HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 12-18Meridian City Council Meeting December 18, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 P.M. on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Cherie McCandless.
Members Absent: Ron Anderson.
Others Present: Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Brad Watson, Bill Nichols, Mike Worley, William Musser, Sharon Smith, Dean Willis and Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd O Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: We welcome everybody here tonight and wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, in case you don't come back before our next meeting after -- well, I guess you won't,
because this is the last meeting we are having this year. So a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from all of us here. I will open the Meridian City Council regular meeting on Tuesday,
December 18, 2001, and 6:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers and I will ask the City Clerk to give roll call attendance, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Okay. The next item is the adoption of the Agenda. Let me inform the people in the audience that Item Number 17, which is a Public Hearing request for Conditional Use Permit
for an alternative school for Middle School and High School age students in an R-4 zone for the Joint School District No. 2, has been pulled from the agenda. They have pulled the request
for a Conditional Use Permit, so we will not have Item Number 17 tonight. We won't have it. They pulled it off, so -- Council have any other things for the Adoption of the Agenda?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent Agenda, Item Number O, which is the Five Mile Trunk Late-comer Agreement, needs to be pulled and tabled to January 15, 2002, so our attorney can do some looking
over the agreement.
Corrie: Okay. Item O on the Consent Agenda on the Five Mile Trunk Late-comer Agreement will be tabled until the January 15, 2002.
Bird: And Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With the other Council people's permission on 7 we have -- we are not moving anything from the Consent Agenda, but we forgot to get something on there, so if we could put the
appointment of our new Planning and Zoning Commissioners on Item Number 7, I'd appreciate that, if that's agreeable.
Corrie: Okay. Any other Commissioners -- you want that put on Item Number 7?
Bird: Yes. No, on Item Number 7, because we don't have -- unless you want to give us the names. I just thought we'd put it there. We are not moving anything from the Consent Agenda.
Corrie: That would be fine. Okay. Then hearing nothing, I will entertain a motion for the Adoption of the Agenda.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the adoption -- adopt the agenda as --
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made. A second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of November 13, 2001 City Council Regular Workshop:
B. Approve minutes of November 20, 2001 City Council Regular Meeting:
C. Approve minutes of November 27, 2001 City Council Regular Meeting:
D. Approve minutes of December 4, 2001 City Council Regular Meeting:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 01-016 Request for a Variance requiring submittal of a Final Plat within one year of the previous phase in an R-4 zone
for Turtle Creek Subdivision No. 3 by Turtle Creek, LLC – west of North Linder Road and south of West Ustick Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-014 Request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham by Ted Cunningham – 125 Blue
Herron Lane:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed
Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties, LLC – east of North Black Cat Road and south of West Ustick Road:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 01-017 Request for a Variance for Time Extension of one year time frame for Final Plat recording in an R-4 zone for Ashford
Greens Subdivision No. 5 by Brighton Corporation – east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane:
I. Lease Agreement with Meridian Area Senior Citizens Association:
J. Beer, Wine, Liquor License 2002 Renewals:
K. Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 5 Streetlight Agreement:
L. Bear Creek No. 3 Streetlight Agreement:
M. White Drain Trunk Sewer – Edith Cooper Easement:
N. South Slough Sewer – Kennivick, et al, Easement:
O. Five Mile Trunk Latecomer Agreement:
P. Swire Coca-Cola Addition – Waterline Easement:
Q. Hark’s Corner – Water and Sewer Line Easements:
Corrie: Item 3 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda with the one exception of Item O, the Five Mile Late-comers Agreement to be tabled until January 15, 2002, and --
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, except for Item O to be tabled to the January 15, 2002, meeting. Further discussion? Mr. Clerk, roll
call vote, please.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Okay. All ayes, motion is carried.
Item 4. Swearing in Police Officer Audra Urie:
Corrie: Welcome you scouts that just came in just now. Troop 185. Welcome. Okay. Item Number 4 is the swearing in of Police Officer Urie. So if Audra Urie would come down and Chief?
Worley: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Mr. Mayor and Council, our latest addition to the Meridian Police Department Audra Urie comes to us -- she's originally from Twin Falls and
moved to this area. She has a Bachelor's Degree in education from Boise State University and is currently working on her Master's Degree, which she will have this spring. She's taught
for the last 10 years in the Meridian School District, the last seven, I believe, at the Meridian Academy and we are very fortunate to have her join our ranks. Audra, do you have some
people here to wish you well and if you want to introduce them.
Urie: I just have a few friends here and my family and my two daughters, Ashley and Berkley.
Worley: Okay. Mr. Mayor, if I could ask you to administer the oath.
(Audra Urie sworn as a Meridian Police Officer.)
Corrie: Congratulations.
Worley: The Police Officer's badge is a very visible symbol of authority of a Police Officer, but it is also something else, it is the reflection of the duty, honor, and responsibility
that the community bestows upon the officer and we issue the badge to the officer with the admonition to never let that reflection be tarnished. One of the defining moments of a police
officer's career is the moment that their badge is pinned on officially for the first time and we allow the officer to invite whoever they would like to bestow honor on them and you
have asked Detective Mike Lock to do that. So Detective Lock, if you would do the honors.
Worley: Mr. Mayor, Council, citizens of Meridian, I present Meridian Police Officer Audra G. Urie.
Item 5. Meridian Rural Fire Protection District Commissioner Steve Bravo – Presentation:
Corrie: At this time I would like to present Steve Bravo as the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District Commissioner for a presentation. Steve?
Bravo: Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. As an outgoing member of the Rural District Commission I would just like to come before you and publicly thank you for the efforts that
you put into this Fire Department these last four years. It's just been phenomenal what we have done with this department and with the partnership that we had going it's just something
that we can all be very proud of. I wish you guys continued success in this endeavor to build it up even farther. I would also like to thank a couple of ex-Council members that were
here in the beginning, Cliff Bentley and Charlie Roundtree for their help when we first got started in this and last, but not least, Chief Bowers. I would like to thank him for keeping
his sanity for these last four years. We have been all over him and he's done a great job putting up with us. Thanks again. Appreciate it. Ron is not here, but I would like to give
a special thanks to Ron Anderson, because without him I don't know how we would have made this thing pan out. He's just been awesome and I'm sure it's taken a toll on his family life
and he had a lot of friends in this department when he started, but it got -- you know, there was a lot of that in jeopardy, too, and pulled it off and just -- I can't say enough thanks
to him for everything he's done. So with that, we as a Commission would like to thank you or all your efforts and especially sticking with us in the beginning when we were bankrupt.
You guys stood by us and got us through until we got our funding and it's just been a great four years and I think it's something that this Council can truly be proud of. That really
is something you don't see every day. You guys have done a great job. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you for the fine job you and the Commission have done for the rural and city both in working with us. I think we went through some hard times, now we are at some good
times, and you have done a tremendous job, Steve. So, again, thank you very much from myself and the Council.
Bravo: Thank you.
Item 6. Department Reports:
A. Public Work’s Department – Gary Smith / Brad Watson:
1. Sewer Line Cost Reimbursement for Ed Bews:
Corrie: Item No. 6, Department Reports. Public Works Department Gary Smith and Brad Watson.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. The first item we have on the agenda for Department Reports is a reimbursement request to Mr. Ed Bews, developer of Bridgetower Subdivision
for installation for a sewer trunk line. On the screen on the wall over there is a drawing. The Wastewater Treatment Plant shown at the lower left corner is where the installation
of the trunk line started. The line that Brad has the cross hairs on right now is the 36-inch diameter line that was constructed from a point on the northeast side of the Creason Lateral
eastward to Ten Mile Road. This length of line was built by Mr. Bews as part of his development that's called the Ten Mile Mini Storage Project that you're probably all aware of out
there in that area next to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. It was done at the time that he built the Mini Storage Plant -- or Mini Storage Project, so that it would be ahead of his
project or in conjunction with his project and would allow him to do his project and not have the city come back in and disturb what work he has done or had done or was going to do.
The other part of the extension that Mr. Bews did was from that point north on Ten Mile Road to the White Drain sewer, which is right there where the cross hairs are. It's also near
the beginning of what has been termed the White Drain Trunk Sewer. Also included as part of Mr. Bews' project is continuing north from that point with a 27-inch diameter sewer to McMillan
and that's where the cross hairs are right now. The sewer that's been constructed so far is the 36-inch from the Wastewater Treatment Plant to Ten Mile Road, and then north from that
point a 30-inch diameter line to the White Drain. Also as part of the project out there and Mr. Bews' mini storage, the approximate 800 linear feet of 24-inch diameter sewer was also
constructed along the frontage of his project by him from a diversion point that is connected to what is presently under construction and termed the Five Mile Creek Relief Sewer. That
is being constructed by the City now under contract with the Brown Construction. The lengths of 36-inch diameter sewer and the lengths of 30-inch diameter sewer and the 27-inch diameter
sewer will provide service to not only the White Drain, but also to the North Slough, two large significant drainage areas. These projects
were built by Mr. Bews as part of his projects. The 36, as I mentioned, was part of The Ten Mile Mini storage Project, the 30-inch and the 27-inch being built as part of his Bridgetower
project. The 27-inch, actually, will -- I'm not sure that it serves the Bridgetower Project as such, but it is being extended to McMillan Road in order to get out from -- his project
does have frontage along there and so it's being extended to McMillan Road for that reason. The City has previously reimbursed Mr. Bews for approximately 800 linear feet of 24-inch
sewer that was built in front of this project. That was built at the time ahead of his project -- of the Ten Mile Mini Storage Project, so that his project could be constructed and
the operation of his project would not be interrupted at a future time by construction of that sewer line by the City. The City did have that as part of their planned sewer line extension
work. I had previously had some conversations with Mr. Bews concerning these projects and told him that I would support a request to the City Council for reimbursement, as long as we
had some bids submitted by him from his contractors that he was bidding his project through as long as the projects were built in accordance with the City standard specifications. As
long as the City inspected the sewers and found them to be constructed in accordance with our standards. All of that has been done. As I mentioned earlier, the only portion of the
sewer that is not constructed to date is the 27-inch, but McKay Construction is under contract with Mr. Bews to construct that sewer. Copies of the estimates or the bids are attached
to your packet from the three construction companies. There is also an analysis of the bids that the City Engineer Brad Watson has done in comparing the bids of Mr. McKay, McKay Construction,
to work that the City has had done and there is also a comparative table with the other two contractors that submitted bids to Mr. Bews for your review, so can you see the comparisons
of that. As I mentioned, the Public Works Department would support the request for reimbursement. We are trying to get away from the individual Building Permit Late-comer Fees, because
of the accounting nightmare that it's caused us. This would allow us to not have to deal with a Late-comer Agreement for Mr. Bews and managing an agreement such as this, which is going
to serve an extremely large area. We would, of course, assess a trunk line connection fee to any property that does connect to this trunk or that does have service to this trunk and
as I indicated earlier, that would include the White Drain service area, as well as the North Slough service area. There would be a small amount of service area to the west side of
Ten Mile Road that would also access into this line. It doesn't extend very far west of Ten Mile Road, but there would be some. It has been I think to our advantage to have this work
done by private enterprise, in terms of just getting it done. They have been able to move quite quickly with it and got a good contractor on the project. We are getting some quality
work, and I guess I don't have anything else to say and I will answer any questions that you may have.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Gary, has the Trunk Line Fee been predetermined by your office?
Smith: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor and Council, Brad has determined a very preliminary number of something like 30 to 40 dollars per house based on the very large drainage area.
De Weerd: And you have discussed that with the applicant, with Mr. Bews?
Smith: We would assess that against each subdivision. As subdivisions are proposed the subdivisions would pay the Late-comer Fees up front for the entire subdivision that's being platted.
We wouldn't -- as our present policy says, we assess that now on the full size of the subdivision, rather than each individual Building Permit.
De Weerd: Right. And so he's aware of that?
Smith: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I'm certainly not a supporter of Late-comer Fees, so this is a good thing.
Corrie: Any other questions, Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. I will entertain a motion on Mr. Smith's request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Is this agreement with Ed himself or is it Primeland Development? Or Primeland, Incorporated?
Smith: Councilman Bird, Mayor and Council, the bids are all addressed to Primeland Development.
Bird: I'll make it my motion. Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move that the Council approves the reimbursement request of 355,885 dollars to Primeland, Incorporated.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the reimbursement of 355,885 dollars. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed
no. All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. I'll turn the microphone back over to Brad for the presentation on the other two items.
WWTP Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener Project – Agreement for Professional Services:
Watson: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, the second Public Works Department report item is an agreement for professional services for the design of a Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener for
the Wastewater Plant. This is a -- you don't need to know the process, but it's a sludge thickening process. I can go into greater detail if you want, but --
De Weerd: That's all right.
Watson: Yes. That's what I thought. Actually, it's pretty cool. You ought to see it sometime. The existing unit out there, which is original equipment, built in the '78 to '79 time
period, and it is becoming overloaded. It's a manual operation. Both shifts are running it full time, seven days a week, so it's not only to provide some redundancy, but to cut down
on the staff hours running this particular unit. We decided to build a parallel unit and it is partially, at least, included in the fiscal 2002 budget. We issued a request for proposals
on this project. We had five respondents. John Shawcroft, Superintendent, Lynn Grady, our Staff Engineer, and myself went through those proposals and with Gary's concurrence we decided
to solicit an agreement from Keller Engineers, who has completed bio solid watering project last year and into this spring and that was successfully completed. They have provided a
signed agreement to me today. The one in your packet is not signed. The one thing to point out that's not in your packet is that the budget item for this is 500,000. Their preliminary
construction cost estimate is 650 to 800,000, so at some point we are going to need to come back for a budget amendment, as the design gets a little further along. Unless there are
any other questions, I would recommend that Council award the agreement for professional services for the Air Flotation Thickener to Keller Engineers in the lump sum amount of 95,877
dollars.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Brad, is this -- is this for the professional services, plus construction management of the project?
Watson: Councilman Bird, Mayor and Council, we -- originally we solicited an agreement that did include those, but the scope is a little nebulous at this point. We thought, as we
get farther into the design we can nail down the exact structure size and how much inspection needs to be done at that time. They proposed to just provide a ask order number to -- I
guess it involves the bidding service -- well, not bidding services, but the construction management services.
Bird: Okay. So this is just professional design services and stuff like that?
Watson: Councilman Bird, that's correct. This is designed and bidding services only.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: So within those professional services they will include a budget, so you will have a better idea of what the actual cost will be?
Watson: Council Member de Weerd, Mayor and Council. Right. Exhibit A, the last page in the packet, has a detailed breakout of the individual task costs. Task 3, Item 3 is a cost
estimate, which they will provide.
De Weerd: And they'll evaluate the bid to make sure it's within reason?
Watson: Council Member de Weerd --
De Weerd: Is that included in that?
Watson: It is. That's included in services during bidding. Normally on a project of this size, both Public Works and the consultant collaborate to evaluate the bid.
De Weerd: Okay. Thanks.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on the agreement.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we award the agreement for professional service for the Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener Project to Keller Engineers in the lump sum of 95,877 dollars and authorize
the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Wastewater Treatment Plant dissolved Air Flotation Thickener Project. Any further discussions? Hearing none, all those in
favor say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
3. Well No. 10 and Watertower Landscape Projects – Agreement for Professional Services:
Watson: Thank you. The third item on the Public Works Department report items is another agreement for professional services for Well No. 10 and also for the elevated Watertower Landscape
Projects. These are actually two separate agreements. They include surveying and pre-design only. They did provide a proposal for full design, but we didn't really know what we wanted
there, so at Gary's suggestion we pulled those out so that they can provide us with some conceptual sketches. Well No. 10 is an eye sore, if you're familiar with that. It's on the
corner of Jericho and Willowbrook and it is simply gravel right now. We wanted to get that done and also with that acquisition the rest of the lot on which the watertower is located
we thought it would be a good time to get that taken care of and get that dressed up a little bit. The Land Group is the proposed consultant on this. I think the City is very familiar
with this group, both from our own City projects and from theirs that they do for the development community. Unless there are any questions, we'd recommend award for Well No. 10 pre-design
and the Watertower Landscape Projects to The Land Group in the lump sum amounts of 1,600 and 2,050 dollars respectively. I guess that's it.
Corrie: Okay. Questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Brad, when you decide to go out and do these pre-designs, do you approach other companies as well for bids or prices or did you just go to the and group?
Watson: Council Member de Weerd, Mayor and Council, these are -- the quick answer is, no, we didn't go to anybody else. It's such a small amount that --
usually over -- well, by statute over 25,000 we would be required to go through the formal request for proposal process. Being a water and sewer guy I'm pretty unfamiliar with landscaping,
but we do deal with The Land Group a lot, because they have a civil section in that group. They seemed to be the logical choice. We don't bid landscaping or design services at all,
so all we can evaluate is the qualifications if we did go through that process, but --
De Weerd: And I realize that we use The Land Group quite often. I guess my concern is -- and seeing it from the park standpoint as well, is there are a lot of companies out there that
do this type of work and we don't want to single out any one company all the time to exclude -- to exclude the others. So I guess the sensitivity is out there and I want to make sure
that we maybe keep that in mind in the future.
Watson: Council Member de Weerd, we can certainly do that and on a larger project we would most definitely do that. A lot of -- we do the RFP process quite a bit and it takes an extremely
large amount of time and effort, not only our part of it, on the consultant's part and for the size of the project I'm not sure that it's warranted.
De Weerd: I understand that.
Watson: But we will in the future. Maybe we should develop a roster of different design professionals from different disciplines that we can pick and choose from.
De Weerd: I think that would be helpful. With that I'll go ahead and make a motion to award the agreement for professional services for Well No. 10 and the Watertower Landscape Projects
to The Land Group in the lump sum of 1,600 and 2,050, respectively, and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded on request for Well No. 10 and Watertower Landscape Project. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed
no. All ayes. Motion approved.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Watson: Thank you, Mayor and Council.
Item 7. Appointment of Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Corrie: Thank you. Item No. 7, which is from the Consent Agenda, which was placed for the appointment of a -- one of the two Planning and Zoning Commissioners. This one would be taking
Sally Norton's seat on the Planning and Zoning Commission and we still have one more for next year when Mr. Bill
Nary gets sworn onto the Council and will go off of Planning and Zoning. So at this time I would like to recommend two appointments. One is a reappointment and the other is an appointment
to replace Sally Norton on Planning and Zoning. The replacement person would be David J. Zaremba, who lives at 2540 North Crooked Creek Way in Meridian, Idaho. You all have his bio
given to you. I would also reappoint Keven Shreeve to the Planning and Zoning. His appointment expires on January 1, 2002. So I guess I will present the name of the David J. Zaremba
first to be placed on the Planning and Zoning Commission.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: When would that expire then?
Corrie: This would expire one of 2003.
De Weerd: And has David been contacted?
Corrie: Yes I spoke myself with --
De Weerd: And he really wants to do this?
Corrie: Yes. Myself and Keith Borup, the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning, we drilled him pretty good and we had some others that we talked to as well. We both agree that David
would be a good Planning and Zoning person and we both agreed to that. Yes, he knows what he's getting into.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would move that we approve the appointment of David Zaremba for our new Planning and Zoning Commissioner through the term of January 2003.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve David J. Zaremba to replace Sally Norton on the Planning and Zoning Commission for the term of -- until the year 2000 --
January 2003. And any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: The other one I might mention is to reappoint Keven Shreeve. He came on in February 6, 2001 and he replaced the one that left and his term would be starting again on one of
2002.
Bird: How long will his term be for?
Corrie: That will be -- probably be one, two -- got six years. So it will probably be --
Bird: -- 2003, 2000 --
Corrie: I think probably 2005, if I'm not mistaken, because, again, one, two, three, four -- and I think he -- I would have to make sure. He took somebody's place that was up on 2002,
so six years would 2007. 2007?
De Weerd: Eight.
Corrie: I'm sorry eight.
De Weerd: January 2008.
Corrie: January 2008.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the appointment of Keven Shreeve to be reappointed to his term to January 2008.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to reappoint Keven Shreeve until 2008, January. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All
ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 8. Ordinance No. : AZ 01-013 Request for annexation and zoning of 4.24 acres from M-1 to I-L zones for Coors Distributing by Coors Distributing – 3225 Commercial Court:
Corrie: Item No. 8, then, is an ordinance, request for annexation and zoning of 4.24 acres from M-1 to I-L zone for Coors Distributing by Coors Distributing, 3225 Commercial Court.
We need the number and -- are you looking it up? 933. 01-
933. Okay. If the City Clerk would read Ordinance Number 01-933 by Title only at this point.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 01-933. An Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Coors Distributing Company, the location of which lies contiguous
or adjacent to the City limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council. That said
land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Light Industrial District, I-L and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of
the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho. Repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith and directing the City Engineer to add said
property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho; and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the Ordnance and map of the areas to be annexed
with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor, and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 01-933 by Title only. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I'll entertain
a motion, then, Council, on the annexation and zoning request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we pass Ordinance No. 01-933 with suspension of rules.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to approve Ordinance No. 01-933 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Role Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 9. Tabled from December 4, 2001: FP 01-015 Request for Final Plat approval of 23 building lots and 5 other lots on 8.15 acres in an R-4 zone for Staten Park Subdivision by D’Alessio
Building Development – south of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road:
Corrie: I hope everybody doesn't feel uncomfortable with my throat. It sounds worse than it feels, but we'll see after we get through the rest of the night here. Item Number 9 is
tabled from December 4th. This is a request for Final Plat approval of 23 building lots and 5 other lots on 8.15 acres in an R-4 zone for Staten Park Subdivision by D'Alessio Building
Development, south of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road. Is the representative of Staten Park Subdivision here tonight?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think we had a request to table this to our next meeting, which is on January 2nd, but I would suggest that we table it to January 15th.
Bird: I would second that.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: So I will move that we table this item, request for Final Plat approval for 23 building lots and 5 other lots for Staten Park Subdivision to January 15, 2002.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Is that a workshop?
Bird: No.
De Weerd: No.
Bird: The workshop is on the 8th.
Corrie: The 8th. Got you. All right. Motion has been made and seconded to table Item Number 9, the Final Plat No. 01-015 until the January 15, 2002 meeting. Any further discussion?
Okay. Hearing none, all in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Okay. Before I start with the Public Hearings, first let me -- all the staff that is going to give testimony raise your right hand, please. I have got to swear you in, as
we will all the people that -- this is required by law now. So if you will raise your right hand if you are going to give testimony on staff. Do you promise
and affirm that the testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you?
(Staff Affirmed.)
Corrie: If there is anybody in the audience that has come to testify tonight, it will speed this up if you will just raise your hand right now and -- if you want to testify and I'll
read this and then you can say I do and we are all set. If you decide you want to do it afterwards, you still can, but we will do it again. Okay. Do you promise and affirm that the
testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you?
(Audience Members Affirmed.)
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from November 27, 2001 -- Planning and Zoning New Fees and Fee Increases:
Corrie: All right. You're all swore in and the rest of you we won't swear at you. Okay. Item Number 10 is the Continued Public Hearing from November the 27th. This is the Planning
and Zoning new fee and fee increases so I will open the Public Hearing -- Continued Public Hearing and have staff's comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, hopefully you have had a chance to see the table of the rate comparison with the surrounding communities. I also have Star's fees, but wasn't able to
get them on the page and be legible. After reviewing some of the costs that would have been generated using these fees last year, it -- and it's just a rough figure. It would have
been approximately 250,000 dollars, as opposed to the 84,000 that we actually received last year. I would suggest one change or modification to the fee and it was something that I hadn't
really thought out and that was the Conceptual Planned Development fee. Because our Planned Development Ordinance does currently allow them to come in with a concept, but then -- which
requires them to come in later with an actual detailed plan of their development and I would like to propose that the Concept Plan have a fee of the 480 dollars, plus one dollar per
residential unit and two cents per square foot of non-residential buildings. Do you have any questions about any of these fees or -- it was real hard to compare apples to apples with
these other cities, because the process itself can be very diverse from city to city and we are bound by our ordinance as to the process we follow on some of these applications.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari, I know that your staff has spent a considerable time tracking the number of hours that they put into each of these different application types,
so that was very much appreciated. I know that we had the backup information, if any, if there was any question. I do have a question. At our last meeting there was testimony on two
specific items. I guess I had a question as far as the staff prepared consensual annexation application. Is that done very often and, if so, how often?
Stiles: It would be rarely done. It has just come up recently when we had these agreements, you know, as an emergency when people come in and their septic as failed and we have to
connect the City services. So when the City agrees to connect them, they also agree to be annexed into the City of Meridian. The City could prepare those and will prepare those, but
in order to recover our costs we would need to -- because of publication charges and staff time and also we would have to prepare a legal description. We have to actually hire that
out to get a legal description prepared and the time involved for, you know, the City Attorney and staff, it was felt that we would charge them the 1,100, plus 15 dollars per additional
acre for -- if we had to prepare it and it's an incentive for them to prepare the application themselves, because it would be so much less. So they would basically -- it would be twice
the amount of money for them to ask us to prepare it, as it would be for them to prepare it themselves.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, what do the other cities do? They just flat don't prepare them, do they? If you want an annexation you bring it in yourself and prepare it and don't have the staff prepare
it; is that right?
Stiles: Yes. Unless you -- you know, you don't force annexation, so -- and in Boise's case they just did the mass annexation, probably with -- I don't know if they did one legal description
or what, but, obviously, that paid for itself in taxes by them doing that. So it would take awhile to actually recoup the cost of preparing the application through property taxes on
many of these, because they are just small -- usually it's only a house.
Bird: I don't know why we even want to get in the business of preparing an annexation. Let them do them. You know, if they want service they can bring in a prepared application to
us and do all the stuff. Evidently the other cities feel the same way. There is no reason to get into that business when your staff has enough to do without preparing somebody's annexation.
Stiles: The reason for that fee was because the way that the current agreements are set up, it indicates in that agreement that their signing that agreement is their request to annex,
so we didn't -- maybe Mr. Nichols can clarify it better.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, in some of these instances you have maybe a sewer line or a water line running down the road, but the parcel that's affected is not yet contiguous
to the City limits. It might be between one part of the City to another part and it's not contiguous to the City limits. The agreement says that they will annex when they are contiguous
and if we don't collect a fee from them, then later on down -- it might be two or three property owners down the road when they are contiguous and then we get into the situation of going
to them and saying we are going to shut off your sewer or we are going to shut off your water if you don't get this annexation done and pay the fees that are in effect at the time.
So that's one situation. The other situation is maybe they are contiguous, but it's a retired couple and they don't have any plans to develop these three quarters of an acre. They
need to be annexed and so right now we have got some of those agreements out there where somebody's going to have to prepare these annexation applications and we have mailed letters
to people telling them what the application fee is. We are just trying to make sure that there is a mechanism to recoup costs incurred by City staff if it's one of those situations
where it's not somebody that's familiar with an annexation application. That's why I suggested that Shari should put this in.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess, Shari, if you have good documentation on the number of hours -- your department is self-reliant on its own fees, so as long as it's substantiated, then I don't have
an issue with that.
Corrie: Okay. Anything else, Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, we are reliant on our fees. We also get money from the Building Permit process, but of the approximately 250,000 dollars which would have generated last
year, you know, that would only pay -- that would pay less than half of our budget. At least it would come closer to paying the actual cost of having to do these applications and all
the work that goes into those.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions from staff? Okay. Since this is a Continued Public Hearing, is there anyone from the public who would like to testify in favor -- or just testify?
Okay. Hearing none, Council, any questions?
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Then --
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: -- I'll entertain a motion.
De Weerd: I move we close the Public Hearing.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Continued Public Hearing on the Planning and Zoning new fees and fee increases. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion now for the request for the Planning and Zoning new fees and fee increases.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: The attorney would like to --
Corrie: I don't think I'll let him talk. Yes, Bill.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, a couple things that I'd ask you to consider. One is you need to tell us the effective date. Secondly, we need to prepare a resolution
and bring it back to you for adoption, so that you actually adopt the fees by resolution.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, what would the time frame of the resolution be, so we know a good effective date?
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, Members of the Council, you don't have another Council meeting until January 2nd and we can certainly have it ready by then.
De Weerd: So we could make it effective at the beginning of the year.
Nichols: Well, it would be a little difficult, because you're going to be open for business on the 2nd of January. I would suggest that you give at least some period of notice. Maybe
two weeks, 30 days.
De Weerd: Okay.
Corrie: February 1st.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the Planning and Zoning new fees and fee increases, to instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for January 2nd, and to set the effective
date as February 1, 2002.
Corrie: Okay. Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded for the effective date of the Planning and Zoning new fees and fee increases to be February 1, 2002 and the resolution be presented on the
January 2, 2002 meeting. Discussion? Okay. Hearing none --
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I didn't hear in the motion anything about the concept plan. Do you have any thoughts on that or --
De Weerd: That would include the fee structure as suggested by staff. Does the second agree?
McCandless: Yes.
Stiles: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Okay. Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: Okay. Three ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2001: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC – 2435 South Meridian Road:
Item 12. Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2001: CUP 01-029 Request for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed
Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC – 2435 South Meridian Road:
Item 13. Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2001: VAR 01-019 Request for a Variance to exceed 1,000 feet maximum length requirement and to allow the public road being proposed
to exceed 450 feet maximum length requirement in an R-8 zone for Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC – 2435 South Meridian Road:
Corrie: Item No. 11 is a Continued Public Hearing from December the 4th. This is a request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for the proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC. We also have a Continued Public Hearing on the Conditional Use Permit of a Planned Unit Development for a private
RV storage and reduced lots on the Kodiak Subdivision. Also a Continued Hearing on the Variance of 1,000 feet maximum length requirement and to allow the public road being proposed
to exceed 450 feet of maximum length requirement in an R-8 zone for Kodiak Subdivision. So since all three of these are related to the Kodiak Subdivision I will open the Public Hearing
on all three, testimony will be taken for all three and given equal value with the testimony. So at this time I will open the Public Hearing and staff comments first. I believe we
have also some other staff that have been asked for -- the police and fire on this is that correct? Okay. Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council, and Legal Counsel can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think if you take action on these tonight it needs to be the Variance, then the Planned Development,
then the plat.
Corrie: Right.
Stiles: And you opened all three, Mayor?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I concur with Shari's order for action and she asked if you had opened all three Public Hearings.
Corrie: I did and you want the Variance first?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: And then the Preliminary Plat and then the Planned Unit Development? Is that the order?
Stiles: The Variance, Planned Development, then the plat.
Corrie: Then the Plat. Okay. Got you.
Stiles: I believe this is continued from your previous meeting and you had some
issues with regard to the access from Meridian Road. We did receive another letter from the Idaho Transportation Department today discussing the access off of Meridian Road. I don't
know if all of you were able to review that. It's from Mr. Dan Kuntz, PE. If I could just read it briefly, I will give this to Will. It says after preliminary review of your proposed
access, the Idaho Transportation Department feels that access to the full subdivision would not be in the best interest of the traveling public. However, a joint use with the church
property and your commercial property on the east end of your property might be feasible if the residential access is through the residential subdivision to the west of your property.
I know that -- and that deals more with the plat itself and we have a representative from Ada County Highway District here tonight to discuss their issues, but what the Transportation
Department is proposing is that they would allow, since this is part of a Planned Development, part of their exclusion, it would allow for a different use. They would let them access
Meridian Road only for this use, which access would be shared with the Nazarene Church that's to be developed here, but that the remainder of the subdivision would have to access through
the Bear Creek Subdivision. The Variance that's been requested is because of the block length. They exceed the maximum block length for our ordinance, which is 1,000 feet, and also
they would exceed the cul-de-sac or dead-end road length, which is a maximum of 450 feet. They are somewhat constrained as far as being able to access by way of a stub street either
to the north or the south and with the decision or the recommendation. At least, by the Idaho Transportation Department, it didn't sound like they are going to accept a through street
to connect to the Bear Creek Subdivision. I will go on to the Conditional Use Permit. I think you reviewed that in some length at the last meeting. The Planned Development is being
asked for because of the reduced lot sizes or these setbacks, the RV storage and the commercial use out front, which is allowed through a Planned Development. This is being developed
through the old Planned Development Ordinance, I believe, and I guess Mr. Jewett can correct me if I'm wrong on that, but that's what I recall. The Bear Creek Subdivision, of course,
their lots are abutting here. We don't have the information from the Assessor's Office yet to show that on a map for you. The Elk Run Subdivision is in this area. They are proposing
the commercial use out front with no plan yet. If this were approved they would be required to come back through the Conditional Use process to actually get a detailed plan approved
of that. They are proposing the RV storage back here. I believe that the plan has probably changed from this plan you're seeing up on the screen tonight. However, we don't have a
copy of any changed plans. It is a very difficult piece of property to develop. However, we didn't feel it was compatible with the adjacent land uses at this time. The Preliminary
Plat, of course, the major issue there is the access to Meridian Road. I believe that the Fire Department and the Police Department both want access to and through this property from
Meridian Road, because it would be a very circuitous route to get to the residential homes there. I believe they have been discussing some kind of a gate or some means that would allow
emergency vehicles to crash through if they should be needed in that area. I will let them speak for themselves.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council Members, Deputy Chief Silva was involved with this discussion with you awhile back. Yes, it will extend our response time considerably having
to go down and around and come back through, but we did approve some kind of a gate system if they could put a gate system that we go through there. We discussed that, but I have not
seen any plans on any gates being there yet. To my knowledge I haven't seen a plan.
Musser: Mayor Corrie and Members of the Council, Chief Worley had me review the information that he had received reference this development. We also had some concerns within the Police
Department as to access and mainly having timely access into a fairly dense residential area there without having to go all the way around. Additionally, where there is already an access
there to the lots within the area, we also had some sort of a question as to whether or not it could actually be shut down by ITD at this point with the existing lot and we had some
concerns there. In reference to gating it or placing bollards into the area, we would recommend against the bollards at this point, as there are some significant problems that can be
encountered with that. However, if the Fire Department has entered into looking at a gating type system that might well be an alternative. Short of that, the Police Department recommendations
were to look at a through access with it, but also within the plan incorporate significant traffic calming on Highway 69 in the form of raised dividers and funneling access or restrictive
right turn only out of this subdivision, as well as into it. Then a restricted funneling access for left turns into it by utilizing raised dividers. Some of you may be familiar with
the area over by Centennial High School on McMillan Road with the residential area across from that and the multi-lane roads that we have on McMillan. It would be that type of an engineering
alternative that we would be looking at. In addition to that, because we recognize there will be a church developed at one time or another to the south of this area, we are still going
to have traffic one way or the other when we look at it. We will have to look at that traffic calming aspect one way or the other and one of those other recommendations that we are
posing from the Police Department is a reduction in the posted speed on Highway 69 to a 35 mile per hour corridor within that City limits area between Victory and Overland Road. They
currently have dropped it to 45. However, relative speeds associated with 45 mile per hour on that type of a roadway out there still leaves us with an average speed of anywhere from
40 to 60 miles per hour on normal commuting days.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff at this point? Shari, do you have anymore?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I believe Christy Richardson is here from the Ada County Highway District, as you requested, I believe.
Corrie: Christy.
Richardson: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City Council Members. My name is Christy Richardson representing Ada County Highway District this evening. My address is 318 East 37th Street
in Garden City. I, like Mayor Corrie, hope I can get through the evening with my voice. I come here tonight at your request to discuss the access and the through street in this Kodiak
Subdivision. Staff -- I was speaking with traffic services staff at the Highway District and we came up with an alternative that I would like suggest to you. I believe in the last
letter that you received from me, the recommendation and approval from the Highway District Commissioners was that the proposed local street not connect all the way through to State
Highway 69. Because of the applicant's concern of over extending sewer into the site off Highway 69 in the public road right of way, the Commissioners were willing to let the applicant
construct a public road off of Highway 69 and a local street within the subdivision and the local street coming off of State Highway 69 not connect, so we would have two cul-de-sacs
that would end into each other. Understanding the concern of the emergency fire and the police, I'd like to recommend an alternative which we used in Boise in the Curtis Mountain View
area where we have got a similar situation of two roads just kind of dead-ending into each other and we used a grass creet type situation, so that emergency vehicles can easily get from
one road to the other. In this situation you could place a grass creet and also have an emergency gate or bollards. However, bollards can pose some problems for emergency crews, but
the gate would certainly work in that situation as well. The Highway District would really recommend, mostly for the safety access on State Highway 69 with the speed, that that road
not be a through road, but that the residential portion takes access from the Bear Creek Subdivision. Any questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Christy, you're saying that right there behind the commercial that would be where your recommendation is to -- to block it off, to gate it?
Richardson: Yes, Mrs. de Weerd, Mayor, Council Members. It is our recommendation that we'd just have a cul-de-sac right here and that this area not -- right through here not be connected.
Bird: But with a grass creet?
Richardson: That's correct.
Corrie: Okay. Christy, thank you.
Jewett: Okay. I'm back. Just to give you an update of my conversations with ITD. James Jewett, 3090 East Gentry, Suite 115, Meridian. I have had several conversations with ITD
since the meeting two weeks ago, tossing things back
and forth. This letter late this afternoon was a result of all this ongoing conversation and I had talked with Christy and I appreciate her ideas and I guess I'm here to hear your feedback
on what you want to do. I will -- as I was sitting back there I thought of one other option and I haven't even mentioned it to Christy. Listening to your staff and to fire and to police
and to Christy, what if we just built it this way and connected this road and this gate here would be electronic, so these residents could get in and out through it, but nobody else
could, except fire and police? That way we would have -- they would have a way out, they wouldn't have to access -- they could come in this way, but they would have to exit out the
other way, instead of -- then if you put a divider so they couldn't make a left-hand turn, it would be a way to have connectivity through an electronic gate that would prohibit the Bear
Creek people from utilizing it to go all the way out. Just an idea I thought of as I was sitting back there. That would give the fire a way to get in here without actually ever having
to use that -- if you ever had to get through into Bear Creek for a more emergency response they would. They would be able to access the subdivision just by going off the road and I
think that with that ITD would -- can grasp more the fact that these residents have another way to go and not all forced onto Meridian Road. ITD was also -- they were going to do the
same thing we are going to connect. Everybody from Bear Creek was going to come out that way and I was trying to say that, no, we are not, because some of the findings seem to be they
want to connect it. So that's -- I believe that they indicated -- just had some discussions with the police and fire about that. So, really, I think you all know what we have gone
through to get here and at Planning and Zoning we did discuss going through Bear Creek. They felt that with this type of housing it was better for having no access. I talked to my
partners tonight and they kind of feel that with this type of housing they should have their own access and not come through Bear Creek. So there we are. You have everybody's input
and I would ask that you allow us to move forward. If I could make a suggestion. If Council thinks that it's better served off of Meridian Road, we could just add a condition that
we receive ITD's approval as a part of the condition. If Council feels it's better to service through Bear Creek with the condition that that road -- that we simply connect these two
roads and then we put this -- we redesigned it to have that emergency connection access, pedestrian-type access to whatever standard that the fire and police can agree on. I will agree
to build whatever they would agree on. With that I'll stand for comments, questions, thrashings.
Corrie: Go ahead.
Bird: Mr. Jewett, you said bring it in off of Meridian Road and out through Bear Creek. Do you really believe that if a person comes in there that they are not going to want to go
out there? I would doubt it. I think that what my personal opinion is -- I wish there was some way we could get it in and out onto Meridian Road, but evidently there is not and ITD
is -- so I guess the thing that -- what Christy brought forward was to put on grass creets there at the end with an electric gate or something -- I don't why we would have to make a
cul-de-sac
there. You could probably just do that with a grass creet that, you know, they will stand up to fire trucks or anything going across them and that would get our safety services in there,
our fire and police. I, for one, don't like seeing that kind of housing go back through -- three quarters of a mile through a subdivision, but I guess ACHD and ITD did not want that
many people dumping in and out on 69, which I can -- I think a right in and right out like we have done over on McMillan at Centennial and Cloverdale over there by Centennial High School,
I think could work, but evidently they don't want that.
Jewett: ITD didn't have an opportunity to comment on that issue of right in, right out. I would think that the residents that would live here would not want to make a right-hand turn
to go to Meridian or to get to I-84. A right-hand will take you to Kuna. So at some point, if you make a right-hand turn, you have to make a u-turn and that's more dangerous than just
making a left-hand turn. I think that ITD would probably discourage that.
Bird: Well, I absolutely don't see any way you're going to get them across there, because you're not going to get a -- you're not going to get a light, it would be too close to Overland.
So if I lived there I suppose I wouldn't mind the right in and right out and I'd go up to Victory Road and either go back to Stoddard or turn and go over to Locust Grove and go to Eagle
and get on the freeway.
Jewett: I would agree.
Corrie: Any other questions? Just to put my two cents worth in, coming in there and letting the church use that as also an in to the church part, do they come out there?
Jewett: Yes. The church's access will be the shared access for this right here.
Corrie: Okay. Then if they put apartments or a senior citizen centers in the back, they are going to have some problems later down the year, because they will want to come in and out
of there, unless they come out of Bear Creek as well, so –
Jewett: Right.
Corrie: They come out through there again.
Jewett: This is extended along this area in here. They would have frontage along the public road for the total length.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other questions of Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Mr. Jewett, have you talked to the developers of Bear Creek? We kind of asked that last time and have you gotten any feedback from them?
Jewett: Yes. I did have several conversations. One of the owners of Bear Creek is here tonight. We did -- and we actually drew some proposals up. All of them involved the church
-- using some of the church property to make this property wider, to make the lots more similar to Bear Creek, and I actually talked with the church -- I asked the church to be here
tonight also and the church wouldn't be against that, without having just talked about it, not looked at it. The problem is you're involving two other property owners for this property
and if they never agree, then they never agree. I mean we did have discussions. It just didn't seem like we could all get together and we were discussing even out there and it just
didn't seem like we could get together. We did do some layouts that I thought would work. I even sat down with staff and discussed with them and they were -- we just couldn't put it
together. Not to say it couldn't come together later and we could replat it, but at this time we don't have a deal that I can say to you that I think is going to come together mostly
because it involves these other parties and the church. They have already got a Development Agreement with you folks, so they would have to redo their Development Agreement, so it involves
quite a bit of stuff.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I have a question for Christy. It just seems like all of this traffic from the church to the south is going to be coming out there. Whether you add these houses
or not, you're still going to have to deal with that traffic. So I understand heading it off in Bear Creek, but Bear Creek would not then use this access as well, but I just question
with the traffic that's going to be generated by the church why we are going to make this even more difficult as a result.
Richardson: Council Member de Weerd, Mr. Mayor, the church use generates very few daily peek hour trips, so when we are looking at this particular driveway, the number of trips generated
by that church are going to be very minimal and those that are generated aren't going to be during the A.M. or P.M. peek hours and you wouldn't see significant traffic conflicts. So
as Mr. Jewett pointed out, in the future should the church develop and this stub street were to go to Bear Creek. They also would be able to have access to Bear Creek for the majority
of their trips.
De Weerd: So something similar to what's being asked of Mr. Jewett is going to be asked of the church as well and Bear Creek, are they fully aware of all the traffic that's going to
be going out to Stoddard through their subdivision?
Richardson: Council Member de Weerd, Mr. Mayor, Council Members, when Bear Creek Subdivision was platted and came to the Highway District two years ago, the stub street was required
as part of that plat. They had the opportunity then to appeal the stub street requirement and they did not and as everyone is aware nowadays, stub streets are constructed to provide
future connectivity between parcels.
De Weerd: Well, I think you're talking a different level of connectivity. You're talking about not letting them go the natural flow, instead going a whole lot of distance out of
their way. So is there any chance that the three property owners can sit down and talk about this and ITD and ACHD and figure out a traffic plan for this? Because regardless of what
we do here, we are going to have it again when the church comes through and by then there is going to be a lot of houses built in Bear Creek that don't realize that anything that's going
to happen to the east of them is going to be majorly impacting their neighborhood. Not just through the normal interconnectivity types of flows, but by a primary destination type of
trip. So I don't feel comfortable discussing this tonight right now without a better plan here.
Richardson: Unfortunately, because we don't have a plan for the church in front of us, I can't comment on how they might develop in the future, but I can anticipate what -- the local
streets within Beer Creek Subdivision, if you add the traffic from this site and from the church site, those streets are probably going to be over a thousand vehicle trips per day on
the local street. So I can't anticipate for you, though, how that church property might develop and when it might develop.
De Weerd: Well -- and we can't either. All I'm suggesting is there is an actual traffic plan in place for the residents living in Bear Creek. We all know what happens with traffic
and when that development comes through as well. The residents will be the last to know that that traffic is going through their subdivision and it's better to plan now before those
houses are built and people are aware of what's going to happen, then after the fact and that we get the brunt of it, at ACHD, as well as here. So is there any chance that those kind
of -- at least how things are going to circulate, can that kind of a plan be made?
Richardson: Unfortunately, I just don't think it can -- I can't speculate how that church property might develop and I can't put a plan in place. They may have to adhere to if I don't
have something to look at for that. Right now the Highway District is trying to plan for the future, but you can't place any further requirements and we can't bind any other property
owners into a situation just because we have the Kodiak Subdivision before us.
De Weerd: Yes but the issue is you gave Kodiak access to do this and so now when they came through with their Preliminary Plat it was all approved and now
it's changing, because something has changed at ACHD. So I'm trying to look a little bit down the road, no pun intended, so that we are not at the same point just a little bit later.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: Christy, would you explain to me again what you're talking about with those two cul-de-sacs. They would dead-end on each end?
Richardson: That's correct.
McCandless: And we have an area in between where emergency vehicles only could go through?
Richardson: That's correct, Council Member McCandless. Councilman Bird also commented on this, but what ACHD is recommending is that this local street be brought in through the Bear
Creek Subdivision. It would serve the residential lots proposed here and then it would cul-de-sac right here. From Meridian Road or State Highway 69, the Highway District would allow
a public street to come in here and this public street would cul-de-sac in this area. If it were a private street or a private driveway, that would be fine as well if the Highway District
Commissioners should offer the public street for the sewer services. The area in between the cul-de-sac would not be right of way and the reason for that would be that in the future,
a future Council, future Commissioners, future staff, that emergency vehicle or gate there, that could removed and a street would be opened up. So this area in between the cul-de-sacs
would not be a public right of way. The reasoning behind this -- there is just a couple. Mr. Jewett had indicated that a possible use for this site might be a day-care, a dentist's
office, some kind of neighborhood use and if you lived in the Bear Creek Subdivision you could come through here to drop off your kids, rather than drive all the way around and try to
access State Highway 69 during the peek hours and the busy time and try to get back towards the freeway. So that's the recommendation from the Highway District that the public street
be here and the public street be here and then this is just kind of a -- this would be part of the private property, but an emergency gate or emergency access with a grass creet.
McCandless: It seems to me that there would be a safety issue there as well. Cul-de-sacs are generally regarded as playgrounds as far as in most subdivisions. Kids are not as careful
and if you have two of them with an access in between, I have never seen that before.
Richardson: If I could clarify, that's an emergency access, not a --
McCandless: I realize that --
Richardson: So there won't be any vehicles using that I would hope.
McCandless: I just see it as a safety issue as well.
Corrie: I have a question. If that area that is going to be commercial, let's say that's just one big day care center, people coming in there off of 96, come in there and they drop
their kids off and go out, can they go left, right, anyway they want to go?
Richardson: Mr. Mayor that would be up to ITD. The Highway District doesn't have the jurisdictional authority to install medians on that roadway. That's certainly a recommendation
you could make to ITD to their access management policy, which I'm not familiar with. They may have restrictions on those types of limitations on the highway.
Corrie: I would think you would have a lot of people coming in and out dropping kids off at a busy time anyway and you would have risk in all kinds of places just as much as you would
probably from the homes there, but she's right, cul-de-sacs -- kids play in there and the kids will play in a cul-de-sac, too, but -- okay. It answered my question.
McCandless: In other words, this -- if they came in through Bear Creek to drop their children off, then would they have to turn around and go back through Bear Creek again to get out?
Richardson: That's correct.
McCandless: She's saying yes.
Corrie: Oh, yes. They would have to -- if they come in from Bear Creek they would have to go back out.
Richardson: If they were able to go through to just drop off a child here and then they'd have to make this left-hand turn onto the State Highway, which would be very difficult. What
it does is -- it's a little inconvenient, but the safety factor plays in here. It forces them to go back through Bear Creek, up Stoddard to Overland, and to the signal light at the
intersection, that's a really major safety factor.
Bird: Christy, I know it's -- we start dumping all these people out on Stoddard and I know that ACHD has no plans for -- probably in 20 or 30 years to even touch that road. You're
asking for a lot of -- a lot of problems. That's just a narrow two way street and if we’re putting in a bunch of houses at Bear Creek then you're asking all this to come -- and the
Preliminary Plat that we seen from the church showed some senior development back there and stuff and you're going to push them through, too? Why doesn’t ITD put a traffic light up
on
Victory and have this a right in and right out, you got your traffic light there. They can either go to Stoddard or Linder or they can go back to Locust Grove and we will have the overpass
there hopefully in four, five years, maybe. I don't know. I really have problems with not having this access off of Meridian Road and dumping it through three-quarter miles of residential.
That's my personal opinion on it and I know it's not --
Richardson: Councilman Bird, in regards to Stoddard, it is a two-lane crossroad and I believe that Bear Creek Subdivision is required to construct some turn lanes in and out and that
will provide for the safety in turning movements from the Bear Creek residents and it would be these residents. The amount of traffic generated from this development is really quite
minimal compared to the Bear Creek Development itself.
Bird: Well, I agree there, but you're still pushing them through and, you know, if you -- say they put a day-care center in, we are going to be driving all the way down this road, we
turn them around and we are going to drive them back out all the way down there? If they are in Elk Run they are going to run -- or whatever that one is north of us, they are going
to run down here and they are going to come in through the residential, parts of the commercial thing, then they are going to come out and they are going try to get across. I think
that -- I think that there is a way of solving this is the right in and right out and then you either put a light at Victory, which needs one anyway, and you can either turn and go to
Locust Grove or somewhere -- you know, I don't like the u-turns and it's impossible to get across there. I don't know how the people in Elk Run get out right now. I don't know how
they do it now. I don't have to travel that road. Fairview is bad enough.
Richardson: Mr. Mayor, if I can offer one comment, just for clarification purposes. When the Highway District approved this Preliminary Plat -- and we didn't approve it as proposed
they did let the developer know that should the City Council make significant changes from what the Highway District's recommended, that they would gladly hear Mr. Jewett again. So
I don't want you to feel like if the Highway District Commission approves, that by that they realize that Mr. Jewett has several agencies to work with and certainly we are going to hear
it again. So I don't want anyone thinking that was just a done deal, but one significant thing I might mention and that is you're not wanting to take the Highway District's recommendation
for the public street configuration. If the applicant constructed a private road off of State Highway 69, ACHD wouldn't have any jurisdiction over that private road. That would be
the owner and ITD. That might be an option to think about.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: No.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay.
Jewett: If I could add a little bit to a couple of those comments, if I may, please. First off, let me just -- my approval from ACHD back in I think January for the annexation
and zoning gave me both alternatives. Another alternative would be to extend the stub street into the park and landscaping into Bear Creek and extend the street into the site from Highway
69. So ACHD had already approved this or made a recommendation of approval with either alternative back in January. I'm going to play both sides of the fence here. Almost -- you can
see this -- if you want to pass this around but if it did come in through Bear Creek, that's the only level of street that would be affected is Bear Creek. That's all it would take
to get from Stoddard to the site would be that shaded area of road and those many houses. It doesn't affect a lot of them. We have gone through this whole thing and it's always been
our opinion to come off of 69 off of Meridian Road. It's a different type of housing. We do have the use -- the church is going to be using it and I just think that this level of traffic
is not going to impact -- yes, it's going to impact it right in the morning a little bit, like everything else dumping onto Meridian Road. Stoddard is going to be really impacted when
those phases -- and Stoddard and Cloverdale and Elk Run is really going to be impacted when those stages of Bear Creek get in there. There is no access there right now and I don't believe
there is anybody living in Bear Creek yet. To raise one other issue I think the Mayor mentioned, ITD did indicate to me a private street did have a different classification within --
with them other than public. They did indicate if we did a private street it did fall under a different classification in their opinion than public streets did. Just to acknowledge
that the current standards of public streets that they have now adopted is one half mile between public streets on State Highways. So what they want is every mile and a half that's
all they want in the future. Unfortunately, if we look at Eagle Road that doesn't follow, so -- again, like I say, this is a proposal that after a long time of coming up with -- and
going back and forth that we put forward was what we support. I see pluses with coming through Bear Creek and I see negatives going in Bear Creek. So I guess I'd just leave it up to
the Council to decide. One other thing. The church is under a Development Agreement and in this area of the Development Agreement it shows a ball field and a play field. The senior
housing is back in the lower corner over here. So as that property to the south of it is developed, additional stub streets could come into that. So it doesn't necessarily all have
to dump out and they are under a Development Agreement, they can't develop until the Black Cat Trunk gets built and I don't think -- I think I will be retired by then.
Corrie: You probably will.
Jewett: So I don’t think that's an issue that anything would really drastically come of. I think what you will find is that when they do put all their ball parks and stuff back here,
I think you are going to have people going back and forth between the two parks. We are going to have soccer moms going back there. So, again, I guess I would ask that we move forward
on this one and if you like the access to
Meridian Road, condition my approval to obtain approval from ITD. If you would rather come through Bear Creek, ACHD has already approved that, ITD already is in favor of that, I'd ask
you just to condition it that they have already said they would, so -- and just limit my access on Meridian Road to the non-residential use that's in conjunction with the church. Other
than that, I stand for any more questions.
De Weerd: Well, I am a soccer mom. What did you mean by that?
Jewett: Meaning that they could play a lot of soccer. I'm not quite a soccer dad yet, as you saw. Soon, though.
Bird: I have nothing.
McCandless: I have nothing.
Corrie: Okay. All right. Mr. Jewett, thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to testify on this? Please raise your right hand. Do you promise and affirm
that the testimony you will give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you?
Richards: Yes.
Corrie: You came in after we did for everyone else. Okay. Your name and address, please.
Richards: Dan Richards. 8799 South Rocky Mountain Lane, Meridian.
Corrie: Okay.
Richards: Me and my cousin Doug Olson are partners in developing this subdivision and appreciate Councilman Bird and -- I'm not sure how to pronounce the last name. De Weerd?
De Weerd: De Weerd.
Richards: I appreciate your comments, because it seems an absolute absurdity in thinking about how much bare ground there is beyond this property and it's going to be getting developed.
This issue is going to be coming up over and over and over again and is everyone going to be going to Stoddard Road, you know? I mean there is too much property there and, you know,
we just happen to be the first one, so we are going to be getting kicked back. I was just thinking of this. What would happen if -- it sounds like from Christy from ACHD -- it sounds
like from her comments that part of the issue is that there is, you know, this many lots. What would happen if we were to put half the lots this way, it might not get
to so many people -- it might not affect the subdivision with so many people driving that many and half of them this way, it seems it would solve some issues.
Corrie: Probably wouldn't get half and half, though.
Richards: Well, whatever, you know, ACHD's, idea up there like as Councilman Bird has commented, that is a long way all the way around back to the -- back to the freeway, where, obviously,
everyone is getting -- wanting to go. You know, just -- and Jim's already mentioned that we were approved on this or -- I'm not sure of the right terminology, but Preliminary Plat,
and it was all thumbs up and then everything changes and we got about -- we figure about 15,000 dollars in engineering fees at this point going out to you guys' suggestions and it seems
like, you know, we should be able to figure this out close to this plan based on that it was, you know, approved on that preliminary.
Corrie: Okay. Anybody else? Any questions from Council on the Public Hearing? Okay. Hearing no comment there, then, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items
11, 12, and 13.
McCandless: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the Variance, the Planned Unit Development, and also the Preliminary Plat. Any further comments? Hearing
none, all in favor say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Council, comments and discussions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I just want to comment to Captain Musser. I sure appreciate your comments on this. It's just refreshing to hear something from the Police Department and it's very thorough.
Captain Musser brings up the fact that -- I believe the same questions that Councilman Bird and myself have questioned about cutting off the access and trying to make sure that our
emergency personnel can go clear through to Bear Creek as well. If we go ahead and approve it with the gates at the tail end of the residential area, so that the residents can still
get to the storage area, but Bear Creek residents can't go through there, I guess we would need to put in a condition that that would have to be approved by ITD and probably ACHD and
that if he cannot gain that approval,
then he goes back to square one. So I can't see how it makes sense any other way than that.
Bird: Can you clarify yourself on --
De Weerd: They do have to be at the end where that cul-de-sac currently exists.
Bird: On the west?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Okay. Then have the grass creet on the east end down here? Is that what you're talking about?
De Weerd: No. I'm talking about the grass creet in between the --
Bird: You're putting a gate there for --
De Weerd: -- two turnabouts, but you would have access then onto 69.
Bird: I agree with you.
De Weerd: The recommendation would be that you would have -- as Captain Musser, put a right out access only and that -- with the recommendations -- or with the recommendations of ITD
that we put in the concrete barriers to eliminate the left turn, because they are going to do it if they can. So those are my comments.
Corrie: I have a question. If that's a public road can you gate it?
Bird: On the back end? I don't know. I would -- we can't –
Corrie: Shari, can they gate a public road, do you know?
Stiles: I don't believe the Ada County Highway District would let them do that. If they did that you would have to have a separation where -- I mean if you're not going to allow access
through Bear Creek, you might as well have the gate at the end of their property here and it wouldn't even -- and it wouldn't connect to -- I mean it wouldn't be crossing a public road
at that point.
De Weerd: But then he has the storage back there and that is --
Bird: That's right at the property line, Tammy, is where he's talking of putting that. Right there. Putting that gate and that way that isn't a problem. That takes care of Bear Creek
and then you don't have to have an electronic gate, it's a permanent gate.
Stiles: And the storage was proposed just for this subdivision, it's not a public storage facility.
Bird: Yes. This is storage for the apartments or the planned unit.
De Weerd: I don't have any problem with that.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless, do you have any questions on what they are --
McCandless: I have lots of questions.
Corrie: On that particular one.
McCandless: Not at the moment I haven't.
Corrie: Well, let's take them one at a time. I'll start with the Variance and we will see how it progresses here. The request for a Variance to exceed the 1,000 foot maximum length
requirement to allow the public road that's been proposed to exceed the 450 maximum length in an R-8. Any discussions on that?
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Then I will entertain a motion on the Variance request.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for variance to exceed 1,000 feet maximum length requirement and to allow the public road being proposed to exceed 450 feet maximum length
in an R-8 zone for Kodiak Subdivision and ask the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to include all staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order to allow the 1,000-foot exceedence of
the 450-foot maximum. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: All ayes. One abstaining. Passes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Item No. 12 is a request for the Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone by Kodiak Subdivision, CUP 01-029. Discussion? Okay.
Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on the request for a CUP, Planned Unit Development.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I do have a question. Which -- is it going to be the CUP or the Preliminary Plat that will be affected by the road? I think it's the Preliminary Plat isn't it? The Planned --
the CUP would not have anything affecting the entry and --
Corrie: No.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit request for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for the proposed Kodiak
Subdivision, to ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order, to include all staff comments, and also make this approval based on approval
from ITD and ACHD for this development. I guess that's it.
Bird: Did you say to include staff comments?
De Weerd: I did say to include all staff comments, didn't I?
Corrie: Yes. You did now.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order to approve the CUP on the Planned Unit
Development for a private RV storage and with the condition that ITD and ACHD approve the subdivision and staff comments.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: One question. The Public Hearing the last time this was brought up two weeks ago, they discussed fencing and hours of operation. I would want to make sure that that is included
in the findings. Hours of operation to reflect 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. and that the fence issue was addressed.
Corrie: Is that part of the motion?
Bird: Yes, it was. It was also stated in the deal that it is strictly for just for the members of the subdivision.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Any further discussion? Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, I just have a question. Because the staff recommendation was not to recommend this plat, I'm wondering how that --
Corrie: Are you going to have staff --
De Weerd: The Conditional Use?
Stiles: It says the development does not meet the criteria for a Planned Development under either the new or the old PD Ordinance and I don't know how -- I know that Bill's pretty crafty,
but I don't know how he's going to be able to incorporate our staff comments in approving this project.
De Weerd: Well, this is the recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Stiles: Okay. So that wouldn't be staff's comments.
De Weerd: Just the comments that were applicable.
Stiles: Okay. So it's the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission that you're approving? Okay.
De Weerd: Yes. And any additional staff comments regarding the approval.
Corrie: You're still adding to your comments? Okay. Any other questions? Discussions? We all know what the motion is for? Would you, please, Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, naye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: Okay. Two ayes. One nay. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE NAY, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Now for the bigger one, the request for Preliminary Plat approval on the Kodiak Subdivision. PP 01-016.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I have a question for the attorney on this one. Since there has been so much discussion and from the comments on the Preliminary Plat and how the gate would -- at the end
of the property line would allow emergency access only and with some additional interconnectivity between houses and the storage, can we approve this before we see what it will actually
look like or --
Nichols: Mayor, Councilwoman de Weerd, the question in terms of what it will look like, are you talking about the layout of the lots or just what the gate is going to look like?
De Weerd: No. Just the -- right now you have two cul-de-sacs, one at the end of the house and one over there so there’s no access to Bear Creek. It's not a Preliminary Plat I think
that we want to approve.
Nichols: Mayor, Members of the Council, if you're not going to approve this Preliminary Plat, then you have to tell him what it would take to get approval. So if there is specific
items in the plat that you don't like, you have to tell him what he has to come back with. You also have the alternative of remanding it to the Planning and Zoning Commission with specific
things for him to address in a revised plat.
De Weerd: I guess the issues that are remaining is connecting that cul-de-sac into the storage area showing how it is going to flow through that open space and, you know, I know what
the gate will look like at the end of the property, so I guess I'm not too hung up on that, but approving that as drawn, I don't know, I just feel that we can't do that.
Bird: We were just discussing gate locations. Basically what we had discussed earlier was just taking that gate that they are showing before the cul-de-sac into the storage and moving
it back to the west most part of the property on the line there and it would not be an operable gate, it would be permanent, so that people from this development could not get into Bear
Creek at this time and Bear Creek could not get through that and that would still leave the exit and entrance onto Highway 69. Right in, right out, I believe.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I would try a motion here. I don't know if I will get a second, but I will give it a try.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Members of the Council, just to clarify the issue in terms of the gate. Now you have got in the record the life safety department's request that the gate be able to be accessed
by them, either police or fire to be able to get through that way if there is need to. So when you say a permanent gate, do you mean a permanent gate, except for emergency vehicle
access or do you mean a permanent gate period?
De Weerd: Emergency access.
Nichols: Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess my motion would be to remand this Preliminary Plat back to Planning and Zoning for redesign to reflect the connection from the residential areas to the storage, the
emergency access fence on the back western property line, and to reflect all other changes as staff and Planning and Zoning have recommended.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Do I hear a second? We need a second before we can discuss anything.
McCandless: I'll second that.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Okay. Now what specifically are you -- are you telling him that the gate moves back to the west part?
De Weerd: To the back of the property line.
Bird: To the property line and it's only for emergency vehicle only for something like that.
De Weerd: To show that the flow of the traffic will go back to the storage area from the residential and how it affects the open area.
(Inaudible comments by Jim Jewett.)
De Weerd: The Public Hearing is closed.
Bird: I don't -- I'm having a hard time understanding why we shoot that back to Planning and Zoning for that one when we could take care of it in a motion -- of the deal, you know.
De Weerd: It also allows us time to see what ITD and ACHD have to say.
Bird: You have already -- you have already heard from them, so why delay it anymore? I mean they are either yea or nay.
De Weerd: That's just my motion.
Bird: That's my questions.
Corrie: Okay. Questions being called for, the motion is to remand it back to Planning and Zoning with the comments made by Council and to get the ITD and ACHD comments. Okay. Mr.
Berg, roll-call vote, please.
Role Call: Bird, nay; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: All ayes, motion -- no. Excuse me. Two ayes, one nay. It will be remanded back to Planning and Zoning for approval and comments of Council.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE NAY, ONE ABSENT.
Jewett: Mr. Mayor, may I be recognized? Please, Mayor.
Corrie: Tell Planning and Zoning. You can't tell us anything now.
Jewett: Planning and Zoning did take this issue up. They made a motion on it.
Corrie: Come on. Don't do it.
Bird: Jim, we can't do it.
Item 14. Public Hearing: VAR 01-018 Request for a Variance for maximum subdivision block length of 1,000 feet in an R-8 zone for Macaile Meadows by Hillview Land Development, LLC –
south of East Fairview Avenue and west of North Cloverdale Road:
Item 15. Public Hearing: FP 01-020 Request for Final Plat approval of 115 building lots and 19 other lots on 28.58 acres in an R-8 zone for Macaile Meadows by Hillview Land Development,
LLC – south of East Fairview Avenue and west of North Cloverdale Road:
Corrie: Give it to Planning and Zoning. They have got it now, so -- okay. Item No. 14 is a Public Hearing -- Public Hearing for a variance of maximum subdivision lot length of 1,000
feet for Macaile Meadows and also Item No. 15 is a Final Plat approval for Macaile Meadows for 115 building lots and 19 other lots on 28.58 acres. So at this time I will open the Public
Hearing on Items 14 and 15 at the same time and all testimony will be for both. Staff first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is a -- kind like a re-subdivision. We did not recommend that this go back to Planning and Zoning Commission due to the length of time involved
and the number of issues that were involved were not felt to be so significant that they would require the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval or recommendation. The previously
approved final plat -- as you will recall, this is the Westdale Park Subdivision No. 2. Cross-Roads Subdivision is to the west here. There is vacant land to the north. The Seventh
Day Adventist church is to the east. Further north beyond the vacant parcel is the cemetery and the Wal-Mart. What the applicant is proposing is -- only involves this northern portion.
They did previously receive a variance for the maximum block length requirement, because they were impaired by the existence of the church on this side, by the existence of the subdivision
to the south, and also the Cross-Roads Subdivision to the west. However, they did in the previous final plat show another stub street to the north. So they are requesting another
variance to delete the other stub street, which staff has recommended denial, because of the fight we have to go through each time to even get any connection and that there is no physical
reason why they cannot provide that access. The applicant has stated that the person with an interest in the property to the north does not want an access in two locations, public road
access, but we have neither seen nor have any kind of a plan before us and we do not feel that's a valid concern. The applicant has also stated to our Planning and Zoning staff that
if the variance is not approved to delete the second stub street, they will go back to the original configuration, which shows a temporary road leading out to Cloverdale Road. The compromise
that they had felt they worked out with the property owner to the north is that they would have one connection of a public road going through the property. This public road would be
constructed to and through the northerly property to the -- I believe it's North Venture Way that's adjacent to the cemetery and the Wal-Mart and that would be constructed to provide
their second access, thereby deleting the requirement to
have this temporary access back to Cloverdale Road. Except for the disagreement on the stub roads, it's a fairly straight forward request and we would like to have the second stub street
for the interconnectivity and because it is possible. With that I would defer to whatever the Council deems to be in the City's best interest.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, what would the second stub street dump into?
Stiles: It would dump into vacant land that's not developed.
Bird: What road is even close to it? Which one is closest to the road that's behind Ware-Mart now -- or Wal-Mart I mean?
Stiles: Well, I don't know. I don't think --
Bird: This one is along -- this one here is --
Stiles: That didn't show up. It would be about -- here is where -- the proposed existing one. It would have to go somehow through --
Bird: You're cutting it through right across. Why not put one right there and dump it right into that to start with?
Stiles: I don't know.
Bird: And it's -- I always -- I thought that northeast corner one that went through the church had -- was always in there.
Stiles: The one that went out to Cloverdale?
Bird: Yeah. If it went down the north side of the church and is not a temporary road for the church, it's a permanent road in.
Stiles: It is a temporary road. It's not a public road.
Bird: But that was -- I don't know how you're going to -- you're going to have one here and we are going to go up through there and connect to this? Because you're not going to go
straight in there.
Stiles: No.
Bird: Because that's -- in the first place it's --
Stiles: No. They are proposing it here and it would go through. I mean I'm not sure of the exact line, but --
Bird: Why wouldn't it be better to come straight in there, Shari?
Stiles: I don't know. Either way you're going to have block length problems, because they will be wrapping around -- I mean this will be the block length completely.
Bird: I agree. Shari, with those two at the north, is that going to be enough to relieve the -- is two stubs going to be enough? You know, is that going to take care of the travel
without the one at the northeast corner anymore?
Stiles: There are I believe 278 units, 158 total in the whole -- oh, I'm sorry, 115 in the whole subdivision, so Ada County Highway District has approved it before it was -- with the
two accesses, but, in reality, it would have been sometime before they had anything about the temporary construction road and this.
Bird: Well, I think we would be -- the first stub should come right out there and go straight up to that road, because that road is already in to that point and they could just bring
it into there.
Stiles: I think -- well, let me see.
Bird: It's a lot -- now you've got it over here where I think -- probably about in that lot right there would take you up straight.
Stiles: I can't see the detail on this small -- do you know what -- the applicant can address whether that was for engineering reasons or why that was chosen to be the place, but --
Bird: Maybe they can't get an easement through the -- straight up.
Corrie: Maybe they have a problem with the easement.
Stiles: Well, I don't know. I think the applicant -- or the property owner to the north or at least the person that has an option, maybe, on the property is -- I don't know. It just
appeared to us that he was presupposing whatever design he has in mind is automatically going to be approved and, of course, that's not the case, but we are going to be locked in to
whatever this development does and whatever alignment that gets approved through that adjacent property, which will be in the county and we will have really no control over particularly.
Mr. Mayor and Council, there is a lift station that's to be -- isn't that where the lift station is or what is that? Is that just irrigation? Oh. Okay. That's just the pressurized
irrigation lot for Nampa-Meridian, I guess, up adjacent to the North Mount Hood
Avenue. But the applicant will have to respond as to why that was chosen as the location.
Corrie: Any other staff comments?
Stiles: That's all I have.
Corrie: Thank you. Start the Public Hearing. Have the developer first, please.
Butler: Do I need to swear in, Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Do you promise and affirm that the testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you?
Butler: Yes.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Butler: Mark Butler. 52 North 2nd Street, Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd like to touch on three things. Number one, what was previously approved. Number two,
why we are back here. Number three, lastly, I'd like to touch on the findings that were approved for our variance that was previously approved and finding for this modified variance.
I'd like to touch on those three things with you and I have brought some information for you to look at and I think one in particular will answer Councilman Bird's question on the roadway
alignment. First of all, as you know -- okay. The first plan -- or, actually, the plan that was approved, final plat -- and I do recall Council Member McCandless was asking when our
Final Plat came to this body, but the final plat that was recorded had two stub streets to the north with a portion of the stub street here on the east side, which extended to Cloverdale
and that is a temporary roadway with a temporary easement. So the previous plan was configured like this, it had been approved, we are actually out there, the project is under construction.
We had worked with the neighbor to the north when we came to you - on the preliminary stage, as you recall, because it was your goal, as well as ACHD's goal, as well as your fire department
and police department's goal, for us to try to get a road to the north instead of the road to Cloverdale and we were unable to work with that property owner at that time, because they
basically didn't know what they were going to do and didn't want to tie in their development to some roadway that may have gone in a willy nilly position. Since that time Mr. Clark,
who is here today representing that owner, has contacted us. Understand we are already under construction, the ball is rolling, and they have worked with us and we have worked with
them to come up with a possible solution. There are some drawbacks to it -- or there is one major drawback to it in that if we not only -- if we get this roadway in here and we are
required to do a stub and we don't get an allowance for the variance and not to the stub, the owner backs out of the deal and we don't get the roadway to the north and I'd like to talk
about that a little bit,
but I think overall it seems like -- this is my opinion, but the City should jump for joy to get the roadway to the north, instead of Cloverdale, and I believe some of the owners here
will kind of testify to that, too. Mostly because, as I said before, it sounded like that's what you and neighbors and the fire department and the police department really wanted.
So I hope the -- the advantage of getting the roadway to the north, as opposed to the east, outweighs the need for you to require that other stub and I'd like to try to show you the
stub street before that. Again, this is a plan that's approved. What we are proposing now is a modified plan with one stub to the north that actually will connect -- and I will show
you that orientation and explain why it is oriented in the way that it is. All of the rest of the plan is the same, except, you know, we modified our lots a little bit up here on the
north end, so that we can have a little bit different orientation. We are still at 115 lots. We are still complying with all the conditions that you put on this development, except
that we'd like to not have to do the stub. What I have done here -- and I believe this is very helpful -- is on the upper portion of this -- this folds out. On the upper portion of
this where I'm showing is the final plat that's already approved, which is under construction, laid into the surrounding area, showing the roadway out Cloverdale. That's what's on the
top of the page. What's on the bottom of the page is what we are proposing now, with the stub street the way we are proposing it now with the road out to Fairview. Mr. Clark will be
up soon and he will have a plan that shows the development. He is planning a higher density residential development in that location. As you likely know, the Comp Plan, I believe,
calls out for up to 15 units per acre on the land use map. One of the reasons for shifting the road over is to work with Mr. Clark's design and what it does, instead of running the
road straight through, is it allows more of an area for the homes -- excuse me -- the apartments to be clustered without the roadway cutting through the neighborhood. So I think that
will hopefully sell you the idea that it might be best to shift this roadway to the east and have it somewhat circuitous. I think another advantage in having it somewhat circuitous,
that is bending at 90 degree angles, as opposed to going straight, is you may create somewhat of a raceway through here and understanding that this is coming into a residential area,
I believe it would be much more neighborhood friendly to have a roadway curve as is being proposed to do by Mr. Clark, as opposed to having that roadway go straight. That touches on
the first two issues of what was approved, why we are back. The last thing I wanted to talk about a little bit was the findings as it related to the previously approved variance and
this modification we are asking for. If you had a chance to read the staff's report, staff looks like -- it looks like in the report there were some open windows for us, even though
staff was recommending that you required a stub and not approve a variance, there was some open windows in that Mr. McKinnon had said that no development plan has been shown and Mr.
Clark is here to show you a development plan to the north. Mr. McKinnon mentioned the current circumstances and I think I have additional data to give to you, part of what I have given
you so far, to help you see that variance go through. Mr. McKinnon also mentioned in his report the fact that the public testimony holds lot of weight, so I'm hoping we will have people
here from the
neighbor who are in favor of this roadway going north and with Mr. Clark's testimony we can gain your acceptance on our request for variance. Specifically, though -- and I don't expect
you to read this -- I don't expect you to have the time to read this. I'm just going to give you the gist of what this is and I in no way mean to step on the attorney's foot, because
I'm sure he wants to write the findings and -- but maybe some suggestions would be helpful. But what I have done here in this letter is I have taken the items A through D mentioned
by staff that relates to your Title 11, Chapter 18, Section 1, Paragraph O, and these are the findings for a variance and what I have done is below that I copied out the findings that
were actually written in our variance Findings of Fact which have already been approved and I supplied some language that I think -- I believe can be used to justify the variance and
basically what it's saying is that if the stub street were to go in here, that it could create a cut-through situation where you have vehicles cutting through the Crossroads Subdivision
once those two roadways are connected. If you look at the area map you can see that Crossroads has a stub into Mr. Clark's property. So if we were to put a stub as was previously
proposed in that location, it could create somewhat of a cut-through situation. Also understanding that with a higher density development going in on Mr. Clark's property, that can
create a cut-through situation where you have many vehicles cutting through the crossroads Subdivision. Mr. Clark is here to testify tonight and he has something writing that ACHD
has reviewed this and they do not want a public road connecting to the public road that comes out of Crossroads, because of the safety concern and the impact to the neighborhood that
they believe will be created if the road is connected. So that's kind of the gist of my findings. I guess the last thing is that we don't want to pressure the Council, but we would
really like you to understand that, you know, we are under construction, this does save us a little bit of money, but overall we think it's in the betterment of the community, it's in
the best interest of the community, we think this is a better option than what we were able to workout before and if we have the requirment to do this to the north, as we have asked,
but yet also have the requirement to do the other stub, then Bill Clark and his owners will delay for months and if we can't do this roadway to the north, we need to withdraw our application.
So understand that we are trying to do what's in the best interest of the City, but our hands are tied a bit. With that I will close, unless you have some questions at this time.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: The road to Cloverdale is a temporary road. That was supposed to be constructed upon the first building or first occupancy or --
Butler: No. Prior to the first building permit even being issued. Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. So --
Corrie: We are ready to jam on that, too.
De Weerd: Okay. So would this road, then, be constructed before the first building?
Butler: Absolutely.
De Weerd: Okay. That's the only question I had.
McCandless: You mean to the north --
Butler: Correct. The road north of there. And understand that we would not do the road out Cloverdale.
McCandless: Exactly.
Corrie: Any other --
Bird: I'm not a hundred percent sure, but traveling on that road as much as I do, I don't believe people exiting to the north here can turn left. I believe there is a -- are you --
are we in line with the one across the street there? I can't -- I can't remember.
Butler: Yes, we are.
Bird: So you can't turn left? There is a --
Butler: Yes, we can turn left.
Bird: Can you turn left? There is a -- I was thinking there was a guard across there. It's further down? Okay.
Butler: There are some other folks who can answer that.
Bird: Yeah. That was my question.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Butler, I can't speak for the Council or -- but appreciate that. Thank you for your comment. Thank you. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Butler: Thank you.
Corrie: We have now the Public Hearing for those who are for the -- either the final plat or the variance. I believe we have Bob Kyle and Bill Clark. Bob Kyle, is he here? Kyte.
I'm sorry.
Kyte: Bob Kyte. I live at 11279 West Hickorydale in Boise. I'm legal counsel with Skinner Fawcett and I represent the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I'm also a member of the Cloverdale
church and I'm very well familiar with this particular project. I just want to speak and I felt that Mr. Butler covered the issues very effectively. I appreciate the work the developer
and the owner to the north have done to come together on this plan, because it addresses some of the issues that this Council and also the ACHD had with a preference towards the road
to the north to cut down the congestion onto Cloverdale Street at this time. But I think they have addressed that, they have also addressed the ability, then, for the emergency services
to go through Meridian into Meridian, as opposed to going out of Meridian and looping back in through Boise. We also feel that the variance, from our review of the variance, that this
is probably more of a modification than what has been done in the past and, therefore, we would ask on behalf of the church to speak in favor of supporting this plan that has been brought
to you this evening. We would hate to see the plan go away from the standpoint of the access to the north would go away if we don't take care -- if the City Council doesn't take care
of the stub situation. So we hope that that can be approved as well. Thank you.
Corrie: Bill Clark?
Clark: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, Bill Clark, 479 Main Street in Boise. I'm representing Terrace Lawns, a company that owns this property to the north of Macaile Meadows
and additional property in the vicinity. I was up before you on this matter two years ago when we had a Comprehensive Plan amendment approved for this property -- for the property to
the north of Macaile Meadows, which would be to designate, at that time, as mixed planned use. In your new Comprehensive Plan it's down as multi-family residential. We did present
a concept plan at that time to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to City Council, which I have a copy of I can show you, and which was referred to a number of times, but it was
made clear that that was only a concept plan and that eventually we were going to have to come forward with a more detailed plan. At that time, too, there was a lot of sensitivity and
concern expressed by residents of the Crossroads Subdivision to the west of Macaile Meadows and our property and particularly concerning this stub street that exists on Crossroads,
which is right -- the stub right there and how the Highway District, which was requesting that there be some connection through this property, could impact them by cut-through traffic.
We agreed and I think discussed in front of the Council that we -- that property owners to the north of Macaile Meadows could work with the Highway District and the Crossroads people
to -- with the Highway District and since that we worked with Macaile Meadows to try and protect the Crossroad Subdivision. This was culminated, I will call it, but I think it's a pretty
firm indication by the Highway District in a letter of -- dated February 19th of this year -- this was, at the time, that Macaile Meadows was coming forward and we were working with
the Highway District. This is a letter addressed to me from Steve Hasson, who is on the planning development service staff. His letter was -- he was confirming our meeting this week
-- all those present, including the Highway District agreed that East Florence Drive could be developed as a pedestrian and bicycle pathway to provide connectivity with the adjacent
Crossroads Subdivision, as opposed to turning the stub street into a local roadway. So that was where we got with the Highway District and we are happy for that and for the Crossroads
people. As Mr. Butler said, we had been reluctant at this time, though, to commit to a connection of Venture Street through to -- through to Macaile Meadows, because we hadn't -- this
would come from here and go over there and down as to their northeastern entry as it's being proposed tonight in the variance and we just have not gotten far enough in the planning for
the site. We have made some progress at least to the point where we are able to talk with them about a firm location for a connection, but we still don't have a final plan. We are
working on that right now. But while they were in construction we thought it was an opportune time to do that, so we, as was commented, got in kind of late in the game with them on
this. We actually learned about the fact that two stub streets were required from Macaile Meadows after the decision was made and so -- although I'm sure we would have had an opportunity
to comment on it, we weren't monitoring very closely and we didn't understand that it was -- it was proposed. So we are in support of this variance request. We do look forward to seeing
this road built in the immediate future that is the connection to Venture Street through to Macaile Meadows. We think that the criteria for the variance appear to be met by virtue of
the fact that there are special circumstances affecting this property and that it's not possible to make connections to the east, nor the west, as found in the previous variance approval
and don't understand why two stub streets to the north, one of which would necessarily connect through Crossroads and the other at Venture Street would be necessary. We think that given
the traffic levels in this area that the connection through to Venture Street would be adequate. We think that contrary to this variance being detrimental to the public welfare of the
property in the area, it would be beneficial to Crossroads and to other -- to the residents of Macaile Meadows and to Driftwood to the south and also believe it would be consistent with
the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. We have continued to support the interests of the Crossroads Subdivision and the neighborhood association and I believe they may be here to comment
tonight on that and we are hear to answer any questions you may have.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Butler: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Is there anybody else from the public for either the variance or the final plat? You're for?
Courval: Mr. Mayor, I think I initially noted on the sign-up sheet that I was for, but as these things often become convoluted and complex, I guess I wasn't real sure whether I was
for or against. Robert Courval, 3653 East Presidential Drive. I live in Crossroads Subdivision. As this progresses I find that I am for the variance. What I am against is the connection
with the street that is stubbed in in our association -- or in subdivision, which is Florence Street. When a homeowner purchases a home on a stubbed in street they should assume that's
going to connected at some point, but what you can't plan for is the eventuality of having a large behemoth super store at your back door and we have been under siege for about two years
now and we have Wal-Mart next to us and I think Florence would be become a collector street for the entire block bound by Fairview, Franklin, and Eagle and Cloverdale, so I'm against
the stub street going in in Macaile Meadows in the northeast -- northwest corner of the Macaile Meadows. Any connection with Florence would have a huge impact on us and as a member
of the -- or as a homeowner and as the vice-president of the homeowners association we have discussed this and we would be against seeing that go through. So in that sense we are for.
If there are any questions from you or the Members of the City Council, I would be happy to answer those.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: So, Bob, you're supporting the proposal that is before us tonight? Courval: That's correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you, Bob.
Courval: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Anybody else in the for category? Or neutral. So everybody can talk.
Turney: Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Holly Turney, I live at 4096 East Driftwood Drive and I represent Westdale Homeowners Association, and my
purpose in being here tonight was to make sure that certain conditions of approval that had been omitted from the revised final plat have been brought to your attention and I see that
staff has caught those omissions and they are Nos. 11, 12, and 14 on the staff report. Other than that, the only other thing that I have to say is that from our standpoint, the Westdale
Subdivision, the access from Macaile Meadows to the north is more beneficial for Westdale than the access to Cloverdale, predominately because of the traffic situation that exists on
Cloverdale today. It only continues to get worse, it doesn't seem to be improving at all. Therefore, we would support this road to the north and if there is any way that this connection
to Fairview can be accomplished now, it is to our benefit have it so, and, as I stated, it would help alleviate the traffic problems that are on Cloverdale. I personally try not to
leave my subdivision after 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, because it's next to impossible to get on Cloverdale until about 7:00 in the evening. So if you would take that into consideration,
I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else for? Okay. Anybody against the proposal at this point? Okay. The developer has the last word here and any questions that might come up.
Butler: The last word is that -- just to let you know we did go to ACHD and they have approved this roadway connection. As I said earlier, they had preferred it a few months ago,
we couldn't get it, and they have approved it. They like the road going to north. And also they have not required an additional stub. So they are not -- for what it's worth, because
I know how some of the cities feel about ACHD. But they have not required it.
Corrie: Surely you jest.
Butler: Surely I used to be a city official. So, anyway, that's all I had to say. You do understand our position, though, don't you, that we are kind of in a pinch here. You know,
I don't want to make this sound bad, but if we end up with, you know, things kind of going awry, we need to withdraw it. So, hopefully, you see the value in the roadway without requiring
the additional stub and we appreciate -- really appreciate the neighbor's testimony in favor. With that, unless you have any questions –
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I would just, again, clarify that the street to the north would be constructed before your building permits; right?
Butler: Absolutely.
De Weerd: How are you moving equipment in and out of that construction area right now?
Butler: In through the church -- through the church property.
De Weerd: Okay. And do you have any response to the comments that staff has regarding this --
Butler: I really appreciate staff allowing us to come straight here. That time savings is so valuable for us and I think so valuable for the City. I did comment already on staff's
findings. Without going into the details of my findings, I think mine are much better, because they allow our stub to not be required. So unless you want us to go into those findings,
I think one of the very important issues is the relevance of the comprehensive plan and I did quote a specific section in there. You only have got two sections, one that's somewhat
generalized and one that's very specific about preserving the tranquility and the safety of neighborhoods with regard to local roadways and I think that far outweighs the requirement
to say, hey, your block length is too long in this case.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I was mildly opposed before to the entrance and exit into Cloverdale Road. I thought it looked like a nightmare to me, but I appreciate the cooperation that we have in
getting the road to the north.
Butler: I thought about you especially and thought that you would be especially happy with the alignment. I'm serious.
Corrie: So is she.
Butler: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Council, any other questions that we have for the Public Hearing?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on closing the Public Hearing.
De Weerd: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the variance and the Preliminary Plat, Items 14 and 15. Any further discussion? Then all those in favor
of the motion say aye. Opposed no. All ayes, motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Okay. Discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I was in Planning and Zoning when the Comp Plan amendment came through with Mr. Clark's property and I see that the stub to the north as it is on the final plat that had been
approved was -- really put at risk that connection into Crossroads Subdivision and I know how much of a stickler point that was and so I think that as it's designed right now it does
maintain the integrity of previous commitments, as well as make the connection to the north work and that's very much appreciated.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing no other comments, let's take the variance first. Request for a variance in the maximum subdivision block length or 1,000 foot in an R-8 zone for Macaile Meadows.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve the request for variance for the maximum subdivision block length of 1,000 feet in an R-8 zone for Macaile Meadows, south of East Fairview Avenue
and west of North Cloverdale and have the attorney draw up the proper papers.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion and second to approve the -- have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order for approval of the variance on the subdivision
block length for Macaile Meadows. Any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. One absent. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Now we have a request for the Final Plat approval of 115 building lots and 19 other lots in an R-8 zone for Macaile Meadows.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve the request for Final Plat approval of 115 building lots and 19 other lots on 28.58 acres in an R-8 zone for Macaile Meadows by Hillview Land Development,
LLC, and have the attorney draw up the appropriate papers.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. A motion has been made and seconded to approve the Final Plat on Macaile Meadows, 115 building lots, with the approval and the appropriate paper of request for the attorney
to draw up the proper papers.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Yes, Mr. Attorney.
Nichols: Mayor, Members of the Council, in terms the motion and the second, does that include the requirement that there is no building permits issued until that access is built through
to the --
McCandless: Thank you. And it does.
Corrie: You didn't disappointment me, counselor. Okay. With that inclusion, any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: We have got quite a few Public Hearings left here. I'd like to take about a ten minute break if we could and we will come back and do as many as we can before 10:00, 10:30.
RECONVENED AT 9:31 P.M.
Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 01-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Group Day Care with approximately six children in an R-8 zone for Virginia L. Beberness by Virginia L.
Beberness – Lot 14, Block 3 of Tremont Subdivision:
Corrie: All right. I will reconvene the City Council and we are on Item No. 16, which is a Public Hearing request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Group Day Care with approximately
6 children in an R-8 zone for Virginia L. Beberness, Lot 14, Block 3, of the Tremont Subdivision. So at this time I will open the Public Hearing and do we have staff or have they all
gone home?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a property located in the Tremont Place Subdivision and the request for the day care, I believe she would like to have up to 6 children,
but the Conditional Use Permit allows from 6 to 12 children and right behind the house here is Nine Mile Creek. The developer of the subdivision did put a sidewalk in on the northern
boundary of Nine Mile Creek. There is a church here. It's mostly just the front portion of the property next to Pine that's being developed. This is pretty open back here. Vacant
land. And then the home is surrounded by other lots within the Tremont Place Subdivision. We have our staff comments on this and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation.
It has been brought to my attention that there has been a 6 foot fence installed behind the chain link fence. There was a condition of the subdivision that they not exceed the four
foot height requirement along Nine Mile Creek in accordance with our landscape ordinance, but there is now a solid 6 foot wooden fence. I would like the applicant to speak on whether
that received a building permit or how that was put up and also the fact that this was -- the fence requirement is on the recorded plat and I guess if the Planning -- or of the Council
-- City Council elects to approve the Conditional Use Permit as is, that there will be some requirement to -- if not reduce that to four feet -- I know it becomes a safety problem, then,
for the children, then -- if nobody's out there watching them, anyway, that at least the fence be cut down to four feet and a see-through fence, perhaps some lattice type construction
be added to the fence for the other two feet, but we will have that problem throughout this whole subdivision if we don't take care of it now, so other than that, I'd recommend approval,
but that's the only issue that I could see with that.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions from staff? Okay. Is the applicant here then?
Beberness: My name is Virginia Beberness, 918 West Broadway Avenue. The house has been constructed and the fence is all the way around, all the paperwork is done to be constructed,
so I just wanted to clarify that. I'm not sure I understand about the fence. The fence is pretty high up. It's wood and I understood from the beginning that it needed to be constructed
in order to be able to even apply for the day care, obviously, for the safety of the children. So
I'm not understanding what she means about the fence, what I need to change about it.
Corrie: You want to answer that or I can.
Stiles: We have a landscape ordinance that deals with construction of these pathways and these creeks and for the safety and visibility back there, our requirement is placed in the
conditions of the plat and in this case it is also shown on your recorded plat that no fence can exceed four feet in height on that back boundary.
Beberness: Okay. So in the back where it backs up to the creek, I need to reduce it to four feet and then the rest of it see through or it has to go down to four feet?
Stiles: Well, that's up to Council of what they want to do with that, but the main issue is -- I know you want to have your children safe in your backyard and four feet would probably
allow somebody to jump over the fence pretty quickly and, you know, who knows, but we don't want to see just a solid wall of fences back there that leads to the rest of it to be just
a no man's land that nobody ever looks at, it becomes a crime area. If people don't tend to see the weeds that growing back there, then they don't complain or they don't do anything
about it and they just become high for other people, those types of things. That's the reason for the four foot restriction, so –
Beberness: Okay. So then it would be okay to make it four feet with the wood and then something see through?
Stiles: Well, I'm just putting that out as an option. If Council thinks that's a good compromise or -- you know, we don't want to have to deal with this every place down the road,
that they all want to put up a six foot fence and then we have lost what our intent was to begin with.
Beberness: Right. The only issue I would have is the homeowners. They seem to have an issue about everything we do there. A bush. A tree. So I don't know how that's going to go.
The reason I put up that fence is because I understood that that's what I needed to do, having invested $3,000 on that fence. So now I'm told different. Which, obviously -- and this
is what I do, I take care of children. I have been doing it for three years in San Diego. I miss them. I want to continue. I'm willing to do whatever I need to do, but I'd like to
keep the height, because, obviously, I don't need children climbing over fences and, you know, not that they are out there by themselves, but I mean I'm not perfect either, I can turn
my head and a child could jump the fence in a heartbeat, so --
Corrie: Are you the only one that has a six foot fence there?
Beberness: Yes. Nobody seems to have any grass or fences or anything around their houses right now.
Corrie: I would think they would be more apt to -- I guess if you have a fence and nobody else has one, but --
Beberness: I think -- yeah. I think they have issues with how much the fence cost, because a lot of the neighbors have approached me to found out who did the fencing when they find
out the price of it they are like, oh, no. So I would be more concerned about what homeowners are going to say as far as their image of the neighborhood.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Now it says in here that you're going to watch up to six kids, in addition to your own. How many kids do you have?
Beberness: I have three children of my own.
De Weerd: Okay. Not seven?
Beberness: Right. No, not seven.
De Weerd: Okay. So if we were to ask that you put the see through -- two feet of the see through, you would be able to do that?
Beberness: Yes. Before I would open up for children, obviously, I have to have that for when my licensing comes through for a walk through, they want to see what I'm actually going
to be using. So that would have to be prior, just -- in order to meet with homeowners, I would think, if they would be okay. Maybe the wood fence that has the crisscrossing you can
still see through, you know, through the holes that are, you know, so big, if that would be okay, just to keep the wood image, the look.
Corrie: Any other --
Bird: I have nothing.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Beberness: I have one more question. I don't know if this is even important, but on the paperwork I received, again, it says Block 3 and it's actually Block 2. I just wanted to make
sure that that's right.
Corrie: That does make a difference for our attorney.
Beberness: And that's it.
Corrie: He'll be getting somebody else's permit.
Beberness: Yeah. I don't think they want me to do day care in their home.
Bird: Surprise them.
Beberness: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to issue testimony in favor? Neutral? Opposed? All right.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Council, discussion?
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion for the request for a Conditional Use Permit.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Ms. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Group Day Care Home with approximately -- well, in an R-8 zone for Virginia Beberness and on Lot 14, Block
2, of Tremont Subdivision, to also include the stipulation that the fence on the back property line be brought down to four feet and to allow it to maintain a six foot height, but with
see through material.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the stipulation of the fence. Any further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: That would include staff comments, too.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Roll call, vote, please.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Boy, I'll tell you, we have got a tough attorney.
Bird: That's what we pay him all them big bucks for.
Item 17. Public Hearing: CUP 01-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an alternative school for Middle School and High School age students in an R-4 zone for Joint School
District No. 2 by Joint School District No. 2 - 930 West Pine Street:
Corrie: Item 17 has been pulled off the agenda by the request of the School District.
Item 18. Public Hearing: AZ 01-017 Request for annexation and zoning of .193 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Packard Acres No. 1 by Packard Estates Developers, LLC – east of North
Wingate Lane and south of East Ustick Road:
Corrie: So we will go to Item 18, which is a Public Hearing, request for annexation and zoning of .193 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Packard Subdivision No. 1 by Packard Estates Developers,
east of North Wingate and south of East Ustick Road. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is to correct a problem with the recorded Final Plat for this property. The initial annexation included a certain area and
when the Final Plat -- or the plat map was submitted without that area shown, but when the Final Plat was presented for signature -- well, I got that wrong. When the Final Plat was
submitted it showed the additional area. It wasn't caught by any of the staff and the plat was recorded with this area that's not within the City of Meridian. So it was brought to
our attention by the Sharps. We did proceed with informing the applicant and his engineer that there was a problem with the plat. We did hold building permits -- I think we were just
holding one building permit still in order to fix this problem. We would recommend approval with staff and agency conditions, if there are any.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions of staff? Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is the applicant here this evening?
Tealey: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Pat Tealey and I represent the developer Packard Acres and Packard Subdivision. This is -- this was an oversight in the annexation
process, the original annexation process. I don't know if you want me to go into any detail, whether you understand it? Great. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
De Weerd: We just wanted you to get up there and do this.
Tealey: I appreciate that and this is probably the first Public Hearing that I have spoken to that the Sharps haven't, so --
Corrie: Anyone else to issue testimony for or against or neutral? Hearing none? Okay. That being the case --
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move that we close the Public Hearing for the request for annexation and zoning.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move that we approve the request for the annexation and zoning of .193 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for the Packard Acres No. 1 by Packard Estates Developers, LLC, with the
condition of staff, if there is any, and comments, for the attorney to draw up the proper papers.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for the attorney to draw of the papers for approval and the staff comments on the request annexation and zoning on AZ 01-017. Any further
comment? Mr. Berg, roll call vote, please.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: All present ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 19. Public Hearing: AZ 01-016 Request for annexation and zoning of 7.32 acres from County zone to C-G zone for proposed Meridian Storage by Touchstone Construction, Inc. – south
of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road:
Item 20. Public Hearing: CUP 01-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development and storage facility in a C-G zone for proposed Meridian Storage by Touchstone
Construction, Inc. – south of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road:
Corrie: Number 19 is a Public Hearing. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 7.32 acres of County zone to C-G zone for proposed Meridian Storage by Touchstone Construction,
south of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road. At this time I will open the Public Hearing on the request for annexation. Staff comments. Oh. Okay. Open both hearings,
19 and 20. Sorry. Okay. Public Hearings. Yes. Go ahead, staff.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property on Overland Road. It's directly across from Roaring Springs Water Park. It's also adjacent to this parcel of property that
is I believe known as Rojo. This property is in the City. The Kennedy Lateral runs along the back of the Elk Run Subdivision and it is piped up to this point where it then traverses
diagonally across the property and goes back out to Overland Road. The applicant has submitted a new landscape plan today. I don't know if you all have a copy of that. Did you all
get a copy of this
new plan that was -- we received it on December 14th. Do you even know what I'm talking about?
Bird: We have got it.
Stiles: Okay. They have been some changes from the originally resubmitted plan. To give you a little more direction on where this is, this is all known as Cleanland Acres. They got
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change that to a mixed planned use area. South is Bear Creek Subdivision. These are some views of the site. This would be the Rojo. This is their
proposed plan. You can't see -- I think the resubmitted plan was pretty nearly the same as the original plan, except they have shown the lawn areas where previously it was shown as
gravel or some other material, I believe. They are putting lawn in the areas that are adjacent to the Bear Creek and the Cleanland Acres property. The recommendation was not to provide
landscaping adjacent to Rojo and I don't -- I guess that's because of what the adjacent use was. But, if anything, it would -- it would serve only to probably provide a better view
from Rojo and they pretty much have a solid wall of building there, except for a little narrow area, so apparently they didn't believe that would serve any purpose to provide the landscaping
there. They did change from their original submittal to include pavement. They had originally proposed that all to be gravel. They are still proposing that the area for the RV storage
be gravel and also this area in the back to remain a gravel area. They would have a caretaker's residence up near Overland Road and they think that there might be another use for this
in the future. If there is, then they would come back with a revised plan and a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development with details of that plan. The Kennedy Lateral that
currently traverses the site would be relocated to go along the south and west boundaries. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District has provided a letter stating that they will allow trees
to be planted in their easement, as along as it's 25 feet from the actual center line of the pipe. With that and barring any other testimony in opposition, staff would recommend approval
of all staff and agency conditions. Oh, there was one more condition that they need to change the name of it from Meridian Storage to another name, as there is already a Meridian Storage
in Meridian. That's it.
Corrie: Shari, how big is that RV storage area?
Stiles: This whole site?
Corrie: No. Just the gravel part.
Bird: 127 feet by --
Stiles: The architect is here, Mr. Gibson. He could maybe give you that information.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: 127 by 250. 127 by 250.
Stiles: We probably need a clarification also from the architect. It does show a gravel retention absorption pit. I'm assuming that would be under the pavement? Okay. So all that
area would be paved, except for the RV storage area next to Overland Road and the southwest area where they show -- oh, they are showing that as paved also. Okay. So the only gravel
area is the front next to Overland. Sorry about that.
Bird: It goes down on the east side, too, on this one.
De Weerd: Is that's just gravel behind --
Gibson: It's just gravel. Three quarter crush.
Stiles: They do show that as gravel as well. I'm sorry.
Corrie: Okay. That answered my question and he can answer my question. Okay. Is the applicant here?
Gibson: Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is James Gibson. Address P.O. Box 219 in beautiful Eagle, Idaho, and I am the project architect representing the project this evening. We are
mostly here simply to answer any questions that you may have. However, a couple of questions have already come to us and we want to present you with the information. We have reviewed
the project at length with the staff and we have no disagreement with any of the proposed conditions. We still feel they are very appropriate. One of the conditions or suggestions
made at Planning and Zoning is that we communicate with representatives from Bear Creek and we have done that, we have visited on two occasions with Mr. Craig Groves and he is satisfied
with the landscaping, which is proposed at the south border of this project, which borders in Bear Creek and we believe that that issue is solved, that he didn't really have any disagreement
with it, but just wanted to confirm what the landscaping screening was there and we provided him with a copy of the design and discussed it with him and we believe that has been satisfied.
The other question that we were asked to address is -- and confirm is the proposed hours of operation of this facility and the office is proposed to be open between -- shall we say
normal business hours? That is 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on a daily basis and the accessibility -- the access to the project by people who store things there would be -- the access hours
would be normally 6:00 A.M. to midnight. It would not be a middle-of-the-night operation. And all other elements, such as lighting and landscaping, will be intended to screen the project,
so it won't be objectionable to the neighborhood. We believe it would be an appropriate use of the property and are willing to address any questions that you may have.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Gibson, on the one question that was brought up that was on the gravel at the RV deal there, I believe that's about a 127 by 300 foot area?
Gibson: That is correct.
Bird: And I would -- I have seen -- there is one in Boise that's put the gravel down like that and I think it's really appropriate, even over asphalt, myself, to a degree, because you
have no problem with dust abatement or anything with that -- with the gravel; am I right there?
Gibson: That's correct. Actually, the amount of traffic that would generate dust is very minimal in an area like this. It's not like vehicles drive on it several times a day. In
fact, in reality, the vehicles that would be stored there are placed there and people come a few times a year to these spots. So the traffic is minimal. Also we proposed doing a --
shall we say a dust abatement or control method, such as using a resin compound on the surface that would prevent that.
Bird: And also at that time it would be coarse enough that runoff would sink down; right?
Gibson: Yes. That's the major reason --
Bird: We have no -- that's the major reason why, so we have no runoff there?
Gibson: Yes. Yes. That's exactly right.
Bird: Thank you.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Ms. McCandless.
McCandless: Mr. Gibson -- I mean the police department had some concern about security in the south perimeter. I wonder if you have thought of that and what you think you might do
about it?
Gibson: We certainly have thought of that and, of course, the question is a valid question. The area in question is really the access or the easement for the canal that will be buried
within that area. We considered lighting the area to make it more secure. However, in consultation with Mr. Groves that was felt to be undesirable to light an area essentially in people's
back yards and so we are not
proposing that at this stage. The area will be fenced. Bear Creek will provide their fence, which is really at a south border of the project property and then approximately 50 feet
inside of that will be another security fence. So the area will be very well fenced and would be very difficult for someone to gain access to cause any trouble there. It would be,
in fact, considerably more secure than normal residential back yards backing up to each other, because there are these security -- two security fences there. So we don't really see
that as a problem that could be addressed without shall we say causing a worse problem, such as light pollution onto the neighboring property.
McCandless: That's one of my concerns.
Gibson: Yes.
McCandless: Thank you.
Gibson: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: This gravel surface on the east property line, what purpose is that?
Gibson: Simply to provide a clean surface there, rather than just bare dirt. The reason that there is a building setback there is a building code issued to provide the setback, so
that there isn't a required two hour fire wall on that property for these very simple buildings and the area, frankly, is almost what we would say a no man's land. You saw, I believe,
earlier, that fellow -- the neighbor's wall along there and so the area will hardly be visible by anyone, unless they enter that area specifically and look at it. So the reason behind
the gravel surface is simply to provide a surface that would not be subject to a lot of weed growth and so on. A clean surface there.
De Weerd: How will you discourage vehicles from driving back there?
Gibson: Well, there isn't any real access to that. I suppose someone physically could get there, but it doesn't go anywhere. I don't -- I don't think people would be likely to try
to drive there.
De Weerd: You would be surprised.
Gibson: Well, someone could -- someone could, but the road doesn't -- it isn't a road, it doesn't go anywhere. If that's a real concern, I don't -- I don't think we would have any
objection to putting a fence there to discourage driving there.
Corrie: Would there be cars back there?
Gibson: No. No storage.
Corrie: Sometimes that happens.
Gibson: No. That's not intended as part of this project.
Bird: You could just put bollards right down at --
De Weerd: Right at the end of that.
Bird: Down in there.
Gibson: Sure. That would -- that's probably a good idea.
Corrie: Okay. Anything else?
Gibson: Nothing, unless there are other questions.
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
McCandless: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. Public testimony. Is there anyone here that would like to testify for, neutral, or against? Okay. Hearing none, Council, what is your pleasure? Want to close
it?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move that we close the Public Hearings for the annexation and zoning for Meridian Touchstone Construction's proposed storage unit and also the request for a Conditional Use
Permit for the Planned Unit Development of the Touchstone Construction's proposed storage.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the annexation and zoning and Conditional Use Permit for Meridian Storage, which will change their name. All
those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Any further discussion or questions? Okay. I'll entertain a motion on the annexation and zoning.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before I make the motion I want compliment the applicant. I think this is a first class storage unit to be coming into Meridian. Appreciate it. With that I would make a motion
that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 7.32 acres from County zone to C-G zone for the proposed Storage Unit by Touchstone Construction, Incorporated, and for the attorney
to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded on the annexation and zoning and to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order in the affirmative.
Further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: Okay. Three ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Request for the Conditional Use Permit.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development and Storage Facility in a C-G zone for a proposed Storage Unit by Touchstone Construction,
Incorporated, south of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road, with the conditions of the staff and also putting some bollards at the location on the back of the east side
of the -- on the southeast side of the property, so they are not accessible, and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers.
De Weerd: Would that include the hours?
Bird: The hours of operation as stated in all the public testimony and statements.
De Weerd: I would second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to approve the Conditional Use Permit with staff conditions, the bollards, and the public testimony of the time. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, roll call vote, please.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 21. Public Hearing: PP 01-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots and 10 other lots on 29.93 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Woodbridge No. 2 by Woodbridge
Community, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Franklin Road:
Corrie: Item No. 21 is a Public Hearing on a request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 115 building lots and 10 other lots on 28.83 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Woodbridge No.
2 by Woodbridge Community, LLC, east of South Locust Grove and South of East Franklin Road. At this time we will the open Public Hearing. Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the remainder of the property in Woodbridge Subdivision that's located east of the Five Mile Creek adjacent to the Magic View Subdivision
and also the Locust View Heights Subdivision. Greenhill Estates is to the north and this is all county property here. We have -- there is a revised plan. They did get overall approval
for this at one time, but they had revised their plan and so that's why they are coming back with a new Preliminary Plat. One of the conditions of the -- I don't know if it was the
planned development or the original plat, was that they would have to have a second access into the subdivision after the -- I think it was the 200th home and they haven't got this
location tied down yet. They do have a public road that the roadway is going to be dedicated through to Greenhill Estates. However, at this time they are not proposing a roadway section
or the typical public street, it was going to be a pedestrian and emergency vehicle only at this time. I believe Gary Smith or Brad Watson had some issues related to this subdivision
that they can address. There will be pathway along Five Mile Creek and the applicant to speak to the details of that as they have been worked out with the Parks and Rec director. There
is a sewer easement existing along the eastern side of Five Mile Creek that they will have to maintain for access for the vehicles. I will let Gary or Brad speak to the public works
issues.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. There were two issues that the applicant responded to in the staff comments with the request for revision.
Excuse me. Suggested modification to the staff comments. The first item concerned the sanitary sewer. We didn't have any problem -- excuse me. There was no problem with the language
of the sentence that they wanted to add to Staff Condition No. 1. Excuse me. Staff Condition No. 2 deals with the water supply for the subdivision and our concern of the pressures.
The applicant has suggested modification to the staff requirement to connect this piece of the subdivision to the water system that exists in -- I think it's Magic View Drive to the
east of the subdivision boundary and the applicant is requesting that the City participate in the cost of that connection. Staff feels very strongly that the connection to the high
pressure zone, which is the water line in the Magic View Drive, extended to -- I believe it's Allen Street right now at the Texaco station, will be necessary for this portion of the
subdivision, as well as improve the pressure conditions in the number one subdivision phase. In November of this year and October of this year, the October 25th, 26th and November 14th
and 15th a pressure recorder was installed in Subdivision Phase No. 1 at the water meter location. The average pressure at that point was 42 psi and there were three times during the
day on the 25th and 26th where it dropped to approximately 21 psi and during the two days on November, 24 hours in the November, it dropped five different times during the day to 21
psi. Those were those low times under high demand. So it's our feeling that it's necessary to connect to the high zone and the question that the applicant has raised for modifying
the staff comments to include the City of Meridian as a participant in the cost of that connection. And as a second note, during the month of October for the shorter season of the irrigation
season when the water left the ditches early, there was 2,090,000 gallons that was used for irrigation of City water for the month of October through the PI system. Thank you. Do
you have any questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: So, Gary, what is staff's recommendation on participating on the City side? I mean is this something that we have done before or is this setting a precedence for something
else?
Smith: My memory is not serving me very well if we have done this before. I don't think we have. I think typically the extension of the water mains has been at developer expense.
Now there was some off-site extension that was required by this developer on Locust Grove Road to get the water into the subdivision. They came from the access road in front of Jabil,
picked up the water there, extended it down Locust Grove and into and through their subdivision and they are carrying a large diameter line through their subdivision from west to east
to make the connection -- a future connection to the water line access. So they are extending a larger diameter line than what they need for this subdivision through their subdivision
as a requirement of the Public Works Department. It is on our --
I think it's near the half mile grid to get us over to Eagle Road eventually, which would be the Magic View Drive.
De Weerd: And is that a usual requirement to bring it to and through the --
Smith: Yes. That is a usual requirement on mid section line and on section lines that they upsize the diameter of the water line.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Public Hearing. The developer.
O'Neal: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Derrick O'Neal, 168 North 9th, Suite 200. I just ran in the door from a four hour trip down from McCall and I'm having a little
trouble getting up to speed here.
De Weerd: And you haven't had time to shave.
O'Neal: And I haven't had time to shave. I appreciate that. I think I can keep this pretty simple and go through it and I just want to make a few comments. Our Phase Two request
is consistent with the Conditional Use that was approved in January 2000 and as you guys probably remember that Conditional Use addressed the open space amenities, community center,
fencing, landscaping, and access and we have submitted the application consistent with that Conditional Use. In regard to the staff report and some of the comments made, one, we feel
very good about the staff report. I think it was a very good report. A couple of clarifications or just maybe trying to bring a couple things to closure. I missed the first part of
Shari's comments, but the emergency access which ties into Greenhill Estates, when we submitted the Preliminary Plat we had an error, our engineer did not submit that as an emergency
access and we apologize for that. We have corrected it since then. We are being exactly consistent with the Highway District and with you guys' comments. We intend that to be the
emergency vehicle access, we are going to give the right of way to the City in the plat and we are going to improve it the way we had talked about. In regards to the secondary access,
we have been working on the deal and I think there with the owners so we can connect to that at the time of the improvements for the second phase, which is earlier than what we have
in the conditions. We'd like to get that done just as much as you guys would, so we are going to try to get that done right along with the Phase 2 improvements, as part of those construction
improvements. And, lastly, the comments on the high pressure water connection, I know we are probably not going to get a lot of sympathy from you, but I think we have a case to ask
for some participation from the City and I'll just
outline a couple of comments. One, we are not in disagreement that this needs -- this connection needs to be made and we want to move the low pressure and the high pressure systems,
so we are going to do that one way or another as part of the Phase 2 improvements, so we don't disagree with Gary, we think it's good for the community and it's good for City to do.
I guess we just have a difference in a couple of things. One, I think this connection is benefiting the City, not just Woodbridge. It's connecting the high pressure zone and the low
pressure zone, which is a good thing for the City. That's not just a sole benefit for Woodbridge, I think it's -- whenever you can loop a water system that's a very positive thing.
Two, we think that even though it's not acceptable to the City and probably not acceptable to us, we certainly meet the requirements of the health department, the district health department
and DEQ in terms of water pressure. So it may not be meeting the standards that they would like to set and the City likes to set, which are higher than those, we currently think we
are meeting the requirements of those agencies. So -- and then I think there is some other owners along the Magic View area that are going to benefit from this as well. So we don't
think it's just there to handle the Woodbridge project, it's going to provide a great benefit o other areas as well. I guess that was our rationale, if I had any, of why we don't think
it should be a complete responsibility of Woodbridge. The connection is going to -- it's probably over a quarter mile passed and beyond Woodbridge and it's going to be in the public
right of way and it's going to be part of the project. It's a $50,000 bill there to do that. So aside from that we are in agreement with the staff report and we are -- and we are ready
to go with this and if you're not in favor of some sort of cost sharing, we certainly want to make sure -- and I think we do, but we want to make sure we preserve our right to be able
come in for late-comers on the other people connecting to the system and benefiting from it and I'm sure that we can -- I just want to make sure for the record that we preserve the right
to do that. That's it.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: So do you feel that you're being asked to do something that other developments are not being asked to do?
O'Neal: I don't know. I don't know what the City's policy has been and how they have handled it. I certainly think that the pressure meets the requirements of the agencies that we
are aware of and I think taking it a little bit further and connecting the loop has probably not necessarily been asked to do something different, but I think in some cases how you
guys bring it to and maybe just stub it to the edge of the property, we are going to take it even further. So I don't know specific cases of what the City has done in other areas, but
I certainly -- I know in the past what we have been required to do is take it to your property and then through your property and stub it there, not take it additionally further. This
is a
little different and this is giving us additional pressure, but I'm not sure that answers your question.
De Weerd: Yeah.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: I guess I have one, Derrick. We just tabled a late-comers fee until the 15th of January for discussion purposes. Can you shed any light -- are you going to ask for the same
thing on this one as you're asking for that -- the one previous that we tabled, that -- the five year, four percent?
O'Neal: I'm not --
Corrie: You're not with us –
O'Neal: I'm not with you. I missed that part of meeting. You deferred the --
Corrie: Right. Right. And we -- I guess it says here on the Item No. 1, late-comers fees be paid prior to City signatures on the Final Plat or applicant shall enter into an agreement
with the City prior to the signature. But is it your intention to do the same thing as you were asking on that other one, first phase?
O'Neal: Yes. We prefer to take that entire later-comers fee and I think, as addressed in the letter, we'd like to have a payment program as outlined for Phase 1 and 2 for the total
$134,000, whatever that was.
Corrie: Five year period at four percent?
O'Neal: Yes.
Corrie: That may have something to do with the City's participation at the end of it, too, so --
O'Neal: Yeah.
Corrie: -- I just wanted the Council to be aware of that . Okay. Thank you. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony?
Beecham: Scott Beecham. 168 North 9th Street, Suite 200. Derrick did not have an opportunity to take a look at the packet, so I will just add that it appears that the recommendation
from Planning and Zoning includes comments from ACHD on Phase 1, as opposed to Phase 2. There are new comments from ACHD, dated October 24th, that should be included as an alternative.
Corrie: Okay.
Beecham: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else for public testimony for? Against? Okay. Council, any questions for the Public Hearing folks? I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing
on Item No. 21.
De Weerd: I'd move we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Council, comments? Discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: As far as the language regarding the late-comers on the P&Z recommendation, page two, number one, that's sufficient language so that we can deal with that late-comers at
a later time?
Smith: We believe so.
De Weerd: Then as far as the domestic water system and the City's participation in that, are we asking the applicant to do something beyond going to and through that would warrant the
City's participation?
Smith: Council Member de Weerd, Mayor and Council, from one standpoint the answer is yes, but, secondarily, I think we have a unique situation here where we have a low pressure problem.
If we have -- and I believe a minimum pressure requirement in the street is 35 psi by the health agency -- could be wrong, but I think that's what it is -- and we have times where it
dips to 20 psi, I think we have a pressure deficiency problem that we weren't positive of, because we were running this on our water model and we didn't have any good field data in that
area. It provides an upgrade of the pressure in the subdivision that has already been -- the developer has already provided a pressure reducing station at the entrance to the subdivision
at Locust Grove Road. They have provided the funds for equipping that vault to hold the pressure reducing station to allow water to
come back into the low pressure zone at that point. So it was anticipated that we could have a problem with pressures in the subdivision as it continued to develop to the east. Another
item of concern is to have reliability where we have water available from two directions to the subdivision. Now a large subdivision like this if you have a water problem on your main
line coming into the subdivision and you don't have a secondary point of supply, then you could have a subdivision without water for a period of time until repairs are made. Of course,
that's what they get, but we deal with the if's all the time. So I think we have a couple of unique issues here that could promote the extension of the water line to our existing high
zone pressure.
De Weerd: How is that for a political answer?
Smith: But typically our requirement is to extend the service lines to and through the development.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Smith: Without these limitations.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, I understand that the developer is willing to bring it through and to and what -- the one to the east that we are looking off of is down to the IMI West, I believe, there
a Magic View. Am I not right? I don't believe that house next to them was hooked up to the City water, are they?
Smith: I don't know what IMI West is.
Bird: That's the one right behind Hubble Engineering. You got water to Hubble and all them down there on --
Smith: Yes. Water is extended to -- from Eagle Road to Allen Street, I believe, and I'm not sure --
Bird: They don't go through to -- passed Allen Street?
Smith: I'm not sure how far it goes east -- or west of Allen, if it goes west.
Bird: Okay.
Smith: Now there is a development that is taking place on the northwest corner of Allen and Magic View, I believe it is. It is Winston Moore's subdivision --
Bird: That's already got water ran there, because they have got Lincoln Plaza and Mountain West Bank has already got water.
Smith: Okay. Well, if he's developed along Magic View, then I would suspect the water has been extended to his west boundary, but I couldn't say for sure.
Bird: Yeah. That's -- what are we looking at, Gary, costwise to bring it on down -- if they bring it to, what is the City's liability to bring it on down?
Smith: Well, I -- you mean in terms of cost?
Bird: Yeah.
Smith: I haven't -- I haven't looked at the cost of the water line. Derrick said that it was around $50,000 to extend it from where it is to their east boundary. So I don't know of
any other cost besides that.
Bird: 50,000? How many feet?
Smith: He said it was about a quarter of a mile.
Bird: A quarter of a mile?
Smith: 1,300 feet.
Bird: So we are probably looking at 100,000 if we are a half a mile away.
Smith: I would assume so, if that's the case. Yes. And we have got pavement to replace, as well as the installation of the water main.
Bird: Is that water main is right in the middle of the road?
Smith: I don't believe so. Typically, the water is on the north and east side of the roadway and it may be off the edge of the pavement. I'm not sure, Councilman Bird, where it is
exactly. But generally on the rural roads we are slightly off the pavement edge with the water line, unless there is a gas line there or telecommunications of some kind that we have
to deal with outside of their corridor perhaps. I really think that as this subdivision develops we are going to get phone calls with low pressure problems without this connection.
Bird: Where is the well, Gary, that's pumping into the existing Woodbridge, the location of the well? Which well number is he doing that? It isn't the one coming from -- over by
the speedway, is it?
Smith: Get myself oriented real quick here. Well No. 21, which is the new well at the watertower I think would pump that direction out into Water Tower Lane and then east on
Water Tower Lane to Locust Grove would probably be the main supply well.
Bird: Is that the one -- and you say it takes off and goes up by Jabil and they pick it up and Jabil, instead of coming down Water Tower where -- which one is over by the police station?
Smith: Water was -- yes. Well, the police station is hooking to the water line on Water Tower Lane, which has been built since Woodbridge first phase was built.
Bird: Yes.
Smith: So where Woodbridge picked up the water on the street coming in front of the Jabil was the only place that water existed at that point, other than Franklin Road.
Bird: Does this well service Barnes' development up there, too?
Smith: Yes.
Bird: Okay. Now over an Allen Street, Magic View, is that the well that's out at St. Luke's?
Smith: No. That well is Well No. 16 and also Well No. 17 on the other side of the interstate on -- in the Los Alamitos Subdivision.
Bird: It's the one that comes back through the interstate and comes out at --
Smith: It comes under the interstate and 16 pumps north and south off Eagle Road.
Bird: Okay.
Smith: So 16 and 17 are supplying that high pressure zone.
Bird: Gary, I -- the only thing I -- I have a problem. We have asked all the developers to go and -- go through and -- through their property with their stuff. When they annexed we
-- our ordinance says we will supply water and sewer, I believe. If we are not supplying the deal, I think it's up to the City, which is just another reason for good fees, to run that
on out ourselves that -- if he brings it through his development, he has done what is required by the City. So if we need to get that pressure and stuff up, then I guess we are going
to have to bite the bullet and bring it back in and get our fees going. This is the reason we need those fees, so that we don't have to have these arguments like this, we put it in
and they pay for it. So that's my only comment.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Bird: You can comment.
Corrie: I know I can. I said my part. Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Then that's -- if everybody is through, I will entertain a motion on the request for Preliminary Plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I will try to stumble through this and hope I get it right. First of all, I want to make a motion that we approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval for 115 building lots
and 10 other lots on 29.93 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Woodbridge No. 2 by Woodbridge Community, LLC, east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Franklin Road, with staff
comments, excluding the developer is to bring the water line through his property and if the water pressure does not meet our standard, then the City of Meridian, who -- our ordinance
states that we will, when they are annexed, that we will furnish water and sewer and we will hook up to the line over by Magic View to get the pressure going in there at our expense,
so there will be no late-comers fees or anything like that on the water. That's my motion. Ask for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision
of Order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any other comments? Okay. Hearing none, roll call vote.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: Okay. Three ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would like to compliment Woodbridge. This is turning out to be a real nice subdivision. It looks really nice.
Item 22. Public Hearing: PFP 01-006 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 10 acres in an L-O zone for Tramore Subdivision by Thomas Development Co. - south
of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road:
Item 23. Public Hearing: CUP 01-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 72 unit wood frame, three story senior apartment complex in an L-O zone for proposed
Tramore Senior Community by Thomas Development, Co. - south of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road:
Corrie: You've got my wife out there looking and that's bad. Okay. Item No. 22 and 23. Public Hearings. Did we lose Mr. Butler? Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of two
building lots on ten acres in an L-O zone for Tramore Subdivision by Thomas Development. Also a request for a Conditional Use Permit on a 72 unit wood frame, three story senior apartment
complex in an L-O zone for the Tramore Senior Community. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property that's located adjacent to -- I think they call it Sunbridge now off of Pine Street. This is the church over here. This has
been used for sometime for some kind of BMX bike facility. A long time ago this property had been proposed to be developed as what call the Pine Bluff Apartments and it was done as
an entire community in this -- on these lots, but the funding never seemed to appear for that project, so now what they are proposing is a senior housing development and in order to
do that, that it is only -- it has not been subdivided legally, they have to go through the subdivision process. They will be separating the northern parcel from the back parcel and
they are proposing that the plat be permitted with the back property being responsible for constructing a bridge over the Nine Mile Creek at the time they apply for a building permit.
The back portion of the property, because of the size of it, will likely involve more than one building and would be required to come through as a Conditional Use Permit. Showing
the property from Pine Street. showing the Nine Mile Creek. They do have a pathway in Tremont Subdivision. The way this plat is laid out the initial building permit would exclude
the Nine Mile Creek easement area from that lot. It would be included with the back portion of the lot. So they are not proposing to develop a pathway there at this time. Our current
Comprehensive Plan does not require the pathway along Nine Mile Creek, but we have been encouraging that along any areas of the Nine Mile Creek, since the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District
has agreed in principle at least that this creek they will allow pathways along. There were some issues with Ada County Highway District and Mr. Butler can address those. I believe
they have been worked out. They were concerned about access and future access for adjacent property. This was a potential scenario we saw happening because of the existing public roadway
across the street, that a public roadway may be required along the eastern boundary of this property. It would go through the Tremont Subdivision and bisect these properties where the
existing church is now and where this vacant property is and has some public road construction at least connecting with the property to the south. They have submitted a landscape plan
and I believe it complies with our landscape ordinance. They have elevations of the facility they are proposing to build. They are showing -- I
think you can see on your plan better. It's real hard to see on this one. It has patios along the back. This is extensively landscaped. I believe most of the issues that we had with
the project have been worked out with the applicant. We are in need of affordable housing for seniors in this area and we would recommend approval with all staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Open the Public Hearing on the Conditional Use Permit and also the Preliminary Plat/Final Plat. The developer?
J.Butler: Joann Butler, 702 W. Idaho, representing Thomas Development, who couldn't be here tonight. We apologize. I would just like to briefly -- I did attend the first neighborhood
meeting for this project before the application and it was really very heartening. We had many people coming from across the way, across Pine Street, and they were very curious about
the project. They wanted an application for my mother in law or whatever and so clearly the need that was shown in the study is evident out in the community. As Shari said, the ACHD
issues have all been resolved. There are some in your report, if you see anything that indicates that those haven't been resolved, they have been resolved at this point. We are asking
you to pass along all of the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. There is one that I would just make a clarification on. With regard to right about the -- this is
a two lot subdivision, but the northerly lot for Pine Street does not include the Nine Mile Drain Easement and the owner of lot two will ultimately construct the bridge over Nine Mile
Drain, although we are bringing the private roadway all the way down to the easement. The Planning and Zoning Commission said -- and I'm referring to -- it's paragraph 2-G on page four
of the Final Plat Report. The Commission recommended that we make written commitment as to when the bridge over the Nine Mile Drain would be constructed and give the general terms that
the property owner will be responsible for the bridge construction and I can tell you that the general terms of our agreement with the property owner to the south is that the property
owner will construct at their cost a bridge over the drain and you have required to -- the P&Z recommended requirement of a plat note that indicates that, that they have to build that
bridge prior to building permits. But as far as a written commitment, we can't provide -- we can't tell you when that will happen, because that is up to them. So I think there just
needs to be a clarification on that particular recommendation from the P&Z. And, finally, I think that in talking with Ms. Stiles I think we have sorted out the issue on setback. I
think there was a confusion with the P&Z as to thinking that there was not enough setback between the building and Pine Street, but it appears from scaling it off that we meet the setback
requirement. Of course, you do require a unified plan for landscaping and we have provided that in the landscape report. Other than that, I don't have any clarification, but if there
are any questions that I can
answer, I will be happy to. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Well, I was wondering where you were going to relocate the BMX field. That is a very positive amenity in Meridian.
Corrie: Okay. Anyone else from the public like to issue testimony? Okay. Council, questions? Okay. Moving right along. I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearings for the request for Preliminary Plat/Final Plat approval of two building lots on 10 acres in an L-O zone for Tramore Subdivision by Thomas
Development and also the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 72 unit wood frame three story senior apartment complex for Tramore Senior Community by Thomas
Development.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on request for a Preliminary/Final Plat and also a Conditional Use Permit. Further discussion? All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Questions? Discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion, then, on the request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of two building lots on ten acres in an L-O zone for Tramore Subdivision by the Thomas Development
Company, south of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road, with the condition of the staff and agencies, with the
clarification as stated by the applicant regarding the bridge and the setback and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to approve the request for Preliminary/Final Plat and for the attorney to draw up the documents and to incorporate he staff comments and on the agreement
on the bridge with ACHD. Any other comments? Okay. Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Any other discussion on the Conditional Use Permit? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on that one.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approval the Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 72 unit wood frame three story Senior Apartment Complex in an L-O zone for proposed Tramore Senior
Community by the Thomas Development Company, south of West Pine Avenue and east of the North Linder Road, with staff and agency comments and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit, 01-036, with the attorney to draw up the proper papers. Any further discussion?
Roll call vote, please, Mr. Berg.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: All three ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 24. Public Hearing: VAR 01-014 Request for a variance for the requirement to record the Final Plat within one year of approval by City Council in an R-4 zone for Pintail Pointe
Subdivision by Kelly
Hunemiller - south of West Cherry Lane and east of North Black Cat Road:
Corrie: Item No. 24 is a Public Hearing for a request for variance for the requirement to record a final plat within one year of approval by City Council in an R-4 zone by Pintail Pointe
Subdivision, south of West Cherry Lane and east of North Black Cat Road. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and invite staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I'm not sure if you recall the previous request for a time extension on this. The applicant was proposing a change originally and had requested the extension
and staff felt that the extension would not serve the purpose that was being sought by the applicant, because they would have had to file a new Preliminary Plat, because it didn't comply
with the approved plan. They are now requesting a variance from the Preliminary Plat -- from the requirement to record the plat within one year of written approval of the Council.
They do state -- the applicant did state that they weren't informed of the denial by City Council, but I believe the majority of the improvements are complete, didn't feel there was
any real purpose to make them start the process anew and go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. This was heard, apparently, before, because the property was not posted, but
unless Gary has anything to add, we would recommend approval, maybe not the one year, but hopefully they will be able to record that and get it into the -- so they can get building permits
soon. There was an issue brought up by the adjacent landowner that Blackstone Subdivision, it was previously approved as English Gardens. As a condition of the Pintail Pointe Subdivision's
approval, they were required to see how they could ook up with the pressurized irrigation system of the Blackstone Subdivision. They have done that and they have also -- and I believe
they also connected to a lift station that was constructed in Blackstone. So apparently at least as of a couple days ago they hadn't worked out an agreement where they would pay that
developer of Blackstone Subdivision their fees and we would recommend the approval of the variance and signature on the plat at such time as evidence is presented to us that that agreement
has been reached and all fees have been paid to the adjacent developer. Other than that, that's all I have.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions of staff?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, what kind of time limits are you looking at? The full one year, within one year, or what?
Stiles: I think they are just really anxious to get this out. I don't think it's going to take even two months. But six months would be plenty for it.
Bird: Do you want us to -- what are you recommending? One month? Two months? Or one year?
Stiles: I guess I would recommend two months. Hopefully we'd get this resolved with -- you can't do it in two months? Six months? They are saying they need six months. Apparently
they don't -- haven't come to an agreement with the cost that the adjacent developer is coming up with for the project, so, I don't know, I guess they think that will take longer to
resolve.
Corrie: I'd like to ask the applicant.
Woodruff: My name is Amy Woodruff with J.J. Howard Engineering. Offices at 1675 Hill Road in Boise. I will try to keep this very simple. The project was -- the Preliminary Plat was
originally developed and approved with one developer, then the project was sold to a second developer. Unfortunately, the applicant, nor the representative was here at the Final Plat
hearing, but made a request for the one year extension and there were some issues -- my apologies to staff if that wasn't clear. There were some issues and consequently that extension
was denied. As staff pointed out, the subdivision was constructed lock, stock, and barrel. These folks opted to go ahead and construct and not bond. They are scheduled to have their
plat signed by the Ada County Highway District tomorrow night. That's the first signature that they will procure. So they are really just right at the beginning of this plat signature
process. That's the reason that I suggested perhaps six months, because we don't know what can happen with those plats and the language at Central District Health and they just languish.
So that's why I asked for the six months, if not, you know, a full year in between that. The developer of Pintail Pointe did meet with the developer of -- I call it English Gardens,
but Blackstone Subdivision and she felt strongly that they would be able to reach some sort of agreement and they could have that forwarded over to staff within the end of the week.
They are very very close. I know staff recommended that that be dealt with on a building permit basis, I guess, when those folks -- you know, building permits are not the issue, until
that was taken care of. I know we are very very close with that. So I'm just before you to ask that you please grant this variance tonight and let these folks move on with their plat.
Bird: Are you asking for one year?
Woodruff: I'm actually not asking for one year, but six months would probably be adequate. Bird: One year from the original date would be --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the time for filing expired on June 20th, 2000, so it would be extended to June 20th of 2002.
Bird: That would extend it one year. That gives you a little over six months.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions?
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Clint?
Boyle: Mayor and City Council Members, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive and Amy did a great job of summing it up, as well as Shari. The issue -- I'm
here representing Projects West, which is Paul Edminster, who is the developer of English Gardens or Blackstone Subdivision as the plat has been recorded and I just wanted to submit
a couple of comments tonight to you regarding the agreement between Projects West and Ms. Hunemiller on this particular project. They did meet this evening and I have verbal confirmation
from both of those developers that they have agreed to a fee payment. That particular fee payment I was told was $1,489.25 per lot that Pintail Pointe would be reimbursing to Projects
West and those fees are associated with the pressure irrigation system, including the pressure irrigation lines at the pump station and other facilities associated with the pressure
irrigation system that they have tied into, that that was constructed with the Blackstone development, as well as a sewer lift station and associated pressure sewer line. So I agree
with Amy, they are close on the agreement, but at this point in time I guess I just would agree with the staff comments, that we would like to see that agreement in writing and submitted
to the staff prior to issuance of a building permit, which sounds like that should be more than ample time at this point in their platting process. With that said, the only other item
that the developer also wanted to note as a potential condition approval granting the variance was that Pintail Pointe Subdivision developer is also going to be incorporated into the
covenants and restrictions for Blackstone Subdivision and that he would also like to have that be noted as a condition as part of the agreement on fees, that they would also have their
covenants -- the Blackstone covenants amended to incorporate Pintail Pointe as well, since they will be responsible for some of the maintenance items related to landscaping and maintenance
and some of the systems that are in place. And with that I'll entertain any questions, but we appreciate the developers of Pintail Pointe working with the Projects West on this and
I think they are -- I think they have come to an agreement, it's just putting it in writing now.
Corrie: Okay. Anything else? Thank you.
Boyle: Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else that would like to issue testimony on this?
Jewett: Jim Jewett, 3090 East Gentry in Meridian. I'm here on behalf of Kelly Hunemiller, the developer of this project. She did come to me the other night when I was here, gave
me a copy of the spread sheet that she did agree with the other developer of Blackstone and the figure he gave was correct and she asked me to confirm that she did agree. I have a spread
sheet that I can enter into the record if Council wishes and she asked me to do this for her, so -- do you want this in the record?
Corrie: If you want to give it to us.
Jewett: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any questions for anybody in the Public Hearing? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
De Weerd: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second. All those in favor of closing the Public Hearing say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Any comments, discussions, on the request for variance?
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion on the request for the variance.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the variance for the requirement to record the Final Plat within one year of approval for Pintail Pointe Subdivision, to extend it to June 20th, 2002,
to include all staff comments, and to clarify the written -- where is it? The written agreement with regard to fees and CC&R's with Projects West be included in that remarks.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the variance on Pintail Pointe Subdivision for one year from June 20th, 2001, to June 20th, 2002. Any further comments? Okay.
Roll call vote, please, Mr. Berg.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 25. FP 01-022 Request for Final Plat approval of 1 building lot on 2.44 acres in a C-G zone for Commercial Tire by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - South Meridian Road and south of
the Eight Mile Lateral:
Corrie: Item No. 25 is a request for Final Plat approval of one building lot on 2.44 acres in a C-G zone for Commercial Tire by Pinnacle Engineers. Staff, any comments?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is a clean up of some property that was previously owned by Norm Fuller. As you can see on the screen, it had four different lots here. This property
was annexed with Troutner Business Park, which required a Conditional Use Permit on all uses for that property and the original plan was for this property to continue out to Meridian
Road. We are very appreciative of the applicant and his representative for -- although not being particularly happy with this requirement to plat it, they went ahead and worked very
closely with us and are really proceeding on quickly to get this Final Plat done and recorded so that they can make it a legal lot and that records that public road access to Meridian
Road. We would recommend the approval with all staff and agency conditions and, again, I'd like to thank the applicant, particularly Mr. Clint Boyle, who has worked very closely with
us and has done whatever was asked.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions?
De Weerd: Thank you, Clint.
Corrie: Representative from Pinnacle.
Boyle: All right. After all those compliments, how could I not. Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12553 West Executive Drive, and I'm here representing Santa Clause and -- well,
actually, just Pinnacle for now. Maybe a little bit later we will be Santa. Yeah. I appreciate Shari's comments on this and, as she stated, the developer has agreed to clean up this
parcel, provide public road access -- I certainly don't have a problem with the platting of the project and a little bit a job security for me to bring these plats through, so it's not
going to be too much, it may have bothered the developer somewhat, but he is willing to comply with it. This project is moving forward and the developer is proposing a Commercial Tire
store on the site. A Conditional Use Permit has been previously approved by the Planning Commission, recently approved the Preliminary Plat, and now back in front of you is the Final
Plat. We agree with all of the staff
comments and there may be just one point of clarification if I could and Shari can probably answer this quickly -- and that was with regards to the Site Specific Comment No. 6. This
particular proposal they are trying to proceed ahead in pulling building permits prior to the recording of the plat and then the certificate of occupancy for the tire store would be
conditioned upon the plat being recorded. And, again, that will allow us time to process the plat through the different agencies that are involved in obtaining signatures. The clarification
I'd like is on some of the items that are listed as far as improvements that need to be in place before a building permit is pulled, such as drainage lots, the irrigation system -- I
understand typically with a subdivision all those improvements go in. Here we are dealing with -- I guess it's a subdivision. It's a plat. It's a single lot with a single development
that's going in there and the Conditional Use Permit also stated that all the site improvements, pressure irrigation, drainage, etc., be installed as a condition of the Conditional Use
Permit. The question I have is the drainage is going to be handled on site and the developer essentially wanted to install those improvements in conjunction with the development of
the site and the uilding. So I don't know what staff's feeling are on that as far as a building permit, but that was essentially the only comments that I have. Other than that, all
the site specific comments are fine. I'll answer any questions.
Corrie: Did you include the fire department's comments?
Boyle: Yeah. The fire department -- again, I believe we talked about the fire hydrants -- operational fire hydrants being installed before combustible construction begins. There is
a hydrant in place -- I believe it's across the street -- I don't know if -- the fire department representative has left, but -- or stepped out, but across the street on Meridian Road
there is an existing hydrant there that could certainly serve the site. There isn't an access issue as far as the fire department getting to the site. Meridian Road is already there.
We will be installing one additional hydrant that will be located on the -- what would be the west side of the boundary where the developer is extending Penwood through, somewhere roughly
in this location. Penwood Street will extend and connect to Meridian Road as part of this application. And, again, I guess it goes back to the building permit. He would like to have
a building permit prior to potentially having all of the infrastructure and the roadway in on Penwood and he doesn't believe that that would impact emergency services in any way to that
particular site. It would be similar to somebody essentially pulling a permit for a single lot. I guess it's how you want to proceed, other than he's also going to be extending the
street through his property.
Corrie: Kenny, any problem with that? You stepped out, but he was asking about the fire department's comments and insight by the fire hydrant being in before.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council Members, I'm sorry, I was out in the hallway, but at one time we did have a hydrant right across the street. I don't know if it's still there
or not.
Bird: It is.
Bowers: I don't know if it's active. On our road system, yeah, Meridian Road would work for us at this time, but we sure would need to get some kind of a base down to get back to
the back of the property or back to the lot, so we'd need to get some kind of a base down, gravel, rock, for the base.
Boyle: Maybe if I could suggest -- and that's fine. We will certainly work with the fire department. I don't know think we are in disagreement with the condition, it's more of a timing
issue as far as the building permit goes and, you know, we are certainly receptive to working with the fire department and complying with the needs that they have. I just noted in the
comments there that they wanted the other hydrant operational and that may also be an item that would take place as the building is under construction and it appears that they would
have adequate facilities there, but we are certainly willing to work with them to provide them with whatever water supply they need and whatever access they need.
Corrie: Shari, do you have any comments on this?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, the street sign would need to be in place. The water system approved and activated, I guess, as long as Kenny's all right with whatever you're doing
for the fire protection wouldn't be a problem. The pressurized irrigation system wouldn't necessarily need to be approved and activated for a building permit in this situation. The
drainage lot -- they have lots of bare dirt there they can have as a swamp temporarily until they can get those constructed. And the perimeter fencing I don't think is a particular
major issue as the property across Eight Mile has a fence there. If it were irrigation season we would be concerned about the debris getting into the Eight Mile Lateral there and we'd
ask them to be careful about their construction materials, make sure they don't impact that lateral. So I guess with that I wouldn't have any objection with them going ahead and getting
the building permit with just those improvements in place.
De Weerd: So, Shari, that was the sign and the water and perhaps the temporary construction fence to keep the stuff out of the ditch?
Stiles: And whatever road base Kenney wants to get back there. I know that they can access off Meridian Road, but if they had a situation where somebody had fallen down on rebar and
they need to get their equipment back there or something, you would need to have something to drive -- they will need something to keep the mud from tracking out onto Meridian Road,
too. So they
will have to have some kind of system there worked out to have construction equipment working on it.
Boyle: I believe -- Mayor and Council, yeah, I believe that we are in agreement here and I don't see any issues with that. We are certainly willing to work with the City staff, with
the fire department, for whatever their needs are, just a matter of they didn't want to be tied down to having to have all of these improvements in before they could even pull the permit
to start the construction on the building, because it is a single lot and -- it's a subdivision -- I'm having a tough time calling it a subdivision. It's a plat. It's a final plat
and it is just a single lot where the construction of the building and all the facilities related to it will essentially be occurring at one time. So I don't have any problem. I appreciate
you going so late into the evening as well.
De Weerd: What am I getting for Christmas?
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Okay.
Boyle: Santa should treat you well. Thanks.
Corrie: Okay. Any discussion on the request for Final Plat approval for Commercial Tire?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion for the Final Plat.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for Final Plat of one building lot on 2.44 acres for Commercial Tire and to approve all staff comments and additionally to put a number six
on page two of staff comments to remove the reference to prior to applying for a building permit and exchange that for occupancy, with the exception that the requirements allow for the
signs, water, construction fence, and a roadway to the -- at the discretion of staff and for the attorney to draw up the appropriate findings.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for the attorney to draw up the order for final approval of the Final Plat with all the staff comments and other comments made by the
Council. Any other comments? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 26. TE 01-009 Request for a One Year Time Extension for Final Plat for Packard Acres Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Developers - east of North Wingate Lane and south of
East Ustick Road:
Corrie: Item No. 26, request for one year time extension for the Final Plat for Packard Subdivision No. 2. Staff, any comments? I don't think we have anybody here for Packard Subdivision.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, just to tell you what it is. This is the property that's all west of Wingate Lane. I guess if you grant the extension it makes it that they have to
wait at least a year before they started.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Stiles: That's it.
De Weerd: I didn't see that in writing.
Corrie: Okay. Discussion? Excuse me. Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion on the request for time extension.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve the request for one year time extension for Final Plat for Packard Acres Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Developers and have the attorney draw
up the proper papers.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for a one year time extension for the final plat for Packard Acres Subdivision. Any further discussion? Roll call
vote, Mr. Berg.
Role Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, absent.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion Carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 27: Discussion of Old Fire Station Building as Surplus Property.
Corrie: Item 27, discussion of Old Fire Station Building as Surplus Property. Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe that the format that we have to do is we need to discuss and see if we as a Council and the Mayor believe that it's a surplus piece of property which it's -- and at
that point we can -- I, for one, would personally -- I believe it is surplus property out there and that's an awful expensive piece of property to store all those old computers in.
I would like to -- I would like to see it declared a surplus and I would also like to entertain -- instead of selling at a public auction, I would like to see us -- see if we could find
somebody that's interested in the building that would be able to buy some ground or something that would be of benefit to us and the City and trade for it, which I believe this is allowable
and I, for one, would like to see us draw up a resolution stating that this is a piece of surplus property and I believe that's what we ought to do.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think as was Councilman Elect Nary's point is that if you believe that it's under-utilized and so declare it, you don't have to immediately
begin the process of selling or exchanging, but that the City can then engage with someone to see if there any suitable property that could be exchanged for it and then later on that
exchange would be brought forward.
Bird: That's your opinion also?
Nichols: The statute does allow for that. It doesn't say that once you declare it under-utilized that you have to immediately begin the process to sell it or exchange it. But you
really can't get to the process of entertaining an exchange unless you determine that the property is no longer either able to be used for city purposes or is under-utilized for the
City.
Bird: Is this just -- what, we vote on it? We don't have to have a resolution or --
Nichols: Well, Councilman Bird, Mayor, Members of the Council, you would still have to do all of the steps for the exchange if and when one was brought to you.
Bird: Okay.
Nichols: You don't just -- the Mayor wouldn't be authorized to go out and close a property transaction, it would still have to go through the steps, but this discussion has to take
place before the Mayor could go forward and start that process.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I have -- I am of the same opinion as Councilman Bird and I think it's definitely something that's worth pursuing.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments?
McCandless: I agree.
Corrie: And if I disagree it doesn't mean a thing, does it. Okay. I agree.
Bird: Do you agree with that, Robert?
Corrie: I do. Yeah
Bird: Okay. If everybody is in agreement with that, I will make a motion that we -- the Council ask the Mayor to entertain some prospects, if he can find any, of -- or exchanges
and to bring them back to us and at that time we will do the proper way of either exchanging it or not and I would make that as a motion.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to have the Mayor go find out and see if we can get some interest in exchanging surplus property. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 28: Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Okay. Water and sewer. I asked about the water delinquency turn off. I go through this and read it and then the response is that there is nobody usually here and It's one
of -- to appear in person to check the facts, but I will do it anyway. But they inform you in writing that if you choose that you have a right to
a predetermination hearing at 7:30, Tuesday, December 18th, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this city
that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. Is there anyone here present that wishes to contest this? Okay. You're informed that your appeal may have the decision by the
City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though you do appeal, your water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $66,745.16.
It has been requested that we want to have the turn-off, that they would suggest that we do it on the 19th half of it and half on the 26th of December, due to the large amount of a
-- there is over 500 of them out there at this point. So that would be done at the recommendation from us and I give them to you and you can so declare it or whatever you want to do.
De Weerd: I think that's fair and reasonable.
Corrie: Okay. I'd entertain a motion for the 19th and the 26th.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the delinquency for turn-off schedule and to have it discontinued on December 19th and 26th.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve the delinquency turn-off schedule and to have them turned off half and half, half on the 19th and half on the 26th . Any further discussion?
If not, all in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE ABSENT.
If anybody has any questions I do have some answers that some have four or five different things on there, but --
Bird: I just wanted to -- you know, Mr. Mayor, for one, I just -- we need to really -- and I know you're doing it to keep on top of these. I mean some of these people are -- really
got into us and, you know, it's not individuals, it's companies and stuff and it looks like they are almost using us as a bank at times and we can't be bankers.
Corrie: Be happy to discuss that with the particular --
Bird: No. That's fine. You're doing -- as long as you stay on top of them is all. I just don't want to get took for another eight or nine thousand dollars by somebody going bankrupt
and it went six months.
Corrie: Okay. Nothing further on the agenda.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we adjourn.
Corrie: Okay
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second we adjourn. All in favor say aye. At 11:30.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK