HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 08-21Meridian City Council Meeting August 21, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 P.M. on Tuesday, August 21, 2001, by Mayor Robert Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Corrie, Ron Anderson, Cherie McCandless, Keith Bird, and Tammy de Weerd.
Others Present: Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Bill Nichols, Dave Bowman, Janice Smith, Stacy Kilchenmann, Ken Bowers, Tom Kuntz, Tara Green, and Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
__X__ Tammy de Weerd __X__ Ron Anderson
__X__ Cherie McCandless __X__ Keith Bird
__X__Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: I’m going to just go from the City Council Regular Meeting Agenda for Tuesday, August 21st at 6:30 P.M. At this time, City Clerk if you’ll give the roll call attendance please.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Thank you. I want to welcome everyone here this evening. Thank you for being here. It’s kind of a nice night tonight. At least it’s not 102 degrees out there. With the
competition with the state fair and all those fancy rides, I’m glad to see you all here tonight.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: We have Number 2 on the adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the agenda, on the Consent Agenda we need to -- which we will do at the proper time, but G, H, I, J, K, L, M needs to be tabled until the next meeting. On the Regular Agenda,
Item No. 8 we have a letter requesting that we take it completely off of the agenda. With that I would make a motion that we adopt the agenda as stated.
Anderson: (Inaudible).
Corrie: That’s Seven Gates. Okay is there any other staff comments? Yes, Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. I was wondering if we had new findings for Item F. Last time we talked about having a condition in there about them removing the buildings after three
years or applying for a new Conditional Use Permit.
De Weerd: It’s not on there.
Stiles: No new findings?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: No, I didn’t. I didn’t pull that but we can.
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Seeing how it hasn’t been seconded I’d re-adopt my adoption of the agenda to also include the tabling of Item F so that the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law can be looked
at.
Corrie: Okay, any other changes?
De Weerd: No I second his motion. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I do have a question on Item No. 8 that’s being -- request to be pulled. Pulled to another date or withdrawn?
Bird: Completely off –
Anderson: Withdrawn.
De Weerd: They’re withdrawing their application?
Anderson: Yes.
Corrie: Any other questions? Hearing none I’ll have a motion for the chair to approve the adoption of the agenda as changed. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of July 10, 2001 City Council Workshop:
B. Approve minutes of July 17, 2001 City Council Regular Meeting:
Approve Minutes of July 24, 2001 City Council Regular Meeting:
D. Approve minutes of August 6, 2001 City Council Special Meeting:
E. Approve minutes of August 8, 2001 City Council Special Meeting:
F. Tabled from August 8, 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:
G. Tabled from August 8, 2001: Findings of Facts 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:
H. Tabled from August 8, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91acres
in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Company – north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile Roads:
I. Tabled from August 8, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-006 Request for a 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 Company – north of Ustick and
east of Ten Mile Roads:
J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
L. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
M. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
N. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
O. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
P. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
Q. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
R. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
S. Approve Bills:
Corrie: The first Department Reports Treasurer’s Department, Janice Smith.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, we’ve got to do the Consent Agenda.
Corrie: Oh, I’m sorry that’s right we -- (inaudible). Okay, on the Consent Agenda we have Items A, B, C, D, and E. We also have N, O, P, Q, R, and S.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as stated A, B, C, D, E, N, O, P, Q, R, and S approved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: How about S?
De Weerd: Yes, he said that.
Bird: S, yes.
Corrie: Motion made and second. Any further discussion? Roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports:
A. Treasurer’s Department – Janice Smith:
Fiscal year 2001 Budget Amendment Revised:
B. Public Works Department – Gary Smith:
Fire Hydrant Replacement Project – Bid Results:
Corrie: Now, Department Reports, Stacy.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
G. Smith: She’s finishing up a report for you Mayor and Council.
Corrie: Okay, if you’d like then we’ll –
G. Smith: Move to Public Works? Thank you. The first item I have is bid results from our Fire Hydrant Replacement Project that we bid on August the 8th. Three bidders were received
for replacement of fire hydrants. Bitterroot Construction from Boise was the low bidder at 28,900 dollars. Their bid was responsive to the requirements of the bid document. Public
Works Department recommends award of the contract to them.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. bird.
Bird: I would move that we award the contract of the 2001 Fire Hydrant Replacement Project to Bitterroot Construction for the sum of 28,900 dollars for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk
to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian School District – Water and Main Easements:
G. Smith: Thank you Mayor and Council. The second item I have is water and sewer main easements for the Meridian School Districts. We have two sets. One is for Mountain View High
School. That’s Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement to an around the high school. Second is a Water Main Easement around the Ponderosa Elementary School. These easements have been
approved and signed by the Meridian School District and with our City Attorney approval of a hold harmless language that the school district added, it’s our recommendation to approve
and sign these easements also.
Corrie: Okay. Any discussion?
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the easements with the school district and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Honor Park Subdivision – Property Purchase:
G. Smith: Thank you Council and Mayor. The next item I have is a request for a discussion and or approval for Public Works Department to purchase a small piece of property bordering
the elevated tank site on the south side between the tank site and Water Tower Lane. Presently this piece of property is not being used. The developer Bill Hon is, its part of the
Honor Park Subdivision No. 1. It was platted as a lot. Its lot 3 of block 2. It shows on, I think you have in your packet a little copy of a map that shows the location of the lot.
Presently the Water Department takes access to the elevated tank site on the south side of the Eight Mile Lateral which is a ditch access, ditch maintenance access road. Zamzows is
located between East First and the water tower site, water tank site. Sometimes their operations spill out onto that access road. It creates a problem for us to get access to the gate
into the tank site. By purchasing this piece of property it would allow us access off the public right-of-way. We would change the location of the entrance into the tank site through
the chainlink fence. We’re going to need that access for maintenance of the tank when it’s repainted. I spoke with Mr. Hon initially about an easement across there. He suggested that
we look at purchasing the property. Originally he said that the Assessors Office had it valued at I think it was approximately 11,000 dollars. He went back to his partners and discussed
the value of the property as far as selling it to the City. They dropped the cost to 8,800 dollars. I think that about all the information that I have on it. Do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we go ahead with the purchase of lot 3 block 2 Honor Subdivision from William Hon for the sum of 8,800 dollars and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to purchase the land at 8,800 dollars. Any further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor in the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
5. WWTP Master Survey – Agreement for Professional Services:
G. Smith: Thank you Mayor. Thank you Council. The next item I have is an Agreement for Professional Services. This is with Civil Survey Consultants in Meridian. The project involves
preparing a topographic map of our Wastewater Treatment Plant site that would accurately locate all of the features, all of the buildings, all the structure at the plant in relation
to the exterior boundary. Also provide one-foot contours. This would help us immensely in planning of expansions at t he Wastewater Plant. We’ve been working off of existing drawings
from 1979 or 1978 when the plant was originally designed and built. The additions that have been made but we’ve never had an overall new plan prepared that accurately locates everything
by coordinates and ground surface elevations also. This will help us in planning like I said earlier and situating new elements and some day when we’re built out from the existing plant
it will help us in expanding a new treatment facility. Civil Survey has been doing a fair amount of consulting work for us, providing professional engineering and land surveying. They
in particular have prepared plans and bidding documents for our well houses, pump houses for our wells. They’ve done an excellent job. They’re very responsive and their costs are very
good in that respects so it would be our recommendation to award a Master Survey Agreement for Professional Services with Civil Survey Consultants in Meridian for a not to exceed amount
of 12,000 dollars, for the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would agree with this but there’s one -- I’ve got a question. I know what it means but the way this billing and stuff is, payment on a monthly basis when billed with an estimated
cost not to exceed 12,000 dollars. Does that mean -- is that the total or it can’t exceed 12,000 dollars a month? The way this is written? This has got to be changed, payment on a
monthly basis is fine when billed but somewhere in here it’s got to say complete job not to exceed 12,000 dollars. If you read this right they could bill up to 12,000 a month, if you
read by this agreement.
G. Smith: Well, we could add build with an estimated total cost not to exceed 12,000 dollars.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Estimated total cost?
G. Smith: Yes.
Bird: Okay.
G. Smith: Would that be appropriate Councilman Bird?
Bird: Counselor says yes. With that Mayor I would move that we accept this agreement with Civil Survey Consultants Incorporated for a Master Survey of the Wastewater Treatment Plant
and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest with the change on basis of fee and billing schedule where it says when built with an estimated cost, it says estimated total cost not
to exceed 12,000 dollars.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion as stated say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
6. WWTP Clarifier No. 3 Re-coating Project – Agreement for Professional (Inspection) Services:
G. Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Thank you Council. The last item I have is another Professional Service Agreement request. This is to provide an inspection of the recoating project
of Clarifier No. 3 at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. This person is a Certified Coating Inspector. They will oversee the removal of the existing surfacing of the operating mechanism
in the clarifier and the recoating of the mechanism. It needs to be monitored closely because it is in a very aggressive environment and we want to make sure that the coating is applied
as specified. That’s the reason to hire this inspector to be on site and do
that. His name is Dave John. He does business as Inspection Consulting Services International and he will provide the inspection on a time and material basis not to exceed 2,000 dollars.
It’s our recommendation that City Council accept this agreement with Dave John and for inspection services at the Wastewater Treatment Plant recoating Clarifier No. 3 on a time and
material basis not to exceed 2,000 dollars.
Corrie: Any discussion from Council?
Bird: No.
Anderson: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the agreement with Dave John, Inspection Consultant Services International for professional inspection services at the Wastewater Treatment Plant Clarifier
No. 3 recoating project on a time and material basis at 65 dollars per hour not to exceed 2,000 dollars and to authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion stated say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie : I believe we go back to Janice.
Bird: Mr. Mayor before we go onto the next one, Gary, we had on these easements and stuff -- have we got an update on them?
De Weerd: For the White Drain?
Bird: For the White Drain that we had got?
G. Smith: Our Consulting Engineer called me today and left me a voicemail. Bews has easements ready to sign. There are a couple of questions. I’m not sure what the extent of those
questions are. I’m going to be in contact with Mr. Bews tomorrow on another matter. Young’s – I’ll start on the west. Young’s I believe the information that I have is that they will
be in contact with us next week to resolve the easement. They’ll sign tomorrow? Becky says they’ll sign tomorrow on the Young’s’ piece. Kevin Howell is the next property owner getting
to Linder. The information that was relayed to me today is that they will move forward with the signing of that easement getting to Linder Road on the east side of Linder Road the school
district. We submitted the easement to the school district. I think you have a copy of a letter that was sent back to me. They’re not willing to grant the easement without compensation.
I can’t recall the name of the next property owner but, to the east of the school district, but they are --
Bird: Yorgenson?
G. Smith: No.
Bird: (Inaudible).
G. Smith: I want to say its Cooper but I’m not --
Bird: Cooper.
G. Smith: They have located the sewer line in the field for Mr. Cooper in relation to his out buildings that he has back there. They’re working out the details of that easement. There
isn’t a problem with that. It’s just getting the details of what’s existing on the ground tied into the language in the easement. Then to the east of the Mr. Howell will not discuss
the project with us until his subdivision is resolved. We will move forward with placing the sewer line adjacent to the White Drain. That gets us to Meridian Road on the east side
of Meridian Road. It’s my understanding that Mr. Voigt has agreed to the easement alignment through his piece of property. From there to Locust Grove I’m not sure. The whole project
is designed. Fifty percent of it is final designed. That’s where I am.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Gary, did you obtain a copy of the minutes of that meeting where the trustees talked about the easement?
G. Smith: I have not.
De Weerd: Okay. I see that as a big issue and one that needs to be addressed. You know we’re supposed to be forming partnerships and partner with the school district and this is not
a good sign on the direction that’s taking.
G. Smith: Right. I will make contact with them tomorrow and get a copy of their minutes. I don’t know if they have verbatim minutes or if they summarize discussions. I don’t know
how they do that but I’ll get what they have.
Bird: We can ask for the tape.
De Weerd: That and any literature that the trustees were given to summarize the request.
G. Smith: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Thanks Gary.
G. Smith: You’re welcome.
A. Treasurer’s Department – Janice Smith:
Fiscal year 2001 Budget Amendment Revised:
Corrie: Mrs. Smith.
J. Smith: Mayor and Council. Sorry for the delay. I have another memo here that I speedily put on my computer but the printer was not cooperating so I’ll hand that out.
Bird: You got a spell check?
J. Smith: As you see on here I was in such hurry I forgot to use my little spell check and I did this on Excel so if you would please overlook the spelling errors and look at the intent
of the whole memo. I did the memo just a quick overview. The Accounting Department, we did a Budget Amendment earlier in August because of the Police STEP increases. When we have
a moment to look it over again, we recommend an additional amendment to the budget. We did check with AIC and looked at our governing manual and yes we can do this. Two reasons are
with the additional money we received from the Parks Department, the 33,000 dollars. They’ve received 33,000 dollars extra in revenue and if we don’t make the budget amendment, they
are also over in their expenses, their contract labor and their payroll. That is because of these adult programs that they put in place. We were glad to see that extra revenue come
in. As you see the revenue came and it went. On the 33,000 dollars that pretty much explains that. The other revenue that we received additional revenue is 202,610 dollars is of the
gain sharing money, the PERSI gain sharing money which was a retirement program. It’s a credit that was given back to the City so we did not have to spend any monies out on the PERSI
City share for about three months which totaled to about 202,610 dollars. At this time the Accounting Department would like to use a portion of the funds to change our pay periods.
Right now we have five days to get everything into the computer, actually from the department heads to payroll, minus two days because it has to be to the bank two days prior to the
end of the month. That gives us three days to operate. If there’s a
weekend we have one day. There’s just not enough time so we would like to move the pay period back five days. This would give everyone additional time. The employees have more time,
the department heads have more time, the Payroll Coordinator would have time to check the cards and make the corrections before its electronically sent to the bank. Sometimes there
are errors then we have to make corrections the following month. If we made this change, there would be five days lapsed that the employees would feel that five days change. We would
like to therefore use some of this gain sharing money to get the employees by these five days, to make it painless and seamless and to accommodate them for the five days.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Janice, what this would do is we’re going to go from the 20th to the 20th with our checks and they would be paid still on the last day of the month which gives us 10 or 11 days
excluding weekends and holidays for the payroll. This additional money would be used to pay the employees, what we’re basically doing is giving them a five day wage bonus in September
because the time cards will come in on the 20th but they will be paid through the 25th as I understand. Is that right?
J. Smith: The time card would be --
Bird: For September would come in the 20th?
J. Smith: Yes.
Bird: Okay but we would pay them through the 25th so that they don’t lose a week or five days of work?
J. Smith: Yes, that’s correct.
Bird: That’s where this money is going to pick up the excess that we have. Starting in October they will come in the 20th and they will be paid from the 20th of September until the
20th of October, right?
J. Smith: Yes that’s correct. That would give them a 30-day --
Bird: So what this is, is just a one time?
J. Smith: One time.
Bird: Bonus that the Mayor needs to make sure that all employees understand that.
Corrie: We’ll get a letter to them.
J. Smith: Being a bonus this money would not be subject to PERSI so the City wouldn’t have to pay a PERSI amount. The only thing that they’d be subject to is FICA.
Bird: That’s fine.
J. Smith: The other three pages that I had here were just some backups on the detail. Did you have any other questions, Council?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: I had one. If this is a budget amendment, the only thing you’re showing is adding revenue. You’re not showing expenditures. You’re listing both of these as revenues. They
need to also be shown as expenditures too.
Bird: It is, Ron.
J. Smith: Yes, the expenditures are if you look on -- there’s a page there that says was and the revised. It’s broken out. I didn’t number my pages I’m sorry. The total change would
be the 235,610 in the revenues coming in and the 235,610 expenditures going out.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Now this will go up for the Public Hearing. We can’t enact upon it tonight.
J. Smith: Will and I went over this with looking at the calendar and looking at AIC rules or governmental rules. There’s two time periods we can do it. Do you have those written down
Will?
Berg: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of Council. We looked through some possibilities. What we’re doing is canceling the Public Hearing for amending the budget for this fiscal year
and moving it later on in the month of September. We still have to comply with Public Hearing dates and noticing. We do not have to have it with the next years budget hearing. We
do that because it kind goes along with it but there’s no state statute that requires that you do that. We would just start over again with the amendment of the budget Public Hearing
notice and
set a date as such. There are some possibilities of having the Public Hearing on the 18th of September which is a Regular City Council Meeting. Normally in the past there hasn’t been
too much public input about amending the budget. Or you can have it in the last week of the month. Janice and I feel that maybe the 18th would give the cushion if there’s any other
questions or possibilities, or you can set a special night to have it if you’d like. But, we figure those two days would give us the required time frame for noticing and setting up
the meeting. I guess I would ask help from the attorney, if tonight we could approve this tentative amended budget or if we would have to wait for next week at the other Council meeting.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I think the only thing is you just need direction to your Clerk as to what goes into the notice because if you already had a notice published
without this, we need this in there. So, just a direction to him to include it in the notice as part of the proposed amendment. Then I think that’s good enough and you can go ahead
and have your hearing on it and pass a resolution.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe that we need to have that before the 18th because we want the time cards to come in on the 20th of September, right? So, it needs to be passed before we can do that.
The 18th of September gives us time to get the notice out? Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would make a motion that we include this revised budget amendment for fiscal year 2001 in the existing budget amendment and for the Clerk to post the public for a Public Hearing
on September 18, 2001.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made. Do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess this is just a point of discussion. I mean to me, somebody’s been thinking about this for a little while and there’s been some thought gone into it but yet I haven’t
heard any discussions on this. I feel like -- PERSI is already
given back gain sharing to all of the employees that are in the State Pension Plan and I feel like by giving the additional five days here, I feel like we’re just adding additional bonuses
on top of that. The City has so many other pressing needs, I feel like this is almost being thrown in at the last minute and hasn’t been fully discussed. There probably could be lots
of other options of things that could be done with this money. I guess at this point, until there’s more discussion I’m not in favor of just a last minute thing to throw in and something
here to make it a little easier for payroll. I’m still not sure exactly why five days isn’t enough time to adequately process that payroll.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I believe this issue was brought up a number of months ago, earlier this year. We got some information from staff on it. It indeed hasn’t ever been discussed at a workshop
but the information has been in front of us for discussion and information. I felt comfortable with this coming in front of us tonight because isn’t the first time we’ve seen it.
Anderson: When you say it’s not the first time we’ve seen it, I mean, the only thing we knew is that we were getting gain sharing. I had never seen a proposal to refund this to the
employee’s through giving them five days additional pay. Have you seen that somewhere before tonight?
De Weerd: I know I did see it on the payroll changes and I can’t remember the specifics.
J. Smith: It was in February. A memo went out, the money coming in and what we would like to do with it. There was no workshop set up on it but I sent a couple memos out in February.
I still have them on my computer.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Anderson: The memos were asking for employee input or what?
J. Smith: It was just sent to the Council, Mayor and Council.
De Weerd: For direction.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the five days, as I said sometimes you’ve got a weekend in there and so you actually only get three days. Ron, you’re familiar with checking timecards
the same as I am. Very rarely out of 13 or 14 that I check they’re all 100 percent that you don’t have to go back and look the stuff over. So, you cut it down and then by the time
you cut all the checks and get everybody to signing, you are being pushed. As far as the spending of the money, I know its a little employee bonus and there are places we probably could
use the $200,000 but this is a fair way. I mean if you change your time, then you’re going to have employees that are going to be short one week of pay in the month of October, or whichever
month you start it, September or whatever. You’re going to have them five days short. I felt that and as Janice said, I couldn’t remember what month it was. I thought it was March
that she sent out the memo stating at that time had asked that looking into doing something like this, using this money to do it. I felt it was a good time to get our payroll dates
changed and give our people a little more time to get them punched out.
Corrie: This has been going on for quite a few years. We’re trying to get this changed. We didn’t have any way of getting it done. When this was brought forward to me I could see
that the benefit would be for the treasurer and also you’ve got employees that could benefit. It is a bonus for them but I think under the circumstances, coming into and time wise for
accounting I think it would probably be a good spending of the PERSI money coming in.
De Weerd: I just know that when the memo came out she did ask for any feedback and any of our thoughts. Actually at that time, you know this is PERSI. This is PERSI, it comes form
the employees and it needs to be given back to the employees. That was my opinion and that was my feedback at the time. I know we need money but we’re not going to take it out of our
staff’s pocket.
Anderson: Lets correct something this isn’t the employees money. This is the City’s money that was paid to PERSI that was an over payment that was refunded. The employees got back
the portion that they paid. That was given back to them through a gain sharing and is put into an account for them. This is different from what the employees money is.
Bird: But this was paid for the employees by the City.
Anderson: By the City.
Bird: It was part of their benefit package. This is part of their benefit package. Up until a couple of years ago, Ron when we came on here we were, except in a couple of departments
we were way under, we had great benefit, we were way under on pay. We have got the pay up but this is a benefit. I feel, like Tammy that I’m for giving it back to the employees.
Anderson: I’m not saying that I’m opposed to using this money to somehow do something for the employees. I’m just saying I would have liked to have a chance to discuss some options.
At this point, I feel like this is being thrown in at
the last hour here on us and as a budget amendment without really discussing all the options that are out there.
Bird: Ron, I have to agree with you on it being thrown in but we did have and her memos to us in the spring, I guess it was February, like I said I thought it was March. She asked
at that time, we should have had a workshop on it. That’s my fault for not having a workshop on it but I think this is, like the Mayor said since you and I have been on here we’ve discussed
how we can get this payroll to the 20th to the 20th so it would give our bookkeeping people more time to get the checks out, more time to get them signed. I think this is one way we
can do it.
Corrie: Any other comments, questions?
J. Smith: Can a make a couple notes here?
Corrie: Yes, Janice.
J. Smith: With this 202,000 two thirds of it would be payroll. There would still be about 69,000 that would still go into fund balance. If you don’t use it, it will go all into fund
balance. If we wait until the next year which is just a month later, the increasing with the new employees coming on and the COLAs at three percent. The increase at that time would
be 13. We calculated it out 13,000 more in October. The sooner you keep putting it off, the more people that are coming in. Then you have pay increases, a lot of them are October
first. Then you have the COLAs. That’s another six percent increase. We saw it there. We thought it was an opportunity okay lets change. We have the funds available, trying to find
some funds. There may not be a chance to have any extra funds in the next year. I was just trying to save some money doing it now in September instead of waiting until further on in
the years. If we had time, we probably wish we would have gone back earlier in the year and kept bringing it up every month.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Janice, at what point have you shut off -- I mean an employee coming on September 1st isn’t going to get the five days?
J. Smith: We calculated this on July’s payroll. We did a cushion there of maybe a couple new officers because those positions were open but, there’s just a small cushion.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Again, I just think there are probably a lot of other options out there. I mean I look at being a City employee one of the big weaknesses is what do you do for health care
coverage after you leave employment of the City or retire. I looked at maybe this money could be used as seed money that could maybe start some type of a fund that could be used to
carry on health care costs or something like that. I just feel like there hasn’t been enough discussion of what to do with this money and how it might be used to benefit everybody in
the future. I just feel like this is a spur of the moment thing that’s being thrown in here at the last but I will call for the questions so lets vote for it, vote on it I guess.
Corrie: Okay, the questions been called for. That closes the discussion so, lets have a roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, naye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Corrie: We will notice it, if you will do that Mr. Clerk.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I do think Councilman Anderson’s point is well taken. It shouldn’t be left until the eleventh hour but staff did ask for feedback and I guess this is just one of those long
things on a pending list that needs to be looked at in a more timely basis.
Anderson: I think the feedback should have come from the employees too not just the Council because very few of us that sit on the Council work under that retirement system. I would
have liked to see the employees polled and probably got some pretty good ideas out of them as far as what to do with that money too.
Corrie: We still might be able to do that Ron. There’s approximately 100,000 in that that we can use somewhere in that basis. I think it’s a good idea to look at though. Okay moving
on.
J. Smith: Thank you.
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Corrie: I believe we had some things pulled off the Consent Agenda.
De Weerd: No.
Bird: We tabled everything.
Corrie: We tabled all of them?
Bird: Yes. Nothing was pulled off.
Corrie: I thought that’s what you said but I wasn’t sure that’s what you meant. Okay. Well we’ve tabled everything and nothing left to do but to move forward then.
Item 6. Tabled from August 8, 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:
Corrie: Item No. 6 tabled from August 8, 2001 is the request for Final Plat approval of 36 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.66 acres in an R-4 zone by Bear Creek Subdivision No.
2 Briggs Engineering east of South Goddard and south of West Overland Road. Staff, I believe there’s a question here on water. Am I correct, Gary?
***End Of Side One***
G. Smith: -- Council. We have three items on the agenda tonight that deal with Bear Creek Subdivision. Item No. 6 is Bear Creek No. 2. Item No. 7 is Bear Creek Subdivision No. 3.
Item No. 13 is Bear Creek Subdivision No. 4. Bear Creek No. 1 is 128 lot subdivision previously approved by City Council. It is built and a plat is recorded I believe. I don’t believe
any Building Permits have been requested at that subdivision yet. The developer’s desire for Bear Creek No. 2, 3, and 4 is to have City Council approve those subdivisions so that the
development plans can go forward from my department where they are right now. They have been reviewed and approved so that the Public Works Department can write a letter to DEQ approving
the plans, send them on to DEQ for DEQ approval which will in turn allow the developer to begin construction on those three segments of the subdivision, No. 2, 3, and 4. No. 2, 3, and
4 total 99 lots I believe. The conditioned approval of subdivision No. 1 was that we have presently enough water supply for that subdivision. Subsequent approvals of additional phases
of Bear Creek was left to a point in time when we knew what the outcome of our production was for Well No. 22 which is being drilled or has been drilled in Bear Creek Subdivision in
the park area. That well has been completed as far as drilling is concerned. It has been test pumped as of yesterday. We have a well in excess of 2,000 gallons per minute for production.
It’s an excellent well by all indications from the test pump. The developer has written, or the developer’s representative has written a letter to your City Engineer Brad Watson.
It was hand delivered to my office yesterday, Brad’s on vacation now. The last sentence in his letter he states that no more than 130 Building Permits within the first three phases
of Bear Creek will be requested
prior to completion of well No. 22. That would be completion of the pump and pump house completed to the point where it is production well pumping into the system. I shared this letter
with City Attorney Bill Nichols. Bill’s opinion is that it’s a reasonable request subject to the managing member of Bear Creek LLC, Greg Johnson signing the letter, signing the agreement.
City Engineer’s letter of approval of the plans and a, as you would, a will serve letter for sewer and water would be stated in terms of total number of building lots that can be connected
to the city system until such time that Well No. 22 is pumping into our facility. The developer, I don’t know whether I mentioned it before but the developer’s intent in all this is
to be under construction, get under construction for these other, at least the other two phases, two and three before, get them constructed before winter. That’s their request. I don’t
know that I have any other comments to make. I don’t know, approval of the Final Plats in anyway obligates us to provide service and I discussed this with Bill with their submittal
of an agreement that they would not request any Building Permits beyond those that were allowed in the first phase at Bear Creek. I believe that Bill felt that it did nor obligate us
with a singed agreement from the developer. I believe they could still sell the lots but there just wouldn’t be any Building Permits issued for the lots. Maybe even the lot sales would
be restricted to eliminate any confusion between someone that would purchase a lot expecting to be able to get a Building Permit and then not being able to. It would probably be best
to restrict the sale of the lots too.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Bill?
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council. This situation will be unique in that the well is already dug. As a result of the pump test, the final tweaking of the drawings and specifications
with regard to the pump facilities and the pump house itself. They now have the data or the information necessary to complete that so the public works department can go out for bid.
The design on the pump house is slightly different than what you’ve used in other places because the generator is housed inside the building as opposed to outside. You just couldn’t
use a cookie cutter type plan for a pump house that you already have. So, if the Council approves these final plats, as I understand it the water issue is the only issue that stands
in the way of approval of these Final Plats on two and three with a restriction from the developer with regard to those 130 as the limit until Well 22 is in line, I don’t see any liability
problem for the city. Typically when the Final Plat is approved, you anticipate that you’re going to have the water and sewer there immediately and then you can begin selling all the
lots but restrictions on the number of sale of lots you’ve done in preliminary plats before, it just would be. It’s acceptable to the developer to do this because they just want to
get stuff done this construction season. Gary, what’s your anticipated date for having the well on line?
G. Smith: I think we should be somewhere around the end of December to have it finished. Pump and pump house.
Nichols: Its doubtful that there would be 130 Building Permits pulled in the first three phases between now and the end of the year anyway. So, I don’t see where we have a problem
assuming that we get a non-build to limited build letter signed by the appropriate representative.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Do we wait and get that signed limited build letter before we pass Final Plats because the Final Plats would be contingent upon that? Do we want to hold off our action until
that letter is signed?
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor, members of Council. My recommendation would be that if you so choose to approve the Final Plats you do so contingent upon receiving the agreement
form the developer to the effect that there would be no more than 130 Building Permits allowed until Well 22 is on line.
Corrie: Anything else Gary?
G. Smith: No sir.
Corrie: Okay, any discussion? Then I will call for a motion on the Final Plat with caviots with it.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for Final Plat of 36 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.66 acres for Bear Creek Subdivision upon receipt of an agreement on the limited
build of 130 lots until completion of Well 22 and for the attorney to draw up the findings.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would second that but I believe, do you mean lots or Building Permits?
De Weerd: Building Permits, sorry.
Bird: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion?
G. Smith: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Gary.
G. Smith: If I may have a clarification that would be 130 Building Permits for phases 1, 2, or Bear Creek Subdivision not just -- I mean Bear Creek No. 2 doesn’t have 130 lots in it
but –
Bird: It would be for all four of them.
Corrie: There are four of them right? There are four --
De Weerd: Four phases.
Bird: Subdivisions.
Corrie: Four subdivisions.
G. Smith: There are four phases correct.
Corrie: Four phases okay.
De Weerd: Yes, it wouldn’t be just for the 36 lots. That wouldn’t make sense.
G. Smith: Yes, I understand that. I just didn’t know if there were some semantics there that needed to apply to the whole subdivision.
De Weerd: No, to apply to this number, the previous and anything that follows this.
G. Smith: Thank you.
Corrie: All right. 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
Item 7. Tabled from August 8, 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. 7 request for Final Plat approval of 43 building lots and 5 other lots for the R-4 bear Creek Subdivision No. 3 by Briggs Engineering.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: If there’s no comments form staff, I’ll go ahead and make the motion.
G. Smith: No comment. Same comments as previous.
De Weerd: I would move that we approve the request for Final Plat approval of 43 building lots and 5 other lots on 15.87 acres for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 3 with the same contingency
noted on the Final Plat approval for No. 2 and for the attorney to draw up the appropriate paperwork.
Corrie: Bear Creek No. 3, you mean?
De Weerd: The same contingencies that we had on 2.
Corrie: Okay, I’m sorry.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. 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
Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from July 3, 2001: RZ-00-005 Request for Rezone of 10.04 acres from R-8 to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing by Stubblefield Development – southeast
corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road:
Corrie: Item No. 8 is a Continued Public Hearing from July 3, 2001. This was a rezone of Linder Crossing by Stubblefield Development. We have a letter asking that to be withdrawn
by Mr. John Stubblefield, the owner of the land. In that case I will entertain a motion to approve the withdrawal of Item No. 8.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: As per the request of the applicant I would move that we remove from the agenda the request for rezone of 10.04 acres, or 10.04 acres from R-8 to C-N for proposed Linder Crossing
by Stubblefield Development.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to remove the Item No. 8 Linder Crossing by Stubblefield Development. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of that motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from August 8, 2001: CUP 01-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing coffee hut with drive-thru in a proposed C-G zone for proposed
Moxie Java by TJBJ, Inc. – 1975 East Fairview:
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from August 8, 2001: VAR 01-008 Request for a variance for the reduction of two required parking spaces for Moxie Java by TJBJ, Inc. – 1975 East Fairview:
Corrie: Item No. 9 and 10 is a Continued Public Hearing from August the 8th. One is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a freestanding coffee hut with a drive in a proposed
C-G zone for proposed Moxie Java and also a request for a variance for the reduction of 2 required parking spaces for Moxie Java. At this time I will continue the Public Hearing on
Items No. 8 and 9. Or excuse me, 9 and 10, I’m sorry. Staff, Shari, do you want to bring up a little bit on what’s going on?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This was continued due to the fact that the applicant was not able to attend the previous meeting. The adjacent property owner did testify and I believe
they are here again tonight. This initially came through as a request for a drive thru Moxie Java in front of the Econo Lube. As part of the original discussion there was to be a Cross
Access Easement so that the cars coming in on Fairview could go through the drive thru and exit out through the adjacent property. The adjacent property owner is opposed to that. So,
the applicant came in with a revised proposal that would have the cars coming in off Fairview, going through the driveway and then proposing to go around the back of the Econo Lube and
on out to Fairview. Do you have any other questions about this site? Thanks.
Corrie: Is Mr. Mason here this evening? Mr. Mason, this is a Continued Public Hearing so we’ll hear your testimony tonight.
Mason What do you want to know? Or what are you --
Bird: Your name and address please?
Mason: Todd Mason and I reside at 1566 Shenandoah in Boise 83712. I don’t believe this is the best possible you know scenario but I believe the other alternative is a lot better.
I also believe that its, you know the guy that owns Elm Street Plaza, I think he’s doing it more for his tenant than he is for reality because its going to hurt him as much as it is
anything else by actually closing that access up. You know I don’t think it’s a good idea to close that access up regardless. I mean there had to have been some reason why that access
was recommended originally and now he’s wanting to close it up. You know basically I think more as a power play than anything else. You know I think it’s a good additive to have the
drive-thru. Unfortunately coffee plantation is in the Elm Tree Plaza. There had been a Juice and Java in there. Now the coffee plantation is trying to make it over there. I do believe
that the access that I have done that will go around, I believe that will work. There again, like I said, I’ll be completely honest I don’t think it is the best you know that there
is. The best is the way that it was originally approved through City Council. Then the guy waits until the last hour you know to come in and decide that he doesn’t like it instead
of going through you know the right process at the City Council and the Planning and Zoning. That’s basically all I’ve got to say.
Corrie: Okay, questions?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Mason, that back, back there is not even paved as I recall.
Mason: Yes, it’s paved.
Bird: There’s some dirt back there. Its not paved all the way out there.
Mason: The dirt is back behind the proposed area. The proposed area that I’ve done is all paved.
Bird: The pavement’s all the way to the back of Schuck’s?
Mason: I’m not going to guarantee it but I’m –
Bird: I don’t think so. I don’t think it is.
Mason: There’s an access back behind there that isn’t paved, I believe. I could be wrong on that.
Bird: Let me ask you another question Mr. Mason. I have the advantage of driving by that place at least two times a day and sometimes three or four. Between the southeast corner on
the jog out of the Econo Lube where they come, where they drive through north and south and while we’re into that landscape, I would question if you’ve got enough room to get two cars
through there side by side. That is awful narrow. I like the idea of having a Java thing out there but with that thing getting blocked off, I don’t know how we’re going to get the
cars out and I don’t think that and I’m like you I don’t think that is even a practical way. In the first place, nobody’s going to go up and around there. They’re going to go in the
parking lot and turn around and come back out and have congestion. I don’t see people pulling in there and driving all the way around that especially when there’s dirt they’re driving
in back there.
Mason: What if we, I mean this is just, I’m just throwing scenarios out there. That landscaping, I mean I realize that was recommended at the time you know there again the opening,
the access, the east access was recommended at one time also too. Is it possible to cut because you’re absolutely right? That two car. You can fit two cars in there but I mean it’s
going to be plenty tight. Is it possible at this level that we could reduce that –
Bird: Landscaping?
Mason: -- that landscaping top make more room because I’ll be honest that’s what needs to be done.
Bird: I can’t tell you but maybe Mrs. Stiles can.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. Which landscaping is this?
Bird: The one up there Shari. Right there on the east boundary, right there.
Stiles: This?
Bird: There’s no room between those two.
Mason: That’s plenty tight. If you eliminated that or cut that landscaping back it would give you more room.
Bird: I agree with you.
Mason: I’m not here to lie to anybody. I mean that’s what needs to be done.
Stiles: I don’t know that, that was a specific requirement of the development. If there’s trees in there they’d need to be relocated somewhere on the site.
Mason: I don’t think so.
Bird: I don’t think there’s a tree in there Shari. I’m not sure. I can’t remember but I don’t think there’s a tree in there.
Mason: I don’t see a problem if there’s a tree in there to –
Stiles: I would think it’s more to protect those parking spaces there.
Bird: Yes, I think you’re right there.
Mason: Those employee parking spaces.
Bird: That’s what they call it.
Mason: Right.
Bird: I have a feeling if they’ve got customers cars there the customer’s parking out there too.
Mason: Well, yes.
Bird: I’ve really got concern on going around there because you’ve got cars in the lower part where the wing starts that drive in and back out and of course the front wing, they go
north and south. They come through and they drive through. I don’t know whether they go in from the north or from the south but -- I realize that freestanding things, business is probably
going to be the busiest between 7 and 9.
Mason: 10.
Bird: 7 and 10?
Mason: 7 and 10, about.
Bird: Econo Lube probably don’t open until what 8?
Mason: 8, yes.
Bird: Schuck’s don’t open until –
Mason: They’re business is after 12:00 and 70 percent of our business is done before 10:00 in the morning. That conflict works very well together. I mean, in an ideal world the east
entrance wouldn’t be shut down. Unfortunately they’re saying that they’re going to shut it down.
Bird: It is still open now.
Mason: It is still open yes. If I remember the letter, the letter said it was going to be closed down a couple three months ago. They were going to close that access down (inaudible).
Bird: But it is not --
Mason: No, it is not.
Bird: You’re true.
Mason: I think it’s going to hurt their business as much as it is anybody’s business by closing that access down.
Bird: I’ve seen people come from their parking lot –
Mason: Right.
Bird: --up through this one and out that way.
Mason: Right.
Bird: So, I think its used by both developments.
Mason: Right, it is. Like I said, originally that was recommended on the development but for some reason and I don’t remember. The letter had told them it had to be for a cross easement
or something. I don’t know all the technical but it was never signed off on for one reason or another.
Bird: I have no more questions Mayor.
Corrie: Any other questions? I think once you take that landscaping out, you’re going to have cars parked in there and you’re going to have the same kind of problem you’ve got now.
Cars are going to still park there.
Mason: Right.
Corrie: You’re just going to cut that even more so.
Mason: Most of the customers are going to park up front though in those four or five. They normally don’t ever have any more than four or five customers. Like I said most of those
back ones are for employees. If it was employees, they never have more than three employees on, or I don’t believe they do. They can park in those back three. So, if you eliminate
that landscaping that would really open that up. I mean like I said, on an ideal world that’s not the most ideal situation. I’ll be you know honest with you.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Mason: Anything else?
Corrie: Not unless you have something else.
Mason: No.
Corrie: Okay, thank you. Since this is a Continued Public Hearing, is there anyone else in the public who’d like to testify at this point?
Bevins: My name is Tom Bevins. I live at 4202 West Marcliffe Avenue in Boise. I’m the owner of Elm Tree Plaza which is the property just to the east of the Econo Lube.
De Weerd: The (inaudible).
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bivens: Okay. Should I go ahead? Or wait for that?
Stiles: I just wanted to put up an aerial of that Tom.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: You can go ahead. We know where your property is.
Bivens: Okay. Thank you. First of all I’d like to just respond to a few of the points the applicant made. On the Cross Access Agreement itself, he’s right there was a power trip
there but it wasn’t us. We tried to get the owners of the property that Econo Lube sits on to write up a Cross Access Agreement. We tried for six months. We called them on the phone
in Texas. We wrote them letters. We even asked Econo Lube’s lawyer to write the agreement that he likes. He wrote one and they still refused it. He’s right that Cross Access Agreement
benefits us as well as them. If you’ll notice in my letter and in the support letter that is in the back of my letter, I was telling him that exact same thing. Look this Cross Access
Agreement benefits us and you. As a matter of fact I think it benefits Econo Lube more than us. That’s just my opinion. If you talk to the manager, he agrees with that. We put up
a barricade. They took it down so obviously they wanted the Cross Access Agreement. It’s the people in Texas that didn’t want to do it. That’s the problem not us. As far as waiting
until the last minute, I didn’t get notification of the meeting which could have been my fault or the mails fault, who knows. As soon as I heard about it we started making waves and
voicing our concern. It wasn’t that we tried to do it at the last minute or anything like that. Its just we were concerned. As soon as I heard
about it we wrote the letter. I think that answers the question to the Cross Access Agreement. I can sure give the applicant the six letters that we wrote begging them to grant the
cross access. I think that’s kind of a dead issue now. As far as the new idea of bringing them around the building I think as the Mayor mentioned that they will park along that spot
there if they take the landscaping out. I think he’s correct. Why I think he’s correct is we’ve been taking pictures of how they’re doing it now and you can see on pictures A and b
here if we could submit this. I don’t know if we can submit it now or not. You can see in picture A and B, they’re actually parking right here. You can see in this picture they’re
actually parking right there. So, I’ve got three pictures and you’ve got one yourself where they’re using this spot here for customers that are waiting for these bays, they’re parking
here. If the coffee place is here and they have to make a turn. Okay, this is restricted now because of this lane of cars here which I have on A, B, and C. You can see two different
times they park cars there on also photograph C. Also on photograph C, you’ll note when they come in the back here, when they have a person in the bay, they come here and they park
their van like this. That’s on picture C. You can see there’s no way to get through there. If that as his honor was saying that if they took out this landscaping they would just park
there but that would also restrict that? Then you have the second bottleneck which is back here. That’s the first bottleneck. The second bottleneck is right here. That’s picture
D. I think if you could see that if you had two way traffic there it would be very difficult for someone to get around there. At the last meeting, Director, Mrs. Stiles mentioned that
she thought that if they saw this jamming up here, they would try to make a u turn and go out. I think she’s correct. I think she made a valid point that you know its human nature
to try to get back and on your way as soon as you can. So if they see this being used here as you see in my photographs and also in this photograph that they’re using this area here
that’s restrictive that’s going to turn them back. If they do get back here, if there’s a van here like there is in picture C that could turn them back. The farther you get back, the
more difficult it is to turn around. I’d have to agree with Mrs. Stiles point on that. Either they’ll try to make a u turn here or they’ll try to make a u turn here. That’s the reason
why we think it’s the second idea of blocking the access and bringing it around Econo Lube is not a good idea. Any questions?
Corrie: Any questions?
Bivens: Also, you know that, you mentioned already that it’s really prevalent between 7 and 10. That’s when they’re trying to get their first cars in there so they’re trying to load
all six bays the first thing in the morning 8:00. Throughout the day its intermittent but in the very first 8:00 that’s when they’re trying to load up all six bays if they have the
customers. That causes, at the exact time that the coffee shop is the busiest, they’re also going to be the busiest. Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else who’d like to issue testimony? If nobody else is -- you’ll get the last crack at it. Anybody else? Okay, developer this is the time to answer any
questions that have come up.
Mason: I didn’t see the pictures but really the pictures aren’t relevant because its going to -- if you cut off the landscaping and if Econo Lube knows that there’s going to be traffic
there you cant hardly rely on the pictures to tell you what’s happening now versus what’s going to be happening if there is a store there or if there’s something there. It’s still going
to reflect it but they’re -- if they’re parking cars or they’re having cars parked, they’re not going to park them in the way versus, now the pictures showing that they’re parked in
the way. I mean, it’s relevant but on the other hand it’s irrelevant on the pictures because you’re changing the direction. You’re changing the scenarios. You’re changing everything.
So, you can’t rely on the pictures. I mean, if you’re going to rely on those pictures then you have to rely on putting the store in there and then going back in and taking pictures
of what’s really happening at that particular time. As far as loading the bays from 8 to 10, if they don’t have customers they’re open at 8 and our busyness is over at 10:00. Sure,
they’re wanting to load the customers from 8 to 10 but if they don’t have the customers to fill the bays how can you realistically -- that’s a non-realistic thing to say their customers
are going to be in the way if they don’t have customers. If they don’t get busy until noon, that’s irrelevant also. That’s a non-realistic term. Anything else?
Corrie: No. You can look at the pictures if you’d like.
Mason: Its really irrelevant to me because like I said if you’re going to change the direction, you’re going to add something it doesn’t do any good to look at pictures because its
going to be a different scenario if there’s a coffee store there and if they know that they’re going to be in the way, they’re going to park the cars in a different formation so that
they’re not in the way.
Corrie: I just want to make sure you –
Mason: Right. Yes, I mean its just really irrelevant for me to look at them because its --
Corrie: Okay.
Mason: Is that it?
Corrie: Questions?
Bird: Yes, I’ve got one. Mr. Mason, I don’t know if you’re the owner of the property or what.
Mason: No, I’m not the owner.
Bird: What is the guarantee that the owner of the property is going to allow that landscaping to come out? I mean, has he stated to you that (inaudible).
Mason: (Inaudible) Rick Thomas is the owner of the property. Darren Larson is the owner of Econo Lube so its two different people. I know them both personally. There again, I mean
I would completely understand if you wrote something in the -- however you do it that if that landscaping wasn’t removed that we couldn’t put that store in there. I mean that would
be completely understandable because there again I truly believe that that is not going to work without that landscaping removed. There again, we didn’t want to remove anything until
we got to this point. Yes, I truly believe Keith that we shouldn’t do anything unless that landscaping is removed. That probably should be written in the approval process or whatever
it is.
Bird: I don’t understand why that easement through that because as you said and I drive it quite a bit. The other development probably uses that much more than Econo Lube or Schuck’s
customers do. In fact it saves probably a lot of bottlenecks in there.
Mason: Right. That parking lot is kind of congested anyway.
Bird: Well, when you’ve got retail outlets you’d hope its congested but I see them use it and I don’t quite understand why that easement cant be taken care between the owners of the
property and the two owners and go along with this. I really have a fear Mr. Mason that unless that east thing is left open there, we’re going to have little fender benders all the
time out there. You know, I know you’re between 7 and 10. You have a lot of cars coming in there.
Mason: Right.
Bird: People are going to do, they’re going to try to turn around and get out of there just as fast as they can. If it means u turning there in front of somebody else you know that
they don’t see. In the wintertime you know, when you open up its dark.
Mason: Right.
Bird: I wish some way the two owners of the properties could sit down and get that easement kept open because (inaudible).
Mason: (Inaudible).
Bird: --definitely benefit for both developments and its something that I don’t think the City Council would approve either one of the developments without that kind of an easement
or we shouldn’t have. Under the existing plan without that
east side easement I just -- I like your business and I hate to see any business not be able to go in and give it a shot. I just don’t see how you’re going to get traffic in there even
taking that landscaping out. I’ve got some concerns. I really do. My biggest concern is the people backing out of the bays and hitting somebody that’s coming around or coming out
through. I’d love to see them go in there but I just wish that some way the two owners of those two developments could get together and leave that east one open. I think it would solve
everybody’s problem.
Mason: I agree.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Mr. Mason, I was just wondering, do you own the Moxie Java across the street?
Mason: At Fred Meyer’s, yes.
Anderson: You have another application coming for a drive up window?
Mason: We didn’t know where we were at. We’ve tried that application. I’ve tried every avenue there is to get a drive thru with that location in the last 5 years. So, we’ve tried
everything and anything. We have tried that application before and that hasn’t gone through. Rob Haggett the property management thinks that this time he can get us through. Who knows?
I mean I thought this one was approved once. Then you go through the facts and findings and now we’re into this process.
Anderson: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you.
Mason: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay with that, Council any discussion or any questions (inaudible). Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Anderson: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing on Item 9 and 10. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: The Public Hearing is now closed. Council, discussion or requests.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird, excuse me Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess just a point of discussion I mean when we first say this project and with the cross access going through the Elm Tree Plaza I was in favor of this. Then when I found
out later on when we were informed that that cross access was going to be closed and the gentleman who owns Elm Tree Plaza is correct. He has shown documentation to us that would indicate
that that wasn’t by Elm Tree Plaza’s choosing that that was from Schuck’s that that is coming. I’m like Keith I have real reservations. I think without that Cross Access Agreement
it completely changes the perplexity of this particular issue for me. Try as we may and we try to make accommodations, winding your way back around that building and through the parking
lot with the parked cars and the tight spaces. People aren’t going to do it. They’re going to try to just make a u turn right there or back out of there as best they can. At this
point I don’t think the drive thru is a good idea in this particular location. I would not be in favor of it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Council, I would throw this out. Is there any chance that we could defer this for a month and let the owner of, or the Moxie Java applicant through his owner of the property
put some pressure on and get that easement deal worked out between the two owners because of the fact that that easement, my way of thinking helps Elm Hurst a lot better than the other
one and I’m sure they don’t want to see it closed any worse than anybody else does because it helps both of them. I would throw that out and see if it’s possible that the owner can
maybe even though Schuck’s is a leaser. I don’t know how far the owner would want to go.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I wouldn’t be opposed to it. I have the same concerns that Ron did originally with that access that it was feasible to do but its no longer feasible. But you know this might
be something that can work for both parties to open up that
line of communication again and get that access solidified. I wouldn’t be opposed to deferring it.
Bird: Cherie?
Corrie: Any other comments?
McCandless: I wouldn’t be opposed to it if they could work that out.
De Weerd: Then we would just vote then.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. bird.
Bird: I’m like Councilman Anderson. I was for it and I’m for it as long as that easement is left open. But I just think that it’s an accident waiting to happen if we don’t have that.
There’s no way that I could vote for it without keeping that easement open.
De Weerd: Okay.
Corrie: Do you want to enter a motion for the (inaudible).
De Weerd: The Public Hearing has been closed.
Bird: We don’t need to open another Public Hearing.
Corrie: No.
Bird: All we can do is make a motion to defer this to see if the owners of the properties can work out the easement, leaving the opening and giving it time. If they cant then we can
take final action on it.
Corrie: Or you can take final action based upon the condition that they in a certain period of time they don’t get together it’s a done deal. They’re going to have to come back --
Anderson: I think that would probably be the best avenue because actually we’re taking additional testimony to find out if they got that Cross Access Agreement. I think the best deal
would be to go ahead and make a motion to approve it providing that a Cross Access Agreement is reached. Then if that is never reached, then the whole thing becomes null and void.
Bird: Go for it.
Corrie: One question I had for the attorney. Do we have to have a date certain? Or can we do it ?
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council. I think the problem if you leave it open and you don’t have a definitive date you just have this CUP hanging out there. At some point 5 years
from now it gets done, it would be the kinder cut I guess to put some timeline on when it would have to be done.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: Sure. I’ll take a stab at it I guess. I would make a motion that we approve the Conditional Use Permit for a freestanding coffee hut with a drive-thru in a proposed C-G
zone for the proposed Moxie Java by TJBJ Incorporated providing that a Cross Access Agreement is reached between the owners of the property of Elm Tree Plaza and Schuck’s is reached
within six months, that we would approve this request.
Bird: Attorney to draw up the --
Anderson: And to have the City Attorney draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and decision of order --
Bird: Second.
Anderson: -- subject to staff comments.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: I heard a second so, Mr. Nichols you can –
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council. I would ask further that you could that there’s no Building or Occupancy Permit issued until that’s in place. In other words they way, you
want to make sure that its clear that they cant do anything at all to put it in place until the Cross Access Easement is there and if its going to be there it must be there in six months.
Anderson: Thank you. Mr. Mayor I would add the stipulation that no Building Permits be issued until that Cross Access Agreement was signed and in place.
Bird: I second would the same thing.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve with the conditions as stated a 6-month limit and no Building Permits issued until that time. 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
***End Of Side Two***
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. I would suggest you take it off your plate by having a motion on this variance subject to completion of the conditions of the Conditional Use
Permit.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Who wants to (inaudible)? Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I’ll just continue right on since I’m on a roll here. I would make the motion that we approve this request for a variance for the reduction of 2 required parking spaces for
Moxie Java by TJBJ incorporated providing that all conditions are met for the CUP under Item 9 for the request for Moxie Java.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second that we approve the request for variance as long as the conditions are met on the CUP in Item No. 9. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all
those in favor of that motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: In that case, you have six months in which to make it up. If you don’t, don’t start anything over there. Thank you.
Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 01-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 building lots and 2 other lots on 11.57 acres in R-4 and C-N zones for proposed Cherry Crossing by Albertson’s
Inc. – northwest corner of North Linder Road and West Cherry Lane:
Corrie: Item No. 11 is a Public Hearing request for Preliminary Plat of 8 building lots and 2 other lots on 11.7 acres in R-4 and C-N zones for proposed Cherry Crossing by Albertson
Incorporated northwest corner of Linder Road and West Cherry Lane. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and invite staff’s comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the property on the northwest corner of Linder and Cherry. The site was previously rezoned and a Conditional Use Permit obtained for the
Smith’s Food King that never materialized. The applicant is now proposing to put a Sav-On Drug Store, a drive-thru fast food building, fuel kiosks and an office retail building on the
site as well as completing the residential portions that are adjacent to the existing residential. It’s a little hard to
see this. This would finish out another phase of what is known I believe now as Castle Falls. Its official name is Valerie Place Subdivision. It’s gone from Valerie Place to Linder
Falls and I believe is now Castle Falls. They would as part of this plat build an additional row of lots, residential lots adjacent to the existing residential. They would also build
out this property here as residential and put this cul-de-sac in. The recommendations received from the Planning and Zoning Commission I would like to maybe clarify one of those conditions.
It’s on Page 4 for the plat. It’s talking about the landscape buffers. There would be a 35-foot landscape buffer required on Cherry Lane. That was a requirement of the rezone application
and it is an entryway corridor and our Landscape Ordinance requires that. It’s referring, that comment is referring to parcels that don’t really exist, parcel numbers and it’s confusing.
If we could reword that to show the required landscape easements on Cherry Lane and Linder Road and adjacent to the existing residential that should be included on the plat. Then the
landscape ordinance does require the common lot adjacent to the residential on both Linder and Cherry. I think we’re clear on what that is. Its just the way its worded its going to
be impossible to figure out what that says later when its actually platted. The applicant’s representative has done a great deal of work with the neighborhood and they have worked very
closely with staff to come up with the final proposal that they will present tonight. I guess if anything what might have been an issue was that they’re proposing that this be another
phase of the Castle Falls Subdivision or Valerie Place Subdivision and that they would be bound by the same covenants and restrictions and also that this entire subdivision here would
gain ownership of the common lots they are proposing in addition to their existing park here another one here. They would landscape this little median. It’s kind of a traffic calming
feature to choke down the traffic lane so it’s not such a cut through there. Then they would also have the common lot out on Linder and on Cherry. I guess the only complaint that
I’ve heard is that they don’t want to pay to maintain those areas. I don’t know what the agreement was as to actually building those areas or landscaping those areas and the applicant
representative can speak to that tonight. I’m not sure what kind of agreement had been made. This would be the Sav-On store here and of course the fuel islands, drive-thru and the
office retail building. Elevations of the Sav-On building. This is the elevation of the office retail building. The fast food elevations. I don’t know if they’ve stated what that
is. I don’t know if they have anything in mind. With that, I believe they will be coming in with a sign program for the entire site and in accordance with our Sign Ordinance. With
the exception of that change to clarify the landscaping, we would recommend that it be approved with all staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Any questions for staff at this point?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I just had one question. I’m not sure whether it’s for Shari or for Bill. These common areas and trying to make this part of the Castle Falls Subdivision or whatever
it is, can we legally do that? Can you make a subdivision enlarge itself or inherit additional property and additional common ground that those homeowners would then be responsible
for maintaining?
Stiles: Councilman Anderson, Mr. Mayor and Council. I believe what they were doing when they came up with this is trying to meet the conditions of the rezone. These were requirements
of the rezone that Smith’s Food King had agreed to. I guess the only alternative would be that this would be an entirely separate plat for this residential subdivision which would make
them wholly responsible for the maintenance of quite a bit of common area given the number of lots. But, the applicant’s representative can discuss what their agreements were with the
subdivision. There’s not a way to get out of the requirement on Cherry Land and Linder. I mean that’s the Landscape Ordinance. I’m pretty sure that the rezone requirement was for
these too but if the Council wants to approve otherwise, I don’t know. But there’s not a way to get around that but I guess Mr. Nichols can address whether we legally can do it or
not.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. Shari when the rezone was done was that done in connection with the Castle Falls Subdivision or was it separate?
Stiles: They were associated just because they were showing this as a new phase of the existing subdivision. The main reason it was proposed as a new phase is because the residents
of that subdivision wanted to make sure that they met the same minimum house size requirements and fell under their architectural control committee I guess. But the Castle Falls Subdivision
was not a part of this rezone. It was a separate out parcel.
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council. I don’t think that as a condition we can force a subdivision to take on additional maintenance but the applicant’s representative needs to be
prepared to address how these common areas would be maintained and if the -- for example you know are these parcels within the commercial development, are they going to be sold? Is
it like a planned unit development where there’s one owner that leases out to the tenants and that that could be part of their base rent in terms of their operating expense? How are
the common areas going to be maintained because that’s a legitimate question you can ask?
Corrie: Okay we will now hear from the developer.
Schafer: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Sara Schafer. I am here on behalf of Albertson’s. I am currently employed at CSHQA Architects at 250 South Fifth Street in
Boise. We have seen the staff reports including the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and we do have a couple of concerns about the ACHD recommendations. The items that are in the draft report from Planning and Zoning have been
taken from ACHD’s draft report versus the findings by the ACHD Commissioners. We do accept final findings from the ACHD Commissioners dated June 13, 2001. We have seen those and agree
with those for both the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit. A brief history of the site. In 1996 Smith’s purchased the land and went through and had a Preliminary Plat
and CUP rezoned for a 60,000 square foot store. In 97, 98 Fred Meyer’s bought out Smith’s and the store was never built. In late 98, Intermountain Development Group bought the site
and went through many renditions of the site. They tried several different kinds of housing throughout the site. At that point, Albertson’s came in, in late 98 and has requested that
we place a Sav-On drug store as well as a fuel center on the site and propose office retail, a fast food restaurant and the additional housing parcels. We are requesting the Conditional
Use Permit for the pharmacy drive thru as well as the fuel pumps. The application has been changed to a planned development CUP as of last month, I believe. Last month or two months
ago we did that. At this time I guess I’ll take any questions or comments that you would like for us to address, concerns that you may have.
Corrie: I guess one comes to mind. What are you going to do about the common areas?
Slocomb: Good evening Mayor, members of Council. Graig Slocomb with CSHQA. Unfortunately Albertson’s Real Estate Representative couldn’t be here this evening. I think I can address
the intention of the development at this point. Albertson’s certainly is not in the business of developing residential and their intention is to sell that residentially zoned property
to a residential developer. So that all of -- that residential land would be developed in accordance with Castle Falls CC&Rs and that any common area would then fall under their jurisdiction.
The rest of the shopping center would be more typical to any other shopping center. There would be common area maintenance for the commercially zoned property that would be shared
amongst the three parcels. We did meet with the neighborhood group on multiple occasions and had, and I think the reason -- I don’t know if any of them are here this evening, but none
of them showed up at P&Z because I think we spent about a year, year and a half working through something that worked for them as well as for the applicant. When we got through our
initial application to planning staff we had laid out the subdivision per what was approved in the plan for Smith’s Development. As we got comments from staff we learned that we were
going to need to create those two parcels, separate parcels. One on Cherry. One on Linder that were landscape buffers and would have to fall under common area maintenance for the residential.
In doing that we had to squeeze some of the lots down. We kept the same number of lots and as that was discussed with the neighborhood even in some of our preliminary discussions,
they’ve indicated that their association dues are such that they were concerned even about the additional park area that we were
required to dedicate in a residential area. The applicant is certainly willing to do what pleases, I guess the neighbors or what pleases the Council. What we’ve done is at this point,
prepared a plan that I think meets all of the planning staff’s concerns but could certainly lay an additional burden on the existing neighborhood but that’s what the ordinance requires
and that’s what we’re prepared to provide.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: What do you feel about the suggestion that its been placed on the commercial aspect of it? As opposed to the residential?
Slocomb: I think it’s difficult from the standpoint that it is zoned residential. It’s not a part of that commercially zoned shopping center. Unfortunately like I say Albertson’s
real estate representative isn’t here. I only know that they were willing to meet the requirements of the city and if for some reason that didn’t meet the desires of the Council that
we certainly had a plan in previously that did not have those lots, those separate landscape lots and the owner was -- Albertson’s was more than willing to do that if the neighborhood
group or Council felt that laid an additional burden on the neighborhood. One of the concerns I think the neighborhood group had is that their existing subdivision on Cherry doesn’t
have that huge landscape separation. The Landscape Ordinance as we all know came into place not all that long ago. Their concern is that they don’t have to deal with it on the phases
that exist there now and why should they have to deal with it on the future phases. They can tell you that. I can just tell you that that’s what we heard as we talked to them.
Corrie: But you have to work with what we have now. You understand that and I’m sure they will.
Slocomb: And they do. Obviously we all, most of us probably live in neighborhoods these days that do have associations and its always an issue how much our fees are going to be. They
are obviously, not to speak too much for them, I’m not sure any of them are here. I wish they were because, they’re excited to get something accomplished here. They’ve lived next to
an empty field for quite some time.
De Weerd: This is a nice plan.
Corrie: I think it is too. You just have some things that have got to get ironed out though between the neighbors and the developer.
Slocomb: I don’t think there are any neighbors here tonight to disagree with that the plan before you isn’t fine.
Corrie: Who’s going to take that responsibility on though? Albertson’s doesn’t want to take it, I assume from what you’re saying on the -- the homeowners may not want to take on the
added expense of having the common ground, keeping it up.
Slocomb: I don’t know –
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I may ask some questions of Mr. Slocomb. Mr. Slocomb as I understand, there would be landscaping all along Cherry Lane and Linder except for the openings in
the streets, correct?
Slocomb: That’s correct.
Nichols: There would also be a landscape buffer on the commercial side of the property would be on the west side of the commercial which would be, doesn’t it have to be at least 10
feet?
Slocomb: Its 25 feet.
Nichols: So that there is a considerable landscaped area that would be part in your testimony, the considerable landscaped area that the commercial owner, slash tenants would be responsible
to take care of, to mow, fertilize, mulch and the rest of it. So, the only part that you’re disputing for the commercial tenants is the portion down in the very western portion of the
property where along Cherry Lane. That large landscape buffer there, 35 feet, the 2 small park lots and the traffic calming device and then that little piece up on Linder. Is that
correct? Those are the only ones that you would, under your proposal Castle Falls Homeowner’s Association has to take care of?
Slocomb: That’s correct.
Nichols: Would Albertson’s be opposed to if you will a special condition that’s placed on all the residential lots as well as the commercial tenants that would group them all together
for all of this common space or landscape area maintenance?
Slocomb: I guess I would throw in an alternative having had discussions with the neighbors. The two park pieces, or the one piece that’s within the subdivision itself and adjacent
to their existing pocket park and the one to the north of that across the new cul-de-sac street have always been a part of our plan and we didn’t hear any negative I guess response to
the fact that those were there and they’ve always been there. They’re a requirement that we provide a certain percentage of open space within the subdivision. What came later were
the two pieces separate parcels, one on Cherry Lane and one on Linder Road. That’s where I think the neighbors expressed some concern. If I’m not mistaken I think
that’s maybe what Shari was discussing rather than the two park pieces. In answer to your question I guess I think Albertson’s would entertain having the shopping center maintain those
two parcels since they are contiguous with the frontage along Cherry and Linder. If that was legally acceptable, I think Albertson’s would be acceptable to that alternative as well.
Nichols: So, Mr. Slocomb, then what you’re saying is that you would want Castle Falls to take care of those two small park lots and the traffic calming device and the, well you think
that it would be acceptable to Albertson’s then to take up the arterial landscape adjacent to those residential lots?
Slocomb: You know its -- that’s what I’m saying, yes. It’s the one parcel on Linder seems to make more sense than maybe the parcel on Cherry in as much as there is some common area
to the west of that that they are responsible for maintaining currently. It could either be considered a continuation of the commercial piece or a continuation of the residential piece.
Since it abuts residential it seems to make more sense but you’re correct. I believe Albertson’s would be acceptable to maintaining both those parcels in conjunction with the rest
of the commercial shopping center.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: Of course we don’t know that for a fact, do we?
Slocomb: Well, I represent them this evening. If you were to make a condition of the approval and vote to approve it, they would either have to accept it or not build this project
I guess. So, I am here representing them.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols that may take care of that but what about those two parks?
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council. That’s a great issue and I -- of course I’m not a testify, I’m just posing questions and not necessarily that they’re answerable. But it would
seem to me since those residential lots are not yet built that if somebody choose to buy a lot or a contractor choose to buy and put up a house on one of those lots, if those particular
-- there are a variety of ways it might be able to be done. Perhaps Castle Falls would be willing to take those lots into their Homeowner’s Association if as a special assessment if
you will, on those particular ones tied to some extra landscaping over and above what everybody else has, you know some formula thing. But, Castle Falls Homeowner’s Association is a
pry and they would have to agree to whatever that was. You could put a condition on the development that there be an agreement with Castle Falls over who maintains those open space
areas. I mean, it’s not
cheap to maintain those common space areas but there’s a whole bunch more grass inside that commercial development than we’re talking about in those two little parks or along Linder
or Cherry Lane adjacent to the residential area. I don’t know how they charge those things. Maybe by the square foot as far as their maintenance goes, commercial landscape maintenance
berms. Those two parks, particularly the one on the west it would seem to be that’s up above the little park place and right there, where the pointer is now, if that’s already adjacent
to an existing pocket park then that’s going to be used by the Castle Falls folks and it would be reasonable for the whole of the development to take that on. It would seem, but I’m
not testifying just posing questions.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I imagine if you leave it that the residential has to maintain the open space that whoever buys it out is either going to work a deal with Castle Falls or have to have their
own structure to pay for the maintenance of that. One way or another it’s going to get done.
Corrie: Is there anyone who would like to issue testimony on the request for rezone? Excuse me, Preliminary Plat? I should have opened it for both of them but I guess we can still
take the other one on. Okay. You can keep talking if you’d like. We haven’t closed it yet.
Slocomb: That’s what I asked, if it was closed. I guess in responding to Mr. Nichols --
De Weerd: Questions.
Slocomb: -- questions or comments and maybe Councilwoman de Weerd’s comments, that’s I guess that’s my assumption is that Albertson’s intends to purchase this entire parcel, the residential
and commercial and sell off the residential piece to someone to develop. In developing that, they’re going to have to work as we have with the existing neighborhood and although I’ve
offered up that Albertson’s would be willing to accept maintenance of those 2 parcels, one on Linder one on Cherry, if we follow more normal residential subdivision I think it would
seem clearest just to allow that to be developed and maintained as is required by city ordinance. I mean it will be maintained.
Corrie: You’re talking about the three separate pieces?
Slocomb: There are 4 lots, one on Cherry, one on Linder and 2 lots within the subdivision center. One that’s adjacent to their existing park and one across the
street and is part of the residential subdivision. It’s a requirement of the residential subdivision that should be tied to the residential subdivision. Castle Falls, they all expected
this to happen. They’ve expected these lots to be there for 10 years. It’s not any surprise to them. That’s why they’re not here. The plan works. They like it. They don’t have
any complaints. We’re creating concern over I think somewhere we don’t necessarily need to create it. That’s all I have.
Corrie: Okay, Council, any other questions at this point?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Then if you wish we can close the Public Hearing on Item No. 11.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move we close the Public Hearing.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay, motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on request for Preliminary Plat. Item PP 01-010. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay, any other discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the Preliminary Plat.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for Preliminary Plat of 18 building lots and 2 other lots on 11.57 acres in R-4 and C-N zones for the proposed Cherry Crossing by Albertson’s
to include all staff comments, to also note the change on page 4 Item 9 on the landscape buffers to correct the wording there, also to further detail landscaping, or maintenance of landscaping
responsibilities to that the commercial subdivision be responsible for the landscaping maintenance along the arterials of Linder and Cherry Lane and that the interior open area lots,
the two park sites and the landscape circle would be maintained by the residential part of the subdivision.
Bird: West of the commercial?
De Weerd: Yes, along the west and north side of the commercial areas. No, the two park lots and the landscape circle would be residential. Commercial would take the arterial and of
course their internal landscaping and to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: I second that.
Corrie: Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: There was also an issue about using the final ACHD report.
De Weerd: Yes and to note the change to include the final recommendation dated June 13th of ACHD that would be included. It looks like I really screwed up this motion.
Corrie: It’s a long one. I think you got it.
De Weerd: There’s a little more staff comment over there.
Corrie: (Inaudible).
Stiles: I just wanted to make it clear. Albertson’s will also be responsible for installing the landscaping?
De Weerd: Yes.
Stiles: On Linder?
De Weerd: Installing and maintenance.
Stiles: Okay.
Bird: Not on the interior?
Stiles: No, just –
De Weerd: No, the ones that they’re maintaining along the arterials. I mean how would they maintain it if they aren’t going to install it?
Stiles: But if the motion is just to maintain, they’ll maintain the weeds that are there.
De Weerd: Oh, sorry. Install and maintain. I guess I just see this as one big thing.
Corrie: Then I have a second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Second by Cherie. Any further discussion on the motion. I am not going to repeat it. I hope we have it on tape, (inaudible). Mr. Berg, if you will do roll call vote on the
motion please.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 01-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for single-family and drug store with drive-thru, fuel pumps, office/retail and fast food in R-4 and proposed
C-N zones for proposed Cherry Crossing by Albertson’s Inc. – northwest corner of North Linder Road and West Cherry Lane:
Corrie: Item No. 12 is the Public Hearing for a request for Conditional Use Permit for a single-family and drug store with drive thru fuel pumps, office rental and fast food for and
R-4 to proposed C-N zone for proposed Cherry Crossing and Albertson’s. At this time I’ll open the Public Hearing. Staff, any further comments from the ones you have on record?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. Note just to incorporate my previous comments please.
Corrie: Let the record show they’re being incorporated on Item No. 11. Any comments on the request for the Conditional Use Permit?
Schafer: Again, on the Conditional Use Permit -- my name is Sara Schafer with CSHQA representing Albertson’s. Again on the Conditional Use Permit we also agree with ACHD’s final Commission
recommendation and not the draft report which is also in the CUP findings.
Corrie: Okay. Anyone else want to testify? Hearing none, Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Then I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing for the Conditional Use Permit for single family and drug store with drive thru, fuel pumps, office retail and fast food
in R-4 and proposed C-N zones for the proposed Cherry Crossing by Albertson’s Incorporated.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item No. 12, CUP 01-016. Any further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Can I throw in a fuel price cut on -- Mr. Mayor.
Anderson: They’ll raise the price if they see you come in there.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a single family and drug store with drive thru, fuel pumps, office, retail and fast food in an R-4 and
proposed C-N zones for Cherry Lane Crossing by Albertson’s, to incorporate all staff comments, to note that ACHD’s requirements should reflect the ACHD final report dated June 13, to
also note the landscaping issues covered in the previous motion and to include anything else I didn’t include, ask the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit with all staff comments, all comments and conditions and have the attorney draw up the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law. 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
Item 13. FP 01-014 Request for Final Plat approval of 20 building lots and 22 other lots on 10.32 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 4 by Briggs Engineering – east
of South Stoddard Road and north of West Victory Road:
Corrie: Item No. 13 is a request for Final Plat approval of 20 lots and 22 other lots on 10.32 acres in an R-4 zone by Bear Creek Subdivision No. 4 by Briggs Engineering. Council,
I believe we had that discussion on 6 and 7 –
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Any other comments?
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion on the request for Final Plat.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for Final Plat of approval of 20 building lots and 22 other lots on 10.32 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 4, to include comments
and conditions as stated under Final Plat No. 2 in regards to the receipt of agreement on the limited build of 130 Building Permits on completion of Well 22, to ask the attorney to draw
up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded the motion to approve the Final Plat with the conditions as stated in the motion and have the attorney draw up the proper papers. 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
Item 14. TE 01-007 Request for a Time Extension for one-year for the Final Plat originally approved on August 1, 2000 for Olsen Bush II by R2 Development, Inc. – north of Franklin Road
and west of Eagle Road:
Corrie: Item No. 14 request for a Time Extension for one year for the Final Plat originally approved on August 1, 2000 by Olsen Bush II by R2 Development Inc. north of Franklin Road
and west of Eagle Road. Staff, comments on the request.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. They have requested a one-year extension to August 1, 2002 to record the Final Plat.
Corrie: Do you have any problem with that? Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we would approve the request for a Time Extension for one year to August 1, 2002 for the Final Plat for Olsen Bush II by R2 Development Incorporated north of
Franklin Road and west of Eagle Road.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to request the time extension on item TE –01-007. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. AP 01-00 Request to Appeal a stop work order for Walt Morrow by Walt Morrow – 2340 West Franklin Road:
Corrie: Item No. 15. Do you want to have a break before Walt gets started or do you want to --
Bird: I’d like a –
De Weerd: Yes, he’ll probably be long.
Bird: I’d like a potty break.
Corrie: Okay, we will take a – be back at 9:00. You’re on stage Walt at 9:00. I will have a break for 10 minutes.
Reconvened At 9:06 P.M.
Corrie: Item No. 15 is a request to appeal a stop work order for Walt Morrow by Walt Morrow 2340 West Franklin Road. Mr. Morrow, you’re up.
Morrow: I’m too young to be a mister.
De Weerd: But we’re not going to debate that.
Morrow: Good, I’m glad. I’m Walt Morrow, 2340 West Franklin Road in Meridian. I’m here tonight to appeal a stop work order that was issued on a project that we have at my residence,
my place. Some background, I purchased that property in 1977. It’s been under the same continuous ownership and
continuous dual uses since that point and time. The property was annexed into the City of Meridian in 1981 on behalf of myself and Ron Van Auker who put together what is commonly known
as Linder Industrial Subdivision. It consisted of, at that point and time some 11 or 12 properties and you can see it there on the map. This building serves the continuing uses that
I’ve been using that property for, for the last 24 years. There is no development or subdivision of this 17 and a half-acre site. It is a continuous site. From the items that were
talked about in terms of the stop work order, I will cover each of those. One of the items was a design review process which was a condition of the annexation and zoning. That is true
it was a condition of the annexation and zoning subject to the City of Meridian having a design review process. There is not now nor has there ever been a design review process in the
City of Meridian. Point was raised about sewer and water. Sewer and water lines are three eights of a mile east of this particular property. At that point, sewer runs out of grade,
there is no capability of sewering this property with gravity system. The City Ordinances typically use to say that if you are outside of 300 feet of sewer and water, you were not required
to hook onto sewer and water. Ada County Highway District the point was raised about right-of-way dedication and impact fees. Ada County Highway District through a letter has informed
me that there is no additional right-of-way required at this point in time because there is no development plan. There is no impact fee required because it is not a development or a
development process going on here. It’s a simple building that serves myself and my uses, both agricultural and construction. Point was raised about landscaping. Once again it’s not
a development. It’s not a subdivision process. It’s an original 17 and a half-acre lot. There’s 16 acre of green grass so, facetiously, how much landscaping do you want in terms of
green space. It does have cows on the green grass. It serves a dual purpose. There was a question raised about the setback of the building –
***End Of Side Three***
Morrow: -- 73 feet. In terms of history, there have been four other Building Permits at this site over the course of the years. We followed exactly the same procedure in our application
for this Building Permit as we have for the other four Building Permits. The permit was picked up on October 27, 1999. It had been approved by the city permit process. It went through
the same process as the other four to repeat myself. There was no starting of this project until approximately August 1, 2000. If the City or the City staff had a problem with the
permit process or the permit, it seems to me like in that intervening 10 months, the points should have been raised by the city or the city staff and not after construction and commitment
of approximately 100,000 dollars had been committed to on my part. I think that from that perspective. We’ve clearly established that there’s more than ample precedent. It is a continuous
ownership. There is not any subdivision process going on here or development process. It is a building that simply serves my continuing needs. Thirty percent
of the building doesn’t have a concrete floor. I would entertain any kind of questions that any of you may have.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Walt, I guess give me a little bit of history. Tell me what happened. You said that you and Mr. Van Auker had requested this to be annexed into the city under the Linder
Industrial Sub. What happened with that and why didn’t that ever get developed, I guess?
Morrow: It was annexed into the subdivision. There were 11 to 12 property owners. There has been some development over the years if you look at the buildings along Linder Road. There
are two for lease commercial buildings. One was on the 5-acre site that originally belonged to the Peterson Motor Family. It currently houses a drilling, industrial company the drills
and does testing of soils, testing and that kind of thing. The parcel next to that was also a 5-acre site. It has a building for lease that has Hotsy Cleaning in it. It’s currently
apparently for sale. The other parcels were not developed at this point in time. The latest development was the interstate battery building. That’s also the end of the area where
you can gravity sewer and water. That’s where the grade stops so the rest of the dirt form there to Ten Mile is not sewerable until the trunk line is built down Ten Mile Creek or until
some sort of temporary lift station would be built at probably the Railroad tracks and Ten Mile. The last place on the north side of Franklin is not in Linder Industrial Park. The
Linder Industrial Park ends at the Jerry Bowers’ west property line. Each of those owners has retained ownership of their properties with the exception of the Yonkee people sold their
two parcels. Obviously the Petersons and the Nettleton’s sold their parcels.
Anderson: How were you guys going to originally sewer that area? I mean typically, I mean when you bring something in you run the sewer and water to and through the property. How
were you guys going to do that?
Morrow: At that point and time, the conditions that it was annexed and zoned under there was no requirement to do any of that. The requirement was that it was a loosely constructed
industrial park and as each individual parcel was developed, that parcel would then be responsible for its own sewer and water as it became available. Quite candidly, the reason that
its taken probably 20 some years to do that, to develop out is because there is no sewer available in terms of those parcels that are now –
Anderson: Without a lift station?
Morrow: Without some sort of major lift station and inner basin transfer. So, the original annexation and zoning envisioned as each parcel was subdivided and
developed, that parcel would be responsible for its own sewer and water which was consistent with the city statutes at the time.
Anderson: I know that the gentleman with Maple Grove RV, same type of scenario out there. That piece of property being annexed into the city without the sewer and water services being
available, I mean it’s caused us a considerable amount of headache. I guess my suggestion with him is why do you want to be in the City? You’d be better off to be de-annexed. I guess
I’ve got to ask you the same question. Is there an advantage for you to be in the city?
Morrow: I can vote from the standpoint of this process, no because in Ada County, none of this would even be an issue. In Ada County, in all probability, given the use of the building
it’s questionable that you would even have to permit the building through the agricultural process. The building would just get built.
Anderson: And your use of the building is going to be for what?
Morrow: The use of the building continues to serve it will serve as storage for my construction business. In a small portion of it, it will serve as storage for my agricultural stuff.
The portion with the dirt floor system will serve as a wintertime calving area because we calve in January and February as opposed to the outdoor calving that we currently do in that
manner. At some point in time, the building is configured and constructed with the materials and the style that it can be converted as the property is developed and subdivided and be
compatible with the covenants and the restrictions that I would put in place at that point in time so that it survives for all the other buildings that are there with the exception of
the house don’t survive a development, subdivision process.
Anderson: Have you met with the Fire Department to show them plans on the building and discuss the use of it and discuss water supply for fire protection for it?
Morrow: I met with nobody. This went through the Building Permit process. We were given a permit. I stood ready to discuss anything that I needed to with anybody but that was never
part of the Building Permit process. We received a Building Permit. We paid for it. It was the same type of process as the other four Building Permits at that site that we’ve had
over the years. There’s nothing unusual about it. The building was of the size that it didn’t require any type of sprinkler system. It did require two divider walls that separated
the areas for area separation. In terms of the construction there was never any conversation with the Building Department requiring or talking about water flows or anything else.
Anderson: Were plans submitted to the Building Department?
Morrow: They certainly were. We have stamped and approved plans.
Corrie: Walt, did you have any conversations with Matt over (inaudible)?
Morrow: No, the only conversations we have in terms are technical conversations about he has a water disposal problems. He uses my ditches to dispose of his ground water. We have
conversations at the racetrack and how business and stuff is but we have no other conversations. I mean we had a neighbor conversation that’s about it.
Corrie: I guess one of my questions is how you got a letter from ACHD stating that you didn’t have this requirement for that area and he did. He got required by ACHD to give so much
land away. Explain how that would work. I’m kind of confused, I mean he’s required it by ACHD and you’re not.
Morrow: I can’t answer in terms of him. I simply went to ACHD when this stop work order came and I started dealing with that and I asked them about impact fees and I asked them about
right-of-way and the answer was that we don’t need either because its not a development. It’s not a subdivision. Its being treated as an existing lot which it is of 17 and a half acres
and that they have no monies apparently for purchase of right-of-way at this point in time or no plans within the 5 year plan of expansion of Franklin Road west of Linder and so its
not a priority issue with them. What Matt’s deal was, I’ve never read any of Matt’s material, have no clue as to what his issues or problems were.
Corrie: Shari, can you shed some light on that? I mean you were in the middle of that with ACHD and it came down as a requirement for him and landscaping and everything else. How
does this differ from what Walt has?
Stiles: The Maple Grove RV came through as a Conditional Use Permit because it was a requirement in that zone. I don’t know what the conversations Walt had with ACHD were. They treat
Certificates of Zoning Compliance as a permitting process and they do comment on all Certificates of Zoning Compliance. This project was never submitted to Planning and Zoning for that
Certificate of Zoning Compliance. It was submitted directly to the Building Department and we were not aware of it until the foundation was put in. I think it was initiated by Mr.
Dugan as far as a comment about how he was allowed to get a Building Permit and he wasn’t and that’s when we went and looked at the plans. The plans that were submitted show this as
a, its hard to see on here but they’re showing equipment storage in part of the area. This is shown as a livestock maternity area. That alone would make it an expansion of the non-conforming
use in an I-L zone which would require going through the Conditional Use Permit process. You can see that the building is, this would be what you’d see from Franklin Road. You can
see the elevations of the building. The actual site plan that was submitted with the Building Permit showed this as a barn and shop which would not be permitted in the I-L zone.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Kenny did we ever see any plans if the plans were submitted to the Building Department? Did the Fire Department review any?
Bowers: Mayor Corrie, City Council members, and Councilman Anderson. I don’t know at all, Ron. I don’t have any idea if Skip had looked through anything, if Skip had seen anything,
made any comments on it. I don’t know Ron, I’m sorry.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Well, if he got a stamped set of prints back, it should have the stamp if the Fire Department looked at it. In the Building Permit process, I believe they do look at it whether
they stamp it or not. How many sets did you have to send in Walt?
Morrow: Two.
Bird: Two sets.
Corrie: Were they all stamped?
Bird: Did any of them come back stamped?
Morrow: Mine came back stamped. Stamped approved.
Bird: By who?
Morrow: By the Building Department.
Bird: By the Building Department?
Morrow: Which was who Daunt, or who stamps them?
Corrie: But it didn’t go to the Fire Department?
Morrow: I would have no way of knowing that.
Corrie: Well if it wasn’t stamped by them I would assume that they didn’t get it then. They stamp it.
Morrow: Daunt runs all those things by Skip. I don’t know that we’ve had permits before at this site that were stamped by the Fire Department. I don’t know if that’s part of Meridian’s
procedure on these types of projects. I can’t answer that.
Corrie: Skip was pretty adamant about the fire protection over there. I’m sure he would have -- of course we don’t have Skip here any more. I guess we can check with and see if the
stamp is on there. If it’s not on there, evidently he didn’t see it.
Morrow: I think the appropriate thing would be to talk to Daunt about that. That would be the person to talk to.
Corrie: Yes, that might be but still its got to have all the proper stamps on it. Am I understanding that it’s got to go through building and also through Planning and Zoning?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: And it only went through building and not Planning and Zoning?
Stiles: Yes, the Building Permit tracking showed it as an addition.
Corrie: Okay.
Anderson: It sounds like we need to ask some of these questions of Daunt.
Corrie: Yes, I do too because I don’t know how -- Skip was pretty adamant about water. That was one of the things he got up there and made the comment about them and Matt got a little
bit irritated when he didn’t have to have water and Skip said he did.
Morrow: Once again, I don’t know about Matt’s issue but Matt’s building is approximately the same six of this building and the building has been there for 10 or 12 years. Obviously
none of those things were a requirement at the time the building was built because it too went through the permit process. It was built by Andy Law of G2B Concrete.
Anderson: But I think he changed the use when Matt bought it versus G2B.
Morrow: I have no clue. I can’t answer that I don’t know.
Bird: I think the use on that was being changed on his new deal. What he was doing previously was okay. He wasn’t doing anymore welding and cutting than GNB was doing in there, if
as much but then he wanted to take on the full service
or sales. He wanted to sell too. He wanted to have a sales lot out there. At that point he changed the scope of his business.
Anderson: But it changes considerably if you’re doing auto repair, cutting and welding on cement truck versus doing repair work on campers that are made out of wood and all those things.
Bird: I don’t disagree with that.
Anderson: The codes completely different. I think that what Skip’s issue was probably what the concrete company was doing was fine but when Matt moved in there it wasn’t.
Morrow: And again, the concrete company was very similar to my operation from the standpoint that it’s self contained. It doesn’t have customers coming in and out of it. Those are
radically different operations.
Anderson: It may very well be that what you’re proposing with the storage and with the construction that you may fall within the requirements that you don’t need sprinklers or you don’t
need certain things but without ever reviewing those plans we don’t know because we don’t have the opportunity to compare the plans against what the code says. Somewhere through the
cracks there, either Daunt didn’t pass them to the fire department and P&Z or something evidently has gotten mixed up in the reprocess because it doesn’t sound like the fire department
or P&Z ever looked at those plans.
Morrow: I can’t answer that. I don’t know. We submitted them. We were called when they were ready to be picked up. I picked them up. Ten months later we started. That’s all I
can tell you.
Corrie: Walt, what was Daunt’s reason for red tagging it?
Morrow: Daunt’s reason for red-tagging it was, as I understand it, was he was told by P&Z to red-tag it. There was no Building Code violation. They had already made two inspections
in terms of the footing and the foundation. From the structural standpoint there were no building code violations what so ever.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Morrow, if I could ask you just a couple of questions. Besides this building that you want to put up and the house, what other buildings are out there now?
Morrow: There’s a hay storage building. There’s a loafing shed. There’s an outhouse, a former milking parlor. There is a shop and office.
Nichols: How big is the shop and office that’s out there?
Morrow: Probably 2,300 square feet.
Nichols: How much of that is shop and how much is office or is it just one?
Morrow: I would say, shop is 1800, 1900 square feet across that way. The office is 3 to 400 square feet.
Nichols: This new building that you started is that to replace the existing shop that you have?
Morrow: No.
Nichols: So, this would be an additional shop and –
Morrow: Well, we have several vehicles that we need to store. We have stuff that’s outside that’s aging due to the weather. It’s designed to store that. It’s designed to store from
time to time we furnish houses. Its designed to store some of that furniture as it moves in and out of model houses. It’s designed to store steel from steel buildings that carry over
steel that would weather and rust if it were left outside. So, that’s the function that this building serves. It’s not a function to do woodworking and fabrication and that kind of
thing in there at all. That stuff will continue in this shop that we have.
Nichols: So, the expansion of the use then is for storage of additional items, is that what you’re saying?
Morrow: It’s for storage of existing items that are currently in the weather and for items that we currently lease storage space for at the Merchant’s Moving and Storage. It’s not
an expansion in terms of the calving area it’s not an expansion of the use. It’s a matter of taking them inside and out of the wind, the rain, and the snow as opposed to having them
outside where they are now.
Nichols: But the items that you have stored off site at Merchant’s Transfer and Storage that would be items that you want to bring onto your property to store there?
Morrow: That’s correct, for ease of access to move in and out. Everything else is stored on the site as we speak.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I don’t understand our process. Its almost similar to some of the situations we had on Broadway when someone wants to add something or if the house were too burned
down they couldn’t replace it with a house because its now industrial. What’s conforming and what’s non-conforming and when you put in a new building, is that when we require everyone
to bring everything else up to code? You know, is this different than those situations? Or is it one and the same?
Morrow: I think the answer to your question the short answer is that every situation is different because there are different perimeters and different usages and there’s a thousand
pages worth of codebooks that address uses and requirements for each use. There is no simple answer to your question that one is like another. The best answer is, is that everyone
is different. As opposed to for example a residential subdivision where it’s basically there’s not a lot I mean there’s difference in style and size but there’s no difference in uses
and requirements. So, it’s very difficult to compare any two properties that are outside of residential because they can all have substantially different requirements. That doesn’t
help you very much but that’s what reality is.
De Weerd: It certainly doesn’t. Then, why is this so different from Maple Grove RV when he came in to expand his business to accommodate the growth of his business and he had to assume
all the, bring everything up to code at that time?
Morrow: Once again, I can’t really answer that because I’m not familiar with his deal. What I’ve heard here tonight was that he was required to have a Conditional Use Permit because
he was going into sales which apparently is outside of the industrial zoning.
De Weerd: Non-conforming.
Morrow: It could be. I’ve got to tell you that from my time on the Council and this conditional use thing has been grossly overused. At our point and time we considered doing away
with the Conditional Use Permit process. The only reason that we kept it was it old town Meridian defied zoning because each use and each parcel was different. There was also a strong
feeling about educational facilities for minor children in industrial and commercial zones. The last item was for bars and that type of thing that might be in a residential or partially
residential area. Other than that our thoughts at the time were that if you’re going to have zoning then you write the Zoning Statutes that are all inclusive and you don’t spend a lot
of time doing conditional uses for each little thing. Apparently in Matt’s case, his desire to have sales, and I have no idea what the quantity or the size of the sales lot was. I
know that he’s required to have a license to have sales more than 5 a year as any of us would be and that the city or the entity where the sales yard is located has to sign off on that.
That’s all I know about his
issue. It’s totally different than what my issue is so I can’t help you any more with his deal.
De Weerd: Then I guess my question would be when it was rezoned to the industrial use and you maintained the agricultural use, it sounds like that’s allowed until a change is made.
I don’t understand how the additional buildings that you did didn’t change that and now this is a much larger size building. Is that why its now different than when you got the other
permits?
Morrow: No, it’s exactly the same –
De Weerd: Because agriculture –
Morrow: It’s exactly the same thing. What you have to understand is, by Tax Statute, we’re still taxed as continuing agricultural even though we’re zoned industrial because it’s a
continuing use.
De Weerd: Operation.
Morrow: It’s a continuing operation. The grandfather rights survive the zoning. It has a dual use until development and subdivision takes place. Once a lot such as the ones I talked
about up on Linder, even though they’re 5-acre lots and the two buildings that are there don’t consume all the 5 acres, there was a subdivision process that was done. So, that took
away any agricultural capability and made them industrial solely and are taxed as such.
De Weerd: So, this is just continuing your dual use?
Morrow: That’s correct.
De Weerd: It doesn’t change that at all?
Morrow: That’s correct.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of Council if I can ask a question of Shari.
Corrie: Yes you may excuse me.
Nichols: Shari, in the industrial or the I-L zone, is there provision for accessory buildings like this or what – how ?
Stiles: We do have a -- in the ordinance it does speak to accessory buildings. However this would not comply with that provision of the ordinance.
Nichols: Because --
Stiles: It’s not in a rear yard. If it’s not in a rear yard it’s suppose to be connected with the principal building to which it is accessory. Obviously this building at 8,750 square
feet far exceeds any other building on the lot. It would also fall into the category of more than one principle building on a lot which also puts it into the Conditional Use category.
Accessory buildings also cant be more than 15 feet high. They can’t occupy the front yard setback. Usually the accessory buildings would like a shed or maybe a garage but this would
not fall into the accessory building provisions of the ordinance.
Anderson: Shari, did you say that the Building Permit that was issued was based off of this being an addition?
Stiles: That’s what the permit tracking shows it as being. I don’t have a copy of the actual application. The sheet that was submitted with the application but it is listed as an
addition.
Anderson: Because I mean, clearly its not. I mean it’s a freestanding building all out by itself. I guess I’m just concerned at how the Building Permit got issued in the first place
and without it going through all the proper channels and whether somebody marked the wrong box on the application or somebody put it in the wrong pile or whatever. I don’t know. But
I mean it seems to me like this thing needs to go back and get reviewed by all the principle parties and then we can have a better understanding of what things does it conform with and
what things doesn’t it conform with. At this point, we don’t even have a thorough review.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I agree that that is how it should normally be but I’m also a firm believer is once decisions are made that you live with the decision. You can’t keep changing things to
death. It seems like there’s something flawed in our process but you know at whose expense here? You know, construction ahs already started on this building. It’s kind of too far
into this to be changing an approval that was made. You know, yes, it was done wrong and we need to look at the process here but I’m also one that once your approvals are done, quite
going back and changing things. Just live with the decision that was made and move on. Hopefully, you’re not going to be a donkey and do it again.
Corrie: I don’t agree with that at all. If you made a mistake, you’d better correct it then because he could have a building going up that could be 500,000 dollars and at the final
okay, he’s left out there hanging the bag. I think that if it was done wrong, then we need to correct it and make sure its done right. He’s got a perfect to go ahead and do what he’s
supposed to be doing. But if we fouled up,
why have a mistake continue to be a mistake and hanging him out to dry? I think we made a mistake in the Building Permit in the first place and they say it and they stopped it. If
I’m not mistaken this was stopped in October. Is that right, Walt?
Morrow: The end of September. I was out of town when it was stopped.
Corrie: Okay this has been almost a year?
Morrow: Correct.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Anderson: Go ahead Keith.
Bird: The only thing is that yes, it was stopped, along Tammy’s line is I don’t believe it was stopped because of faulty building or anything else. Most work stoppage is because of
that. This is something that’s going on to expand and help I guess expand another business or the existing business plus for his cattle, having the calving things. Its not as if he’s
starting a new business out there. I don’t understand the zoning. In the first place I don’t understand the control that we want under Conditional Use Permits, which everybody knows
how I feel about those things. I think that, and I’m going to pull some plans that went through Meridian and see if the fire stamp is on it. I don’t believe there is a fire stamp on
them. I absolutely don’t believe there’s a fire stamp on them. I think they look at them and might sign off on the same stamp that’s on the building stamp. City of Boise certainly
doesn’t. They’re just a stamp that says its been approved by all departments and signed off. Whether it went to that or not, we wait, they pick up the permit in 99?
Morrow: That’s right, October –
Bird: 99, what?
Morrow: October 27th.
Bird: Of 99?
Morrow: That’s correct.
Bird: And we stop it in October or the end of September of 2000?
Morrow: We didn’t start construction until August 1st.
Bird: Okay.
Morrow: There was a 10 month period of time that if quote unquote this was wrong, that the city should have said something that it was wrong.
Anderson: But the Building Department doesn’t automatically send something to the Fire Department and the P&Z that says we issued a Building Permit for such and such item. I agree
with what you guys are saying. I mean I think something happened here in the process that’s not right. But I have a real concern especially when it comes to the life safety issues
and when we talk about water supply for an 8,000 square foot building. If these plans have not been reviewed by the fire department and I’ve told Walt and Keith both this. I mean I
have situations that have happened in my jurisdiction the building burns down and if somebody’s killed or injured, they’re coming back on the Fire Chief because you didn’t enforce the
codes. We never even had a chance to look at the blueprints in the Fire Department and give approval and make recommendations whether it needs water supplies or additional firewalls
or whatever it is. So, its not just we screwed up, oh we can let it go because that hazard is still out there. That responsibility still lays with the Fire Chief for as long as that
building is sitting out there. Until those life safety issues are taken care of, they’re still there. They don’t just go away because we made a mistake. I think we also know that
with the history, I mean Walt use to be on the Council. He’s a builder. He’s worked with Daunt a lot. Forever whatever reason Daunt didn’t feel like he needed to run it through those
other channels or whatever. I think we need to find out in that process and it needs to go through the proper channels. I would think Walt being a responsible builder wanting to do
the right thing would have no problem with it going through those proper channels and taking care of the things that need to be taken care of.
Morrow: I guess my response to that would be is that the firebreaks that are in the, there were two walls spaced in there by the Building Department to be divider walls. Now, whether
that came from the Building Department’s interpretation of the codes or whether it came from the Fire Department I cant tell you. I submitted the plans like we submit every set of plans
and in this particular piece of property like we’ve submitted the prior four sets of plans, got the plans back. I’m to assume that everything is fine and we press ahead and start construction.
Anderson: (Inaudible) you wouldn’t have that impression. It appears to me like it didn’t go through all the channels –
Morrow: I can’t tell you that. I don’t know.
Anderson: -- as is becoming obvious to everybody that it didn’t.
Morrow: I can’t answer that. All I can tell you is that part of the requirement was to put in the 2-divider walls which we agreed to put in.
Anderson: There are several things that are both in the building code and in the fire code and there are certain things that the Fire Department is going to look at to make sure that
you have.
Morrow: That’s correct.
Anderson: Water supply is obviously one of those that you don’t have. Now there are different routes that they can go with you to make it more feasible for you but it still needs to
be considered in this building.
Morrow: I can’t answer that. I wasn’t -- again we got the Building Permit. We made the application. I’m not privy to what went on internally in terms of those conversations.
Bird: Gary, what’s the process if I walk in with two sets of prints? I need a Building Permit. My zone’s okay.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council. I didn’t understand the last part of that Councilman Bird.
Bird: I don’t need to go through Planning and Zoning, if I don’t have to go through Planning and Zoning. I walk in with a set of prints. I want a Building Permit. I’m already in
an okay zone. We’re not talking about this. What is the process?
Smith: The plans are supposed to be sent to Planning and Zoning so we get a Certificate of Zoning Compliance that tells us that its okay to build this, a conforming use to build this
building in that zone.
Bird: Okay, then what’s the process?
Smith: That Certificate of Compliance comes back. I think there are six sets of plans that are required for distribution, review, commercial plans that are submitted with an application.
The next step is our little review committee meets to make sure that the plans are complete and they have necessary information on them to allow the departments to review them. Then
they’re sent out for review to the individual departments.
Anderson: It doesn’t even sound like in this case, I mean if you walked in with two sets of plans that it didn’t even meet the minimum requirement of six sets of plans so how could
they have been distributed out to everybody?
Smith: I don’t know. I don’t think they were. I think that the Building Permit was issued on the basis that it was an addition, an existing use. I don’t know the decision that Daunt
made in issuing the Building Permit but it’s my assumption or
my understanding that it was just based on it was an addition to an existing use in that zone. That was the basis for the issuance of the permit.
Anderson: I guess, I mean, before I can feel good about making a decision on an appeal, I’d like to hear form Daunt on what transpired with the plans.
De Weerd: Who saw it?
Anderson: How was it presented? Was it presented as an addition? Was it presented as a new building? What did he do with that information?
Corrie: Would you have any problem with that Walt? I realize that you want to get it going –
Morrow: I don’t have a problem with that. Obviously Councilman Anderson raises some legitimate points in terms of did Skip see them or didn’t he? I happen to think that he did but
I don’t know that for a fact. I know that the divider walls were spaced to be in there. I think addition is probably the wrong term because clearly it was never submitted as an addition
to any existing building. It was submitted as a freestanding building. I don’t think addition is the right word here. It was always submitted just exactly as you see it to and including
the structural information and the steel information with respect to the steel spec. Everything was there with respect to the plans. It was in 1999. It would have been submitted in,
I’m guessing August, maybe September area of 1999. It was ready to be picked up like I said October 27, 1999. The process today that Gary describes is somewhat different than what
it was in 1999. That’s all I can tell you. I don’t know. I don’t have a problem at all with Daunt telling anybody what the process was or what process he used.
De Weerd: It must be something because ACHD isn’t even requiring anything to happen. But I agree with the life safety issue part and that –
Corrie: I’d still like to pursue that ACHD a little bit -- why they would require it for one and not somebody else. There’s a reason for it –
Bird: One guy was putting traffic on the road. He was wanting to because he was opening up a retail shop which was putting traffic on the road. This is not putting any more traffic
on the road, Walt. Whether he builds this or don’t, he isn’t going to have any more people drive into his driveway one-way or the other.
Corrie: I understand that but why would ACHD require for the (inaudible) of the road from one and not for another?
Morrow: Their interpretation is one is a development process and the other one isn’t. There’s clearly no development going on here. Perhaps a Conditional Use Permit is determined
by them to be a development process?
Corrie: Could be.
Bird: When you figure out how they (inaudible) lets us know would you?
Morrow: It’s the same thing as when you and I were on the Council and they determined that underneath the creamery was the sidewalk for the street. So, they would have to tear off
the awning that we thought was unsafe. I can’t tell you what their thought process is. On this proposal they treated it as a non development proposal and that they’re not buying right-of-way
except apparently in eminent construction coming down buying right-of-way on Franklin Road east of East First out towards Locust Grove because that’s a project that’s a scheduled project
coming down the pipe.
Corrie: With due respect to ACHD they weren’t going to buy that either.
Anderson: If we could and I’d like to try to find out if, what the process he used or what information he was given or how he presented this. I still think regardless how it went down,
if the Fire Department hasn’t looked at them they need to look at the plans and make their comments.
De Weerd: Can Kenny find that out?
Anderson: I think he can. You can check and see whether the Fire Department has had the opportunity review these plans? You can all Skip up and ask him if he remembers that. You
can go through files and see if there’s anything.
Bird: They should log it in.
Morrow: Daunt would be the easy answer to that because Daunt would be in charge of spreading the plans.
De Weerd: (Inaudible).
Morrow: He’d be the guy to ask.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: If he hasn’t that needs to –
Anderson: In my opinion yes because we’re not absolved from still having that liability if there’s life safety issues there. Even when the Building Permits granted and even after the
building is built and has been there 10 years that issue doesn’t go away. We’re still responsible for it.
Corrie: Okay. Do you want to let us find out what Daunt has to say?
Morrow: I think that’s appropriate.
Corrie: And get back to you and have you come back another to get the answers to that and make you privy to all those answers as we get them. See where we are and make a decision after
that.
Morrow: That’s fine.
Corrie: When we have all that done.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council because this is an appeal and therefore constitutes a quasi-judicial proceeding, you’re going to get some stuff from Daunt Whitman and I would
suggest that you actually have him come to the Council and present it.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: That’s why I wanted him to be sure that he was here.
Nichols: I just wanted to make sure that Council understood that that’s what it would be rather than –
Bird: He will come and testify.
Nichols: -- somebody sitting down with Daunt or Daunt issuing a memo or whatever it needs to be here where Mr. Morrow can hear what he’s got to say.
Corrie: That was my purpose that he was here and we’re all here at the same time.
Nichols: The other thing that should be included in that is Council ought to receive as part of this appeal, a copy of the Building Department’s file including the Building Permit application
and then anything that’s been issued by the building department so that you’ve got that in front of you.
Corrie: Do we need to set a time for this tonight or can we set that ?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. It’s not a Public Hearing so it doesn’t have to have the hearing noticed but and I don’t know when Daunt Whitman is available but I guess you
could make him available.
Bird: He works for us he can be available.
Corrie: Well, we have a meeting the 28th.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor. This probably constitutes a land use matter therefore it (inaudible).
Bird: The 4th.
Corrie: September the 4th. We can put it on the agenda –
***End Of Side Four***
Nichols: -- schedule perhaps and make sure that this is early in the agenda for him.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: So he doesn’t go to sleep back there?
Corrie: Is the 4th okay with you Walt?
Morrow: The 4th is fine.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: But early on the agenda so he doesn’t go to sleep back there.
Corrie: I’m going to put him to last because I like to hear him run.
Corrie: That’ll give us some time to get (inaudible)
Morrow: Okay.
Corrie: Walt, we’ll have it the 4th. I’ll get it on the agenda. We’ll see what he’s got to say and we’ll get all the facts –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Morrow: Very good.
Corrie: If you have anything else bring it to us.
Morrow: I will. Thank you.
Item 16. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Last on the agenda is the water, sewer and trash delinquency.
De Weerd: Oh, that’s in my box, huh?
Corrie: This is to inform you in writing if you so choose you have the right to a pre-determined hearing at 7:30 P.M. Tuesday, August 21st before the Mayor and City Council to appear
in person to be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by the City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. This service will be discontinued
on August 29th and 31, 2001 unless payment is received in full. (Inaudible) who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer delinquency? Council we have changed that with Keith’s approval
to the 29th and 30th. We had a little computer cliché. I hereby inform you that you may appeal to have this (inaudible) decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial Court pursuant
to Idaho State Code. Even if they appear the water will be shut off. The (inaudible) amount is 43,577.57 dollars. Any other discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’d move that we approve the delinquency shut off for the days of August 29, 2001 and August 31, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the discontinue on the turn off August 29th, 30th, and 31. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: That’s just the turning off. Okay.
Bird: That’s Wednesday and Friday. She just wanted one day and we figured give a day in between. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before we adjourn here, last week when we had, when the school district had come forward. (Inaudible) we said we were going to try to get together with a committee or two.
Have you been --
Corrie: Gary and I have been working with the school district on that. Also I have a lunch appointment with Christine to go over some things with her. We did go over a little bit
on it the next day with the Kiwanis club and she was very concerned with what she heard. Staff and Gary will be going it together with her.
Bird: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Anything else? I’ll entertain a motion to close the –
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded – my goodness. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK