is 2 miles away from your sewer
treatment plant. We are aware that Bridgetower Subdivision is up before the Planning and Zoning, and that part of their PUD application will be to require easements across their property,
which will get it to approximately 4600ft from Linder Road. At a previous work session, I believe it was with Planning and Zoning, the sewer trunk and the easements between Linder and
our site where not of concern that those were being worked out at the time. I am assuming that because the city has a city park directly across from us that they are not concerned about
the sewer issues either. Finally, there were some site-specific comments that were in the Planning and Zoning packet that came out. I did submit a letter on March 19, 2001 addressing
those. I do not know if the Council has that before them tonight. It did go through essentially speaking of our concerns with the Planning and Zoning recommendation and some modifications
that we would like. I will go through those really quick. The first one is the Finch sub-drain; we are planning to pipe it along the south property line. Along the east, we would like
to leave that open if at all possible. That is consistent with what has
occurred to the south. Number 13 in the annexation and general requirements, it discusses as a condition of approval we are to receive a letter from Meridian school district. Currently
it states that the language says the applicant must obtain a letter from Meridian school district stating that the school district approves the annexation and zoning of this application,
and that there are adequate schools for this project. As you can see from my letter, what we would like is to scratch out where it starts with the Meridian school district stating, scratch
stating that the school district approves the annexation and zoning of the application. It has been our experience in the past that the school district stands fairly firm that they do
not approve annexations or Preliminary Plats, and they only recommend to the city that there is or not adequate schools to the development. I think that issue just modifying that language
slightly so that we are not tied up. I know that I have had conversations with Mr. Bigham. He feels very strongly that they do not approve annexations, but they only make recommendations.
And that the Finch Drain along the east property line be left open. I guess in summary I think that the issues concerning this development are mainly sewer and perhaps some of the application
process with the PUD or not having a PUD. As you heard tonight with approving the Ordinance for Wilkins Village, that one was the same type of situation where we were going in with the
R-4 and a PUD requesting numerous variances with that PUD application, and it was the direction of the Planning and Zoning commission and approved by City Council that we do just go
and request the R-4 zoning. Essentially, what we think we are doing with site is we are providing that mix. We are providing the 8700 square foot lots and greater. We would like to go
with the R-8 zoning. I think it is consistent to the south, and we would like to take –the client is fully aware of the risks of not having sewer capacity at this time or any sewer hookups.
There are numerous developments to the west of us along with Bridgetower that we feel that sewer will be eminent to this site. It is just a matter of time. The Preliminary Plat for this
site will expire one year from approval. We are allowed one time extension. I believe the Public Works Department stated earlier in a work session that they are assuming easements will
be provided June, July. Construction commencing shortly there after with the White Trunk being done by the end of 2001. That may or may not have changed. Again I would just like to reiterate
that we are aware of the risks. The developer is aware of that, and they are willing to take that with the Development Agreement stating essentially that we are not going to get building
permits until we get sewer. Does the City Council have any questions of me?
Corrie: Any questions at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. To continue the Public Hearing is there anyone from the audience who would like to testify in favor of this project?
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickory Dale. I have come before you tonight because I was the original planner on this particular project. When I was still employed by Briggs Engineering.
I guess for the record I just wanted to kind of explain why we designed this project in the fashion that we did. When you have Ustick Road and Meridian Road, those are two section line
roads that are going to be – that are arterials, and are going to function like arterials in the future. It is a travesty to stick single-family dwellings and back them up there. I have
done that once before at Eagle Road and McMillan with Madison Park, and I regret it to this day every time that I drive by there and feel sorry for those poor people that are back right
up against that intersection. It is good planning that we try to provide some other use that is not intensive that is compatible with residential and offices are the best avenue. I was
fully aware that on your Comprehensive Plan this area is designated for single-family residential. That is why I could not submit this as a Planned Unit Development under your current
Ordinance because it does not allow for any nonconforming uses. You must comply with the Comprehensive Plan. As Steve indicated, we are not asking for an approval of that for office.
We just want the Council and the staff to be aware of what we would like to do in the future. If you want to strike any reference to that office that would be fine. We realize that we
will have to rezone that property and either work with your staff on their Comprehensive Plan that that be designated for limited office or come in with under the new Planned Development
Ordinance that is coming down the pike and apply for limited office uses. The applicant realizes that there is no sewer available at this time, but the sewer is coming. And just like
other projects that I did along the Eagle Corridor, we went through the City of Boise’s process. We took quite a few applications through in about a two-year time frame while Boise City
was negotiating easements up the bench from the West Boise sewer plant. The City of Boise included as a condition of approval that the city did not guarantee sewer service to this property.
So that we were well aware that we were processing these applications at our own risk and that the city could not be held responsible or liable for any particular time frame. Secondly,
this property abuts Bedford Place. Everything south of this is R-8 zoned. When we have the regional park across the street, typically from a planning perspective, we plan to have some
higher densities. We struggled with this in designing this. We went with deep lots like 120 to 115 feet because that’s what people seem to be wanting in a market place and tried to
do a mixture of lots. With the handicap of the current PUD ordinance, this was the best we could do and felt that since the R-8 zone, since it abuts an R-8 zone, it’s across the park,
it joins two arterials, we felt this was compatible. With the 3.25 dwelling units per acre, when you exclude the office, we are within the perimeters of the R-4; out median lot size
of 8700 square feet was within the perimeters of the R-4, yet we were asking for R-8. I’d also like to recognize the fact that we are contiguous to the City limits on two sides: two
the west and to the south; so this is not what I would call leapfrogging or shoe stringing or anything to that affect. The City limits are already at this property. Water’s available
at Ustick Road. We feel this is a good project, it’s designed with two collector roadways, loop streets essentially located – park that’s about 2.5 acres; we feel it
would benefit the city and we like the project. It would be similar to what Mr. Voigt did with the Fieldstone Meadows Subdivision. I also did Summerfield, two projects he’s very proud
of in the City of Meridian. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. We have David Couch.
Couch: I think she’s addressed my concerns.
Corrie: With that, that’s the only ones we have signed up to do the sign-up sheet. So (inaudible) see that there was any main areas of concern; I don't believe that you have to have
your rebuttal unless you want it. Just to make sure everybody understands that we’re doing 9 and 10 together for both the public hearing part of it. Council, any questions on the public
hearing side of it?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for either of the two applicants that talked. Understand you’re saying you’re less than the R-4 zoning requirement, but you’re asking for R-8
and the reason is why?
De Weerd: The lot frontages. The lot lengths in front.
Corrie: We’ll just have the applicant tell us for sure.
De Weerd: Lot sizes can be different -
Arnold: For the record Steve Arnold. Mainly for the lot sizes and the frontage requirements. That’s it. The average lot size with what we’re proposing would be 8700 square feet,
but within the R-4 zone, you’re required to keep a minimum of 80-foot frontage.
Anderson: But you’re just wanting to offer more diversity with the houses that could be built?
Arnold: Basically the diversity of the houses and lot sizes. They do range from our smallest, I think when we look into the fine details of the design, the smallest is 6500, and a
lot of those are along those areas north or east or whatnot where we’ve got 40-foot frontages. It’s really hard to provide or put a house on a frontage with 40 feet extending 130 feet.
Some of those – we’re assuming some of those go away and our minimums will be greatly increased, but as it stands now, it’s 8700 square feet for the average lot sizes.
Anderson: And the smallest lot size?
Arnold: 6500, which is consistent with the R-8.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, you say 40-foot is the smallest frontage?
Arnold: On the corner lots? If you’re looking north of the loop street, Lot 37, 38 and 39, those have 40-foot frontages. Some of those are 9,000 and 10,000 square feet. We’ll have
to re-design those. We just put those lots in based on the minimums.
De Weerd: What I think in this market, more narrow, longer lots are starting to come back in. People want a – back yard. Yes.
Corrie: Any other questions? Hearing none (inaudible) questions from the Council and staff, 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 of Items 9 and 10, the Sundance Subdivision -
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Discussion, Ms. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I would like us to think about before we close the public hearing on the issue the applicant did raise, and that is that is just a PUD with the office use. Does it constitute
waiting for the comprehensive plan to change and, you know, if so, why are we rushing this? It is very similar to the PUD, and don’t get me wrong, I really like it. It allows a diversity
of housing types because you can get a smaller house on the R-8. It allows for lot-size diversity. It also allows for mixed use, but it does concern me that we are designating those
four lots in the southwest corner as, yes, right now I’m designated, but we know what the use is going to be. The white drain is not far enough along that this is really pressing a
time-issue here, so why are we rushing it? Either let’s hold it up for the Comprehensive Plan to change it and allow office in there or hold it up and allow the PUD, the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance that is right now at Planning and Zoning and work these all together. I don’t see the urgency of pushing this through at this point. Why not continue it or –
I don’t know what the legal aspects of tabling it until we have more information either on the Comp Plan or the PUD. That’s my discussion.
Anderson: Call for a question.
Corrie: Question has been called for. Close the public hearing all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Corrie: Motion passed, pubic hearing is closed. Now request for annexation and zoning first. Discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I had a couple of concerns on the project, and one is the sewer line being that far away from it. I’m kind of like Tammy that what is the big rush to push this
through at this point if our sewer is still that far away from it. The other major concern that I have is not really related just to this particular development, but it’s with large
subdivisions in general. We have been discussing for the last several months about the fact that we feel like we’re behind in a lot of the basic services that cities provide: parks,
fire, police. So this does not make good sense to me at this point to approve subdivision with 214 single-family lots. To me it’s kind of like Custer calling for more Indians. When
you can’t adequately provide the park space and the public safety, we even have our Police Chief writes on his comments sheet that he has public safety concerns, we are talking about
an election in a month to try to raise our mill levy to address some of those concerns and hopefully beef up those areas where we’re week, but we have no guarantee at this point that
that’s going to pass. To me this is really premature to approve this project without adequate sewer available and without knowing the outcome of the election. This would be ludicrous
to annex and approve 214 more homes into a situation that would be just worse for us. That’s my input.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Anyone else? Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Then hearing no further discussion, I’ll entertain a motion on the annexation and zoning of AZ 00-021,
Sundance Subdivision.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion, then, that we have the City Attorney draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in denial of the request for annexation
and zoning for 70.72 acres to R-8 for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the City Attorney draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for denial of the request for annexation and zoning. Any further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Councilman Anderson, and his statements on the mill levy and knowing if we can service that sort of thing, but do we really deny it at this point before
we know the outcome? We can continue this if it proves favorable if the mill levy passes and we have our ordinance in place and we know the status of the Comp Plan. Those are all very
important issues. Do we really then – what you want these people to do is wait until that and then have to reapply and have to go through this whole procedure again? Is that the intent
of denying it at this point? I certainly can’t approve it at this point, but if we – do you feel it necessary that we have to vote today?
Corrie: Motion made and seconded –
Bird: We’re going to question.
Corrie: There’s a motion. Comments?
Anderson: Again, it’s just comments. I’m kind of like you, Tammy. I wouldn’t care if it was continued, I guess, from one aspect, but the sewer issue bothers me, too. I really have
a hard time approving a project; so many things can hold up a sewer as we’ve seen already. Our expectations and timeframes of when we think the sewer trunk line would be extended and
be able to service an area and what in reality takes place. I’m just really reluctant to approve these projects ahead of that.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I would have a question for Gary. Do we have a known timeframe on this White Drain? If Observation Pointe and the easements (inaudible) through that are –
Anderson: (inaudible) points the wrong way.
De Weerd: Bridgetower. If they’re firmed up, what timeframe are we looking at?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, we were told in a meeting with the developers of Bridgetower that we – assuming Bridgetower passes through Planning and Zoning successfully that we
would be looking at easements in receipt of easements around the 1st of May. We expect it then. I don’t think it had to do with anything on Council action on the plat. I think they
felt comfortable with Planning and Zoning approving it and sent it onto Council to turn loose of easements. I could be wrong, but isn’t that right, Becky? All right, Becky’s agreeing
that’s what she remembers. So having said that, I would expect that the sewer could be constructed by the end of this year because we aren’t finding any opposition to the easements
between Meridian Road and Linder. We have easements signed between Meridian Road and Locust Grove, and so the only portion that’s of concern right now is from Linder to Ten Mile Road
and the Bridgetower developer owns about three-quarters of that property.
Corrie: So you still have a quarter to go.
Smith: Yes.
Bird: That quarter’s our part. No.
Smith: West of Linder. Right.
De Weerd: So is it an option that if this were continued, and I know that this is a motion to deny it right now, but I’m just trying to figure out my vote here, is knowing – well, not
knowing too much yet, if – we could put contingencies even at the point where you know all the easements are taken care of, it will not be serviced or it cannot hook up until certainly
when services are available. Maybe the City Attorney can help my question –
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, there’s one thing I would say that’s principally to consider which is if you change the Planned Unit Development Ordinance or you change the
Comprehensive Plan, this application is submitted under the old plan and the old Ordinances; therefore, those are the ones to apply to this application. Tabling this thing until some
new Ordinance is passed is not really applicable for this one. I don’t know if that helps you with your decision or not.
De Weerd: Sure does. Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Okay. The motion is to have the request for annexation and zoning be denied. Mr. Clerk, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, naye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Corrie: Motion for denial is approved. Now we have the request for preliminary plat which is moot, but we still need to have a vote on it. Mr. Attorney.
Nichols: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion on the preliminary plat. Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we have the City Attorney draw up the appropriate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for denial of the preliminary plat for 214
single-family lots and 4 future office lots, 23 common lots on 69.79 acres for a proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to deny the request for preliminary plat, Item No. 10, Sundance Subdivision, preliminary plat. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, naye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
De Weerd: I wanted the Mayor to break a tie.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from March 20, 2001: AZ 00-027 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.97 acres from RT to R-4 by Hubble Engineering for proposed Inglenook Subdivision
– east side of Locust Grove and north of Victory Road:
Item 12. Continued Public Hearing from March 20, 2001: PP 00-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval 21 building lots and 3 other lots on 5.97 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Hubble
Engineering for proposed Inglenook Subdivision – east side of Locust Grove and north of Victory Road:
Corrie: Item No. 11 is a public hearing from March 20, 2001, annexation and zoning of 6.97 acres from RT to R-4 by Hubble Engineering for proposed Inglenook Subdivision, east of Locust
Grove and north of Victory Road and I will open the public hearing for the preliminary plat of the Inglenook Subdivision for the public hearing. At this time, I’ll open public hearings
on Items No. 11 and 12 and have staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property that’s located on Locust Grove Road. To the south is some land that’s zoned RT in the county. This is Tarawood Subdivision
that came before you tonight and was discussed regarding the common lot on the southern boundary; the Nine-Mile Drain is adjacent to this property’s eastern boundary. They are proposing
a zone of R-4. Mr. Mayor, did you open both public hearings or just the one?
Corrie: Yes.
Stiles: They’re proposing 21 building lots and 3 other lots on the 5.97 acres. Did you receive the proposed – the position statement from Brad Hawkins-Clark that was dated March 19th?
Was that incorporated into new recommendations or was that just attached in your packets? Maybe legal counsel can let us know what that is. This is the proposal as revised by the
applicant. They’re proposing a pedestrian walkway to the Nine-Mile Creek. They’re not proposing, I don't believe they’re proposing an encroachment on that easement at this time. Also,
they would have an extension to the south. This would be a future right-of-way that would extend through the adjacent property should Mr. Shipley ever develop his five acres to the
south there. I – I really don’t have any major issues to discuss regarding this project. It’s somewhat of an in-fill project even thought the property to the north and south is in
the county and undeveloped, they have made provision to at least provide access through to those properties. I believe with the comments that were offered by Brad Hawkins-Clark that
they will be meeting the minimum requirement of the five percent open space.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, Shari, in some of the comments, there was an issue that seems to be unresolved with the south stub that staff wanted a stub to the south and ACHD was requiring something
different. They wanted the stub going to the north.
Stiles: Perhaps Mr. Nichols can explain that further. I believe that it was at first to the south that staff had recommended that it align with this existing stub in Sherbrooke Hollows
Subdivision, and the applicant and the Ada County Highway District felt that would cause too much cut-through, and so they proposed this location near the eastern boundary of the property
for their access to and through to discourage the cut-through traffic which they felt would occur or increase traffic speeds, I guess.
De Weerd: So that won’t be a cul-de-sac? That will be a through street at some point?
Stiles: No. It will be a through street. It looks like it’s going to cul-de-sac, but they will have to have a minimum 50-foot right-of-way here connecting, and they will – when they
fence this property, there will be a sign clearly shown on the fence that this will continue through to the future so those people buying those lots in there won’t think it’s their quite
little cul-de-sac that is going to be there forever that will cause them to contest the next development.
De Weerd: So the lot there to the left – left-hand-side, that will note that the house (inaudible) to the north otherwise it has some weird setbacks, doesn’t it?
Stiles: Whichever way they would want to configure it. They would be fully aware that this would be a through street that would go through in the future. They could still face it
that way if they would like to.
De Weerd: Just one last question, then. Do you know on the pathway they’re putting in there, is that in the plan that the Pathway Committee is developing? Is that supposed to go anywhere?
I hate to see this open space kind of create nothing type of things.
Stiles: I don't know if the Pathway Committee has looked at this area. The property’s not usable by them. It’s in the Nine-Mile Drain easement. It can’t be included as part of the
lots; it’s doubtful that Nampa Meridian Irrigation District would allow any encroachment of that to include any part of the easement in their lots. As in the Tarawood Subdivision that
would be just to the east, the pathway that we proposed would be on the east side of the Nine-Mile Drain, so this would not necessarily be a pathway. If I can show you –
De Weerd: So what is the value of having that open space if it’s not going to be feasible, if there’s no purpose to it?
Stiles: The only value it would have, I guess, is houses aren’t backed up to it which they couldn’t anyway, but as far as the Tarawood Subdivision, it’s just a greater, wider expanse
of something – some piece of dirt in Meridian that doesn’t have a house on it, I guess. It’s not all that usable for the residents of the subdivision. It’s going to move back behind
their homes and – I can’t really say what the value would be.
De Weerd: But there’s going to be a micro-path.
Corrie: Any other questions? All right. Developer. You’ve got 10 minutes.
Nickel: Thank you, Mayor. I’m not going to take even a quarter of that time. For the record, Shawn Nickel, Hubble Engineering, 701 Allen Street, Suite 102 in Meridian. Nice to see
you all again. I’ll address your micro-path issue in a second. We’re in agreement with all the conditions of approval that both your staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have
passed forward to you. In regards to the confusion about the stub street to the south, that is designed at the stub street. Once the Shipley property would develop, the right-of-way
on the cul-de-sac would be developed – would be vacated and given back to those lots. That cul-de-sac would go away in favor of just a straight street. There will be a note on the
plat notifying those lot owners that would occur. We’ll have the proper signage and the builders will also be notified of that so when they place their house they’ll place them appropriately
for that future right-of-way. We did meet with the neighbors to the north and came up with an alternative location for this stub street that you see to the north, and that will allow
them to better re-subdivide their property in the future which we thought was important. When we did the design to have the stub street to the south, we also took into account what
Mr. Shipley could re-design in the future, and I just did it real quick drawing. Your staff’s original recommendation was to have that stub street about in the middle of right here.
We were concerned about a four-way intersection. Obviously, that was before we moved the stub street over to the north over – we didn’t want that street to be a straight street because
it does promote higher speeds within a subdivision. The alternative was to have the stub at this portion of the east – you see you can still have your interconnectivity, but it kind
of slows up the traffic and provides a more safe neighborhood. So that was the reason for that.
Corrie: Shawn, was that Mr. Shipley’s property right down here in the corner?
Nickel: This is Mr. Shipley’s right here. I just threw in the design of what he could – how he could redesign his property.
Anderson: Why would he put a street around the edge of his property? Is that a 20-foot strip there at the edge?
Nickel: Because his property is so narrow that’s all he’s going to be able to do. We actually looked into purchasing Mr. Shipley’s property to make it part of our whole subdivision,
but we weren’t able to come up with an agreement on the property. Without that, we tried the best we could, make sure that he could develop it in some way, but he’s only going to be
able to get one row of lots just because of the width of the property. Okay. The only other issue is we did request at the Planning and Zoning Commission and they put in the recommendation
to have a waiver of the tiling of the ditch to the north. We did meet with the neighbors on the north of our property, and we decided we are indeed going to pipe that, so we withdraw
the waiver for the request at this time. We’ll work with the neighbors as much as we can and make sure they get the proper irrigation into their pasture over there. As far as the micro-path,
whether it’s needed or not, it’s a recommendation of your staff that we had an access to that what we’re calling open space back along the canal. If you’d rather take out the requirement
for the micro-path, you’re right, it doesn’t really go anywhere. I don't believe that the canal or the Irrigation District is going to have a pathway on that side of the canal any time
in our lifetimes or further. Just to provide access to the open space is why the micro-path is there. We are meeting your five percent open-space requirement, and we still would meet
it without the micro-path. It’s just there to provide access. It’s just a buffer for those lots that are there along that.
Corrie: So without that you still have the five percent?
Nickel: Without the micro-path we can still get the five percent. It’s specifically there to provide access to it, but it’s not really going anywhere as Councilwoman de Weerd pointed
out. That’s all I have if you have any questions for me.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Anderson: Explain to me on that cul-de-sac; are you going to pave and curb it and put sidewalks in and then you’re going to give that back to the people? What are you going to do?
Nickel: The project engineer’s here and he can probably address that.
Thomason: Hi, Richard Thomason with Province Development Group, 701 South Allen Street in Meridian. Yes, it’s going to be built as a full cul-de-sac, 45-foot radius, curb, gutter and
sidewalk, paved. If at some point in the future that street goes through with the development of Mr. Shipley’s property, the neighbors could petition to get that back from the right-of-way
if that were to just be a 50-foot right-of-way there. I think probably the benefit of the cul-de-sac there would be better used as the turn-around. It’s going to be some time, I think,
before the Shipley’s would do that. It was something that Shawn and I didn’t really discuss a whole lot, don’t have a real good comment on it. I think we’ll probably stay at a cul-de-sac.
Anderson: I think in reality you’re not going to vacate it and tear up curb and gutter and sidewalk.
Thomason: They rarely do. There’s been some other subdivisions that they’re in the process of doing that right now. It would be an option if the neighbors wanted to get together and
do that, but I think we’ll be long gone by the time the property to the south develops. It doesn’t seem that’s going to be any time soon. I just – on that open space on the west side
of the drain there, there is open space, and there is a stub from Sherbrooke Hollows to the south that goes to that same open space to the west side of the drain, and there is open space
in Lost Alamitos on the west side of the drain. This could, with the development of the Shipley property and property to the north, Mr. Sutter’s, that could be maybe a passive walking
area. There’s no planned trail to go there, but it could be usable for some future as development around it continues. Now that I’ve contradicted – I did just want to point out though,
that the subdivision that’s developed and the subdivision to the south that’s developed do both have open space adjacent to that. Thanks.
De Weerd: I have another question for Shawn. How would you finish that off, then, your open space?
Nickel: I think we’re required to landscape it, so it will be seeded and have irrigation to it, probably some trees back there. It won’t be much, obviously, but it’ll – I think we
are required to improve it and maintain it.
De Weerd: Can you tell me why you went for the density that you’re at? Why didn’t you go larger sized lots? You have the depth as close to 110, why did you go with the minimum 80-foot
front?
Nickel: Just the – that was the density that the developer was looking for.
De Weerd: Just because everyone else in the City of Meridian does it that way?
Nickel: This developer actually thought those were large lots compared to what they usually develop. I have no answer other than they wanted to get their – maximize the property.
De Weerd: But you can ask more for larger lots, which are a rare commodity in Meridian. Actually desirable.
Nickel: I agree, but they’re going to be compatible with the existing development; same as what is out there right now.
De Weerd: You want a whole square mile of 8,000 square-foot lots? I know. 8700 square-foot lots.
Nickel: If I may elaborate that if the property was larger, we probably could have – I’m talking about 40 acres large – we probably would have had more diverse lot size. This is more
of an in-fill project: 21 lots. Wasn’t really much room for creativity other than a straight street going in and rectangular lots.
De Weerd: Could you have gone for a more higher density then to create a little bit of a different type of housing, then, in the area?
Nickel: We actually thought of the higher density, but we were afraid of the outcry from the neighborhood, from the existing neighbors that did have the 8,000- and 9,000-square-foot
lots and two-story houses that come in with a higher density.
De Weerd: But when you look at Mr. Shipley –
*** End of Side One ***
De Weerd: -- only putting one row of houses, so he’s going to have some nice-sized lots. It would be nice to maybe open that up for a little bit larger lot area. You could actually
accomplish it by taking out three lots and maintain a minimum of 10,000-square-foot lot sizes there. Thank you.
Nickel: I appreciate your comments. Thanks.
Corrie: Thank you, sir. We didn’t have anybody sign up for this one. Is there anyone here that wanted to testify? Okay. Council, any other questions you’d have for the public hearing?
Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Items No. 11 and 12.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 11 and 12. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: We’ll take the first one, annexation and zoning, discussion.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess since I’ve been dominating most of this, I will give my two cents. I believe the open-space requirement; the full intent was not to create safety pockets,
which I believe that would be one. It’s supposed to be an amenity, which would actually benefit the development and the application. I can’t see from what I’ve heard that the particular
open space really fits within the
spirit of the Landscape Ordinance. Secondly, you know, until we make a strong statement, we’re never going to see anything other than R-4 or 8,000-square-foot stuff that if we don’t
try to start getting some creativity or start asking for diversity in the housing, and I know this is in-fill, but just to be consistent, those are my comments.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would kind of echo some of Tammy’s comments. I think that piece of land at the back there, being the five percent of the open space; to me I just don’t think
that it was well planned out. You’re better off to put a tot lot or something somewhere in that design. So, I kind of have some problems with this just as a design aspect that doesn’t
show a whole lot of creativity, and I realize that the engineer has a limited amount of ground to work with, and that makes it difficult to show a lot of creativity. I’m kind of like
Tammy that I think the creativity might be with either a larger or smaller lot size. I’m really concerned about what annexing this piece of property would do to the property below there
because it does create a real narrow strip that is going to make that piece of property real nasty to development and engineer, too. Even from just a little bit of design that you showed
us as far as what they could do with that property, I mean, that’s exactly the thing that you don’t want to do with your property: put a street on one side of it, it’s not very cost
effective because of the width of asphalt and the curb, gutter and sidewalk that you’ve got to put in, and it’s going to create large lots on one side of the street, and I know that’s
tough from a developer’s standpoint because it doesn’t probably pay the bills to do it that way. So when I look at this whole piece of property and the proposal here, I’m saying what
are the benefits are of annexing it, and I’m not seeing any benefits to the City to annex this. It doesn’t provide any real amenities to the City or anything else, so I’m kind of like
Tammy. At this point I’m having a difficult time seeing why we should annex this.
Corrie: Any other comments, discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion, then, for the request for the annexation and zoning of the 70.72 acres to an R-8 for proposed Sundance
Subdivision.
Bird: This is the Inglenook. This is the 5.97 acres.
Corrie: I’m sorry. Inglenook Subdivision, annexation and zoning of 5.97 acres from RT to an R-4 by Hubble Engineering. I’m sorry.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we deny the annexation and zoning from RT to R-4 for the proposed Inglenook Subdivision and the attorney to draw up Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law and Decision of Order.
Corrie: I have a motion for denial of the annexation and zoning. Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded for motion for denial of annexation and zoning. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, roll-call vote on the motion.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, naye; Anderson, naye.
MOTION TIED: TWO AYES, TWO NAYES
Corrie: I go back to my original statement that I think we need some diversity here, and I think we’ve got some areas of concern, open space being one, design I think isn’t the best
for the area. So with that, I’m going to vote aye for the denial of the annexation and zoning.
MOTION CARRIED: TIEBREAKER VOTE: THREE AYES, TWO NAYES
Corrie: Item No. 12 is for the preliminary plat approval.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, since we just did the other motion that we did, I would make a motion that we have the City Attorney draw up the appropriate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law and Decision of Order in denial of the request for preliminary plat for 21 building lots and 3 other lots on 5.97 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Hubble Engineering for a proposed
Inglenook Subdivision.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded for denial of the preliminary plat of the Inglenook Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, naye; Anderson, naye.
MOTION TIED: TWO AYES, TWO NAYES
Corrie: I will stay with my aye vote at this point.
MOTION CARRIED: TIEBREAKER VOTE: THREE AYES, TWO NAYES
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I move we take a ten-minute recess.
(Meeting reconvened at***)
Item 13. Continued Public Hearing from March 20, 2001: CUP 01-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an office building for
O’Neill Homes in an L-O zone by Toothman-Orton Engineering Company / Johnson Design – Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road at 385 South Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: I will now – coming out of recess, we’re on Item No. 13, public hearing, request for Conditional Use Permit of an office building for O’Niell Homes in an L-O zone for Toothman-Orton
Engineering Company / Johnson Design at Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road at 385 South Locust Grove Road. At this time I will open the public hearing on Item No. 13 and have staff
comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a property that was annexed as L-O. It was annexed when the 80 acres known as the Woodbridge Subdivision was annexed in order to provide
contiguous route. The applicant is proposing to use the existing home as an office for a sales office for the Woodbridge Development. This is showing the existing home. There is quite
a difference in grade from Locust Grove Road right-of-way to the house. It would have – this really shows how it dips down. There’s a lot of drainage that comes down in this area here.
Their plan currently only shows the 25 existing right-of-way on Locust Grove. I believe Ada County Highway District was not requiring the dedication at this time. No. They were asking
for the dedication through a warranty deed for the 48-foot right-of-way. It would also be a 25-foot landscape setback beyond that 48 feet. They’d have the roadway enter here as it
does presently. They would need to pave this area and then provide the landscape buffer for the adjacent residential use. This is the Medimont Subdivision back behind here. This is
the 20-foot planting strip that was provided by the Medimont Subdivision. Staff would recommend approval with all of the staff and agency comments. The applicant has presented a
position statement; he has three items to discuss. We had received a letter from Chief Bowers regarding the turn-around area that would need this turn-around area shown roughly as here,
and that would need to be free of vehicles at all times to allow a proper turn-around for the fire equipment. Any questions?
Corrie: Any questions of staff at this point? Okay, developer. You’ve got 10 minutes and then another five for rebuttal if there’s anyone against it.
Beecham: Okay, thank you. For the record, my name is Scott Beecham of O’Niell Enterprises, 168 North 9th Street, Boise, Idaho. One point of clarification. This is not a sales office.
This is an office for our homebuilding division, which will obviously largely will be focused on Woodbridge for the next few years. We are permanently located in that office to Meridian,
though. It will house a staff of approximately seven people at this time. No sales activities will happen from this property, though. I think that’s an important clarification, though.
We will also – you can see there have been modifications by staff to this site plan. We have revised this site plan. One of the conditions of approval in the recommendation to Council
is for the applicant to come in for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance with a revised site plan. That has been revised, and I plan to meet with staff as
early as tomorrow. Hopefully I can get a meeting tomorrow. Also, the right-of-way will be dedicated through this process. I think Shari did clarify that, but the right-of-way will
be provided, and the 25-foot landscape buffer will be provided outside of that. That was an error on our original site plan. That was her point. Lastly, I have prepared a position
statement. I apologize for giving it to you at this late hour. It just came to my attention that you had not received in your packets the letter from Chief Bowers nor the exhibit showing
the turn-around area. Those were two items that I felt were appropriate to address and the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended modifications to the original staff report.
I’ll run through those quickly, though. No. 1 in my position statement was Recommendation 1.1; it was modified and also contained in the recommendation as 1.31. I suppose this is
a question for Mr. Nichols: is it really just clean-up items as far as how that formal recommendation came forward and will go forward as a recommendation for approval? I think that
there’s a conflict in having both of those recommendations in there. I would propose that 1.11 be removed. The same situation in No. 2, recommendation 1.27 was modified and then added
in 1.28 and 1.29. Again, the letter is attached to this position statement from Chief Bowers as is the exhibit showing the turn-around area. The other modification, I guess – I’m sorry.
Let me go back to three here. The last point here, while the point is well taken on Recommendation 1.32, I’m not sure that that is technically a recommendation. I’m not sure that
should be included in a formal recommendation or list of conditions of approval. I would, again, ask Mr. Nichols for a reaction on that. The building permit has been issued; the fee
has been paid. If I can go back to 1.11, one modification that’s not shown on this and it’s also important to note that the driveway and parking lot have been paved and striped. Central
District Health has requested that we not pave over the existing (inaudible) field for the septic system, so it’s very important that that condition be changed. The paving will show
where that stopped. We do meet all the minimum parking requirements, however. With that, I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I just have one question. Right now this area’s extremely important to us as is the right-of-way on Locust Grove to accommodate the overpass. I see that in the
ACHD comments they’re asking for the dedication of the right-of-way. Have you thought about, as being a participant and a promoter of that overpass, donating that right-of-way rather
than dedicating it? I didn’t mean to put you on the spot, but I just noticed that.
Beecham: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman de Weerd, good question. We’re not in the overpass impact area. This is a standard right-of-way. We’re a quarter of a mile minimum north of that
impact area. While it may be beneficial for achieving that for the greater cause, I didn’t even consider it to be honest with you. Their request is for us to pay into the fund for
future right-of-way improvements in exchange what it typically done as we are paid for a right-of-way; paid for the land that we give up. If there was an organized movement, per se,
to try and obtain donations, I’m not aware of it. Maybe you’re just suggesting –
De Weerd: I don’t know how organized we are, but if there isn’t, there should be. You might consider it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, actually that overpass area is from Franklin to Overland Road regarding – that has to be redone from that area. I’m like Tammy. If the developer would so see fit
to donate that right-of-way to the City of Meridian, we’d certainly appreciate it.
Corrie: Is that scheduled to be a five-lane anyway?
Bird: Yes, it is, Mayor.
Corrie: It would certainly be an advantage. We’re not going to hold you - it would be nice if people would consider it.
Beecham: Mr. Mayor, I understand and appreciate it. My point was that they’re two separate projects. One is an overpass project and one is a roadway improvement to five lanes on Locust
Grove. Now, if that were something that the City was interested in pursuing, there are a number of requirements placed on this project that we would certainly be willing to trade.
The front portion of this property is not being developed and we’re putting in over $10,000 of landscaping on the front half of this project. We’d like to offset some of that, and maybe
that’s something that can be done. Then you will still obtain that landscaping through future development of that property, but at this point we’re not developing it. Maybe that’s
something that can be considered or discussed. I hate to derail this hearing at this point in time, but we’d be happy to come to the table and talk about that.
Corrie: Okay. Appreciate that.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Beecham: Thank you.
Corrie: Nobody signed up for the pubic hearing. Is there anyone from the public here that would like to give testimony at this time? Okay. Thank you. Council, any further questions
for the public hearing?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question for Chief Bowers. Is everything satisfactory for him now?
Bowers: Mayor Corrie, Councilman Bird, City Council members, yes. We discussed on the turn-around in the parking lot how that was going to work out,
and I believe he showed you a drawing of that. Then we dropped – we had mentioned that we wanted the fire hydrant, and we thought with the building or the construction on Locust Grove
in the near future that that fire hydrant would probably be torn out, so at this time we thought we’d put a five- or six-year limit on it.
Bird: Thank you, Chief.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess I did have a question. Will made me think of it. If the grade elevation that Shari shows in the picture is that bad, we’re showing here that they’re putting
how many feet of landscaping here, 40 feet? Is that what that says? I can’t see it from here. How are you going to put that down there in that swale? Are you going to have to fill
all of that? Is that what the plan is? I’ll ask that of the applicant, I guess.
Beecham: The plan is not to fill it at this point in time. When you add the 25-foot buffer strip plus the 48-feet of right-of-way, you actually push those trees back a substantial
distance from the road which you’re actually gaining elevation as you go to the west. What we are going to do is put a tree variety, which is a taller variety, and the canopy will be
up higher.
Anderson: So you’re going to do that on the entire frontage of your property or just this piece where this office is going to be?
Beecham: That is the entire frontage of our property, this office. The remainder of our property is on the east side of Locust Grove Road, and that has no landscape.
De Weerd: Very nice.
Corrie: Any other questions? I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
De Weerd: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: All ayes motion carried. Okay. Discussion on the Conditional Use Permit request.
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion then on the request for the Conditional Use Permit for an office building for O’Niell Homes in an L-O zone by Toothman-Orton Engineering
Company.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the office building for O’Niell Homes in an L-O zone by Toothman-Orton Engineering Company / Johnson
Design at Franklin and Locust Grove at 385 South Locust Grove Road and for the attorney to draw up the proper Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the request by O’Niell Homes.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 14. Continued Public Hearing from March 20, 2001: AZ 01-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 78 acres from R-1 to C-C and C-G by Larson Architects for proposed Silverstone
Corporate Center – southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
Item 15. Continued Public Hearing from March 20, 2001: PP 01-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and 1 other lot on 78 acres in proposed C-C and C-G zones
for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center by Larson Architects – southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
Item 16. Continued Public Hearing from March 20, 2001: CUP 01-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial planned unit development and floodway approval in proposed C-C
and C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center by Larson Architects – southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
Corrie: Item No. 14 is a continued public hearing from March 20, 2001, a request for annexation and zoning of 78 acres from R-1 to C-C and C-G by Larson Architects for proposed Silverstone
Corporate Center, southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road.
Bird: May we throw 15 in, too, Mayor?
Corrie: Item No. 15 and 16, public hearing also opened as well for the annexation request, Conditional Use Permit and also the preliminary plat for testimony. Okay. At this time I’ll
open the public hearing on Item No. 14 and 15 and have staff comments first, please.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for approximately 80 acres located at the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Overland Road. It is designated as mixed-planned use development
in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. With the annexation and zoning application, the application had submitted a variety of uses, and we had made the recommendation that some of those
uses would be permitted and that others of those would require a further Conditional Use application for the project. While none of the uses are really outright permitted in either
of the zones requested through the use of a planned development, they can apply for a divergence form those uses as shown in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control. Mr. Anderson has developed
the Black Eagle Center at the northwest corner of Maple Grove and Overland if you’re familiar with that development. I believe he’s anticipating a similar quality development in this
location. There were some issues regarding access to the adjacent properties. I believe Ada County Highway District has asked for an access to go through to the east; also, the owners
of the property to the south had initially asked for an extension of what was known as Titanium Way to be extended to the south. They did present a typical site plan for one of the
proposed buildings on the site. The property is currently in two parcels, and they have requested approval to, once they’re annexed and receive approval of the Conditional Use Permit,
to begin immediately with building on one or both of those properties so they can continue with the final plat and recordation of the final plat for the remainder of the lots in the
development. Some typical elevations they’ve submitted for the Conditional Use Permit. Staff would recommend approval of the annexation, the plat and the Conditional Use with the staff
comments as they have been recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. There were some changes to our comments that they didn’t agree with. One thing was we had requested they
had a collector street shown approximately in this location here as it would be a half-mile from Overland Road, and the applicant was not in favor of that. There is a possibility that
the property to the south may be considered for the future commercial development that would require a Comprehensive Plan change because it’s shown as currently single-family residential,
but it would make sense in the future to designate that as something other than single-family residential. I’ll show you the aerial of the area. This is the 80 acres in question in
here. We have had preliminary discussions as far as this becoming a residential subdivision. There’s an existing horse track here, but it’s a natural boundary, really, where the Ridenbaugh
goes through there that would make little sense to have this be a residential development unless it were considered a kind of high-density development. Staff would recommend approval
with the conditions noted and stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I saw somewhere in here a comment about running the utility lines to and through; is that something that is still an issue?
Stiles: I don’t believe so. That’s a standard City policy that they would need to provide services to and through; they’d need to extend sewer and water, both down Eagle Road and down
Overland Road, and they would enter into some kind of latecomer’s agreement to recoup some of those costs as additional property developed in that service area.
De Weerd: Just one last question: I didn’t see – maybe I did before I say that. I did. Forget it. I don’t have anything else.
Corrie: Any other comments from the Council? Okay. Developer’s representative here?
Larson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Cornel Larson, my address is 210 Murray in Garden City, 83714. I’m here tonight representing the applicant on the project, and
would like to take a little bit of time and explain to you our concept for the project. I also have the applicant here that may want to take just a few minutes, so I’ll hurry as fast
as I can. Shari, could you go back to the overall master plan, if you would, please? That’s – thank you. In developing the project, we were investigating potential clients to use
the project. Some of the comments that we had gotten from the clients were that the project be – have good access to the road systems, that it be close to a good employment base, it
become an employment center for the City that it’s in. So that’s one of the goals of the project was to create an employment center, attractive employment center, very similar to the
Black Eagle project that’s been developed by this developer. We wanted to create an identity for the project, same as was done for Black Eagle and bring a uniqueness to the project.
We also, in the process of designing the project, looked at what happens typically to commercial traffic if it’s interconnected to parcels around, and sometimes it creates negative
traffic. So if we were to make a connection to the east or to the south in this case, it may create negative traffic or commercial traffic exiting through the residential areas. Since
those properties were currently under the Comp Plan as residential – we elect to design a collector road that went through the project that came out at a stoplight here at Eagle Road
and up here on Overland Road. The primary location for the Overland Road location was so that the property to the north all the way up to the Elk’s piece on the freeway could be served
on that same alignment and would have access to that particular intersection. The intersection to the south was selected because it was a certain distance from this hill, and it was
at a location where the Highway District would like to have that light as well. We went ahead and met with the Highway District Commissioners, as we were required to. They asked that
we keep three access points on this side and that we have three access points on this side and that we share this access point right here with this adjacent property owner to the south
and that – I believe this one and this one were deleted in their request. They also requested that we
have a connection street somewhere to the east in this area, which we have agreed to do at their request. Again, it wasn’t something that we wanted to do, but we’re afraid that if this
develops as residential, then we have the problem of potentially exiting through those residential areas. We also have shown a well site in the facility. We had met with Public Works
prior to the submittal of the application to see what their specific requirements might be and the fact that if we could get latecomer fees on all of our costs that are associated with
extending those utilities, and they assured us that they have latecomer’s agreement and we can address those costs. We have around the perimeter of the project, we would like to provide
and as required by Ordinance, the 35-foot landscape buffer. This landscape buffer would have (inaudible) berm, and then in some of these other areas it would be open and have an open-type
of fence, probably a steel-type of fence to make the project feel a little more open as opposed to totally screened from the street. This gives the user of the project a little more
visibility from the street and still lends itself to a nice landscape buffer. We have reviewed the staff’s comments; we agreed with the changes to the uses that were proposed in their
staff report and do not have any problem with those uses. One of the things I wanted to point out is in the preliminary plat it actually showed 17 buildable lots, and I believe it was
advertised and proposed as 15 buildable lots in the advertisement, so if that’s the proper way to approve it, we would ask you approve it with the 15 buildable lots. If you could approve
it with 17, that would be helpful. The two additional lots that are in question were – we had a little stub cul-de-sac to serve two additional lots should we not get a large user that
would go into this corner of this project. I wanted to take just a minute. We had proposed a signage element in this corner, and I’ve got some colored pictures I’d like to pass out
to you so you can see what our thought might be on this signage element. It’s kind of a water-feature sign element. We also proposed an entry-gate feature here and up here, and I’d
like to pass those out to you if I might. The first one I’ve handed to you is this signage element that would be located at the corner of Eagle Road and Overland Road approximately
up in this area on this map, and it’s basically a waterfall element that would allow water to pass behind the sign and then it would cascade down in front of the sign. That rendering’s
hard to show how it might be from a side view, but there might be water cascading from both sides up. The next one I’m going to give to you is the entry gates. These elements are intended
to be a gate concept. They’re not a gate that would close the project off to the public; that would be a public road. They’re merely a statement to define a project. Their intent
is to house some of the things that you always have a hard time finding room for on projects which is sprinkler controllers or landscaping and lighting controllers and some of those
things. The two little – the two housing elements, of course, would be between the two gates, and they would house some of those facilities that are usually needed for the project.
I’d be happy to answer some questions or turn some time over to Mr. Anderson if he would like to have some.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Cornell, on staff comments you agreed with everything on all three, the annexation and zoning, preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit; you agreed with all
of it?
Larson: The only thing we didn’t agree with was the stub street going to – serving a street to the south there. We kind of agreed with the Highway District said at the joint access
there.
Bird: I’d just like to make a comment there that you guys chose Meridian to bring this project here. Appreciate it.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I just have one question. I guess my concern would be traffic on both Overland and Eagle as to the sidewalks. Do you have a parkway between your sidewalks and
the roadway or –
Larson: I believe your Ordinance allows us to shift that off and meander the sidewalk on those types of streets.
De Weerd: That was the plan?
Larson: So that would be our preference as opposed to having it out on the curb line.
De Weerd: That would be my preference, too.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, maybe you could just address for us a little bit as far as what this ACHD traffic study indicates. What kind of impact is that going to have on Eagle and Overland
Road, the project?
Larson: Basically, Councilman Anderson, there is about a 10,000-trip generation that this project would create at full build-out. The Highway District had asked us to have a trigger
to install the lights on Overland and Eagle Road probably around 70 percent build-out so they wouldn’t be installed until such time that they reach that requirement. In their traffic
report, they indicated that, I’ll paraphrase a little bit, but the facilities with the improvements would be adequate to handle those, and they also recommended some fees be assessed
for some things that would occur or some traffic impacts that would occur on the Cloverdale intersection. So there would be some detriment to the intersection of Cloverdale and Overland
Road as the project reaches full build-out, which the owner would compensate the District for as he starts. They also indicated that a good deal of the traffic coming to the site may
use the freeway system depending on where in Meridian the employees of the facilities might come from, but they thought a good deal of them might come from that way as the Ten Mile Interchange
becomes more of a reality: it will probably attract more down the freeway.
Anderson: Are these additional stoplights that you’re talking about near your entryways? Are they something that you’re going to pay fees, pay ACHD, or are they something that you’re
going to put in with the project initially?
Larson: Initially what we had worked out with the Highway District was we would go in and try to get the infrastructure on the roads put in during this phase and they would – when they
requested we install stoplights, they would be installed. If there was a development going in over here or a development going in up here that they would also participate in the costs
of the stoplights. If there were no development, this applicant would bear the cost of those stoplights.
Anderson: And the triggering mechanism you said was at 70 percent?
Larson: It’s about 70 percent. They didn’t give us an exact definition, but they did think 70 was probably – They kind of left it up to staff to (inaudible).
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess I had one more question. What is your phase plan on this?
Larson: Right now we would like to go in and build the berms down the Eagle and Overland side; get improvements right away, items designed for the street improvements. We’d like to
get this connector road through here designed. We’d like to get all the sewer and water extended out. This would probably be the first project that would go in – the first building
that would go into the project, and that’s the one that we have submitted the conceptual conditional use on. Most likely this building here would be the second building that would go
into the project and giving help from the City and help from the contractors and the community, we hoped to have those up by next March at the latest.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Cornel, what’s the total square-footage compared to the Black Eagle? There’s much more in Black Eagle, isn’t there?
Larson: Black Eagle’s about 47 acres, and we’re at 70 acres. We’re probably going to be close to twice the size. This one will be.
Bird: And Black Eagle has not impacted Overland and Maple Grove that hard? Impacted it – it hasn’t really hurt them that badly?
Larson: No, those improvements that were on Overland and Maple Grove were there when that project started. It seems to be operating at a satisfactory level.
Anderson: And is the concept here for kind of office professional or more for retail?
Larson: Right now we’ve kind of left in the uses, all of the uses, just to give us a little flexibility on it. The applicant is strictly a hold-type of developer; in other words, the
stuff that he develops, he typically holds. He approximately holds about 70 percent of his portfolio. One level would probably be sold off with time. There may be a person that wants
to come in and buy a site builder on facility; in that case he would sell that, especially if it was a large employment user. There also may be a hotel or a motel that might come in
and want that. But the general intent wasn’t to provide a total retail strip center or a big-box facility; although, with the zoning you’re giving him he could do that. That has not
been the product that he’s developed. He’s here and I could certainly have him –
*** End of Side 4 ***
Corrie: You want to bring up the other fellow? Is that necessary?
Larson: I guess we would.
Roger Anderson: Good evening, my name’s Roger Anderson. My business address is 9100 Black Eagle. I know the time’s short, so I’ll just say thanks, and I appreciate the effort. I appreciate
the staff’s honesty and straightforwardness in negotiating the things we do. Quick track is the name of the game. Our job is to get some employment users out there. In order to do
that we have the entitlements on the property. With that I want to thank you and appreciate it.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. No one’s signed up for and against. Anyone here that wants to testify at this point? Okay, Council.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing.
Bird: On all three?
Corrie: Only two - Conditional Use Permit –
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 14 and 15, request for annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Let’s take the first on the annexation and zoning. Comments or discussions?
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order in favor the request for annexation and zoning of 78 acres from R-1 to C-G
and C-C by Larson Architects for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center, southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval on the request for annexation and zoning for Silverstone Corporate
Center, Item No. 14. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to comment that unlike Keith I think this is one of the nicest development s that Meridian has had come to it and I appreciate the developer for bringing
this particular project to the City of Meridian. You know, we just turned down Ameritel a couple weeks ago and I think it would be a great location to have a classy motel and it would
fit in well in your project. Maybe you ought to go talk to them.
Corrie: Thank you Mr. Anderson. I agree one hundred percent.
De Weerd: We’d love to see it in your project.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Okay. Hearing none roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor Members of the Council. Roll call vote
Bird: Aye
De Weerd: Oh, aye.
Corrie: Sorry I was talking to her.
Anderson: Aye
McCandless: Aye
Berg: All ayes.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried. Okay. I’ll entertain a motion now for the request for preliminary plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the preliminary plat approval of 17 building lots and 1 other lot on 78 acres in proposed CC and CG zones for the proposed Silverstone Corporate Center by
Larson Architects southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road and for the Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to have the Attorney to draw up the proper order of decision for the Silverstone Corporation preliminary plat request.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Would this be the point of addressing the access to the south? The staff had commented and incorporate the new requirement form ACHD?
Corrie: That’s in the preliminary plat.
Bird: That’s in the preliminary [plat.
De Weerd: So does your motion address that?
Bird: It addresses – take that one out. I don’t like the one (inaudible)
De Weerd: So you want to delete staff’s –
Bird: Delete staff’s remarks. And I also added 17 building lots.
De Weerd: Just wanted clarity.
Corrie: Okay.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Corrie: Seventeen building lots?
Bird: Seventeen building lots plus one other lot.
Corrie: And deleting the south (inaudible)
Bird: And it’s deleting the south and that would be the south and the west.
Corrie: So you did both?
Bird: That’s south and that’s west. Yeah I think that – my opinion is that one to the – wait a minute, that’s to the south.
(inaudible discussion)
Nichols: Mr. Mayor
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Are you through Keith?
Bird: Yeah I’m through.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: If I understood the testimony correctly what the applicant was asking for is for the ACHD requirements would be what was reflected on the preliminary plat.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Okay. (inaudible) Yeah.
Corrie: And add the 17 –
Bird: And add the 17 building lots –
Corrie: Okay
Bird: -- and one other lot.
Corrie: All right. Any other discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor Members of the Council. Roll call vote
McCandless: aye
Anderson: aye
De Weerd: aye
Bird: aye
Berg: All ayes.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried. Item No. 16 this may go pretty fast but I – there may be some other questions in here. This is the Public Hearing request for conditional use
permit for the commercial plan unit development and floodway approval in the proposed (inaudible) So, at this point I will open a Public Hearing and staff comments first on the request
for conditional use permit. Do you have any different than the other?
Stiles: No.
Corrie: Okay fine. That’s fine. Does the developer have anything different than the request? Okay. Does anyone in the public have any testimony on that? Okay. Well, I guess I could
have opened and closed at the same time.
Bird: That’s okay.
Corrie: I didn’t know –
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing for the conditional use permit.
Anderson: Second
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to close the Public Hearing on item No. 16. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: The Mayor does make mistakes once in a while. Okay. I’ll entertain a motion for the request of the conditional use permit.
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We make more mistakes than you do so don’t feel bad. I move that we approve the CUP for a commercial PUD and floodway approval in proposed CC and CG zones for the proposed Silverstone
Corporate Center southeast corner of Overland Roads and Eagle Roads. The Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and the Decision of Order.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motions made and second to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval as noted on item No. 16 on the conditional use permit.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor Members of Council. Roll call vote
McCandless: aye
Anderson: aye
De Weerd: aye
Bird: aye
Berg: All ayes.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion’s carried. Well, we’re at the standpoint to take ten. We have item No. 17, 18, 19, 20 is a Public Hearing and as stated earlier tonight we would go to 10 and
possibly move the Public Hearing of 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 to May 1st. So, Council would that be your indication?
Berg: Mr. Mayor. Just on item No. 20 there is a letter to request it to be continued to the 17th to be with the variance application. That’s the Murdoch preliminary plat.
Corrie: The 17th of April?
Berg: Yes.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Yes Mr. Bird.
Bird: How many applicants have signed up for public testimony? Have we got that?
Corrie: On the –
Bird: On these three.
Corrie: -- Locust Grove, how many people want to testify on that? I think we have one signed up for and one signed up against. Is that correct? Okay. It’s up to Council if you want
to have the hearing. We can do all 3 of those at the same time.
Bird: Let’s go for it.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Get it over with.
Corrie: All right. (inaudible) the other 2. Okay.
Item 17. Public Hearing: AZ 01-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.764 acres from RT to R-40 and C-G for proposed Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers – west side of Locust
Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue:
Item 18. Public Hearing: PP 01-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 other lots on 11.764 acres in a proposed R-40 and C-G zone for proposed Locust Grove
Place by B & A Engineers – west side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue:
Item 19. Public Hearing: CUP 01-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 180-unit apartment complex and a planned development in a proposed R-40 and C-G zone for proposed Locust
Grove Place by B & A Engineers – west side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: At this time I’ll open the Public Hearing on item No. 17, 18 and 19. Item No. 17 is request for annexation and zoning. Item 18 is request for preliminary plat on Locust Grove
Place. Item No. 19 is a request for conditional use permit for a 180-unit apartment complex and planned development in Locust Grove Place. So at this time I will open the Public Hearing
and entertain the comments from staff first on all three items and their presentation.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council. This is for the property 11.764 acres located south of Fairview Avenue on Locust Grove Road. This is the Intermountain Outdoor Sports facility here. Mr.
Centers had a previous apartment complex approved in this location but back behind Danbury Fair. This is the junkyard, or the auto salvage facility.
(inaudible discussion)
Unknown Speaker: It’s still in the county so it’s a salvage yard.
Stiles: They’re proposing zoning of R 40 and CG. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the CG be changed to CC which the applicant has agreed to and also that the R 40
designation be limited to a maximum density of 20 units per acre. Hopefully you’ve all read the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission on this. They had some different
ideas about what should be restricted in the – what would normally be permitted in the CC zone which would outright prohibit the car washes, convenience stores, department stores and
entertainment centers. Staff would recommend that also restaurants. Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the restaurant be allowed on lot 7 and 8. (inaudible) going to have
to help me with where those are. The 7 and 8 would go here?
Unknown Speaker: Yeah that’s 7 and 8.
Stiles: Okay. They recommended that those be allowed to have a restaurant. And that 2 and 3, would that be these here? Since they’re adjacent to residential use. And that if they came
in for restaurant with a conditional use permit that we could consider conditional use permit on those 2 lots. Additionally the Planning and Zoning Commission would recommend that any
of the uses on lots 1 through 5 be restricted to hours of operation, or actually all of these be restricted to hours of operation from 7 AM to 10PM. Here is an existing – It’s hard to
tell. There are actually 2 existing drainages and ditches along here. The applicant is proposing to leave one open and to pipe the other and also would provide a pathway adjacent to
the, is it Jackson, Jackson stub drain as is required in our comprehensive plan. Also have the Settler’s Canal there. Staff would recommend approval of the annexation and zoning with
the revision to the CC zone and the preliminary plat and conditional use permit with the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. In addition, as part of their pathway,
I believe, the pathway would be constructed by the applicant. I believe the Planning and Zoning Commission had a recommendation that they wouldn’t construct this until the City wanted
to take it over but we would like it to be constructed and the parks director has indicated that once they construct that pathway the City would be willing to take over the actual pathway
itself but not the adjacent landscaping for the pathway. Questions?
Corrie: Thank you Miss Stiles. Okay. Any questions from Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, I’ve got a question to ask. What would we restrict in that location in the hours of 7 to 10 if they were thinking of putting a restaurant in? Restaurants between 6 and 9
probably have as good a business as any because of breakfast. I mean I don’t want a bar or something like that in there but I don’t know why we’re restricting them from 7 to 10. What
was the logic behind that?
Stiles: I really don’t know. Maybe Ona could elaborate on that. I know some of it was because of the adjacent Danbury Fair subdivision. I don’t really know except that they might have
been afraid that it would be a 24-hour operation.
Bird: (inaudible) Danbury subdivision in fact right up to it isn’t there a
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: These are single family residential units here and back behind.
Bird: The retail lots are right there right?
Stiles: Yes
Bird: Am I not right?
Stiles: Yes.
De Weerd: That stub isn’t opening up is into that? They’re not opening that stub are they?
Stiles: No. They’re going to shut that off since it’s only one lot depth there they won’t need to be putting in a turn around and they didn’t feel it would be compatible with that
to extend a public road through there.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. The applicant since there’s 3, I’ll put it at 10 and see where you are.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is Ona Powell. I work for B & A Engineers and I’m here representing Lee Centers. Our office is located at 5505 west Franklin Road Boise 83705.
Given the late hour, I’m going to try and error on the side of brevity for the sake of us all. Just to go over the project a little bit. It is an apartment complex and apartments are
kind of
ring around the central open space. There’s 180 units. Out front is the office development that we saw a few pictures of before and there are the six separate lots there. When we originally
turned in the application, we did ask for CG zoning but the staff has asked for CC and we don’t have any problem with that. Also in the original application this was shown as a stub
road and we – ACHD wasn’t too interested in that so we’re asking that just be a private driveway basically. We’ll put it on a separate lot and the apartment complex as well as the individual
owners of these lots will all have joint access agreements on that. As you saw by the surrounding uses this is an urban in fill project and we have done our best to kind of make it fit
in with the neighbors. We think that the apartment complex is a good mix between the commercial uses up to the north and tapering. We’ve done our best to be good neighbors with Danbury
to the south. Also, within the site itself, the commercial provides a buffer to the apartment complexes. There was a couple other features I wanted to point out. There is a drain feature
off site up here that’s not working too well so we’re re doing the drain and bringing it along here and then it goes through the Penn station site and out. That becomes an important
design feature when we try to accommodate the neighbors because we’re going to have a large 20-foot easement in this area. What we’ve done over here is provide some garages to buffer
the view and the noise of these units here to the residents over here. But we weren’t able to do that over here. We have worked with the owners to do a double fence on that property
so no light will get through and we also talked to him tonight about doing a, building up his property a little bit so that the fence sits a little higher. The Planning and Zoning Commission
did leave some wiggle room to do up to an 8 foot fence along there but if it’s owner would rather keep it at 6 feet, we’ll maybe just build up the land a little bit. Also as part of
the neighborhood meeting that we had, we worked with the neighbors over here to try and come up with a way to screen those garages. They provide a nice buffer but they are still there.
We proposed to give them 2 to 3 trees that they would plant in their back yards to screen those garages or whatever they wanted to screen. If they wanted to put them in their front yard
then that’s fine too but we’ll just drop them off for their use. Getting to the restrictions on the land, on the uses allowed in the CC zone, the main concern was the restaurant here.
No one envisions a full sit down restaurant I think at this point. We’re more thinking along the lines of just if somebody wanted to have a yogurt shop in there. In your zoning ordinance
that kind of falls under the definition of restaurant or a sandwich shop or a little place to grab a bite to eat. We’re not at this point envisioning that these are the type of units
that would have a full-fledged restaurant but if you would like to lessen the restriction on hours we wouldn’t complain. It would be nice to have a little more flexibility on the hours
for public operation but we had agreed with what staff had said before. There are also, Shari talked about the pathway coming down here, it would connect to Locust Grove as requested
by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. We’ll also bring a pathway from the stub street down there to Locust Grove and that was another request of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I want to briefly go
over what the traffic report said only because the neighbor that is here has concerns with the traffic issues so I just wanted to outline what ACHD has said. They have asked Mr. Centers
to build a left-hand turn lane into the project. The other plans for widening Locust Grove would accommodate the expected traffic levels. That was, it’s in their five year plan. We hear
that they’re moving it up but for sure it is in their five-year plan to widen Locust Grove to 3 lanes. I did prepare some mission statements. There was just a few minor things and I’m
sorry I didn’t get these to you before. I just learned about mission statements at 4:00 today.
(inaudible discussion)
Powell: There we go. It’s a last minute batch. I did want to – There were just a couple really minor things to go through. I guess I’ll start with the conditional use permit. The recommendation
17 I believe said something along the lines of the parking and storage requirements would be waived. We’d love to have the parking requirements waived but I think what it was really
meant to say was the boat and RV parking storage requirements would be waived. Did everybody follow that? Perhaps not. Okay. Then 2 additional recommendations if we – one is that pathway
that’s along here what – We’ve been working with your parks department to get that dedicated to the City. In order to dedicate that to the City we need to put it on a separate lot and
once it’s on a separate lot we were concerned about providing set backs from that lot. The intent of number 28 is to have the City acknowledge that there’s not a need to have set backs
from the lot because it will be quite close in that area right there. That is the intent of number 28. The intent of number 29 is just a little bit of a peculiarity with your comprehensive
plan in that it requires a conditional use permit for any use proposed within this comprehensive plan designation so we’re asking that you just acknowledge that we have done a conditional
use permit so that if a principal permitted use wanted to go into one of these lots that it could without having to go through a conditional use permit. If it’s conditional use it would
still come back for – Any questions on that one before I move on? On the rezone application there is a couple of little things. One gets back to the hours of operation. We were asking
that you, on number 5 that you clarify that it’s public hours of operation so that if an accountant wanted to work at 1:00 in the morning it would be okay on April 14th. Then on 4D,
if that could be modified slightly to read outdoor entertainment centers so that it wouldn’t preclude say someplace that had video games or pinball machines something of that sort. Those
were the only items there. I did want to kind of reiterate on the pathway issue along the Jackson drain that we’ve worked with the P&Z and staff so that we wanted to make sure the City
was going to take over dedication of that
pathway before it was constructed because we don’t want to just have it sitting there, unless the City is going to take over ownership of that pathway. That’s why in the P&Z recommendation
it is the way it is. We just wanted to make sure you all wanted that pathway before we built it. That’s all I have to say.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Are you doing this in phases or all at once? What are your plans on that?
Powell: Mr. Centers might be better able to speak to that. I have not heard of it being phased at this point though.
De Weerd: Then just to follow that, your businesses, are you putting in buildings? Do they have a certain design criteria? Are they similar in look?
Powell: We provided pictures of buildings that would be similar in look. I know Shari had those up a moment ago. She can flash back to those if you’d like.
De Weerd: I thought I saw that but they’re all going to be built at the same time then? So you won’t have empty pads?
Powell: No.
De Weerd: Okay. No more questions.
Corrie: Okay.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I haven’t seen anything. What’s the type of construction on the apartments? Are they 2 story, 3 story, wood siding, masonry –
Powell: They’re 3 siding or 3 story, sorry, it’s getting late –
Bird: 3 siding huh?
Powell: -- horizontal siding. The Planning and Zoning Commission did have some request for some of the facades. I think it’s this one right here that we add some windows here so that
you’d have a small window in the bathroom, a
frosted window so it would be 2 more windows on each of these and then one I think on these, 3 going down. Originally we tried to keep windows at a minimum because of privacy for the
surrounding property owners but we don’t have any problem putting those windows in it.
Anderson: So, it’s a masonite siding, or what is it?
Powell: I believe it’s vinyl siding. Yeah.
Anderson: Composition roof?
Powell: That’s generally what he uses. Yes. We haven’t talked about it too much.
Anderson: How many garages are being provided?
Powell: There are, just a moment, 36 garages. There’s a total of 409 parking spaces for just the apartment complex and then another 106 for the commercial.
Anderson: How many bedroom units, one to three?
Powell: There are 72 one bedroom, one bath units. There are 84 two bedroom, two bath units and 24 three bedroom, two bath units.
Anderson: You’re providing recreational facilities for them or anything like that?
Powell: There’s a swimming pool and also a tot lot and a clubhouse. There’s the tot lot, swimming pool, clubhouse. It’s kind of nice. It makes a nice interior green space for them. If
you look at the elevations, the elevations that look onto the open space or green space are the most attractive. It’ll be a nice courtyard.
Corrie: Do I understand you correctly on the item No.4? Developer agrees to restrict the use of the proposed auto washing, department stores, entertainment centers outdoors?
Powell: Yeah. Just the outdoor entertainment centers if that would be okay. Yes that’s fine.
Corrie: Just so I heard you right. Anything else?
Bird: Nothing.
Corrie: Council, any questions? Okay. All right. Thank you. Public testimony, I believe we have Richard Livingston.
Livingston: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Richard Livingston. I reside at 1288 north Locust Grove Meridian Idaho, which is; I have a 2-acre piece of property directly
across the street from this proposed development. I do not have any objections to this going in as far as the development goes. My concern is strictly on traffic and the condition of
the road as it is today and I have a traffic report of October 18, 2000 that as a daily car trip of 6,326 vehicles on that road. I believe on the plat that I read on, they’re anticipating
somewhere in the area of 1660 vehicle trips per day which brings you to somewhere in the area of 7,986 or very close to the 8,000 car capacity, which that road would be maxed out at.
So I’m concerned about the traffic and Thursday, the Planning and Zoning Commission will be looking at an additional apartment complex going in directly north of me, another 216 units.
If that is also approved and goes in, then we’re talking probably another 1,000 car trips a day or more and we’re talking about grid lock and almost unbearable situation as far as traffic.
So I don’t know if this is the place to voice that concern or not. I’m kind of real green at this kind of a thing. Also I’m with the businesses right there going in across I’m concerned,
I think I saw in one of the pictures, it looked like there was a berm between the road and parking there?
Powell: Down below there.
Livingston: Right on that area? Is that correct? Did I see that correctly? At least give me some relief from the headlights of cars turning in and coming in and going out of the different
businesses? If that’s the case, I have no problems there. I may have a problem with an outdoor video game facility going in there. If it’s going to have the tendency to draw many young
people that are going to be staying up late at night and doing what young people sometimes do, just from a safety standpoint. I compliment the planners. It looks like a very nice complex
and probably would be an upgrade for the neighborhood, so I’m not against that at all. I do have traffic problems is the main concern I have. Thank you very much.
Corrie: Thank you. Any comments from the developer on the questions he might have had, traffic?
Centers: Lee Centers. 325 Meridian Street. I’ve never known the ACHD to fix anything until it got bad. So, I don’t know what you do.
Corrie: I don’t have it with me but I think that’s road between Fairview and Franklin’s going to be a straight shot and they’re –
Centers: Yes.
Corrie: -- going to be five laned anyway.
Centers: They’ve already bought the right-of-way and I think, what I’ve heard and you may know more, is they’re suppose to step that over pass and get Locust Grove improved sooner than
the five years.
Corrie: We’re hoping so.
Centers: It is vinyl siding. It’ll be a composition architectural roof. The pads out front those will be built as tenants come along. Some might be a core and shell with tenant improvements
and others might be a pad sitting there before they’re built. Our intention isn’t for them to all look the same. They’re supposed to look different. Similar in construction, you know
and that’s what the pictures would illustrate but we didn’t want them all to look the same. They should have different looks to them.
De Weerd: You do have standards in materials –
Centers: Yes. We’ll have CC and Rs that’ll spell out –
De Weerd: You’re not going to have a red and white building and next to it a green and blue and –
Centers: No. They’re a stucco brick type mix.
De Weerd: And you will be maintaining the pads?
Centers: The complex will get built all at once. It’s the light office pads; those’ll go individually.
Bird: As it’s leased or sold.
De Weerd: The video game that he was talking about before. That will have hours, won’t it?
Centers: You know, I don’t hope we ever get to that point. That one down there on the corner of Fairview and Locust Grove is a zoo, people going in and out of there. We’re hoping that
we don’t get that. That’s not what we’re looking for.
De Weerd: But even if you did would it be the 7 to 10 hours.
Centers: If it’s a video store you need to make it a conditional use and make them come back in here. I don’t know. (inaudible)
Corrie: At least you’re in agreement to that part of it. That’s good.
Centers: Yeah.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Any questions from the Council on the Public Hearing? Pardon?
Bird: Do we have any more testimony?
Corrie: No. There’s nobody signed up. There isn’t any other testimony from the public is there?
Bird: I have none then.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on item 17, 18 and 19 the Locust Grove Place.
Bird: So moved.
Corrie: Motion made.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Second to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Let’s take the request for annexation and zoning, item No. 17 first, discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay then I’ll entertain a motion for the annexation and zoning.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 11.764 acres from RT to R40 and CC for the proposed Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers west side of Locust Grove
south of Fairview Avenue and the Attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motions made and second to have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and necessary papers and the affirmative action. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll
call vote Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor members of Council. Roll call vote.
Bird: aye
De Weerd: aye
Anderson: naye
McCandless: aye
Corrie: three ayes one naye. Motion’s carried. (inaudible) weren’t quite ready for that one. Go ahead Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I just wanted to clarify its not that I’m against the project. It’s what we talked about earlier tonight. I don’t know if you were here but we’re dealing with some real growth
issues here in Meridian and we’re struggling with keeping up with basic services and so until we know the outcome of an election that we’re going to do next month I’m pretty much opposed
to bringing anything new into our community that’s going to burden our already stretched police, fire and parks. I voted no earlier tonight on a 214-unit subdivision or single family
home subdivision and because of the size of this 180-unit apartment. That’s why I voted in the negative tonight.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you Mr. Anderson. Item No. 18 is a request for preliminary plat for Locust Grove Place. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I’ll get a motion on the preliminary
plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the preliminary plat approval 7 building lots and 2 other lots on 11.764 acres in the proposed R40 and CC zone for proposed Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers
and the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motions made and second to approve the plat to a CC zone and to have the attorney draw up the proper orders and decision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg roll
call vote please.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of Council. Roll call vote.
McCandless: aye
Bird: aye
De Weerd: aye
Anderson: naye
Corrie: Three ayes, one naye. Motion’s carried. Item No. 19 is request for conditional use permit. Any further discussion on that?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: None.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the conditional use permit request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the conditional use permit for 180 unit apartment complex and a planned development in a proposed R40 and CC zone for proposed Locust Grove Place By B &
A Engineers and for the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the request for conditional use permit in a proposed R40 and CC zone for Locust Grove and for the Attorney to draw up the Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg roll call vote please.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor members of Council roll call vote
Bird: aye
Anderson: naye
McCandless: aye
De Weerd: aye
Item 20. Public Hearing: PP 01-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots and 2 other lots on 20.26 acres in an R-8 zone by J-U-B Engineers for proposed Murdoch
Subdivision No. 2 – east of Locust Grove Road, south of Medimont No. 2:
Item 21. Public Hearing: PP 01-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 23 building lots and 3 other lots on 9.24 acres in an R-4 zone by Hubble Engineering for proposed Ashford
Greens No. 6 – Black Cat Road, north of Cherry Lane:
Corrie: Three ayes, one naye. Motion’s carried. Okay. Item No. 20 and 21 have been asked to be continued so I will entertain a motion to continue item No. 20 Public Hearing until April
17th at the request of the applicant.
Anderson: What was the date they requested that tabled to?
Corrie: I think that –
Bird: April 17th
(
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Yes. Just 20.
Bird: 20 they wanted to 5-1 didn’t they?
Corrie: And 21 they wanted to May 1st.
Bird: 21 to 5-1.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion then that we postpone or continue the Public Hearing on the request for preliminary plat approval for 11 building lots and 2 other lots on 20.26 acres
in an R8 zone by JUB Engineers for the proposed Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 until April 17th.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on item No. 20 at the request of the applicant until April 17, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion for the request item 21 to be extended until May 1st at the request of the applicant.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd
De Weerd: I move we continue until May 1st the request for preliminary plat approval of 23 building lots and 3 other lots on 9.24 acres in an R4 zone for the proposed Ashford Greens
No. 6.
Bird: Second
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the Public Hearing continuation at the request of the applicant to be continued until May1, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 22. FP 01-005 Request for Final Plat approval for 87 building lots and 4 other lots on 25.27 acres for Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gem Star Properties, LLC – south of Ustick
and west of Black Cat Roads:
Corrie: Item No. 22 is a request for final plat approval of 87 building lots and 4 other lots on 25.27 acres of Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gem Star Properties south of Ustick
Road and west of Black Cat. Staff comments first, reason for the request. Maybe you can clear up something for Keith (inaudible) Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 they’re about to hear
that in about 2 weeks but I think it’s a different –
De Weerd: (inaudible) phase 2.
Corrie: Yeah. Must be something there.
Stiles: No. Yeah, I’ve got the wrong information on my. This is not the right stuff on this. That’s something you’ll see later.
Corrie: Okay, so what do you suppose we do just table it?
Stiles: Well, this is for phase 2 of – it gets confusing when they name 2 things the same thing. They’re coming in with Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 a preliminary plat but this is
also Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 phase 2 and –
Bird: Where do you see phase 2?
Stiles: -- you have our comments dated March 30, 2001.
Bird: This isn’t phase 2. This is just subdivision No. 2.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: On their application it says subdivision and phase No. 2.
Stiles: This is part of what has already been approved as a preliminary plat as Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 1. They come in with a final plat on phase 1 of Autumn Faire Subdivision.
This is phase 2 of Autumn Faire Subdivision, which would, but up to this area here. The sky pilot drain runs through I guess roughly there. Since the preliminary plat has already been
approved, we’d recommend approval with all staff and agency comments. We don’t have any response back from the applicant on this but I wouldn’t think that they’re – Scott’s here, he
can address whether there’s any problem with any of the comments that we’ve made.
80 by 100 lots just went like –
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Can you explain where we’re at? Do you have any comments different than the –
Stanfield: No. That appeared to be in line with the preliminary plat approvals. I’ll make it real quick. I know the confusion over the Autumn Faire preliminary plat and what later became
Autumn Faire 2 preliminary plat, which was south of the sky pilot drain. We’ve talked with Cheryl at the City of Meridian and
***End of Side Five***
Stanfield: -- preliminary plat t o be Autumn Faire Crossing. We cross the sky pilot drain. So this indeed before you tonight is construction phase No. 2 part of the previously approved
Autumn Faire preliminary plat. Does that make any sense? Okay.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Where is that?
Corrie: Where is it on this map?
Stanfield: It is – I’ll approach the map and –
De Weerd: It shows where phase one was –
(inaudible discussion)
Stanfield: Phase 1 is approximately right through here. Phase 2 extends phase 1 down like this, not quite that far, probably like this.
Bird: It don’t get down to the park area does it Scott?
Stanfield: No. No sir.
Corrie: Do you have any questions for Scott?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you Scott.
Stanfield: thank you.
Corrie: Any questions for staff? Okay. Hearing no further questions and discussion I’ll entertain a motion on the final plat approval on item No. 22 (inaudible)
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the final plat for Gem Star Properties for their Autumn Faire Subdivision construction phase 2 and to include all staff comments for the City Attorney
to draw up the Findings of Facts and Decision of Order, or proper paperwork.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and Mr. Bird (inaudible) to approve the request for final plat in item No.22 and the attorney to draw up the proper order. Any further discussion? Then, All
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 23. TE 01-003 Time Extension on the preliminary and final plat originally approved on April 14, 2000 for Wilkins Ranch Subdivision by Briggs Engineering, Inc. - NW ¼ Section 3,
T3N, R1W:
Corrie: Item No. 23 is a time extension to preliminary plat and final plat originally approved on April 14, 2000 for Wilkins Ranch Subdivision by Briggs Engineering. Staff, time extension
request.
Stiles: You’re on time extension?
Bird: Yeah for Wilkins.
Stiles: We’d recommend approval to record the final plat by April, I believe it was really April18, 2002.
Corrie: This was due to the complexity of design concerning drainage issues? Okay. (inaudible) Okay.
Bird: She had no problems with that did she?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: No. We just (inaudible) No. This is the preliminary and final plat originally approved. You want a time extension on it right?
Unknown Speaker: Yeah. (inaudible)
Stiles: The –
Unknown Speaker: -- The ordinance tonight.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Oh, is that one on the consent agenda. So, we need to wait – no we can do this? Oh, it’s okay then. All right. Okay. City Clerk said we just on the consent agenda approved
the development agreement so we can’t go to the preliminary and final plat extension at this point.
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the time extension on the preliminary and final plat originally approved on April 14, 2000 for Wilkins Ranch Subdivision by Briggs Engineering Incorporated
until April 1, 2001. Oh, wait a minute, we’re in 2001, I’m sorry 2002.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: I’m just a year behind.
Corrie: Okay. Motions been made and seconded to extend the time extension until April 2002. Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 24. TE 01-004 Time Extension to sign and record plat originally approved on April 18, 2000 for Overland Mini Storage by Overland Mini Storage, LLC – 1230 East Overland Road: Approve
Extension to April 1, 2002
Corrie: The last item, next to the last item, is item 24. Time extension to sign and record plat originally approved on April 18, 2000 for Overland Mini Storage by Overland Mini Storage.
Miss Stiles comments?
Stiles: This is the property over on Overland Road where they already started building the pads for those, I don’t know what’s going on with that thing. I guess it wouldn’t hurt to
extend it as long as they meet the conditions of the original approval.
Anderson: It’s getting late.
De Weerd: I’m shocked.
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we extend the time extension to sign and record plat originally approved on Aril 18, 2000 for Overland Mini Storage by Overland Mini Storage LLC until April 1 2002.
Corrie: Okay. DO I hear a motion to second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motions made and seconded to approve the time extension to sign and record plat originally approved on April 18, to extend to April 18, 2002 for mini storage. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I think there’s a couple of things that I didn’t have on there but I believe Keith you had one.
Bird: Mr. Mayor I do have one that we needed to get on here. I’ll turn it over to Mr. Nichols. It’s that settlement that we had with the K-9 officers that we need to get passed. Mr.
Nichols do you need –
Item 25. Release and Settlement Agreement with Gary Scheihing and Jeff Lavey:
Nichols: Mr. Mayor members of the Council. You’ll note that this is the item that’s already been discussed with Council and submitted for your approval. We just need the Council to authorize
the Mayor to sign so that we can have this part of it finished.
Corrie: Any questions? We had (inaudible)
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yeah. I apologize for that. Yes Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we pass this release and settlement agreement with the officers Gary Scheihing and Jeff Lavey and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second
Corrie: Motions been made and second to have the Mayor sign and the clerk to attest on the canine settlement. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Just one other item. Does anybody have any questions on the finance director Stacie Kilchenmann?
Bird: You pronounce it.
Corrie: (inaudible) Keith and I and Pauline and Janice met. Keith was not able to be at this one but the other three of us had Stacie on the table and talked to her.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: If anybody has any questions, she’s the one I’m going to put in command. Keith said he would back me up on everything I said.
Bird: I agree with you.
Corrie: If you have any questions, she was the top candidate to come out and the next one was the fellow from Washington. It was an ex council and finance
director in (inaudible) but Stacie has been with the state corrections for 9 years. She’s had experience in the budgeting, grant writing, I don’t think she had much on the union contract
but she’s willing to learn real quick. She has done 41 grants so far this year has a staff of 13. She’s head of the senior budget analysis and senior accountant and purchasing agent.
She’s done the purchasing. So, she’s done pretty much everything that we need. She has a good repor with the governor’s office and legislature. That’s good form my standpoint and your
too I expect. Any questions?
Anderson: When are you looking at bringing her on board?
Corrie: In 2 to 3 weeks. Hopefully by the last of April. She said she needs at least a couple weeks to let them know and then she. I told her to hit the ground running. With me as
a Mayor she’s going to have to with my (inaudible) Any other questions?
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Do you not want to appoint her next Tuesday even though it is a workshop. So Will you will have to advertise we’ll have a special meeting just for that one thing. We need to get
her on board give her two so she can get her two weeks going.
Anderson: Will she be here at that meeting so we can meet her?
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: We certainly can.
Corrie: 6:15? Yeah that’ll be fine. It won’t take us very long. All right.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Smith: Mr. Mayor I just wanted to make an announcement for you and the Council. Effective April 1st Brad Watson is our City Engineer and so all problems shall be funneled to Brad’s office.
Bird: You got smart Gary.
Smith: Brad’s been a real asset to us and to me. I really appreciate his expertise and hopefully we can be successful in hiring a staff engineer now to help with some of the engineering
duties that Brad’s doing. So that I can turn loose of some of the stuff I’m doing to Brad and get into a little more administrative work.
Corrie: Does that mean we get o play a little more golf than we have?
Smith: I don’t think we’ve played any Mayor.
Corrie: Once a year would be more golf than we have. Okay. Thank you Gary. That’s good news.
De Weerd: Congratulations Brad.
Watson: Thank you.
De Weerd: D you have anything to say?
Bird: He’ll be here on Tuesday night so we can get him.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: All of us got a copy form the Ada County Development Services on the temporary use application for the Idaho Power generators. There is a 15-day comment period. Is there anything
anyone wants to comment regarding this?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor
Berg: We discussed it at the fire meeting. I think Kenny was going to contact them and ask them to provide some training to the fire department on what to do if there’s a fire or a situation
with one of those. That’s the only comment that I’ve heard.
Corrie: I did also talk to Goodson and we talked about that very same thing and he wants to have the training for them too. Yes,
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council. One of the sites that they’re proposing is out at TenMile and Ustick Road. Right next to, well across the creek from our entrance to the wastewater plant.
I did talk to John Charcroft about that if he had any concerns and he responded that he did not.
Corrie: We’re going to have Lane Dotson here April 24th as well to kind of explain all this to us. I’ve already talked to him and they followed up with the fire department for training.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. The last thing I had is on some of these recommendations it looks like some kind of oriental writing. It’s hard to read. Will indicated that there’s some type of
problem with the font or the version that the attorney’s using. Could you guys maybe get the same version or same font so –
Nichols: Councilmember Anderson, Mayor members of the Council. The hard copies that came over looked fine. It’s the electronic copies that were transmitted to the Clerk and the Clerk
chose to print off those so he could do the two-sided copy. I don’t know why but WordPerfect to Word – the only thing I can figure is Mr. Gates is trying to sink the Corel ----. That’s
one of the ways he wants. We’ll work on trying to make sure – the format is such that it can be converted over. We did some stuff in terms of trying to make sure that public works and
P&Z could be able to convert our stuff so we’ll try to get it same shape.
Anderson: We’d appreciate it.
De Weerd: I know it.
Bird: (inaudible) it was kind of nice.
Corrie: I held Mr. Berg up not saying anything while I was still having a conversation with attorney. Mr. Berg, do you have anything to say?
Berg: I’m trying to meet my deadlines. Email gets it there so you can get it your packets Friday night.
Corrie: All right. I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motions made and seconded all in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:05
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK