HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 08-08
Meridian City Council Meeting August 8, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:35 P.M. on Tuesday, August 8, 2001, by Mayor Robert Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Tammy de Weerd, and Keith Bird.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: -- 6:35, I’ll open the City Council Regular Meeting on Wednesday, August 8, 2001, in the City Council Chambers. Roll call attendance Mr. Clerk.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Item No, 2 is adoption of the agenda. Council, we have requests on Items 9 and 10 to be -- the Final Plat approval of Bear Creek Subdivision and also the request for Final
Plat approval No. 11 for Bear Creek to be continued until, or tabled until the 21st of August. Also we got a request to continue the Public Hearing on Item No. 17 request for annexation
and zoning for the Podiatry Building by Smith Brighton on east Fairview Avenue. They forgot to post the signs necessary that there was going to be a Public Hearing.
Bird: We can’t table that to the 17th, can we? Is that going (inaudible)?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council that will have to be re-noticed because that’s the third leg that the stool stands on for the notification. We’ll have to count the days and
re-notice it for new Public Hearing.
Corrie: Okay. When we come to that one, we’ll do that then. So, the public -- anybody who’s coming for that Public Hearing that will be redone. Okay, any other agenda changes --?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. bird.
Bird: I believe on our Consent Agenda which we can either do that now or with the consent. Items A, B, C, and D I don’t believe are ready for passage on the Consent Agenda because
there’s some stuff in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions that we have some questions about.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: They need to be pulled from the Consent Agenda and added under Item 5 as A, B, C, and D so we can have a little discussion on them.
Corrie: All right. Anything else. Okay, hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the adoption of the agenda as noted.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we adopt the agenda as noted.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Tabled from July 17, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-018 Request for the continuation of a three-year CUP granted in January 1997 for modular
buildings in an L-O zone for the Meridian Assembly of God by Meridian Assembly of God – 1830 North Linder Road:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres from RUT to R-4 and C-G zones for a planned development consisting
of residential, office and commercial uses for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Company -- 2420 Ustick Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G
zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development, Co. LLP – north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile Roads:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 692 single-family lots, 59 townhomes, 17 office lots and 10 commercial lots
on 370.55 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development, Co. LLP – north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile Roads:
E. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 01-009 Request for a variance to reduce the minimum block length in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Staten Park Subdivision
by D’Alessio Building Development, Inc. – southeast corner of North Black Cat Road and West Ustick Road:
F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 8.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Staten Park Subdivision by D’Alessio
Building Development, Inc. – southeast corner of North Black Cat Road and West Ustick Road:
G. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 23 building lots and 5 other lots on 8.15 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
proposed Staten Park Subdivision by D’Alessio Building Development, Inc. – southeast corner of North Black Cat Road and West Ustick Road:
H. Consent to Annexation Agreement: 55 building lots and 7 other lots on 17.76 acres in an Ada County R4 zone for Edinburgh Place Subdivision by Bunderson-Smith, LLP – west of Eagle
Road on McMillan (west of Austin Creek):
I. Contract between local 2311 and City of Meridian – Finalize:
Corrie: Okay, on the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have one question and we should have done this on the adoption. If you’ll pardon me, the contract between the local 2311 and the City of Meridian is all okay and everything?
Anderson: Yes, they voted and ratified it I think a week ago. We had a meeting on that final deal and got that taken care of.
Bird: Okay. With that Mr. Mayor I move we approve the Consent Agenda with the exceptions of Items A, B, C, and D which have been moved to 5A, 5C, 5B, and 5D.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second to approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of Items A, B, C, and D from the Consent Agenda to be placed on Item No. 5. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
4. Department Reports:
Public Works Department – Gary Smith:
Cherry Lane Baptist Church -- Request to connect to City Water:
Corrie: Item No. 4 Department Reports. First will be a Public Works Department Gary Smith.
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. The first item is Cherry Lane Baptist Church request to connect to City water. This church property is located on Ten Mile Road just north
of the railroad tracks on the east side of Ten Mile Road. Presently a waterline exists along the east side of Ten Mile that extends along their frontage and under the railroad tracks
and services fire flow and domestic use for the storage facility out there on the west side o f Ten Mile Road south of the railroad tracks. This proposed use was represented to me to
have 600 to 700 members. That’s the reason I’m bringing it before you for consideration rather than making the decision on my own, as it’s larger than what the ordinance allows me to
do. Shari did talk to the church representative. Apparently they are in the process of, have submitted to Ada County for a Conditional Use Permit. They are not contiguous to City
property or City limits so therefore cannot be annexed at this time. Obviously if you approve of their connection, there would need to be a Connection Agreement drafted through our
City Attorney’s office similar to the other agreements that we have entered into with property owners for service outside the City limits. I think that’s about the history on the subject.
Do you have any questions?
Bird: Gary, they just want water at this time?
Smith: Yes.
Bird: We do have the sewer running –
Smith: We don’t have sewer out there yet.
Bird: We haven’t got that down to the storage sheds?
Smith: No.
Bird: I thought we did down to Stevens.
Smith: No sir that’s in that Ten Mile Drainage. That comes off the Black Cat Trunk. There’s sewer in Ten Mile Road on the north side of the Ten Mile Stub Drain which is just north
of Pine, but it’s too high. It can’t cross the drain and continue on to the south.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. This is probably premature but I just had a question of Shari. I guess I’m kind of thinking that with the new subdivision at Black Cat and Cherry Lane and then
with the Fuller Park back there there’s a pretty good green belt all the way through that section except for adjacent to the property that this church is going to be. Is that something
that, if they’re not going to be annexed into the City, is that something that we might be able to work on connecting paved pathway there that would tie that, that would connect Ten
Mile all the way to Black Cat Road along the drainage there.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Stiles: The drain that’s there is called the Ten Mile Stub Drain. It’s not identified in our Comprehensive Plan as a pathway. It kind of (inaudible) there at the park and continues
on with Ten Mile Creek and then there’s a Ten Mile Stub but the Ten Mile Creek doesn’t go through their property.
Bird: (Inaudible) it goes right in back of it.
Anderson: I thought that went through and came out by Pine.
Bird: It does but they don’t go that far.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: Do you have a map in your computer of that area, Shari?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: Where is it?
Smith: This church property is just north of the railroad tracks on the east side of Ten Mile.
Anderson: (Inaudible) different piece of property.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: (Inaudible) go all the way to Pine?
Smith: Pardon me?
Bird: Does it go all the way to Pine?
Smith: No it doesn’t.
Bird: It’s just the south half of that farm there?
Smith: Yes.
Anderson: Okay, forget that idea. That has nothing to do with this -- slowing things up.
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion on the request?
De Weerd: No, I have none.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: What’s Gary want us to do pass on it? We have to by Ordinance?
Smith: Yes sir, by Ordinance it requires approval. It’s beyond my authority.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we have the attorney draw up the proper papers and permit the Cherry Lane Baptist Church to hook up to City water at the location on Ten Mile Road just north
if the railroad tracks on the east side.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second. Now we can have discussion.
De Weerd: Would that include all the recommendations in the letter or memo dated July 20th?
Bird: It sure would.
De Weerd: Okay.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Now this is a land use thing. Mr. Clerk roll call vote please?
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Idaho Power Company Easement Approval to bring power into City Well No. 22 site from Stoddard Road:
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council. The second item is a request for approval of an easement for Idaho Power to provide underground power service from Stoddard Road into transformer
on Well No. 22 site in the Bear Creek Subdivision Park area. Do you have any questions?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Is a standard agreement, Gary?
Smith: Yes it is.
De Weerd: Okay so the attorney has seen it and have we done it before?
Smith: We have done it before and I would assume that the attorney’s office has reviewed it. I don’t know that for a fact. David’s shaking his head.
Swartley: Mr. Mayor, Council members. I cannot speak for Bill but I would assume that if it is a standard agreement that he has seen it before. He’s pretty thorough.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: No Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the easement approval with Idaho Power at the City Well No. 22 site on Stoddard Road and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second to approve the Power Line Company Easement. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
3. Ashford Greens No. 5 Drainage Easement On City (Golf course) property:
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council. The next item is the Ashford Greens No. 5 Subdivision Drainage Easement. It’s on our City property on which the golf course exists right now.
At the last Council meeting, the participants in that subject got together and as a result of that ironed out an agreement that City Engineer Brad Watson put into written format, one
page written format and sent that to the operators of the golf course. That letter agreeing to the proposal that was put forth by the developer for that storm drainage pond and Jennifer
Lovan-Holloway signed that agreement as the manager of the course. A copy of that agreement letter is included in your packet I believe. It was dated August 1st. I guess at this point,
everybody is okay with what’s being proposed. Brad did tell me a minute ago that he has not heard from, formally from the Ada County Highway District. However they were part of the
proposal that was put together. Gary Insulman was in attendance at that meeting. I guess our approval of the whole thing would be conditioned upon ACHD’s acceptance of it all.
Corrie: Any questions, discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion then that we approve the Ashford Greens No. 5 Drainage Easement on the City Golf Course property subject to ACHD’s approval.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to approve the Drainage Easement on the City Golf Course property dependent on the approval of ACHD. Any further discussion? Hearing none Mr.
Berg.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
4. Five Mile Relief Sewer Easement -- Leonard Huskey:
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council. The next item is an easement need for approval by Council. It’s the Five Mile Sewer Line Relief, Five Mile Relief Sewer Line Easement through
Mr. Leonard Huskey’s property. This will connect the Five Mile Relief sewer line from Bridgetower Subdivision where it exists now to Ten Mile Road and that will allow it to flow on
into the plant. This one has been a long time coming in that there was quite a bit of work that had to be done by the attorneys because of numerous family member involvements in the
property but, it finally is here. Brad’s memo to Mayor Corrie and City Council is the recommendation for the City Council to accept the easement associated with this Five Mile Relief
Sewer project and authorize Mayor Corrie to sign and City Clerk to attest. If you have any questions I’m sure Brad can answer them for you.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: You lucked out Brad. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we accept the Sewer Easement associated with the Five Mile Relief Sewer project and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote please.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
5. Police Department Property – Pressure Irrigation System to Addendum and Bill of Sale – Murdoch Subdivision No. 2:
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members. The last item I have is an agreement that needs to be signed with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and the City of Meridian concerning
the pressure irrigation system that exists around the, or in the Murdoch No. 2 Subdivision. The reason for a City involvement is because of the ownership of the ten-acre parcel upon
which the Police Department is building their new station. We are signatory to the plat for that subdivision so we are also involved in the ownership of the pressure irrigation system.
There’s a construction addendum to that system and there’s also a bill of sale that signs the system over to, or assigns the system to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. Bill
has reviewed this. I think the only comment that he had was at one point in here they refer to Murdoch No. 2 as Murdoch No. 3. I can’t recall exactly where that was but that was his
only comment.
Corrie: Gary, he did ask that Nampa Meridian Irrigation District not record the documents until (inaudible). Did he talk to them or did they agree to that? Is that all right?
Smith: I don’t know whether he did or not, Mr. Mayor.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: I can understand why. (Inaudible) any questions of the request?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: That -- for the public record that is on Page 5 Item No. 12, the acreage in that lot and the total in all lots in Murdoch Subdivision No. 3 and that should be changed to No. 2?
Smith: Yes sir. That’s correct.
Bird: With that I would approve that we approve this Pressurized Irrigation System Addendum and Bill of Sale of Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to
attest.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request by the Mr. Smith on the pressure irrigation system for Murdoch Subdivision No. 2. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr.
Clerk, roll call vote.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Planning and Zoning Department – Shari Stiles
Application to Ada County for Keltic Heights Subdivision – zone change, sketch plan and Development Agreement for 929 single-family lots, 15 commercial lots, and 585 apartments on 383.81
acres:
Corrie: Next would be the Planning and Zoning Department Shari Stiles.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. I just wanted you to be aware that Keltic Heights Subdivision has been submitted to Ada County. They have submitted one application for a zoning change
and a Development Agreement for 40 acres at the northwest corner of Meridian Road and McMillan. They are really requesting a zone to C2 which would be Community Commercial. They have
also submitted an application for 383.81 acres that will include this 929 single-family residential lots and as you can see 585 apartments. I’m still waiting on additional information
from the County. We did not get a complete transmittal and are unable to complete our review of it until we get that information. From the 8 and a half by 11 they included it looks
like they’re proposing a lot of strip commercial along Chinden and Meridian and Linder Road. Plus they intend the entire corner to be the 40 acres to be zoned commercial with no plan
what so ever. They are proposing a fire station site but is what they’ve included in their Development Agreement is that the station would be built by Meridian City within 5 years of
the first plat being filed. I would assume they mean it would go away after that. I was wondering if you would like to direct me to have a draft available for you at the first meeting
in September, first City Council meeting after we are able to do an analysis with the Comprehensive Plan so that we can get your signatures on that letter to send to the County. The
August 23rd date is not going to be met. I was told by Ada County staff today that it would be heard on September 26th. Part of the reason for that of course is because Roger Simmons
is not available. I didn’t want to copy this entire thing for you. It’s a lot of information you probably don’t want but we do have -- we’ll kind of call this out and give you the
meat of it anyway so that you have that in the next week. You can look at that and have comments. We have a meeting next Tuesday?
Bird: Workshop.
Stiles: Hopefully we’ll get an update on what this north corridor study is and where that is headed. I just mainly put this on the agenda so you’re aware it was submitted and let you
know we’ll be reviewing that.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Stiles: If we could put it on the agenda for September 4th, would be the first Council meeting. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari, I just have a couple of questions. Keltic Heights was in front of us a number of months ago. Is it the same design or have they done some modifications to it? That
was the shoestring annexation that came in front of us, wasn’t it?
Stiles: Yes.
De Weerd: Do you know if it’s changed much?
Stiles: That’s what I’m waiting for, is -- all I have right now is an 8 and a half by 11 with shaded areas. I can’t even tell where the shading is. It didn’t turn out. They’re showing
commercial on the corner here. It’s just a blob concept right now as far as I can tell but if they have some additional information that they have submitted to the County that we can
get a hold of, it’ll be easier to do a review.
De Weerd: It just seems to me, I think that every Council member up here and the Mayor stated when we discussed Bridgetower that anything happening in the north corridor and because
of the commitment from all of the agencies involved, Ada County, ACHD and the City of Meridian that entertaining these additional applications at this point seems mute until we see the
direction like you had mentioned that we’re going with the north corridor planning. We should know more next week but I believe al the agencies are very committed to that process and
you know I think looking at applications and maybe that’s something we need to find out from the Ada County Commissioners, seems like a waste of our staff time, a waste of their staff
time. Actually, a waste of all of our times. Maybe we can get a better idea from Mike next week and have a chance to talk with the Commissioners. I believe we have another north corridor
meeting in September, don’t we?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: The 27th of August.
De Weerd: That we might be able to get a better idea even at that point. It just seems that these applications are premature and frankly, I personally would hope that any of this kind
of activity would be held until we know what’s going to happen up there. I thought that was the dedication from the Development Community as well.
Stiles: I think that’s what everybody would like to happen. Unfortunately we have to process applications that are considered complete in accordance with our Ordinance. Without mentioning
the M word, I think that’s the course that we need to be taking in order to stop the applications from coming in. I don’t see any --
De Weerd: That’s true. It just seems like a waste of filing fees and processing fees because they sat in that same meeting and nodded their head and you know I thought there was a
consensus of where we were going with this. I understand that but you know I hate to see anyone throw money away.
Corrie: I do too but we can’t control what they do (inaudible). Hopefully they will, this will all work out. (Inaudible).
De Weerd: Well, I guess if we have to go through the steps, then yes. Although I would reiterate the message we sent with Bridgetower that we’re committed to this north corridor planning
and don’t expect much I guess.
Corrie: Okay. Thanks Shari.
Item 5 (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Item 5A. Tabled from July 17, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-018 Request for the continuation of a three-year CUP granted in January 1997 for
modular buildings in an L-O zone for the Meridian Assembly of God by Meridian Assembly of God – 1830 North Linder Road:
Corrie: Item 5 is the items we moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 3A which is the Meridian Assembly of God.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: In the discussion on recommending approval and requesting findings, the Council at this time discussed if this were to expire again -- I think Shari had put it very nicely,
you might suggest verbiage but I think that that needs to be in these findings as far as once this time frame is up that if they
haven’t submitted for a CUP on a permanent structure that those would be then removed. I believe that was the discussion. Would you be willing to suggest some verbiage to be added
to these findings? Or do you want to think about it? We probably, let’s continue these until we get the minutes.
Bird: Just exactly what I was going to say. Lets look at the minutes.
De Weerd: We can table this until we get the minutes and maybe you can put suggest a statement that we can put into these findings.
Corrie: We might already have these minutes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. bird.
Bird: I would move that we table these until the 21st of August so that we can have the minutes because we cannot change any of these Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law without
back up from the minutes, the actual words coming. We cant be putting phrases of our own in these. No, just the Meridian Assembly of God.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: I second. Was that a motion?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Motion made and second to continue to August 21, 2001 to review the minutes. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres from RUT to R-4 and C-G zones for a planned development consisting
of residential, office and commercial uses for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Company -- 2420 Ustick Road:
Item 5C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres in proposed R-4
and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development, Co. LLP – north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile Roads:
Item 5D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 692 single-family lots, 59 townhomes, 17 office lots and 10 commercial
lots on 370.55 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development, Co. LLP – north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile Roads:
Corrie: Okay. Item B was Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision for the request for annexation and zoning No. 003.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: On all three of these items B, C, and D, in reviewing them and again, not having the minutes I do think that on the annexation and zoning on Page 5 and 21 Item A, it goes
over kind of -- and this is the verbiage that we asked our City Attorney to help us with. This is in reference to the north corridor planning and any recommendations that might come
out of that group that this development would participate in it. As its written it seems like the emphasis is strictly on the transportation component of it and the north corridor planning
in the way I’m perceiving it is going to be greater than just transportation issues. I’d like to see if we can make another attempt at writing that section. As well on the request
for the Preliminary Plat Page 7, 4A it discusses the stub street to the Anderson property. I don’t know if this is stated strongly enough or if it actually some of the discussion clarified
this a little bit further so if maybe staff can take a look at the minutes when we get them and see if this is adequate to cover the discussion that we had on that. Also on the Conditional
Use Permit Page 6 and 7 has a section in here on pathways and the Five Mile Creek. It’s designated as a multiple pathway in the Comprehensive Plan. I’m not really sure what this paragraph
is stating but there is a pathway along that and in the first phase we did address that and that the developer needed to participate in it dedicate and develop it. I don’t know if this,
again adequately covers that condition so if you can please read that and see if that is adequate in what the intent of both our action on phase one and any discussion in this one as
well.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe that these are Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. I think we need to dub off the tapes and I not only want staff to look at and I think our legal people need
to. They’re the ones writing it and the interpretation, they cant come out of written minutes, they need to look at the, or listen to the tapes I believe.
De Weerd: Also on Page 7 is on Item 9 it talks about the traffic study prepared by Washington Group. I don’t know if that’s outdated by now. It might have been a condition left from
the Planning and Zoning recommendation so if you would look at that. As well on Page 8, Item 17 it talks about extraordinary impact fees by ACHD. That probably needs, the wording needs
to be looked at there too. Those are my comments.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: I need a motion for the tabling and to a certain time.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we table the findings for the AZ 01-003, PP 01-005 and CUP 01-006 for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision to August 21, 2001.
Bird: Is that it? Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to table Items B, C, and D of the Consent Agenda until August 21, 2001. Any further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Ordinance No. _________________: RZ 00-009 Request for Rezone of .25 acres from R-8 to C-G for general commercial use for proposed Tranquility Ponds by Potter Land Surveying
– East 3rd Street and Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 6. We have Ordinance No. 01-921 request for rezone of 2.5 acres from R-8 to C-G for general commercial use for proposed Tranquility Ponds by Potter Land Surveying,
east 3rd Street and Fairview Avenue. At this time, I’ll have the City Clerk read Ordinance 01-921 by title only.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Ordinance No. 01-921 an Ordinance finding that Jim and Holly Reed owners of certain real property known as Tranquility Ponds has
made a written request for rezone of the zoning classification for real property that lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian from R-8 medium density residential zoning district
to C-G, general retail and service commercial district as defined under Meridian City Code section 11-7-2 K, repealing all Ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in
conflict herewith and directing the city engineer to add said rezoning designation to the official maps of the City of Meridian Idaho.
Corrie: You heard the reading of Ordinance No. 01-921 by title only. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have the ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll
entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 01-921.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. bird.
Bird: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 01-921 the rezone of 2.5 acres from R-8 to C-G for general commercial use for Tranquility Ponds by Potter Land Surveying east 3rd Street and
Fairview Avenue with a suspension of rules.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to have Ordinance No. 01-921 approved with the suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Ordinance No. _________________: RZ 01-002 Request for Item Rezone of 0.51 acres from R-4 to L-O for Idaho Banking Company by Idaho Banking Company – 403 West Cherry Lane:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is the Ordinance No. 01-922. This is a request for rezone of 0.51 acres from R-4 to L-O for Idaho Banking Company by Idaho Banking Company 403 West Cherry Lane.
At this time, the Clerk will read Ordinance No. 01-922 by title only.
Berg: Thank you Mayor, members of Council. Ordinance No. 01-922 an Ordinance finding that the owner, Idaho Banking Company for certain real property has made a written request for
rezone of the zoning classification for real property that lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian from R-4 low density residential zoning district to L-O limited office district
as defined under Meridian City Code section 11-7-2 G repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith and directing the city engineer to add said rezoning
designation to the official maps of the City of Meridian Idaho.
Corrie: Okay. You’ve heard the reading of the Ordinance 922. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to have it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion
on Ordinance 922.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I’d make the motion that we approve Ordinance No. 01-922 a request for rezone of 0.51 acres from R-4 to L-O for Idaho Banking Company and authorize the Mayor to sign, not
the Mayor to sign but with suspension of the rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second to approve Ordinance No. 922 with suspension of the rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote please.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Ordinance No. _________________: RZ 01-003 Request for Rezone from R-4 to C-C zones for Partition Specialties, Inc by Ronald and Coleen Schaub – 1315 North Meridian Road:
Corrie: Item No. 8 is Ordinance No. 01-923 request for rezone from R-4 to a C-C zone for Partition Specialties Inc. by Ronald and Coleen Schaub, 1315 North Meridian Road. I’ll have
the Clerk read by title only on Ordinance 923 please.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of Council. Ordinance No. 01-923. An Ordinance finding that Ronald D and Coleen M. Schaub, the owners of certain real property has made a written
request for rezone of the zoning classification for real property that lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian from R- 4 low density residential district zoning district to
L-O limited office district as defined under Meridian City Code section 11-7-2 G repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith and directing the
city engineer to add said rezoning designation to the official maps of the City of Meridian Idaho.
Corrie: You’ve heard the reading of Ordinance No. 923. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to have it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the
Ordinance.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 01-923 request for rezone from R-4 to C-C zones for Partition Specialists (inaudible) suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second. Is there further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, roll call vote please.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Tabled from July 17, 2001: FP 01-007 Request for Final Plat approval of 36 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.66 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 2 by
Briggs Engineering – east of South Stoddard and south of West Overland Road:
Item 10. Tabled from July 17, 2001: FP 01-011 Request for Final Plat approval of 43 building lots and 5 other lots on 15.87 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 3 by
Briggs Engineering – east of South Stoddard and south of West Overland Road:
Corrie: Item No. 9 and 10 has been requested to have -- to table it until August 21, 2001 meeting. With that request in mind, I will entertain a motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table Item 9, a request for Final Plat approval of 36 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.66 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 2 by Briggs Engineering
until August 21, 2001. Also table the request for Final Plat approval of 43 building lots and 5 other lots on 15.87 acres in an R-4 zone for bear Creek Subdivision No. 3 by Briggs Engineering
until August 21, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to table 9 and 10 which is Final Plat 01-007 and Final Plat 01-011 until August 21, 2001 meeting. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those
in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from July 17, 2001: AZ 01-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and
RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road:
Item 12. Continued Public Hearing from July 17, 2001: PP 01-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 10 building lots and 3 other lots on 12.71 acres in proposed C-G and R-40 zones
for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road:
Item 13. Continued Public Hearing from July 17, 2001: CUP 01-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for mixed use Residential/Commercial in proposed
C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: Item No. 11 is a Continued Public Hearing from July 17, 2001. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R-1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for proposed
Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road. At this time I will open the Continued Public Hearing and staff?
Stiles: This was continued to give the applicant the opportunity to work with the Meridian Cemetery Board to see what kind of buffering they could provide adjacent to the cemetery.
Also we have not finally addressed the Hunter Lateral to the southern part of the development. Also an issue at the last Public Hearing was the applicant’s willingness to participate
in some kind of signalization along Franklin for the Fire Station and this crowded road access. I don’t know what has come of any of that but hopefully the applicant can address some
of those.
***End Of Side One***
Stiles: --it was discussed how they were going to phase this project and whether they would do the commercial or the apartments and the traffic impacts to Franklin as a result of any
phasing.
Corrie: Let the record show we do have 11,12, and 13 as a Continued Public Hearing on the request for annexation. Also the request for Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit.
So, I will continue that public on all three so your testimony will be done on all three if you so desire to be added to the testimony. Is the developer here tonight?
Nickels: Mr. Mayor. Shawn Nickel from Land Consultants, 52 Second Street in Eagle. Nice to see you and Council. As Shari stated there was several issues that you wanted us to address
for tonight’s meeting. I will attempt to address those. One of them was obviously the meeting with the cemetery people to
discuss the landscaping along the western boundary, their eastern boundary. Two gentlemen are here this evening that we met with approximately two weeks ago. We did come to a consensus
on how that landscaping should be provided along there. Also fencing and screening. I have a letter that I would like to submit to the Council, signed by both the developer and the
Cemetery Board stating those agreed to landscaping. I would also like to submit to staff our revised Landscape Plan that shows what we’re wanting to do. Basically what we agreed to
do is provide a strip of 6 to 7 foot Australian Pines on the cemetery’s property 15 feet beyond our property boundary spacing 20 feet on center. We’re also going to have a chain link
fence with vinyl slats on the property line. The cemetery will -- we will provide the trees and pay for their installation and the cemetery will maintain the trees with their normal
landscaping on their property. We also were discussing the tiling of the Hunter Lateral, if you remember which is on the south boundary of this property. I believe the members of the
Cemetery Board would like to discuss that with you. Originally we had asked to allow that to remain as it was and provide a 6-foot chain link fence along our southern boundary on the
easement line at which point we would go in and rehabilitate the easement area along the northern boundary of that canal and kind of maintain it as a visual amenity. It wouldn’t have
direct access from our development. In working with the cemetery people, that is their property that is to the south, kind of that triangle right there that you see south of the canal.
They would also like that to remain open because you know they are going to expand their facility in the future. What we have agreed to do, and this is obviously depending on the Council
whether they would grant the waiver not to tile the canal. What we would agree to do is to provide a 6-foot chain link fence on the easement line and also have that slatted with the
vinyl slats. That’s something that the Cemetery Board wanted to see a screen from that as opposed to leaving it as an open fence. Like I said, they’re here tonight and they probably
would like to discuss that with you so I’ll submit this to the Clerk. Thank you. The second issue, or the other issue was regarding the traffic the phasing, the future streetlight
and the future widening on Franklin Road. Mr. Pat Doby is here tonight. He’s going to get up and kind of explain to you his traffic study, what was submitted and approved by the Highway
District. I guess at the request of Council Member Bird, we did sit down and meet with the Highway District after our last meeting to try to get an idea of the timing of that future
widening of Franklin Road because it was discussed in our last meeting that they might postpone that for another year to 2004. I have a letter here from Gary Inselman I would like to
submit also. They’re, I guess their stance on Franklin Road is that they do intend to build that portion of it in the 2003 phasing. In 2004 they’ll take the expansion from Locust Grove,
either Nola or Locust Grove east to Eagle Road. That’s what they’re planning on doing in 2004 but they’re still saying that 2003 is when they’re going to go from either Nola or Locust
Grove west to First Street. I also asked them if there was a way we could, without impact fees, if we could dedicate a portion of those to go towards that future light on Stratford
and Franklin because I know that was a concern of Council Member Bird’s. Basically what they told us is no, the plan for that traffic light is 2003. They’re planning on building it
at that time.
If for some reason, or traffic warrants it before that time, they will look at it independently and they’ll make that decision. They didn’t really wan tot commit to putting anything
towards a traffic light anytime before they were originally planning on building it there. I also have that in a letterform from Mr. Inselman that I’ll present to you. I’ll let Mr.
Doby get up and kind of explain to you the traffic situation out there then I’ll come back up and address any questions you may have.
Doby: Mr. Mayor, members of Council my name is Pat Doby. My address is 777 (inaudible) Drive. I put together a traffic study for this project, reviewed it with the Highway District
and discussed some of the projections with COMPASS. I want to point out a couple of things, hopefully try to clarify some of the issues that staff has raised. The first one is, you
know, can you go back to the 400 scale?
Stiles: You want the aerial?
Doby: Yes. On Franklin Road at this time, there are about 11,000 vehicle trips per day. It’s a two-lane road and there’s a certain amount of growth that’s occurring in the traffic
out there but it’s in the 3 to 5 percent per year. Once the road is widened to a five-lane road, COMPASS is projecting that the traffic volume is going to jump to 25,000 vehicles per
day. Just an enormous leap in a short period of time. Based upon existing traffic volumes, if you were to add all the site generated traffic which is in the neighborhood of about 1800
new trips per day. Add that new site generated traffic to the existing traffic volume on Franklin Road, you end up with very little delay and you end up with a level of service in the
B to C category. When you consider that the road is expanding to a five lane and the traffic volume on Franklin jumps from 11,000 to 25,000, the level of service at the intersection
goes up to a level of service F. The change in the service level is a function of the change in the traffic on Franklin Road. It has very little to do with what’s coming in or out
of the driveways. It’s similar to Fairview Avenue. You know Fairview is carrying about 25,000 trips per day and the level of service at any one of those driveways is level of service
F for outbound left turn movements. Those driveways are not the problem. The problem is the traffic volume on the arterial. That traffic volume will materialize when they construct
it to a five-lane road. Without the five-lane project, the level of service and the capacity of this intersection is not an issue and is well within accepted standards. In addition,
if you look at the roads that exist within the area, the east west road down there Kalispell connects into Adkins and Adkins is now being extended out to Locust Grove Road. There’s
a construction project in that vicinity right there where the cursor is jumping around. That road link -- the Baltic Apartments tie into that and that road connection out to Locust
Grove will provide an alternative in the long term. In the short term there’s probably no need for it because the delay and the level of service at the Franklin Road intersection is
really not problematic. Once the traffic volumes more than double on Franklin Road, that will provide an alternative corridor and provide the residents of this project an alternative
to long traffic delays at that intersection. In
addition, ACHD is proposing a new traffic signal at Stratford and a new traffic signal at Locust Grove Road. Those signals will create gaps in this future Franklin Road traffic stream
and improve the level of service beyond what was calculated in my study. The Highway District reviewed the study. They did have any problems with what was being proposed. They recognize
the dynamics of the traffic flow and the growth projections that occurred in the area. That’s why they approved it. I just wanted to give you the bigger picture of what was proposed
and why there was such an enormous change in the traffic volumes and why the level of service was projected to be in the up range. I’d be happy to answer questions that you may have
concerning this issue. Thank you.
Nickel: Mr. Mayor. Shawn Nickel again. Then the last issue was regarding the phasing of the property. As we stated last time, the first phase would be the commercial which is out
on Franklin Road. Its anticipated, you know, two to three year build out, possibly four if its going to be market driven obviously on the development. We’re anticipating total build
out by 2005 and with the road improvements to Franklin by 2003. We don’t feel there should be a problem with the phasing of the property and the construction of Franklin Road. Plus
we have the Adkins access out to Locust Grove which should be built and completed before we even pull Building Permits or anything on our project. With that, I’ll stand for any questions.
I don’t know if there was anything else that you wanted me to address.
Corrie: Council?
Bird: I have no questions.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: On that Hunter Lateral, is it tiled to the south of there now?
Nickel: Its not. I believe, is it the new Police Station that’s south of that, and they did not tile it nor is it tiled through the cemetery right now.
Anderson: Well, they’re actually going to be on the other side of that road.
Nickel: Okay. I didn’t know exactly where they were.
Anderson: -- Watertower will go straight on through and the Police Department is that triangle that is south of it.
Nickel: The only other thing, Mayor and Council members when I spoke last time we had some clarifications on some of the Findings and Facts that I don’t know if we need to go through
right now or if you want to have discussion on anything
else. One of them was our statement on the hours of operation. We agreed with staff that we would not have any 24-hour businesses within the commercial. Also we were in agreement
with staff on the parking space modifications and the setback issues as stated by staff. I’ll stand for any other questions.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I have one more on the phasing. We talked about phasing on the commercial part in the front there but what about on the apartment?
Nickel: We’re still saying three to four years on the phasing of the entire property. So, total build out of the project by 2005.
Anderson: So, we were talking about starting part of the commercial and part of the apartments, or we’re starting them all together? Are we starting them separate?
Nickel : Probably start in the commercial separate. Then following behind with the apartments but then again that’s going to be driven by the need for the apartments. You have approved
in the past several new apartment complexes so it’ll all be determined on demand. The commercial will start right away.
Corrie: Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
Nickel: Thank you.
Corrie: This is a Continued Public Hearing, are there members of the public who would like to issue testimony at this point?
Bird: (Inaudible).
Corrie: I was going to suggest --
Bird: Cemetery Board –
Corrie: Your approval or what you have (inaudible)
Abernathy: Good evening. My name is Kevin Abernathy. I’m the Chairman of the Meridian Cemetery Maintenance District. I would just like to give some quick testimony. We did meet
with the developer as previously stated and we found the developer very accommodating. We’re very pleased with the plan that we’ve arrived at. In particular, regarding the Hunter Lateral,
we don’t see a particular
benefit to the cemetery in having that portion of the ditch tiled. As you can tell from the map displayed there, there’s a large portion of the lateral that currently is not tiled that
is on the center property. Our intent is to leave that in its present state. We consider it an amenity to the cemetery and we would in the future in development of that back property
on the southern portion of our property would probably continue to develop that lateral in that same fashion. That’s the only testimony I have.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else? Okay, Council, questions, discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: In the letter, you know they stated that the ACHD Commission for financial contribution to the signal. We didn’t want that as a requirement. We just wanted them to bring that
forward as a gift. I didn’t intend that to be any kind of requirement on the development. I just asked them if they would participate if it could get it through earlier. Evidently
it isn’t going to come through until somebody gets killed out there.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Okay. If there’s no further discussion, no further input on the Public Hearing, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Do you want one or all three?
Corrie: You can do all three at once.
Bird: I would move that we close the Public Hearings for the request for annexation and zoning for 12.71 acres from R-1 to RUT and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for the proposed Baltic
Place Subdivision by LC Development Incorporated. Also the Public Hearing for the Preliminary Plat approval of 10 building lots and 3 other lots on 12.71 acres in a proposed C-G and
R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision. Also the Public Hearing for request Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for mixed use, residential, commercial in
proposed C-G and R-40 zones for the proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by LC Development.
Corrie: Is there a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to close the Public Hearing on Items 11, 12, and 13 request for annexation and zoning for Baltic Place Subdivision, request for Preliminary
Plat of Baltic Place Subdivision, and for request for Conditional Use Permit of Baltic Place Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council, discussion on the Item 11. We’ll take those one at a time, request for annexation and zoning.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I still remain very concerned about having kids near the cemetery with the open water. I guess since it wouldn’t be -- if the Cemetery Board feels comfortable with that I
don’t want to second guess them but having kids and have been a kid a long time ago I know the tendencies and the attraction to water and that sort of thing and certainly the attraction
to a cemetery if you live right next to it with all that green space. So, that is a concern. It continues to be a concern with the traffic. Last meeting, we talked about maybe approving
the office and delaying the apartments until the roads are improved. I would still I guess like to keep that on the table as something to be discussed or considered.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I have some similar concerns to Tammy’s with the cemetery owning the triangular piece to the south of this particular property and the request not to tile the ditch. Realizing
that they fully intend to put in a fence, but I know that chain link fences are easily scaled. My concern is with the shape of the property and where the maintenance shop is and stuff
like that for the cemetery that makes that piece of property pretty well obscured from sight from the grounds workers doing the maintenance and that kind of stuff back in there. I also
think that probably the piece of property to the south and to the east when it does develop will probably get that ditch tiled there. I guess, even though the ditch is open through
the cemetery right now, if that could be tiled at least up through their property, then that leaves the remaining open ditch more open and more visible to the workers that might in the
cemetery and if somebody was playing in the ditch or somebody accidentally fell in the ditch there would be more chance of them being observed. I’m not really in favor of allowing that
to be open. Again, I also have the same concerns that Tammy has about the traffic. If
Franklin Road were widened at this point, I would be okay with that with traffic lights at Stratford and at Locust Grove. Where they are not at this point, I feel it would be appropriate
to maybe do this in phases and do the commercial first and allow that. Then once Franklin is widened to the five lanes, at that point, issue the Building Permits for the apartments.
That’s kind of the general direction that I’m leaning.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I do not -- the ditch being covered -- I’m not in favor of that at all because we’re doing double standards by doing that. That’s the same ditch that comes through the Police
Department and we didn’t require that to be closed. It’s the same ditch that runs down by the Fire Station, we didn’t have that enclosed. That doesn’t phase me. I am like Councilman
Anderson. I have a real concern with the traffic if we pour all those 1800 trips days out on the street. I realize that Ada County Highway District says that they’re going to widen
that part in 2003 or 2004, if I recall it was suppose to be done in 2000 or 99 and originally it keeps getting pushed back. Until that traffic light goes in I would not be in favor
at all of doing the whole development. I’m like Councilman Anderson, (inaudible) the commercial is not going to bring in the trips that the deal. If the developer would like to phase
it, I’d certainly entertain that.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: You know just to add one more thing to it, it’s not just the traffic with the apartments that I’m concerned about. We have a park that’s down the street from it. There will
be no sidewalks or anything until those road improvements are done. That also lends to the concern about having the apartments there before the roads are improved.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, the first item will be the request for annexation and zoning, AZ 01-008.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’d like a clarification. I think I understand it now, but I believe that if we want to see it in phasing that we can pass the number 11, 12 and then its in the CUP that we do
the phasing. Is that not right?
Corrie: That’s my -- yes. (Inaudible) with the attorney as well?
Swartley: Yes it is Mayor.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I could not find, and I could have missed it but where in the findings and facts is the requirement for enclosing the ditch?
De Weerd: In the annexation and zoning, Page 3 Paragraph 4.
Bird: I did not see it.
De Weerd: It’s a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Bird: Okay.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we have no more discussion I would move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R-1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for the proposed Baltic
Place Subdivision by LC Development with the requirement for enclosing the Ten Mile, isn’t it the Ten Mile?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Hunter Lateral, taking that requirement out.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to approve the request for annexation and zoning of Baltic Place Subdivision but removing Item 4 Page 3 and have the attorney draw up the Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion?
De Weerd: At our last meeting, there was discussion on adding to the list on Page 3, Item 3 of the Planning and Zoning recommendation, adding indoor outdoor entertainment center and
planned commercial development to that. Would that be included in your motion?
Bird: Yes. That’s part of the agreement with these (inaudible). I thought somewhere there was an agreement that they said yes they agreed to that.
Corrie: We can just add it to the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you Mrs. de Weerd.
Bird: Thank you Tammy.
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, just a clarification. Were you wanting to exempt the tiling of the Hunter Lateral?
Bird: Yes.
Anderson: With your motion?
Bird: Yes we took that out.
De Weerd: That is because they are creating an amenity of the ditch.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Any other discussion or clarity?
De Weerd: Just to further clarify, that would be with the fence and the slats?
Bird: Yes that’s what they sat up here and publicly said.
De Weerd: Well, I just wanted clarification.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll call Vote please, Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, naye; Anderson, naye.
MOTION TIED: TWO AYES, TWO NAYES
Corrie: Okay. That leaves it up to me at that point. Hearing all the Council’s (inaudible) I think everybody is probably right. However, I’m going to kind of lean to the fact that
the Police Department’s not required to do it. I think the cemetery’s they have a tendency to have kids. They do climb fences but we cant fence everything out, hopefully that we would
like to. I’m going to vote aye and take out the irrigation drainage tiling. Under those conditions then we have approved the request for annexation and zoning with the attorney to
draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on that one. Okay. The request for Preliminary Plat.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Before we go further, do the nays want to make any comment on why they voted naye? Was it because of the tiling?
Anderson: Yes I already made my comment.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the, I think I understood Shawn to say that he would give a new Preliminary Plat, or is it the Landscape Plan to the staff, the revised landscaping? Or was it the Preliminary
Plat? I think it was the landscaping, wasn’t it?
Stiles: Mr. Nickel did have a copy of the Landscape Plan today. I told him to keep it because the letter explains it sufficiently and they will need to submit a final plan with their
final plat.
Bird: Okay. Will you put the site back up there with the lots? Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 10 building lots and 3 other lots on 12.71 acres in proposed C-G and R-40 zones for the proposed Baltic
Place Subdivision by LC Development with all staff comments included and for the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Corrie: Okay. Is there a second to the motion?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded. Any further discussion on the motion for the request for Preliminary Plat?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Can I ask the attorney a question Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Sure.
Bird: I’m (inaudible) the whole thing but then when we come to the CUP and want to phase it, we can take lot number 7 out?
Swartley: Mr. Mayor –
Bird: Or do we need to take it out right now?
Swartley: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird. I think you should take it out right now.
Bird: Okay. If my second will withdraw, I’ll withdraw my motion and make a new one, with your permission.
Anderson: Second agrees.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I would like to change my motion to state that we approve the Preliminary Plat approval of 9 building lots and 3 other lots on 12.71 acres in a proposed C-G and R-40
zone for the proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by LC Development, all staff comments and the lot that we eliminate is shown on their Preliminary Plat as lot No. 7.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Would that also include the submitted Landscaping Plan that was submitted today?
Bird: That would be the , that will come through the CUP wont it?
De Weerd: Well, there is reference to it in these findings and you’re taking lot 7 totally out or are you phasing it?
Bird: Its not being approved in the Preliminary Plat right now.
De Weerd: So, they would have to come through with --
Bird: That will be coming back.
De Weerd: Okay.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Anderson: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Do you understand Shawn where we are here?
Unidentified Speaker: Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question on the clarification? What you ended up here now with is a big hunk of (inaudible). If I can approach, I just want to --
Bird: That’s what I was. I thought we took that out in the CUP.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Unidentified Speaker: I apologize I was trying to talk to Lee. I think you may be making a mistake.
Corrie: Name please?
Bradbury: Steve Bradbury. I’m at 225 North Ninth. I know -- in Boise representing the developer. I’m a little worried about the approach that you’re taking. I understand the desire
not to approve development for the apartment portion of the project but I think if you guys do what you’re about to do and approve a Preliminary Plat but take a lot out, you’re going
to end up with a big hunk of unplatted ground stuck out there in the middle of your City. I don’t think that’s what you want.
Bird: (Inaudible) split too aren’t we?
Bradbury: Yes if I had submitted an application that looked like that, I’d get tossed out of here on my ear. I guess what I would like to suggest is maybe a approve the plat and then
as a part of the Conditional Use, impose the development limitations that you’re talking about.
Bird: That’s what I thought.
Bradbury: I know you guys were talking about it and kind of put on the spot but I think we’re going to end up in a bigger mess than otherwise.
De Weerd: I agree. I asked the question.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Mr. Mayor. This was the way I thought originally and so sis the attorney. Then we convinced each other that we had to do it this way I guess. I would move that we pull that
last voting regarding the request for Preliminary Plat PP 01-0019 and bring it back on the table.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: We have voted but we can bring it back cant we?
Anderson: You can rescind it.
Bird: Rescind it, that’s what I’m – he has to call it.
Corrie: Okay, we can rescind the vote or we can -- we need to rescind the vote.
Bird: We have to do that don’t we Mayor? Each one of us? How do we do it?
Corrie: Motion to rescind the vote and then bring it back.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we rescind the vote on PP 01-009, the request for Preliminary approval for 10 building lots and 3 other lots, or actually 9 building lots and 3 other lots as I stated.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to rescind the motion. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Now we need to go back and really (inaudible).
Bird: Lets go, see if I can get it right the first time, or the third. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 10 building lots and 3 other lots on 12.71 acres in the proposed C-G and R-40 zones for the proposed
Baltic Place Subdivision by LC Development Incorporated and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second to approve the Preliminary Plat PP 01-009 for Baltic Place Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now, we will do the Conditional Use Permit.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I’ll move that we approve CUP 01-015 request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for mixed use residential, commercial in proposed C-G and R-40 zones
for Baltic Place Subdivision to include all staff comments, to include the new Landscape Plan, to also note the position statement by staff received on July 13th noting under the Conditional
Use recommendation Page 3 Paragraph 6 that the paragraph is replaced with staff comments as they were initially written. Also on Page 3 Paragraph 7 that commercial areas comply with
the Landscaping Ordinance and with the corrections as stated. Also the subdivision or the CUP is phased in with the multi family use being allowed only after the improvement of Franklin
Road which is lot No, 7 on the Preliminary Plat and to have the Attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Anderson: You need to be more specific when you say improvements to Franklin Road. Just say widening to five lanes.
Bird: Do you include the stoplight?
De Weerd: That would be included in my recommendation (inaudible) the widening of Franklin Road.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: What about the stoplight?
De Weerd: From East First to Eagle with installed stoplights on Stoddard and Locust Grove.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: There’s two separate phases on that section.
De Weerd: I understand that but it still doesn’t (inaudible). Locust Grove doesn’t go anywhere north to south so the improvements being made from East First to Eagle unless those are
done it doesn’t do much of anything.
Anderson: I want to make sure that –
De Weerd: (Inaudible).
Bird: Now is that stated in your motion?
De Weerd: Yes.
Corrie: We had a second on that. Is there any further discussion or clarification of the motion?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: I think the build out for Franklin to Eagle to Locust Grove is 2005, they stated right?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: That’s the East First to Locust.
De Weerd: Then Eagle was 2004.
Bird: Even though I second this, I have a real problem with -- my understanding is from Nola to East First and then with the stoplight in there I would have no problem with letting
them have their apartment complex.
Anderson: (Inaudible) question.
Corrie: Okay, questions been called for.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Do we need any clarification? Do you understand where we’re going on this right? Do you realize a question had been called for so there’s no more discussion?
Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 01-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing coffee hut with a drive-thru in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Moxie Java by TJBJ, Inc.
– 1975 East Fairview:
Item 15. Public Hearing: VAR 01-008 Request for variance for the reduction of two required parking spaces for Moxie Java by TJBJ, Inc. – 1975 East Fairview:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 14 and 15 is a Public Hearing on Moxie Java. Item 14 is a request for Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing coffee hut with a drive thru in proposed C-G
zone and the other is a request for a variance for the reduction of two required parking spaces for Moxie Java on 1975 East Fairview. At this time I will open the Public Hearing on
both Item 14 and 15 for Public Hearing. We’ll invite the staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is a new Public Hearing that was opened up due to the fact that apparently an adjacent property owner did not receive the notice and objected to
the approval of the Moxie Java. To give you a little bit of history, when the Econo Lube site was approved, they had a requirement for a cross access easement to adjacent properties.
When what was formally known as Chelsea Square, now its Elm Place Elm Tree Plaza, that was also a requirement. The Cross Access Agreement was also a requirement. Mr. Bevin had submitted
information regarding his attempts to get a cross access easement with the Econo Lube and Schuck’s facility and was not successful in getting that Cross Access Easement. The original
plan that was submitted for the Moxie Java showed the drive thru coming in on the Econo Lube site --
***End Of Side Two***
Stiles: -- at their driveway there. Mr. Bevin is not in favor of allowing that to happen for this purpose. The applicant has resubmitted a site plan that would do away with any cross
access, have the entrance coming in still at the Schuck’s and would propose that the drive-thru vehicles would traverse around the
southern boundary of the Econo Lube and Tune and then back out onto Fairview Avenue through the same entrance. While this is not an ideal situation it probably is a better solution
than using this Cross Access Easement. The Elm Tree Plaza does have a lot of traffic coming in and out. I do think that the addition of drive-thru traffic from a Moxie Java or any
similar type facility would be very detrimental to their site. Since the first Public Hearing, we have gone out, the staff has gone out and looked at the function of this driveways
and the parking area. We don’t believe that it will work to have the drive thru traffic going through that site. This is what the applicant has come up with to get out of that cross
access requirement. Again, its not the ideal situation but it is an alternative to consider. Also as part of this, they are asking for a reduction of the two required parking spaces.
Staff would support this as long as this remains an Econo Lube and Tune. If this changes in the future to another use, we may need to revisit whether the variance is appropriate, particularly
if as the adjacent property owner alleges they are already having people park in their parking lot for the uses over here. With that, I’ll turn it over to the applicant and he can answer
any questions you may have and have the public be able to testify on this matter. Thank you.
Corrie: Any questions of staff at this point? Is the applicant here this evening? The applicant is not here this evening?
De Weerd: I have a question for staff then.
Corrie: Okay, Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: How were they blocking that access off so that there was no cross access and how are they going to direct traffic around and behind their building? Do you know?
Stiles: I don’t know how they’re proposing to do that. Some people may try to just flip a u-turn and turn it around right there. I know that Mr. Bevin had stated that he’s -- and
he’s here tonight to testify. He had put some barricades up in this area previously and apparently they were removed by either Econo Lube or Schuck’s. I’m not sure who might have removed
them. They’re not up now that I’m aware of. I don’t know how you dictate to the traveling public what they might try to do. I mean, it might be that some of them will come in here
and since this is such an open area here, they’ll probably just try to flip around here and come back out. I certainly wouldn’t go all the way around this building to try –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Stiles: They’ll turn around right in here.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I did have one more question for you Shari. I remember originally we had turned down a drive thru at the Moxie Java across the street at the Fred Meyer facility over there.
I was curious, is this the same owner? I mean did they come across the street to try to create a drive thru over here?
Stiles: Yes and they’ve also submitted another application for this –
Anderson: I saw that. Thank you.
Corrie: Public testimony. Is there anyone form the public who would like to testify?
Bevin: My name is Tom Bevin, 4202 North (inaudible) Boise. I’m the Manager and one of the owners of Elm Tree Plaza the property that doesn’t have the cross access. I’m a little confused,
should I be commenting -- I don’t particularly like this idea either because I think they will do the u-turn and try to come back out. I think you’d bottle neck at the Fairview entry.
Although that’s not our property, so I guess its not up to us. What I’m concerned about mostly, if you -- if I can just leave the microphone point --
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bevin: What I’m concerned about mostly is here is the entry into the building for the cars. There are garages here and garages here. If these guys come in here and they’re pulling
cars in and out of here, they’re going to be blocked off here. Then what they have to do is try to u-turn in this smaller area and try to come back through. So what you’re creating
at 8:00 in the morning when is the highest coffee use and 5:00 when they’re coming home but 8:00 is really the prime time for coffee drinkers coming in to get a cup of coffee. That’s
when this is the busiest here, 8:00 in the morning. These people are coming in and they’re just getting started so if you go over there at 8:00 in the morning and you look at Econo
Lube’s traffic or how they run their business 8:00 in the morning is probably the time they’re the busiest here, getting cars in for the first set. So, maybe all four or five doors
are busy at 8:00 in the morning where during the rest of the day it’s intermittent. I think it’s a poor idea because of the prime traffic flow and the prime time that they would be
using it. I think, they’re right, that they would see this commotion here. They would try to make a u-turn here or they might try to come through here but this would be blocked off.
We barricaded this once and they took it down, actually we barricaded it twice and they took it down. Frankly, as you see in our letter, we try to get this cross access to go through.
I know you folks wanted it we wanted it. Our lender wanted it but they just refused to give it to us. I even have a letter from their attorney, the Econo Lube Attorney telling them
that he thought it was a bad idea that they would put all those stipulations in because he said in his letter that we would just turn around and
make him do the same thing they made us do. He thought it was a bad idea. I could not convince the lawyer from Schuck’s to sign a simple cross access agreement. She wanted us to come
to here with any new tenants, any new sign, any new anything, we had to come get here approval. She lives in Texas somewhere. That’s very difficult. You know, we’re trying to be good
neighbors. They took it down and we never really said anything because frankly it does flow better if it’s open. You know we tried to do what we could with them and they just wouldn’t
budge. Econo Lube frankly was on our side. They agreed. As a matter of fact we hired their attorney to take Schuck’s who owns the property and I said could you write this where they
would approve it because we tried once and they said no. So, he tried and they said no to him too. I don’t know what else to say about the cross access. We just went ahead and barricaded
it. Our lender said either have to have a cross access or you have to barricade it. To get the loan approved we just barricaded it. That’s the reason there’s no cross access and
I guess that’s the reason why I don’t like this plan either. This is open and I think it causes a problem in here at the busiest time for Econo Lube. Any questions?
Anderson: I did have one question. I guess that’s your neighbor and you’re familiar. Their drive-thru traffic at Econo Lube, when they’re lubing the cars, they come from the back
into the building or do they go from the front?
Bevin: They come mostly from the front. The main traffic flow – the office is up here so when you come in here to do a lube, you come in here and you go into the office and you park
usually here or sometimes in our lot. They come in here and talk to the office then they get an appointment. Then sometimes they bring it back here and here the doors come in this
way, this way and this way so this is a heavily used corridor here because once they have an appointment, there’s only one door, or I believe there’s two doors here. I’m not exactly
sure. Maybe there’s even three but they come through here and they also have doors back here. This is a, becomes a main corridor, especially at 8:00 in the morning when they’re just
getting started.
Bird: Don’t they drive in the back there and come –
Bevin: They can.
Bird: When you’re finished you drive through the door and don’t you come out the front when you’re finished with the lube job?
Bevin: Yes, when they come through here but on these doors here, these three places here, they back out.
Bird: They back out?
Bevin: Yes when they’re here they drive out through the front. I might also note this is a dirt road here. This isn’t even paved back in here so they can’t really go
out that way. They could but most people wouldn’t. They would come back this way. Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: No. Thank you.
Bevin: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Would anyone else like to issue testimony?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Irons: My name is Robert Irons. (Inaudible) just across the street (inaudible). I want to address the request for a variance on the reduction of the two required parking spaces.
I suppose I should be more addressing the Moxie Java but what my concern is that the two required parking spaces might be the disabled access parking spaces they want to get rid of.
Corrie: I don’t think they’re allowed to but, Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. They would still have to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act for the parking spaces and for the handicapped accessible and the van accessible space.
Irons: I just wanted to address my concern about that.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay, Council any discussion for the Public Hearing?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Then I will entertain a motion then to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Can we do both at the same time?
Corrie: Both at the same time.
Bird: I would move that we close the Public Hearing on the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a freestanding coffee hut with a drive-thru in a
proposed C-G zone for proposed Moxie Java by TJBJ Incorporated at 1975 East Fairview Meridian Idaho. Also to close the Public Hearing for the request for variance for the reduction
of two required parking spaces for Moxie Java by TJBJ Incorporated at 1975 East Fairview Meridian Idaho.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie Okay. Motions been made and second to close the Public Hearing on Item 14 and 15 as the motion stated.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: In the past, we’ve delayed action when the applicant hasn’t been here. I’m not really sure why he isn’t if he’s out of town but, we’ve always kind of given at least one opportunity
for the applicant to be able to respond. I feel closing the Public Hearing at this time would not allow the applicant to respond and taking action at this time without that response
seems to be against our past actions. I would like to see this stay open and continue. I don’t like to continue but this is what we’ve always done in the past.
Bird: Yes, but this is why its-- excuse me, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: This is why it was continued last time. How many times are --
De Weerd: (Inaudible) he was notified?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: I don’t know but if he was -- it’s not a person, it’s a company and they’ve got more than one representative to come represent themselves.
Anderson: They have a letter requesting that it be continued.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Where’s the letter at?
Anderson: Second page of the request for variance.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: With the second’s permission I withdraw my motion.
Corrie: I assume that not being able to be here on the 7th was also (inaudible).
Anderson: Requested (inaudible).
Corrie: Okay. The second has rescinded the first (inaudible).
Anderson: Well, I’m not sure it rescinded.
Corrie: I’m sorry.
Anderson: I had a question of our Legal Counsel then. If I don’t rescind, I’m going to go ahead and close the Public Hearing. They could read the comments in the minutes and then
the applicant, would he have a chance to just discuss anything at the next meeting? I didn’t think he would.
Swartley: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Anderson no, not without the hearing being re-opened. No, he would not.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: I guess in fairness to the applicant I would rescind my second.
Bird: And I rescind the motion.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue the Public Hearings to August 21, 2001 for the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a freestanding coffee hut with drive-thru in a proposed C-G
zone for proposed Moxie Java by TJB Incorporated and the request for variance for the reduction of 2 required parking spaces by Moxie Java by TJBJ Incorporated at 1975 East Fairview
Meridian Idaho.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to continue the Public Hearing on Items 14 and 15 until August 21, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Can we make sure that the applicant is called and informed that the Public Hearing will be on the 21st and not the 20th?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, I’ll make sure that gets done. We did call the applicant on August 3rd to remind him of the meeting, but that’s just our standard procedure.
Corrie: Did they answer the phone?
Berg: I couldn’t tell you who answered the phone or if there was a message (inaudible) but it was documented that we called on August 3rd.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Item 16. Public Hearing: PFP 01-001 Request for Preliminary/Final plat approval of 4 building lots on 4.94 acres in a proposed I-L zone for proposed Seven Gates Industrial Subdivision
by Dakota Company – southwest corner of Commercial and Machine Avenue, east of Nola Road:
Corrie: Okay moving on to Item 16 then.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I talked with the attorney prior to the beginning of our meeting. I believe I have a conflict of interest with this item. I would like to remove myself from this item.
Corrie: It’s up to the Council.
Bird: Should we make her give us the reason?
Anderson: Can we have your reason for it?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: I have no problem with her stepping down. I don’t care.
Anderson: No we’ll probably make a lot quicker decision.
Bird: Yes.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: This is a Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat approval for 4 building lots and 4.9 acres on proposed I-L zone for Seven Gates Industrial Subdivision by Dakota Company. At this
point, I’ll open the Public Hearing on Item 16 and have staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for a project that you had previously approved with conditions in the past. They have now come back with another application to comply with
the existing Landscaping Ordinance and Parking Ordinance. I did have -- I am opposed to something in the recommendation to the City Council which would be on Page 3, Paragraph 4. We
did receive a Position Statement from the applicant’s representative that agrees with the recommendation of Planning and Zoning Commission to approve a waiver. I’m not really sure what
the waiver would be for. The City Council cannot approve a waive for an illegal use of the property. I am not in favor of allowing 6 months after they get the plat signed to finally
remove the illegal use. In fact, I’m not in favor of even approving the plat until the illegal use is removed. As far as the storage, obviously, they are going to have to get rid of
the storage before they can start building on the site. Also the issue with the storage is that the area is extensively utilized by outdoor storage. There’s RVs and there’s semis.
There are a lot of things that are not permitted as part of the Ordinance and they are parking on unpaved surfaces. They are parking and storing items in the handicap parking stalls.
The on street parking is probably not as much of a problem today at it will when this road actually connects through to Eagle Road. I would proceed that at that time we would probably
need to consider no parking, no on street parking particularly at the end of this existing street. You can see some of the storage they are using now in existing parking areas, loading
areas. Their trash receptacle is not enclosed. This is how they are using the empty lot now. They are proposing adding another building on this proposed lot. They would need to bond
for all of the required, provide a letter of credit or cash for all of the required landscaping for the area. They are also proposing that the drainage for all four lots would be located
in this area. The recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission was that they include that note on the plat and come up with a method of maintaining that, an agreement among all
four lots. That is the approval, meaning the signature on the Final Plat by the City Engineer can be delayed until the minimum, the illegal office building is removed. We would recommend
that all other staff and agency conditions be included as part of any approval. They have also submitted a Position Statement regarding Condition 1.10 on Page 4. If there is not a
Latecomer’s Agreement or fees in place for this area, obviously they will not be subject to that but if there is a Latecomer’s Agreement with the development, they will need to pay the
appropriate fees. We do not agree with removal of that requirement either. Thank you.
Corrie: Since this is a Public Hearing, there will be the representative for the applicant.
Paulson: Thank you. I’m John Paulson with the Dakota Company, here representing Seven Gates Properties, an LLC. Thank you very much. As Shari indicated this is essentially the same
application that was presented and approved over a year ago. The exception is that the Landscape Ordinance has now been set in place and landscaping has been modified. If I could step
over to the podium for a moment. The reason for the change is that currently there are three lots. Three buildings are located on those three lots but two of the buildings are overlapping
existing property lines. So, part of this is to clean up where the buildings are so that they fit on lots and to create a fourth lot. The fourth lot would be one building, built to
move -- there’s a Truck Maintenance Building that’s behind the existing moving company. They are the ones that have I believe the temporary office behind the building. Move the truck
maintenance into this building. The moving company would then take over the entire building No. 3. The storage containers that are currently stacked outside then could be stored inside.
The Landscaping Ordinance is updated. Previously, as I understand the applicant was opposed to the landscaping and appealed that. This plan reflects the new landscape requirements.
There is a two inch caliber tree that’s placed every 35 feet across the back of the property, additional landscaping on what would be the building 4 on that lot. Parking would also
be improved primarily through marking parking spaces and utilizing the parking spaces. Chem Lawn is currently occupying this building. They have 36 company vehicles of which 30 are
parked inside of the building. They require, with those 30 spaces a total of 59 spaces. The parking on that lot plus the 30 inside the building would provide 89 spaces. Cross Parking
Agreements would occur all across the property. Total spaces that would be provided on all four lots would be 223 parking spaces and spaces required are 117. I’d be happy to answer
any questions from you. Maybe I should add the two items that Shari mentioned on the Position Statement. I thought they should be brought up just for clarification tonight. The applicant
really has no opposition other than the comment regarding the Latecomer’s fee. His comment was we were the first ones in. Do we get the Latecomer’s fee for people that come in if there’s
a Latecomer’s fee at this point? That’s not a big deal. We brought it up for clarification. The waiver condition that was discussed at the Planning and Zoning meeting. Here again,
it’s a chicken and an egg situation of moving everything off the property to get the plat signed and then moving it back at some time. Or working with everyone to build the new building
and move all of these items off of the property. Part of that one item that was suggested at the P&Z meeting was just getting a letter of credit from a local bank. We’ll look for you
for guidance there.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Would anyone else from the public like to issue testimony at this time? Questions from Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I have a question for Shari. How did that temporary office get back there?
Stiles: No, they just put it up. They’ve been told, the Building Inspector’s been out, the Fire Chief’s been out, or the Ex-Fire Marshal has been out there and they don’t care what
the City thinks.
Bird: As I recall, Shari, there was also some landscape problems pertaining to in front of the existing buildings or something. Wasn’t there something regarding that?
Stiles: They do not meet the Landscape Ordinance in their proposed plan. They are proposing only to meet the Landscape Ordinance for the new lot. To meet the Landscape Ordinance for
the other three lots they would have to dig up asphalt and remove some of the parking. It would be a 10-foot minimum landscape strip there. I don’t know, I would doubt if they even
meet, have two or three feet right now. Most of the landscaping is in within the right of way.
Bird: The third question is, is inside parking that isn’t public still counted as parking spaces?
Stiles: I suppose it could be.
Bird: I’m just asking for clarification myself.
Stiles: It’s off street parking. If they’re using it inside a building it really doesn’t matter.
Corrie: Any other questions?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Paulson: One of the items in the Zoning Ordinance is for providing spaces for company owned vehicles. Those are the spaces that are inside the building.
Bird: I didn’t have no problem with it. I was just asking for clarification if we did John.
Corrie: The only thing I’m thinking is they’re ignoring everything that we asked them to do before. Why would they not do it again? Any ideas?
Paulson: In the pre-application meeting that Larry Durkin and I had with Steve Siddoway, one of the main issues was the landscaping because that, as we understand was a big issue when
it was approved a year ago. Then the applicant appealed the decision. We walked the site with Steve, went through all of what was across the back of the property, along the sides,
existing trees. With the trees that Steve asked that we place a tree every 35 feet, a 2 inch caliber tree across the back of the property. That’s bring a total of 51 trees on the property,
new and existing. Steve was not concerned about the landscaping across the front of the building. He understood that that was a concern but he said in the overall scheme of things
that would be approved and to add the landscaping to the new lot. That’s how that was developed.
Corrie: How do you propose if you’re in the right-of-way? How are you going to cover that?
Paulson: As I understand there is curb work all along the street right now. This landscaping as I understand has been there for quite some time. That was the reason that Steve said
it would suffice. My understanding also is that the property was acquired, apparently through an exchange with the City of Boise at some point and time. That’s how the applicant or
the owners came into being with that property.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’ve got a question for Mr. Paulson. Dakota Development, who you’re representing in this deal, has enough power within this ownership or however you want to do it. If we allow
that temporary office to stay which shouldn’t be out there to start with. It has not been removed, and that goes back on us. We should have taken care of that. Do you have the power
that once that’s built that you can get that out or are you just here representing the owner to get it through in front of the City Council?
Paulson: We’re here representing the owner but we also have a power of --
Bird: You or Larry could either one sign and guarantee us that once that new building is up, the next day that old one goes away?
Paulson: We have no objection if you make it a requirement now to take it out.
Bird: To get it out right now?
Paulson: Correct, if it’s illegal. We are trying to work through with the Planning and Zoning. As I said the chicken and the egg situation of working through the process.
Bird: I know definitely that you guys, on your developments do not do that.
Paulson: That’s correct.
Bird: I mean you don’t have something illegal sitting out there. We have done everything. This is I think the third or fourth time that Councilman Anderson and I have heard this application.
Paulson: I’m being real kind when I say that there are problems out there but they can be cleaned up. With a new building being built and the truck maintenance being moved into the
building, the truck storage that’s over on -- apparently there are more than just the tenants in the buildings that are using that fourth lot or that unoccupied lot right now. Putting
that building up and creating all of that parking will be a big help in getting that storage containers from the moving company into the building.
Bird: But, Mr. Paulson, that’s what I’m trying to get at is are you and Larry involved enough to see that this stuff -- evidently our conditions and stuff have not been lived to within
this group of four. Even though we pass this with conditions and stuff like that, it seems to you know once its passed it seems to go away. Are you in a position to make sure that
these conditions are lived with?
Paulson: I believe we are, yes.
Bird: Okay. That’s all I need.
Corrie: Do you have anything to say Shari (inaudible)?
Stiles: Again, I’m just a proponent of you don’t reward people with additional approvals when they’re not complying to begin with. We’ve run into enforcement problems all the time
when that happens. You can see in the photograph, this is the building. It doesn’t meet fire code. It doesn’t meet building code. It hasn’t received approval of any kind. I think
it should be removed and the illegal storage and parking on unimproved surfaces should be removed.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion?
Bird: I have none Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Okay then do you feel comfortable closing the Public Hearing?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I’d make the motion that we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: I second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED
Corrie: Okay, discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have no problem giving them a chance along as Larry has assured me the deal but I do have a problem with that No. 4 in the recommendation. I think that it should completely
go because I’m not in favor of turning one piece of dirt out there until that property is brought up to its proper land use. Its proper land use is not that on site office building.
Anderson: Do you mean all of four or just the bold part of four?
Bird: I beg your pardon?
Anderson: When you say No. 4 do you mean all of it?
Bird: I mean all of it.
Anderson: Or just the bolded part?
Bird: All of it. I don’t want to see a thing done as far as adding a building or anything out there until that existing property is brought up to the conditions its suppose to be under
right now. The biggest one of that is that office building out there as I understand.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: That is what I’m asking.
Anderson: Doesn’t the first part of No. 4 do exactly what you want to do?
Bird: No because that’s the Final Plat. They can be doing some stuff. I don’t want them to do a thing out there until that brought up to condition.
Anderson: What about prior to signature on the Preliminary Plat?
Stiles: That’s fine with us.
Bird: Why not just eliminate it and get it brought up to code, to what its –
Anderson: They eliminate it.
Bird: --of what it was designed to do.
Corrie: Okay, you eliminate it and bring it up to code before the Preliminary Plat is signed. Any other discussion?
Bird: No more.
Corrie: Hearing nothing, I’ll entertain a motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 4.94 acres in a proposed I-L zone for the proposed Seven Gates Industrial Subdivision, southwest
corner of Commercial Machine Avenue, east of Nola Road with on the recommendation to City Council from planning and zoning that item No. 4 on Page 3 completely be eliminated and that
the existing building and lots be brought up to the proper legal land that they are working under now before anything is done.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for the 4 building lots requested on 4.94 acres in a proposed I-L zone be approved with elimination of Item 4 on the recommendation to
the City Council and that all codes be brought up to –
Bird: Land Use Codes.
Corrie: Land Use Codes and for the attorney to draw up the proper order. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, excused absent; McCandless, aye;
Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED
(Councilwoman de Weerd returns)
Item 17. Public Hearing: AZ 01-010 Request for annexation and zoning of .99 acres from R1 to C-G zones for Podiatry Building by Smith Brighton, LLC – 1065 East Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 17 was a Public Hearing for zoning of .99 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for Podiatry Building has been requested to be continued until the August 21st meeting
of this year. I will open the Public Hearing at this point.
Berg: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. My understanding is that the property was not noticed properly, which gets us into the situation again that it needs to be re-noticed.
You can’t continue the hearing because one of the requirements was not followed through. We will re-notice this and put it on the agenda according to the time frame that is required.
Corrie: Okay.
Anderson: Then we need to –
Corrie: Then we need to --
Berg: I would recommend that you just remove it off the agenda.
Corrie: Just take it off the agenda and remove it? Okay, I’ll entertain a motion to remove Item No. 17 from the agenda.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to remove Item No. 127 AZ 01-010 from the agenda. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Would you allow us to have a little break?
Corrie: Sure. Come back at 5 after 9:00?
Bird: It’ll be fine with me.
Corrie: About a 10 minute break.
RECONVENED AT 9:10 P.M.
Item 18. Public Hearing: VAC 01-001 Request for a vacation of the 20-foot utility easement between lots 1 and 4 of Block 2 of Sue’s Subdivision for the construction of a four-plex
by Sunrise Engineering – 551 West Idaho Avenue:
Item 19. Public Hearing: CUP 01-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a four-plex family dwelling unit in an R-15 zone for Sue’s Subdivision Block 2, Lot
1 by Charles J. Eldredge – 551 West Idaho Avenue:
Corrie: Item No. 18 is a Public Hearing request for vacation, the 20 foot utility easement between lots 1 and 4 in block 2 of Sue’s Subdivision for construction of a four-plex by Sunrise
Engineering 551 West Idaho Avenue. At this time I will open the Public Hearing. I apologize for chewing up candy here. Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is for a project that was previously approved with duplexes on 2 of the lots. The applicant is now proposing to construct a four-plex on one of the
lots and to vacate the 20-foot easement between those lots. They will also be doing a lot line adjustment so they can meet the setback requirements of the zone. This lot is not built
on at this time. This lot has an existing duplex. This is where Idaho dead-ends. There’s a narrow strip of land between this development and what is known as Seaberry Subdivision.
The applicant can meet al of the Ordinance requirements with the lot liner adjustment. We will ask for the relinquishment of easement approval --
***End Of Side Three***
Stiles: -- prior to the final approval. This would be the main driveway that comes into the development. These other lots are completely built out. They are proposing with the four-plex
they would have parking in front of the buildings. Each one of them would also -- each unit would also have a single car garage. They would continue the landscaping and the drainage
area in this location as part of the development. This would be the view of the building from the common driveway going into the site. I believe this would be the view from the Idaho
Street side. This would be the western elevation. Staff would recommend approval with all staff and agency conditions. Thank you.
Corrie: Let the records show that I’m going to open the Public Hearing on both 18 and 19 at one time for testimony. Applicant?
Eldridge: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council my name is Charles Eldridge. I’m with Specialty homes and I live at 2716 Pine Flats here in Meridian. We are
proposing to build this four-plex on the lot that is just to the north of the existing duplex that we built about three months ago. We’re primarily basing our comments on the recommendation
from the Planning and Zoning Commission and also dealing with the Planning and Zoning staff and their recommendations. We feel we’re going to be placing an aesthetically pleasing structure
to add to the surrounding area where there is a lot of existing run down structures. This will be new and have vinyl siding and brick, architectural roofing shingles, that of a nice
building. I’m a homebuilder by trade. It’s hard to do shoddy work. We have received approvals from the required agencies as far as site requirements go. We contacted the Idaho Power,
Intermountain Gas and et cetera of those agencies. We’ve had our Engineer do all the calculations as far as drainage and he has sent memos and been in correspondence with Brad Watson
who is the City Engineer as well. He has verified completion in the Planning and Zoning requirements Item No. 3 which is to do the drainage study. We have also, like I said we built
a duplex on the existing lot to the south. Its the only duplex that’s amongst right now there’s five other four lexes within the probably acre and a half area. We made sure that the
R-15 developing, the zoning that we met the zoning specifications for the size of lot and the conditions that we’re on. That’s all I’d like to -- if you have any questions I’d be happy
to answer them.
Corrie: You said on the recommendations on your Conditional Use Permit?
Eldridge: Yes.
Corrie: Do you agree with (inaudible)? Questions from Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: Would anyone else from the public like to issue testimony?
Hanson: Good evening. My name is Steve Hanson I live at 2121 Harrison Boulevard. I am the landowner, builder owner on the other four parcels in Sue’s Subdivision. I guess my testimony
this morning is also part of, or this evening is also a question. That is what was wrong, what did you do wrong when you approved this the first time with these two sites being duplexes?
Obviously someone made a mistake. Just a little over a year ago, the Council here and staff approved Sue’s Subdivision based upon a Comprehensive Use of the entire parcel, not just
this one site, being four four-plexes and 2 duplexes. The staff for some reason at that point believed that with the acreage involved that you could not have 6 four-plexes or 5 four-plexes
and 1 duplex. That was one of the things that attracted me to the parcel of property initially was that this Council and this staff recommended and approved the use of this entire subdivision
for 4 four-plexes and 2 duplexes. One of the nice things about that is there is some additional space available on these parcel. There was never any question then or now that a four-plex
would fit here. That wasn’t part of the issue. If you go back a couple of slides when she shows the frontage roads you’ll see my units
across the street. Shari can you do that? Maybe she can call that up as we talk. These parcels here with the attractive mailboxes and the landscaping are mine. One of the nice things
about it and I noticed this just this evening, there is quite a bit of landscaped area with all the parcels that I built. I was just down there this evening prior to coming to this
meeting. There were kids out playing in the grass and enjoying the neighborhood. That is one of the things that attracted me to this, 4 four-plexes and 2 duplexes. Those sites there
have additional spaces between them that will also be enjoyed by the tenants. Conversely if we put another four-plex there, we’re going to eat up additional land that wasn’t part of
the original approval of the entire subdivision by this Council. It also puts additional pressure on the private road that I now maintain and own a part of. It puts additional pressure
on the trash collection, the parking, and the street use everything gets burdened. In this case it goes up by 100 percent from two to four people, or tenants. So, I guess as a question
to the Council is what mistake did you make before? You looked at it as an entire parcel, Sue’s Subdivision 6 lots. Now to come back and say oh, we have one left and a four-plex would
fit, I think is very erroneous. How can you micromanage an individual parcel without taking into account the comprehensive that you’ve decided on yourselves just a little over a year
ago. I’m definitely not in favor of this. I think it diminishes the value of the parcels that I own as well as the duplex that’s already built by increasing the traffic and the load
that’s on the private driveway that’s there. It creates higher density and -- I just am surprised that we would be back here just a little over a year after you already platted this.
I wish that you would obviously disapprove this proposal and stick with your original recommendation and approval that was not given that long ago. I appreciate your time.
Corrie: Anyone else to issue testimony? No further testimony, do you want to answer any questions?
Eldridge: Do you want me to rebut?
Corrie: Yes, you had the last one.
Eldridge: We realize that this was approved as a unit development originally and for this purpose we came in and we had dealt with the staff over a period of about six months in trying
to put this through. One of the main reasons that we now are facing having to go with a four-plex as well is because, number one if we were to do a double car -- correct me if I’m wrong
but the Zoning Ordinance says now that we have to have a double car for a duplex. I believe that’s right. Now it wouldn’t fit on that lot as it is anyways. That’s part of the reason
we want to go for a four-plex as well. Then as far as the parking area, we didn’t -- we’ve supplied more parking then is across the street in the other units as well. We could eliminate
that but we wanted to provide for Mr. Hanson so he could not be too busy on his street. We have gotten the approvals from Ada County and that’s in the package as far as the street size
and traffic and things. We went through Ada County and did that but we did add, you know we could put in a little
more landscaping but we’d rather have that additional parking spot. We did want to put in -- in landscaping we did want to put in this extra buffer. We had originally another parking
spot next to Idaho Street but we decided to put in this buffer right there to make it more aesthetically pleasing and to provide an area for kids on the grass and things. This island
in the middle of the two driveways, we could have made a parking spot as well, down a little further. Right there but right now that’s a grass and park area as well. That’s part of
the reasoning we’re going with the four-plex as well. Obviously it makes better sense economically to do that and it meets all the requirements of the area and the zoning and the impact.
Also we are intending to provide pressurized irrigation which was a requirement on the previous development but Mr. Hanson did not provide that. Once again we’re back to the issue
of do we reward someone for not following the rules?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Just a second.
Corrie: That’s enough.
Eldridge: It costs us -- I don’t want to argue but it cost us a lot of money to put in pressurized irrigation on the existing duplex that we purchased because it wasn’t put in originally.
So, we complied with all the requirements and we’re going to have that. I’m trying to address everything that’s there. Thank you. Any questions?
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have a question for staff then. I’ll bring it up. On the original passing of this subdivision was pressurized irrigation a condition?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, Councilman Bird I believe it was a condition. It seems to me Nampa Meridian indicated there was not surface water available to the site. For that reason
it was not required. There was a ditch there but apparently the flow was not there to support any kind of pressurized system. That’s my recollection. Maybe Gary could --
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Is that what it is? (Inaudible) do you want to recognize him again?
Corrie: I don’t know. No further testimony but if you could answer the question then (inaudible).
Hanson: Yes, I can clarify two things. One is I bought --
Bird: Just a second.
Corrie: Come up here and your name again.
Hanson: Steve Hanson. I purchased the parcel as a fully recorded and approved plat so I had nothing to do with the pressurized irrigation. That was done by the owner who developed
the land and sold it to me. My putting it in or not putting it in is totally irrelevant and there’s no, you know why reward someone for not doing something. It was approved by the
City without the irrigation. The prior owner who purchased it and developed the property paid about a 7,500 dollars, some kind of well redevelopment fee or something that allowed them
to go ahead and waive the pressurized irrigation and to use the City water. They worked through Shari on that. That was all, again prior to final approval and recording by this Council
before I even purchased the property.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Thank you.
Bird: That’s all we need now. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: I’ve got another question now. Then when Mr. Eldridge came in and bought the other and stuff, was that a requirement for him to put in pressurized irrigation?
Stiles: I don’t believe it was a requirement that we put on them. It may have been something that they desired to do for their own purpose.
Bird: Okay. That’s all I’m asking.
Stiles: Part of the problem with this subdivision someone came in, got all the approvals and then immediately started selling off pieces of it. This was a continual -- there are many,
many issues involved with this development. Unfortunately Mr. Hanson was the recipient of a lot of problems when he did purchase his part of it.
Bird: Okay. Mr. Mayor, would you allow Mr. Eldridge to answer that?
Corrie: Yes, that’s fine. (Inaudible).
Eldridge: I shouldn’t say it was pressurized irrigation. It was a system that they had adapted off from City water to service. As a requirement, the owner of that parcel, as it was
explained to me by the Building Department before we could get an Occupancy Permit on our duplex on that side of the street we had to obtain the irrigation for that side. Originally,
in the notes, I have in my notes on the minutes they verified that they would supply the irrigation to that side of the street. Well, they didn’t and we in turn had to pay for that.
I apologize I didn’t mean to say it was pressurized but it was a City system that yes, they did pay for. He paid for an additional well or something like that.
Bird: He paid a well fee he didn’t pay for an additional well. They’re a little bit more than what he paid.
Eldridge: That was the situation. They just didn’t pipe it over so (inaudible).
Bird: Once your pressurized system is hooked to the City?
Eldridge: Right, its not pressurized irrigation its pressurized water.
Bird: Okay, that what I thought. That clarifies it thank you.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion then for the Public Hearing on Item 18 and 19 to be closed if you so desire.
McCandless: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing on Item 18 and 19 vacation and also a Conditional Use Permit. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council, discussion on the two requests? Hearing no discussion, I’ll start with the request for a vacation of the 20-foot utility easement between lots one and 4 of block 2
of Sue’s Subdivision.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the request for vacation of the 20-foot utility easements between lots 1 and 4 in block 2 of Sue’s Subdivision for the construction of
a four-plex by Sunrise Engineering.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for vacation. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Item No. 19 was a Public Hearing, excuse me it’s a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a four-plex family dwelling unit in an R-15 zone for Sue’s Subdivision
block 2 lot 1. Any discussion?
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion for the Conditional Use Permit.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the Conditional Use Permit 01-022 request for a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a four-plex family dwelling unit in an R-15
zone for Sue’s Subdivision block 2 lot 1 by Charles Eldridge.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 20. Public Hearing: PP 01-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 1.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
proposed The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 10 by Steiner Development, Inc. – west and north of West Harbor Point Drive, North Miranda Avenue and West Teter Street:
Corrie: Item No. 20 is a Public Hearing request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 1.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for the proposed Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 10 by
Steiner Development Company.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I need to excuse myself from this.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Okay. I would at this point excuse the Council lady de Weerd with Council’s approval of course. Okay, Public Hearing and I’ll open the Public Hearing at this time and request
staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is for a plat that was previously approved. This was involved in the land swap with the golf course property and also included the Eight Mile Lateral
Easement area on the south side of the road. The lots are, a lot of them have already received Building Permits. Homes have been built on them. What this plat does is actually add
one lot that didn’t meet the minimum requirements for square footage. I believe its this lot right here. All the services are in. The road is built. Any landscaping that they would
have been required to have has been completed. It does make these much more desirable lots as you can see the area that was added to the subdivision. We did receive a letter from the
applicant’s representative today and he wanted some clarification. A lot of the comments that we had both site specific and general are comments that we have for every development.
We don’t expect anything above and beyond what is normally required for the development. Eight Mile Lateral was not being required to be piped at this time. It was not required to
be piped as part of the original development. As far as the clarification, the Eight Mile Lateral would not be piped. They do have 5-foot sidewalks throughout the development already.
There’s no flood plain in this plat. Basically, they will be submitting a street name approval letter to approve of the new subdivision name. The landscaping is complete. We would
recommend approval with all staff and agency conditions with the exceptions I’ve outlined.
Corrie: Okay thank you. Any questions of staff?
Stiles: You could approve it all except for this one lot right here.
Corrie: Do I know that? We wont go there. Okay, is the applicant here this evening? The applicant is not here this evening so would anybody like to enter testimony on this Public
Hearing request for Preliminary Plat, the 6 building lots?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Ma’am.
Stiles: The applicant did, the representative did want to know if he needed to be here tonight. Gary and I both saw no reason that they needed to be here. Its just pretty much cleaning
up what we’ve hashed and rehashed over the last few months. That’s why the applicant’s representative is not here tonight.
Corrie: Again, I’ll ask is there anyone here who wants to testify? Hearing none, I guess, with that explanation the Council can close the Public Hearing if they so desire.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing for the Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 1.66 acres in an R-4 zone for the proposed the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 10 by Steiner
Development Company.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item No. 20, PP 01-013. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE EXCUSED ABSENT
Corrie: Any discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion then on the request for Preliminary Plat.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 1.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for the proposed The Lakes at Cherry
Lane No. 10 by Steiner Development west and north of West Harbor Point Drive, North Miranda Avenue and West teeter Street and incorporate staff comments and have the City Attorney draw
up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded for the approval, staff comments and the attorney to draw up the proper papers and orders. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr.
Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, excused absent; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED
(Councilwoman de Weerd returns)
Item 21. CUP 01-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a metal warehouse with an office in an I-L zone for High Bridge Office by Robnett Construction, Inc.
– 1380 East Commercial Avenue:
Corrie: Item 21 is a request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a metal warehouse with an office in an I-L for High Bridge Office by Robnett Construction Inc 1380 East
Commercial Avenue. Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is actually a Conditional Use Permit for construction within the flood plain. The applicant was aware we were trying to work through revisions to
our Ordinance to deal with that issue but they didn’t want to wait until that might have been actually resolved at Council level. So, we would recommend approval for construction of
a metal warehouse with an office in a flood plain with all staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Is the applicant here tonight? No Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Hearing that, I’ll entertain a motion then for the Conditional Use Permit request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a metal warehouse with an office in an I-L zone for High Bridge Office by Robnett Construction, 1380
East Commercial Avenue, for the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order with staff comments and agency comments.
Corrie: Okay, do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 01-023 and for the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law including staff
comments. Any further comments? All in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 22. CUP 01-020 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to develop a 2,500 square-foot sales building for a recreational vehicle sales lot in an I-L zone for Bodily RV by Gary Bodily
– northeast corner of East Overland Road and South Linder Road:
Corrie: Item No. 22 is a request for Conditional Use Permit to develop a 2,500 square foot sales building for a recreational vehicle sales lot in an I-L zone by Bodily RV by Gary Bodily
northeast corner of East Overland Road and South Linder Road. Staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the property located on the northeast corner of Overland Road and Linder, where Linder would actually have the overpass in the future. This
was the site that was formerly being used for both concrete products and at one time a gravel pit. This would be western electronics down in this location here. Currently there’s no
sewer or water to the site. The property has been annexed into the City of Meridian. That was done many years ago. I think that the main thing that may not be worked out at this time
would be the issue of fire suppression and the applicant’s representative is here tonight. She may be able to shed some more light on what they may have come up with as possible solutions
to the fire flow requirements. There were, I believe three different scenarios discussed. One of them would be to extend the water down Overland and even when they did that they would
not be able to meet fire flow requirements so they would be required to build a booster station. Also there was a possibility of some very large tanks, underground tanks. I believe
the cost for that was estimated to actually exceed the cost of extending the water and providing the booster station. Again, Ana Powell is here tonight and she can address any discussions
she may have had with Joe Silva. Kenny Bower’s Fire Chief is here tonight but doesn’t indicate that they had any meetings or any discussions regarding that issue. They would be providing
the entryway corridor landscaping on Overland and I-84. The recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission was to wait until the overpass was actually constructed to do the landscaping
adjacent to the roadway. The recommendation was to give them six months from the time that roadway was constructed to complete the landscaping. There is a drain that runs through the
property known as the Hardin Drain. I can’t recall whether they were piping that or were requesting a waiver of
that. Again, Ana can address that issue. They will be paving the vehicle display area and all parking areas. The property to the west is in agricultural use. This would be where
Linder enters the site. As you may recall, the yours previously were operating this site, the Best Western concrete site. Just about anything they do to this site is going to be a
major improvement. They had what they thought was a berm there but I don’t think its ever had any water to it and any vegetation that’s there is dead.
Bird: Except for the weeds.
Stiles: Except for the weeds. There are pretty significant topography issues with this site. Of course this is quite a whole. This is where the gravel extraction had taken place
previously. There’s quite a ridge here. They’re proposing that the sales office would be closer to the freeway to take advantage of the exposure and also to have their display area
adjacent to the freeway. Provided the fire issues and the provision of septic is approve by the City Council, we would recommend approval with all staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Did I hear you say correctly, there was no water to this place?
Stiles: There is none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Is the representative of the applicant here tonight?
Powell: My name is Ana Powell. I work for B and A Engineers, 5505 West Franklin Road in Boise. I’m here representing Mr. Bodily. Forgive me I didn’t have my laser pointer today so
we’re going to go for the low-tech route here. I did want to go over just a couple features so we know a little more detail of what we’re talking about. The green areas are landscaped
area. The others will be maintained weed free and we’ll put in a planting there. The green area was the most heavily landscaped area is. The driveway comes up and then we have just
vehicle parking here with some RV parking as necessary. Then this is for customers, customer RV parking. This would be the display area throughout here. We do have four landscaped
islands. There’s the proposed office. Here’s the Hardin Drain. It would be left untiled. They asked that we not tile that. We don’t plan on relocating it at this point. If something
happens where they need to move it, all they’ve said is we give them a new easement so that’s not a problem. As you can see Mr. Bodily doesn’t intend to heavily develop the site. There’s
a lot of open area that we can work with so we’re not worried about cramming things on or fitting things on there. There’s room to maneuver. One thing I did want to point out, right
along here would be the so-called existing berm. That becomes part of the future right of way as well as here where you have the future right-of-way for Linder and then it bows out
as you get to where the freeway over crossing would be so he’s giving quite a bit of land to ACHD for future road expansion. This is the new landscape berm which would have water to
it and actual plants.
Anderson: What’s proposed for all the rest of that area just weeds?
Powell: No, it would be drought tolerant ground cover that would be maintained but it wouldn’t be sod per say. I did want to make that clear but it would be not weeds. It would be
maintained. Obviously Mr. Bodily doesn’t want a weed patch as you come to buy his expensive RVs. He would be maintaining that.
De Weerd: So, you would level the berm and put plantings there?
Powell: Yes the existing berm would be completely removed. That was an issue. The reason I specifically wanted to bring that up is because there is one opposition comment in the --
one person did sign up for opposition at the Planning and Zoning. He was opposed to that berm staying is what he was opposed to. As soon as it was clear that that berm was going he
actually stated that he was in favor of the application. The development of the site does require quite a bit of re-contouring and the grading plans would take some time to prepare
and also to implement. I bring that up because it gets to the question of the fire suppression. From the Planning and Zoning Commission there was basically, Shari said three options.
The third option was that we wait for Well No. 22 to come online. It was presumed at that time there would be sufficient capacity although they’re not quite sure if that will be the
case. We feel that, that’s likely. I know the City is being cautious in making any promises but we feel that that’s likely. By the time that the re-contouring of the site gets done
we should have some idea as to what’s going on with Well No. 22 and Bear Creek. So, we have not made additional phone calls to the Fire Department or to the Engineering Department to
work on that issue. We’re kind of taking a little bit of a wait and see on that one assuming that we get the -- it’ll take at least two to three months just to get the work done on
moving all that dirt back around and taking care of all the scarring that’s occurred there. We did agree to all the conditions of approval that were in there. I wanted to commend staff
on all the issue where we had problems, particularly the fire and the sewer coming at a later time. We will eventually hook into sewer when its available but the septic will just be
an interim one. All the conditions of approval were worded really well so that it was clear what the City wanted but still gave us flexibility to do what we needed to do now. I did
want to thank staff for that. Basically that’s all I wanted to talk about tonight and I’ll stand for questions.
Anderson: What did you call it again? Ground tolerant?
Powell: Drought tolerant ground cover.
Anderson: Drought tolerant. That’s what I’m going to tell my wife (inaudible).
Powell: Usually they’re a fescue or something like that. I think they had in mind some other, perhaps a flax type plant that would thrive there.
Anderson: So what’s your contingency if the water supply is not there?
Powell: We’ll probably go, we’ll have to go with the tanks because its my understanding Mr. Smith wasn’t too excited about having a booster pump on the water. We’ll bring water to
the site for the office use. It’s just a question whether it will have sufficient flows to serve for the fire hydrant. We’re bringing water to the site regardless. It’s just whether
that water can be used for fire suppression. If it cant we’re really just, the only other option is really the tanks. There’s a lot of room to do that so we haven’t been too worried.
As I said it’s not really constrained as far as having room to maneuver or put things in or move septic tanks or create ponds, or whatever may need be done. We have high hopes for
Well No. 22.
Corrie: What are you doing for sewer?
Powell: It will be an interim septic tank. When sewer comes to the -- the sewer actually comes from the east or from the top, or from the west from the top. Once it gets there, we’ve
got a set period of time to bring it through the property and connect to it so we’ll probably do a dry line and then just tap in when we extend that.
Anderson: Is this property in the City or its contiguous?
Powell: It’s currently in the City. It was annexed a number of years ago.
De Weerd: How could we annex in without providing services to it? I guess that is my question.
Anderson: We didn’t do it. It was before our time.
Bird: It was long before our time.
Smith: Mayor and Council. It was annexed in the early 80’s and Williamson was one of the property owners out there. I can’t remember the exact name of it but anyway. This property
was annexed during that time that 180 acres that Van Auker owned and some other property owners along the north side of Franklin was annexed at the same time. There was a lot of property
annexed. Services were not provided. We have, in conjunction with Ana’s comment about high hopes. We have high hopes for Well No. 22 also. We should be getting some test pump data
by, not this coming Monday but a week from this coming Monday. They’re developing the well next week. The cable (inaudible) is supposedly out there right now and they should be developing
it. One thing that we’re going to have to be cautious about is that we have a development to the east of this one. That’s that Western Electronics Development Park. We also have all
of Bear Creek Subdivision and Observation Point Subdivision on Amity Road east of
Meridian all are in the high-pressure zone, all within service area of this well. So we’re going to have to take a close look at development and particularly the fire flow as Ana said.
That’s the critical element for all of this development is fire flow demand.
Corrie: Gary, for my own question. When all this land was annexed did we have the Ordinance that required water to and through those properties? Was it that (inaudible)? Do you remember?
Smith: The only Ordinance Mayor that I can remember and I’m not even sure if it was in existence at that time is that anytime property is within 300 feet of a City sewer or water main
they’re required to connect. Our policy has been on development that when the development occurs, the developer is required to extend the sewer and water to and through the property
when development occurs but I don’t think anything has been tied to annexation for extension of services. Although its -- Shari was just saying that Van Auker’s annexation there was
a condition that they were to find out or they were to determine how the property was to be served by sewer and water. I don’t recall on this one if that was a condition or not.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions, Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: How does this differ from the application that came through last year for another RV park in providing services and why is staff recommending this when they didn’t recommend
the other one?
Stiles: (Inaudible). The Maple Grove RV proposal, they were not meeting any ordinances and were not proposing extending any water to the site. Every condition we had they were opposed
to. They didn’t want to meet any Ordinance at all. I think they worked with us real well trying to figure out what they can do and what they cant do. They are bringing water to the
site. They’re doing whatever they need to do to meet fire flow requirements and Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Building Code. What they’re proposing is going to be a vast improvement over
what’s there presently. I guess those all factored into our recommendation. From where we started out on this project and what we’ve ended up with has been a great improvement. I
mean, of course nobody wants to spend a lot of money on paving or landscaping or anything else. Mr. Bodily would have liked to get away with less but realized in order to get our support
he was going to have to meet our ordinance and to address our concerns with the site. I did want to ask one more thing of Ona. In the past, we’ve had an injunction on this property due
to the gravel extraction and it was related to removing the hill that provided some kind of a buffer to the properties to the south, the noise of
the freeway. Is that being addressed in the grading plan? How are they going to try to maintain some kind of separation because once that hill starts being removed, the noise is greatly
increased there? Are they working with the neighbors somehow or keeping that in mind as they are doing the grading plan?
Powell: Well, the site right now basically goes like this and then it shoots down and comes back up. The concept right now is pretty much to scrape from one end and to do the fill.
Otherwise it would be too much fill to bring in to the site. There is the berm out in front but --
***End Of Side Four***
Powell: Shari has talked with one of our project designers more than I have about this issue perhaps but there will be some buffering. He’s going to have RVs against there which is
going to bounce back the sound quite a bit. From an aesthetic standpoint it would be hard to say that the RVs were worse than what is out there. I don’t know if its necessarily better
but it couldn’t be any worse. It should bounce back that sound still. Metal’s good for bouncing back, it doesn’t absorb it as much as dirt does but it will bounce it back onto the
freeway. I’m sure he’s going to have them toward the front rather than filed behind one another.
Stiles: Thanks.
Anderson: Where’s (inaudible) the sewer crossing here?
Stiles: Pardon?
Anderson: Where’s the closest sewer crossing? Where’s the closest sewer service available to this?
Stiles: Sewer will have to come from the Ten Mile Interchange area and be bored under the freeway to access this, the Black Cat Trunk.
Corrie: That could be quite a few years.
Stiles: Or not.
Anderson: I have a question for Kenny. Are underground tanks -- is that something that you’re agreeable to doing?
Bowers: Mayor Corrie, City Council Members, and Councilman Anderson. We have never done underground tanks before. There aren’t any underground tanks in our District so we really haven’t
worked with them before. We thought that this would be one way to get water to this location. What we’re really concerned about is they’ve got 30 or 40 RVs parked right up next to
each other and we
could get several of them on fire at one time. They do, do some maintenance work on them, repair work on them too so that’s what we were concerned about. Ron to really say that we
haven’t had any experience with tanks in the ground but that’s probably about the only way we’re going to get water to this or a pond out in this area.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: They’re bringing water into the building and they do repair within. They do have a repair shop if it’s going to be like the one they’re moving from. Is that not right?
Powell: My understanding is that this is strictly a sales office at this time. They do have another lot, a storage lot and there’s discussion of having a repair shop in later phases
but we understand that we would have to come back in for another CU but at this point I think we’re strictly talking a sales lot.
Bird: See, I’m thinking about if you sprinkle it. Are you going to have the water pressure for your sprinklers? In a repair shop you can, you know you’re talking about gas fire and
stuff like that. That’s my one concern.
Bowers: I don’t think they can be doing too much in a 2,000 square foot building. (Inaudible).
Bird: No, that’s true.
Bowers: I guess mostly that would be sales, Councilman Bird from what I understand.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari does the parking areas conform to the landscape and parking requirements?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, Councilwoman de Weerd. I think that there are some different requirements for an actual sales lot, that they don’t have to meet that every 12 spaces.
It would be almost impossible to maneuver the vehicles through there. For the parking lot, the actual off street parking area which is right in here, they would meet the landscape
requirements and they do have extensive perimeter landscaping there. So, I guess yes we did believe it met the Landscape Ordinance. When they’re pulling in those big vehicles, it’s
just not a typical parking lot. It’s a display area and they do have, you can see the planters
that they do have within the development. The way the Ordinance reads its more than 12 parking spaces and they don’t have that. These are not more than 12 parking spaces here. They
would have more than that here but again its not really a parking lot, it’s a display area.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Shari, (inaudible). What is this, where the parking lot is, come down with your arrow, down there where they’re parking with the office? That right there. What’s that?
Stiles: This would be the sales office. This is the actual building.
Powell: Mr. Mayor. Here's the sales office right here. This was a drainage swale.
Corrie: Okay, thank you.
Powell: This could also be converted to a pond if we decide to go with the pond system for the fire suppression that would be (inaudible).
Bird: Also, didn’t you tell us that parking into that swale there is where the people that bring in motor homes to be appraised trade in do whatever, that’s where they park?
Powell: Right.
Corrie: All right.
Powell: This is the drainage and this is the office right there.
Corrie: I was going to say that’s an odd shape building.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Powell: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Powell: May I make one comment regarding septic? I know it was a concern of yours. It’s a 2500 square foot sales office but the actual amount of sewage generated by the site should
be rather minimal. Its not as if they have cooking going on or washing clothes or running baths or things like that. The amount of actual sewage should be fairly minimal.
Corrie: Okay. (Inaudible) you have a lot of trailers there and a lot of people there you’re going to have a couple of bathrooms at least.
Powell: There will be a couple of bathrooms probably or one.
Corrie: Okay any questions? Shari, do you have a question?
Stiles: I just had one more comment to make. I’m not sure whether it was included in the recommendation. Mr. Bodily is aware that he cant have any use of that property south of where
the ridge is, where the existing gravel pit area is, that he cant be parking vehicles in there or using that for any kind of parking area?
Powell: Correct. He would only park, I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor Mr. Bodily understands that he would only be parking in the designated parking areas and the display area. He also understands
that those need to be paved. Originally we had proposed some gravel area but he knows they need to be paved. He’s actually been very good about working with the conditions of approval.
De Weerd: How will that unimproved area be maintained?
Powell: The brown areas on here?
De Weerd: Yes.
Powell: It will be in a drought tolerant groundcover just to keep the weeds down. That will be fairly low maintenance so it wont be sod but it will be free of weeds.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Any further questions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Thank you.
Powell: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Gary, how often do we propose septic in the City limits? Has it been done before? I understand that this is not something that, this is probably something that was annexed
into the City long before most of us were born, no.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: I understand that we have an obligation since it is annexed in but is this a typical type of compromise to be made?
Smith: Mayor and Council, Councilwoman de Weerd. I think probably in this case it’s a compromise that’s reasonable just based on the fact that it is annexed City limit property, that
the sewer is so far away for gravity service, that to serve it with sewer otherwise would require a pump station, pumping it into a drainage area we don’t want to pump into. As Ana
said, the sewage use is probably going to be very small.
De Weerd: I guess my only concern is you know that this is setting a precedence and we need to be prepared for that.
Smith: I think -- I believe I heard her say that they’re willing and able to make provisions to connect to City sewer in the future when it’s available. In fact, even made a comment
about constructing dry line, dry sewer line at this time. I guess weighing all those factors on one hand against installation of the septic tank I think it’s a reasonable solution,
compromise as you put it to seeing this area developed in a better condition than it presently exists. It is City limits now. Central District Health Department has the attitude that
they want to see all properties that develop connected to a sewer if it’s economically feasible. In this case it’s not economically feasible.
De Weerd: Okay.
Smith: I don’t think that Central District Health will have any problem at all approving a septic tank drain fill for this usage. That’s just my opinion but they are the jurisdiction
that has the authority for that approval. They will ask the City of Meridian for a letter of sewer availability which we have issued on other properties before. Primarily properties
that are in the County, not in the City limits.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other discussion on this request for Conditional Use Permit?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit to develop 2500 square foot sales building for a recreational vehicle sales lot in an I-L zone for Bodily RV by Gary Bodily
northeast corner of East Overland Road and South Linder Road and the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of order and include all staff comments.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit 01-020 with the staff comments and the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 23. FP 01-012 Request for Final Plat approval of 1 building lot and 1 ACHD Park and Ride lot on 6.33 acres in a C-G zone for Traveler’s Corner by Pinnacle Engineers – south of
I84, east of South Meridian Road and north of East Overland Road:
Corrie: Okay. The last item I believe is 23. This is a request for Final Plat approval of one building lot and 1 ACHD Park and Ride lot on 6.33 acres in a C-G zone for the Traveler’s
Corner by Pinnacle Engineers south of I-84. Staff comments on the Final Plat.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is just a final clean up to get this legally split into two lots. It’s nearly built. We would recommend approval with all staff and agency conditions.
De Weerd: Well that was way too easy. I think we need to think of something.
Bird: Tammy, look at the time.
Corrie: I can’t understand why they’re sitting out there --
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: The mics are open fellows, okay? Any further comments, discussion?
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Then I’ll entertain a motion for the Final Plat approval of the request.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for Final Plat approval of 1 building lot and 1 ACHD Park and Ride lot on 6.33 acres in a C-G zone for Traveler’s Corner and to have the attorney
draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for Final Plat on Final Plat 01-012 and have the attorney draw up the proper forms. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
roll call please.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I’d like to make a motion to adjourn.
Bird: I second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK