HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 02-06MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 2001
The regularly scheduled City Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 6, 2001.
Members Present: Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Keith Bird.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Ken Bowers, Tom Kuntz, Bill Gordon, Will Berg.
Corrie: We’ll open the City Council regular meeting on Tuesday, February 6, 2001, at 6:30. At this time, I’ll ask the City Clerk to have roll-call, please.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Thanks. I want to thank each of you for being here this evening. Our first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda that we have handed out to you and to the Council.
I do have a couple of items that I would like to add to the agenda. One is the Locust Grove Overpass Agreement, which the attorney has re-formulized and added a section to; also, the
delinquency list to be added to the last of the – No. 24. Yes. Any other additions to the agenda of the Council? The Locust Grove Overpass will be 23? Item 24 would be the delinquency
list. Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, on this Item No. – the sign ordinance, we just received that on the 5th. There’s not been time, and Council, we have said that if it wasn’t in here on Friday, then
we might as well start with ourselves. I say we table that until next meeting.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, the only thing on the – nothing in the content of the sign ordinance has changed (inaudible) graphics. Do you want to look at the pictures?
Bird: I want to read it over. That’s – we’ve made a rule. It’s only fair if we do it to a developer or to a citizen because they’re late, then we do it ourselves, it’s not fair.
Corrie: Council have any other objections to placing on the 20th of February?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would have no objections. I would like to have the time to review it.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing that, we will be tabling Item No. 5 on the agenda when it comes up for call. Any other agenda corrections or substitutions? With that being the case and if
there’s no objections, then we will proceed with the Consent Agenda as stated. I will entertain a motion to accept it.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to accept the adoption of the agenda as corrected. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of January 9, 2001, City Council Meeting/ Workshop:
B. Approve minutes of January 16, 2001, City Council Meeting:
Approve minutes of January 23, 2001, City Council Meeting:
Approve minutes of January 24, 2001, City Council Special Meeting:
Approve minutes of January 30, 2001, City Council Special Meeting:
F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-025 Variance of the lot width from 80 feet to approximately 79 feet for the four lots on the west side of Tumble Creek Subdivision
No. 6 by Pinnacle Engineers – Ustick Road and North Linder Road:
G. Development Agreement: AZ-00-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 34.84 acres to R-8 by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene – west of S. Meridian Road south of W. Overland
Road:
H. Jerald Frank Sewer Connection Agreement – 2310 S. Locust Grove Road:
I. Kenai Partners, LLC – Sanitary Sewer Line and Water Main Easement to facilitate construction of sewer and water service to the Resolution Subdivision:
J. Ed and Shirley Bews – Water Mainline easement along the east side of Ten Mile Road from McMillan Road north one-half mile to the ¼ corner:
Easement Approval: Penn Station Apartment Complex – Permanent Sanitary Sewer and Domestic Water Easement document along with Temporary Ingress and Egress Easement:
L. Easement Approval: MacKenzie River / Panda Express – Domestic Water Line Easement:
.
M. Easement Approval: Edinburgh Subdivision – Sanitary Sewer Easement:
Beer, Wine, Liquor license for Louie’s Restaurant:
O. Agreement with Blakeslee & Associates:
P. Approve bills:
Corrie: Okay, Council, you have the consent agenda in front of us. Is there any questions of staff the Council might have?
Bird: Mr. Mayor. On Item O, the agreement with Blakeslee and Associates for the Wastewater Treatment, I have no disagreement with that except I, as I’ve stated before, I want to see
all the reports and stuff come to the Mayor and Council, all Council members and the Mayor on that.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I also read that proposal, but on this particular one, I don’t think there would be any report (inaudible) diversity and type of training and workplace training,
so it would (inaudible) survey or anything, but I could read out of that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, I thought it was an assessment, too, but maybe I misread it.
Anderson: I didn’t read it that way, but maybe I misread it.
Corrie: Can you give some light on that?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, it’s a training session seminar that John Shawcroft is requesting.
Bird: All right. Then I misread it. Thank you. I’m sorry.
Corrie: Gary, this is different than the one we’ve had from Blakeslee before?
Smith: The one we had from Blakeslee before, Mr. Mayor, was a service-oriented seminar, and Wastewater was not included on that because they do not have the contact with the public
that the rest of the City employees do. Then these two particular issues have surfaced out there as being items that need to be addressed. That’s the reason that John requested the
seminar from Dawneen Blakeslee. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other items for discussion?
Anderson: That beer and wine license for Louie’s?
De Weerd: Yes, we got a copy of that.
Bird: I would make a motion that we approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Mayor.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports:
A. Parks and Recreation Department – Director Tom Kuntz:
1. Award bid for irrigation system for Storey Park:
Corrie: Okay, Item No. 4 is the Department Reports; Parks and Recreation Department’s Director Tom Kuntz and the award bid for irrigation system for Storey Park.
Kuntz: Thank you, Mayor and Council. You should have two memos in your packet: the first is dated February 1st that’s included in your Friday packet just to give you a heads up that
we were opening bids for this park irrigation system at Friday at 3:00. You should have a second memo dated February 5th outlining that there were three bidders: Hillside Nursery, A
to Z Landscape and Hard Landscape. Brad Watson, the public works, reviewed all the bids to make sure the requirements were met and they had current public works contractor’s
licenses. Tonight we’re asking you to approve awarding the bid to Hillside Nursery in the amount of $63,013.67.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Tom, what was the estimate on this job?
Kuntz: The bid that we have from last fall, the low bid on that project was $159,000. What we’ve done is taken items out of the bid that we’re either doing ourselves or is a lump-sum
amount like a pump station that we can buy as one package. I’ve got an additional sheet that I can show you the items that we’ll be doing ourselves. The cost on those will be about
$52,000. The total project cost is about $115,000, where you recall, as our low bid last fall was about $159,000. We’re realizing a substantial savings right now.
Bird: You checked the bids to make sure everything was covered under this?
Kuntz: Brad Watson did.
Bird: Brad checked to make sure all the requirements and stuff – that’s 20 percent that he left on the table.
Kuntz: You’re saying between the low and the high bid?
Bird: Between low and second bid, he left about 20 percent on the table.
Kuntz: Yes, we checked everything.
Bird: No problem.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, if there are no other questions from Council, I would make a motion that we award the bid for the irrigation for Storey Park to Hillside Nursery in the amount of
$63,013.67.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to award the bid of $63,013.67 to Hillside Nursery for the Storey Park irrigation system. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor
of the motion say aye.
Public Works Department – Director Gary Smith:
1. Engineering Agreement – City Well No. 18 By-Pass Pumping Line:
Corrie: Second item is B, Public Works Department, and Director Gary Smith. Item 1, Engineering Agreement for the City Well No. 18 by-pass pumping line. Gary.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council members. This engineering agreement with Civil Survey Engineers here in Meridian to prepare design drawings to facilitate the installation of the
west pumping line for Well No. 18 which is located in Summerfield Subdivision to discharge into the South Slough on Locust Grove Road. This by-pass line is required because when we
built the – constructed the well, we installed a fire hydrant at the site that we could flush out into the park area that’s adjacent to the well. And we felt, because of the water quality,
in the well at that time, that that would (inaudible) the necessary means of flushing if we needed. Since that time, we have encountered a situation in the well that requires us to
more thoroughly flush, and that’s the reason that we need to construct the line from the well house to the South Slough. I checked with the Highway District and Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District, and they are agreeable for this project to proceed.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I just had a question, Gary. This is an engineering agreement to design the by-pass line. What’s the rough estimate of the cost of the line? What I’m getting
at is if this well is bad, is it cheaper to drill a new well or are we just throwing money away here making this by-pass if indeed we ought to be applying this money for a by-pass toward
the cost of a new well?
Smith: Councilman Anderson, Mayor and Council, I don’t have an estimate of cost for you for the cost of the by-pass line. Our feeling and the hydrologists’ feeling is the well simply
needs to have a flush (inaudible) that it’s not a situation where the well is not usable. We’ve got some iron bacteria in the well casing, and apparently there’s some in the aquifer
around the well that just needs to be flushed out of there. We just don’t have any place to put the water. We can probably flush it at 15- or 16-hundred gallons a minute and for an
extended period of time, maybe a week, we’re not sure yet. But the situation with the well, and as far as the quality of the construction of the well, there isn’t any problem with that.
Anderson: So the hydrologist – there’s a pretty good chance the well will clear up after this or is there no guarantee of that?
Smith: Well, I guess he hasn’t given me any guarantees, but he certainly hasn’t given me any concern that it won’t clear up. The well is only a couple years old. To construct the
well, not including the land, we’re experiencing about $350,000 for a well.
Anderson: And how far are we going to have to run this line?
Smith: It’s probably close to 2500 feet.
Anderson: So it’s going to be a substantial cost for this line, too, right?
Smith: Well, it could be - $25,000 to $35,000. Something like that.
Anderson: How big of a line does it have to be?
Smith: I’m guessing it’s probably around an eight-inch diameter line.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the engineering agreement with Civil Survey Consultants on a time-and-material basis not to exceed the amount of $4500 without prior approval
of the owner and to provide construction services as Gary as outlined on a time-and-material basis approximated at $200,000 for the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the engineering agreement for City Well No. 18 as stated in the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
City Well No. 18 – Emergency Declaration for Construction:
Corrie: Item No. 2 is City Well No. 18, Emergency Declaration for Construction.
Smith: Thank you, Mayor, Council members. In order to facilitate the installation of the line, I’m requesting that this declaration be declared which will allow us to move forward
with the construction and not have to go through the bidding time period for a contractor selection. We would still solicit estimates of cost from at least three contractors so that
we know that the price that we’re getting is a reasonable cost. We’d also compare that with the engineering cost estimate that will be developed after the plans are completed.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we declare an emergency – authorize an emergency declaration for the construction of the by-pass pumping line from City Well No. 18 to discharge to
the South Slough.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to authorize the emergency declaration of construction of the by-pass pumping line of the City Well No. 18 to discharge into the South Slough. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
3. Vern Alleman Non-Annexation Agreement:
Corrie: Item No. 3, Public Works Department, Vern Alleman Non-Annexation Agreement. Mr. Smith.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The memorandum that I attached to this draft, I think, is pretty self-explanatory. We’ve been in discussion with Mr. Alleman in the past when the Packard
Subdivision was developing. Decisions were being made concerning the extension of the South Slough Trunk Sewer across Mr. Alleman’s property to act as a point of service to the Packard
Subdivision. At that time, Mr. Alleman had several points in his discussion with the developers who were negotiating for the easement that he wanted fulfilled by them in order to provide
the easement. They were never able to reach an agreement. So, the easement was never obtained by the developer of Packard Estates Subdivision. In that regard, a lift station was constructed
by the developer. Subsequently, the City has undertaken a project to extend the sewer, from a point where it exists on the west side of Mr. Alleman’s property, across his property,
approximately 350 feet, which would then remove the lift station that was previously constructed by the Packard Estates Subdivision developers. And this trunk line would then be extended
along to the east generally paralleling the South Slough until it reached Eagle Road and then it would be under Eagle Road to the east side. That’s the extent of the project. J-U-B
Engineers of Boise, Idaho, has been hired. Their contract was previously approved by Council to design that sewer line and to facilitate the obtaining of the easements. When we contacted
Mr. Alleman, the first thing that came up in that conversation was the desire, his desire to not be annexed by the City of Meridian unless he agreed to the annexation. In that regard,
I contacted the City Attorney Bill Nichols, and Bill drafted this draft agreement that is before you now. This property that Mr. Alleman owns is not just the 350 feet that we would
need to cross, I think it’s approximately 20 acres thereabouts that he owns on the south side of Ustick Road. All that property is described in the description of Parcel 1 and Parcel
2. I think the meat of the agreement is on page 37 at Item No. 2 that outlines the conditions upon which this property could be annexed. I believe that all of the concern that Mr.
Alleman has been generated from the annexation of property by the City of Boise, the large annexations that took place not too long ago. I think that we’re going to experience a similar
request by the property owners along the South Slough sewer line extension taking cue from Mr. Alleman. I think that’s the background. I you have any questions I’ll be happy to answer
them.
Corrie: I guess the only question I would have is has Mr. Alleman seen this agreement?
Smith: No, sir, he has not. I wanted to bring it before you first before I contacted Mr. Alleman with it or if it wasn’t all right with you, then I could contact him in that regard
also. I wanted to have your input before I went to him.
Corrie: The conversation that I had with Mr. Alleman, it seems pretty reasonable with what he’s requested in my office.
Smith: A lot of the other issues that he had with development for the Packard Estates Subdivision or Packard Sub have been accomplished by that developer. So we don’t know that the
laundry list will be very long, but this was a major item for him.
Corrie: I think we need to at least (inaudible) on Boise’s time. Thank you. Any other questions from Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve this non-annexation agreement with Vern Alleman and the City of Meridian, the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the non-annexation agreement with Vern Alleman. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Discussion on Inspectors Fees:
Corrie: item No. 4, discussion on Inspectors Fees.
Smith: Thank you, Mayor, Council members. I hope that you read the memo that I prepared kind of at a late date. I wanted to give you some information, background information, on what
we discussed in the past concerning these independent contractors for our building inspection. In that regard, I contacted Boise City and got some information from them for these different
positions. Were you all able to take a look at that memo that I sent out? I delivered it to you yesterday evening late.
Bird: We haven’t had a chance to look at it.
Smith: I don’t know that it’s absolutely necessary for what action that you’ll need to take tonight. The contracts that we have with our inspectors can be terminated. I think there’s
a 30-day notice if I recall directly. The information that I put in the memo is comparative information between costs involved in having independent contractors versus full-time City
employees.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, we have a workshop a week from now. Maybe we could put 15 or 20 minutes of this toward the workshop if that would be agreeable with the rest of the Council, Mayor
and Gary.
Corrie: Just for the Council’s information, I asked Gary to put this together. I thought it would behoove Council to kind of get an idea what we’re spending and
what some of the costs could be if we go a different direction, and I think that you do a nice job, Gary. Does give some information to the Council they could study. I would also approve
the workshop agenda. Okay, we’ll put that on the workshop.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess – so do you want to hold off on action on the contracts, then, until –
Corrie: I think so.
Smith: -- the 13th meeting?
Corrie: In talking to the (inaudible) contractors, they’re in agreement that it’s okay to –
Smith: Okay, fine. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Item 5. Tabled from January 16, 2001: Ordinance No. : Sign Ordinance:
Corrie: Item No. 5 is the one that the Council stated that they would like to table until the 20th of February. With that, I’ll entertain a motion to table Item No. 5, the sign ordinance,
until February 20th.
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table the sign ordinance until the 20th of February. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Tabled from January 16, 2001: VAR 00-021 Request by Glenn Johnson Homes for Variance allowing a one-year time extension for the signing and recording of the final plat for
Hartford Subdivision – northeast corner of West Ustick Road and North Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Item No. 6 is tabled from January 16, 2001, meeting. This is a variance, No. VAR 00-021. This is a request by Glenn Johnson Homes for a variance allowing a one-year time extension
for the signing and recording of the final plat for Hartford Subdivision, northeast corner of West Ustick Road and North Ten Mile Road. Staff, this was – Shari, comments on the request
for variance?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this was tabled due to the fact that the applicant wasn’t here to answer some questions. The adjoining property owners had some issues regarding the
Wilders and extension of power and some of the improvements that they were requesting and also some of the improvements or lack of improvements that were made adjacent to this property
owner. I believe the applicant is here tonight. He indicated that he would be. Hopefully he could answer some of those questions.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening? If you would please step up to the podium and give us the reason for the request. State your name, please.
Jewell: My name is Richard Jewell, I live at 1729 South Marsh in Meridian. I’m representing the developer.
Corrie: And you’re requesting the variance for the one-year time extension?
Jewell: That’s correct.
Corrie: And the reason for the request?
Jewell: Because we have not completed the work that needs to be done prior to getting the plat signed by the City and getting it recorded.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, did our staff share with you some of the concerns that were raised with the previous meeting that the neighbors brought up, and have those issues been addressed?
Jewell: Apparently not. If you wouldn’t mind identifying what those issues were.
De Weerd: Well, some of the improvements in the agreement with the surrounding neighbors and some of the issues that they had in line with the power line, open trenches, the driveway
with one of the neighbors, the line fencing issues, sidewalk. Were these discussed with the applicant, Shari?
Stiles: I did talk with Glenn Johnson today and asked if he was aware of those concerns, and he said he was. He hadn’t been previously, but I don’t know if the Wilders are here. Maybe
she needs to reiterate those and get those questions answered.
De Weerd: Okay, I believe that we were also supposed to look and see if any of these were a part of the conditions or any development agreement. I think the Development Agreement had
not been signed either.
Stiles: Correct. Some of the issues, as related to the Wilders, were not necessarily a part of the Development Agreement. But I believe that’s why it was tabled so they could answer
questions as to why some of the improvements weren’t done as far as the power and the sidewalk that had been constructed into the adjacent neighbor’s property. They had issues of some
of the sanitation –
Jewell: If we can address these one of a time so we can come to some kind of resolution on it. Regarding the services to the Wilders’ property, I understand their situation and the
problems that they’ve been faced with in this construction; however, there has been power, water and sewer provided to the lot that has been stubbed to the lot. The development is not
complete yet for various reasons; therefore, they’re still under that situation.
De Weerd: I think that the power line was a safety issue. It’s not underground. It’s hanging off an outbuilding and so – they’re just waiting for it to be fixed. It did sound like
a safety issue. They may have power, but I think it’s kind of endangering.
Jewell: I guess we’ll go into a detail, but the original power came from Ten Mile Road and was buried under mine and went to a meter. The meter was attached to an existing garage that
was no longer on their property. The meter was left in place on a couple of poles that – the rest of (inaudible) got tore down. My understanding that there was a cable or something
that had broken going to their well, and they were providing power to their well with an extension cord.
Stiles: I wasn’t aware that the applicant had even looked at these issues. Apparently he’s not familiar with any of the concerns. That was quite an extensive discussion previously
in here. And I would like to suggest that the Wilders and the applicant get together and resolve these issues, and it’s not really an issue to be dealt with here, but I do have some
significant concerns and have apparently not been satisfied responses to those concerns. The Wilders could get together and other property owners and perhaps have (inaudible) provide
a copy of those minutes so you can review those in detail and take care of them and table it, I guess.
Jewell: Well, were there other issues other than that particular lot?
Stiles: Yes.
De Weerd: There was a pretty long list.
Bird: I thought this was supposed to be given to the applicant before they come back.
De Weerd: I do know that we were supposed to find out if any of those issues were conditions on the plat, and I also believe that the Development Agreement was not signed.
Jewell: The Development Agreement is another issue. This project was originally designed by Hubble Engineers back in ’94, I believe, and with a previous owner of the property. For
some odd reason or another, they never platted or completed. Mr. Johnson purchased the property; we attempted to try to utilize Hubble’s design, and it went downhill from there. We
had all kinds of problems with their design, and apparently some of the problems with the Wilders or the issues with that came from that because of the previous owner, apparently. I
don’t know what was done with them, but nothing was transferred over by Johnson in his agreement, and that’s where part of this is falling apart.
De Weerd: And so where are you at in here?
Jewell: As far as the Development Agreement is concerned, the original – 1994 – the Development Agreement was put together and it was under that time period. The Wilder’s property
was not annexed at that time, so when we took over we had to incorporate that in there.
De Weerd: So are you still developing it? Will you be finding –
Jewell: It’s just – the construction’s just about completed. We’ve just the off-site work to complete, and then (inaudible) a couple of the agency agreement and get that into Gary
to review and we’re basically done.
De Weerd: I was talking about the Agreement itself, not the actual – not your development, but the Agreement.
Jewell: Which Agreement?
De Weerd: The Development Agreement.
Jewell: That was done prior to us ever obtaining it.
De Weerd: Do we not need a Development Agreement?
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor, Members of the Council, during the period of time that we’re talking about which predates our firm’s involvement as a City Attorney, I believe
that the applicants were requested to come with drafts of the proposed Development Agreements. So if there is a Development Agreement floating around out there that’s not been signed,
it may or may not have any close resemblance to what the project is today. So if it’s almost done, if staff is comfortable with granting an extension – the final plat has been approved;
Correct, Shari? So the final plat has been approved; it’s just an extension to record that plat. The requisite items of that would be that everything from the final plat is done.
So I would say there’s enough water under the bridge at this point, the Development Agreement is almost a superfluous thing with regard to this particular project.
Jewell: The Development Agreement issued was gone over very extensively during the original Planning and Zoning and Council – during the preliminary – that it had been resolved.
Corrie: Anything else?
De Weerd: I was going to say that until the Wilders and the applicant talk, that’s the whole reason we tabled this to begin with. I would like to see them have a conversation before
we act on it.
Bird: Is that staff’s recommendation?
Corrie: Staff, what’s your recommendation? We hold this – this is a variance for the final plat. I don’t know where we’ve gained anything. I still think they definitely should talk
to the Wilders. Do we gain anything here to table this – talk to them?
Stiles: Not necessarily. It can still go through the recording process. We’d like to have some assurance from the neighbors that their issues have been resolved, at least those that
we have control over, prior to them applying for building permits once it is recorded because they do have some valid concerns that should be taken care of. I think that it’s not going
to do anybody good – there’s not any reason not to grant the variance because basically it’s built.
Corrie: Variance with stipulations; correct?
De Weerd: And then they wouldn’t get building permits until those were satisfied?
Stiles: Correct.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I’m reluctant to put together an order on this variance unless you tell me exactly what it is that this applicant was to do in order for
Gary to sign off on the final plat. As I listen to the discussion at the last meeting, a lot of the items were raised by the Wilders. They were, to me, problems that were probably covered
in the purchase and sale agreement between the Wilders – whoever they sold the property to, or whatever the relationship was to that parcel and the development. Although those are
concerns, and we’re not going to dismiss those out of hand, but at the same time that does not necessarily make it the City’s business. You’re not a district court. You’re not called
upon to enforce the agreements between private parties. You’re simply to enforce the Ordinances and your Agreement, if any, with the applicant as it might pertain to this development.
So, if you’re going to put conditions on this thing, please spell out exactly what they are. And I would ask you to be more specific than simply address neighbors’ concerns. Because
that doesn’t – I don’t know how Gary’s going to know, even if there’s a disagreement between the developer and the Wilders, on something that was in the purchase agreement and has nothing
to do with this particular development. It doesn’t pertain to our ordinances.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess I would just get back to – if any of these issues in particular with fencing, sidewalk and any open trenches, that those have anything to do with conditions
of the plat?
Stiles: The sidewalk probably would. They constructed sidewalk on property that is not part of this development. The driveway issue, I think, is probably a safety issue that I think
needs to be resolved before we issue any occupancy certificates. I believe there is a requirement in subdivisions to provide power to individual lots, within a subdivision, so I don’t
have a copy of their actual agreement. I think that we can continue, in granting the variance, but still expecting those items to be addressed. If they’re – I can’t tell you everything
that might be part of this subdivision approval process, but if there’s an issue on Ten Mile, where the driveway comes in, and that’s not acceptable, hasn’t been designed, I would think
the Highway District isn’t going to accept it either.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, as I understand this, we’re not approving the final plat or anything. The conditions and stuff are existing upon that. All they’re doing is asking for a one-year
extension to get this signed and recorded – the final plat. We’re sitting here trying to put extra conditions on the final plat that isn’t even being asked for. So I don’t see where
we wouldn’t want to give a one-year time extension. That has nothing to do with the final plats signing and recording other than extending it. It’s still got the conditions and rules
that they’ve got to live by which was passed on the final plat.
Nichols: Yes.
Corrie: Any further discussion? If not, I’ll entertain a motion, then.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request by Glenn Johnson Homes for a variance allowing for a one-year time extension for the signing and recording of the final plat for
Hartford Subdivision, northeast corner of West Ustick Road and North Ten Mile Road.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request by Glenn Johnson Homes for a one-year time extension and signing and recording of the final plat for Hartford Subdivision.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, does that go through, then, to September 7, 2001? Do you want to name the date or is it a year from today?
Bird: That’d be a year, so it’d be a year from –
De Weerd: The plat became null and void on September 7th of last fall.
Bird: So it’d be September 7, 2001.
Corrie: You want to add that as part of your motion?
Bird: Yes.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: We’ll go through up to September 7th, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Ordinance No. 01-908: AZ-00-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 34.84 acres to R-8 by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene – west of S. Meridian Road south of W. Overland
Road:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is an Ordinance 01-908. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 34.84 acres to R-8 by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene, west of South Meridian Road
and south of West Overland Road. At this time I’d like to have the City Clerk read Ordinance No. 01-908 by title only.
Berg: Ordinance No. 01-908: An Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as the location of Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene lies contiguous or adjacent to the City limits
of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; finding that the owner has made a request of annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of
Meridian and zoning designated medium density residential district (R-8); and declaring that said land by proper legal description 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 –
*** End of side one ***
Berg: -- maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho and directing the clerk of the City of Meridian, to file a certified copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada
County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, Assessor and State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho pursuant to Idaho code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: You have heard the reading of Ordinance No. 01-908 by title only, is there anyone from the public who would like the entire ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council,
I will entertain a motion for Ordinance No. 01-908, annexation and zoning.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance 01-908, a request of annexation and zoning of 34.84 acres to R-8 the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene with suspension
of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance 01-908 request for annexation and zoning by the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene, with suspension of rules. Is there
any further discussion? Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 00-020 Request for annexation and zoning of 339.73 acres to R-4, R-8 and C-N zones for proposed Keltic Heights Subdivision by Parkland Development for proposed
residential and commercial uses – west of Meridian Road and south of Chinden Boulevard:
Corrie: Now we’re going to go into the Public Hearings, we have ten of them here tonight, and we’ll try to get through all ten of them. If it gets to about ten o’clock, and we’re only
through about two to three of them, we will probably table some of these, so how many people here are – want to be here for testimony on the Public Hearings? Raise your hand. On the
Public Hearings on these, what I’ll do is, I’ll tell you what the Public Hearing is about, then we will have staff give their report on the request, and then, after that’s done, we’ll
have the applicant give their testimony first. Then we will have the next testimony. The Public Hearing, will be people who are in favor of the Public Hearing of the applicant. Then
after all those have talked, we will have those opposed to the request, then the last, we will have the applicant get up and give any answers, rebuttals or any
questions that were asked by the others, to answer those questions. Then we will have staff and council comments and discussion and then we’ll close the Public Hearing and then the
Council can make their final discussion and make their recommendations one way or the other. So, with that, the first one will be a Public Hearing, as a request for annexation and zoning
of 339.73 acres to R-4, R-8 and CN zones for proposed Keltic Heights Subdivision, by Parkland Development for proposed residential and commercial use west of Meridian Road and south
of Chinden Boulevard. So, at this time, I will open the Public Hearing on the annexation and zoning, and start with the Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the, approximately 340 acres of development proposed north of McMillan Road, between Meridian and Linder. They are proposing that CN zoning
on this corner and some more CN zoning on at this corner. This area is designated as mixed use and commercial, at this intersection, however this is not – the property is not contiguous
to the City of Meridian. We would ask that you incorporate in the findings, the staff comments of January 4, 2001, and also the attorney’s statements and written comments on annexation
of non-contiguous property and deny approval of this annexation and zoning
Corrie: Okay, thank you. Council have any questions of staff at this point?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: okay. Is the applicant for this request here this evening?
Brown: Kent Brown, business address 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho. I am here to represent Parkland Development. Maybe to begin with, I believe you all have a copy of this in your
packet. These are examples of annexations recently in the City of Boise, or the City of Meridian. The first one, that I am showing you, is for the sewer treatment plant, where they
went up Ten Mile to annex the sewer treatment plant. The second one is the one we’re connecting to, for some park property, on Meridian Road. Once again, the City went up the road right-of-way
and annexed the park property. I believe you now have a well and water tank at this location. The last one is in my neighborhood. It is the Eagle interchange. A number of years ago,
the City annexed the interchange and came across and annexed St. Luke’s Meridian. It is our – we have looked at other annexation routes, to annex this property, and in view of the past
City policies, I guess, if you will, or the way the City is annexed, we have taken this approach to make ourselves contiguous with the City. I can go into detail about our concept plan.
A year ago, I represented another client on a portion of this property, and we met with the City Staff and they were looking for us to bring the north slough through this area. My
client, with another developer, is willing to build the north slough and extend it to and through this property. If the south trunk line were moving along, as had been previously planned,
we would have had a number of other routes that we could have annexed to. Different applications have been
submitted and Staff has recommended denial of those applications, because the extension of the white trunk hasn’t taken place. Therefore that has kind of frustrated our purpose in trying
to develop this property. I can go through the development plan, if you want me to. We have a concept plan for this site. We have a school site and a park site, commercial, some mixed
use -- do you want me to --
Corrie: It’s up to you. You’re asking us to do it – so, probably, you’re the best shot at it.
Brown: We’ll do it, then. As you look at, basically, our concept plan, we have a commercial use here, on the northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian Road. Showing a neighborhood commercial
with some higher density uses, residential uses, behind that. With some office uses, along Meridian Road –
Bird: Just a second, you just said northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian.
Stiles: Northwest.
Bird: -- of Ustick and Meridian.
Brown: This is Ustick.
Bird: Okay.
Brown: Northwest corner, correct.
Bird: Northwest corner of Meridian and Ustick?
Brown: Meridian and Ustick.
Bird: That’s our park.
Stiles: McMillan.
Bird: You’re talking about McMillan. Okay, that’s what I wanted to say. It’s a mile down.
Brown: Thank you. Mr. Wolf probably wouldn’t like that either. We have some office uses, here along Meridian Road. WE have a corridor, going back in, with a school and a joint park
site. We have a commercial site up here. There is the Catholic Church that is under construction here on the other side of the road. Office uses, again, along Ustick. This property
has been purchased. It is not a part of our application, it has been purchased by a church. Little bit of smaller residential behind those, and then larger residential as we go back
over. We have these as out-parcels. There’s a series of homes along here and then
there’s two home here and this ten acres is vacant. We’ve tried to link it with connecting and pedestrian pathways and roughly there’s fourteen acres there, that would be a common park
and school site.
Bird: How much of that is planned for the school site? A grade school?
Brown: Grade school site.
Bird: What kind of acreage do they take? Ten or eleven?
Brown: The school would generally take about seven of that.
Bird: So we’d have about a seven-acre park.
Brown: The State law speaks to twelve acres minimum for school sites, unless they’re shared with a park. Realistically, this is just a concept plan, at this point. We knew that the
connectivity makes this difficult, so spending the money to finalize this plan, or even submit a subdivision plan, with our annexation, it didn’t seem prudent at this time, so that is
why we’ve got this as a concept plan.
Corrie: Tell me how you plan to get the contingency, where we are and where you want to be?
Brown: The second description, or the second exhibit that I gave, we would touch the park site here and roughly go three quarters of a mile up Meridian Road to the bulk of our property.
So your park site is sitting down here at Ustick and Meridian. It goes up a quarter of a mile, we would touch that corner and then extend up the road right-of-way. Are there any questions?
Bird: Mr. Brown, did I understand you right, saying that the north truck – that this development group – would finance the whole thing –
Brown: Yes.
Bird: -- get back with late (inaudible) fees? Now, we’re not running through and to, I mean through, you are going all the way through, to the end of the trunk line? You’re not stopping
at the end of your deal – that north slough, or trunk line, goes on farther.
Brown: We would go to Meridian Road, to the east side of our property. We have a commitment from a developer to the west of us, and we would extend the trunk line up Ten Mile Road
through Ten Mile to Meridian Road.
Bird: Through McMillan, that goes up, I think before it cuts off, it goes up about three-quarters of a mile or something, then it turns and heads across –
Brown: Basically, we would be building about two-thirds of the north trunk line. With the difficulties you’ve had with the white trunk line, we think that that would be beneficial
to you. There are a few property owners between us and Vienna Woods, the properties to the west, where you are currently pumping Vienna Woods into the south slough, waiting for this
white trunk to be build. I think that would be beneficial. It appears to us that, in the past, when it has been beneficial for the City, the City has used this method for annexation.
That’s the reason we took this approach. It was beneficial to them to annex St. Luke’s Meridian, so therefore they did it and annexed by a road. It was beneficial to annex the sewer
treatment plant. It was beneficial for them to annex the park site. So therefore, they have used that means. The example, as stated by the City attorney, as to law suits – those are
all, in my opinion – I guess I’ll be the legal attorney for us today – but, it’s my opinion that those have been people that did not want to be annexed and were forced into annexations
by the Cities – where the City took a similar means and annexed them. We want to be annexed. We want to do our development in the City of Meridian. Even though this is just a concept,
we would come back with a plan that would comply with the requirements of the City.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We’ve got the sewer out there now, have you got some lots set aside for the water? Where we will sink the wells.
Brown: I’ll let Mr. Johnson speak to that before we’re done today. Are there any other comments or questions?
Corrie: Thank you. Any other comments from the applicants? Okay, this is a Public Hearing. We’ll open it. Is there anyone here that would testify in favor of this project. Okay.
Do you want to testify? Come up here and talk to us, then.
Fulfor: Kelly Fulfor, live at 2350 West McMillan. I know that white trunk has come up through the back of my property, through the north slough, I’m sorry. It’d sure benefit me.
I own eighty acres there on the corner, and have been waiting for this to happen. So, I’m ready. That all I have to say.
Corrie: Anyone else in favor? Okay, any testimony opposed to this? Okay sir.
Hamilton: My name is Buck Hamilton – 5945 North Meridian Road. I live in one of the houses on the east side of Meridian Road, adjacent to the subdivision in request, which is -- Now
our problem with the subdivision, is that it’s going to put an awful lot of traffic on Meridian Road, in that area, and that’s one of the narrowest parts of Meridian. They have, I believe,
three access points in a short span of Meridian Road, one of them is just off of Chinden, just a little ways down from the church. Another thing, out there, being that far from Meridian,
they’d
have a very poor response time for police or fire in that area. As it is now, we’ve had fires around us that Eagle was able to get to quicker than Meridian could. There’s also several
irrigation -- there’s one lateral, right in a big line there, and there’s the off-shoots that come down from there and it goes underground, between our property and the subdivision,
is an open ditch that would have to be dealt with. I have heard that they would just pipe water to us at the same cost as our ditch water. But that I’m kind of leery of believing.
But in my estimation, at this time, I think that subdivision is just too far from Meridian. Thank you.
Corrie: anyone else? Yes, sir.
Truster: My name is Steven Truster. I live at 5925 North Meridian Road. My property is on the east side of that proposed subdivision, next to Mr. Hamilton’s. My concerns are the
– not only the same concerns as Mr. Hamilton. My main concern is traffic on that road. The high density in housing right behind us. If they’re going to be widening the road -- I
just foresee problems, you know, at this point in time. You know, being that far away from town, and high-impacted housing, traffic, and all the other concerns that go along with that,
at this point. Thank you.
Corrie: Others? Yes, sir.
Stewart: Good evening. My name is Doug Stewart. I live at 5960 North Linder Road, just a piece of property right there. I’m sure you all read the article, two weeks ago in the Sunday
paper, concerning Nampa’s hodge-podge expansion, and the fact that they had all these unincorporated areas trapped, now within zoned areas. So no one knew whether to call the sheriff,
or the police or the state police, fire departments – they don’t know what fire department to go to. Same as they think -- this is too far from Meridian. This is the extreme of impact
area for Meridian, which I believe is Chinden Boulevard. So we are on the extreme end. When I first saw this project, I was told it was going to be consistent with housing that’s there,
which are all acreages, which all correspond to the zoning that been in effect for years, of course which keeps changing as enough money comes along. I moved there to have a few acres
to be in the country. The first time I saw a plat for this, they were going to consistent and put five-acre parcels in there, which would be consistent with the housing that is already
there. Now, their most recent plan, makes this, not only high density, but up by these two pieces of property, mine and the one next door, which are five acres. They have the highest
density of housing crammed up against us. The bigger houses and bigger lots are back in the middle of the field. This is going to be detrimental to our property value, and besides
pouring all the traffic right next to us, which is there exit onto Linder, which is extremely busy because that’s the bridge that crosses the river. It’s a lot busier than Meridian
road, by a long shot. Traffic is backed up clear past these two properties, both in the morning and in the evening, when it’s rush hour. So you’ve already got a traffic problem there,
and this will create one heck of a problem. I’ll never be able to go on work on it
to go on welfare. I won’t be able to get out. Those are mine concerns. It’s too far away and it’s not consistent with the housing that is already there. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone Else? David.
Turnbull: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. I didn’t come here to testify on this proposal. I’m actually number nine on the agenda. I would like to say a few things --
Corrie: Just a minute, Dave, could you give your name –
Turnbull: Address. David Turnbull, 12426 West Explorer Drive. Actually I live across Chinden Boulevard, out along Meridian Road, there, I’m in Eagle City. One other comment, too,
I should note, is that I am in the planning process of the property across the street on the northwest corner of Meridian and Chinden, which lies within Eagle City’s area of impact.
So, I guess I am interested a little bit what happens on this property. I do access Meridian Road and Chinden to go to work. I can tell you that ITD has a signal for that intersection,
in the works. And none too soon, since my son is in driver’s education, and he’ll be driving soon. Anyway, I’m a little bit familiar with the property that Mr. Johnson is applying
on here. We, actually, were in negotiations with the owner a year or two ago. In fact we had dug test bits on the property and then the City came in and optioned the property for a
park, so we backed off and backed away from it. But I will make a couple of comments. I don’t know enough about the project to talk about the mixed-use concepts that they are proposing,
and so forth. But I would say that this is in the Meridian’s area of impact, so I think the City might have to step back from this hearing and try to figure out what they are going
to do with servicing this property. You have some parties that are offering to build the trunk line – that probably deserves some consideration. As I said, it’s in the area of impact.
The City needs to figure out what it’s going to do to service this area. I would say, and this probably this presents an opportunity. I don’t know how many acres are involved here.
Anytime you can assemble that kind of property, instead of having several developers, you know, say ten developers, with forty acres each, coming in and doing there own things, if you
can master plan a piece of property like that, I think that would probably be to the City’s benefit. I think that those are my major comments that I’d like to make. I don’t suppose
you have any questions for me, but if you do, I’ll stand for questions.
Bird: Are you in favor of it or against it? I couldn’t tell from your testimony.
Stewart: Well, generally, I think that the City needs to move forward and start planning these properties. Like I said, I haven’t seen any Preliminary Plats, in general, I’m in favor
in some mixed use development. To what degree that occurs, to what they’re proposing, I’m not familiar with. I haven’t seen the proposal, but I think it’s beneficial when you can mix
different densities. I would
say in reaction to previous comment, that maybe these should be one-acre parcels or five-acre parcels. Then you might as well determine that you are not going to run City sewer out
there, because it’s just not feasible to develop acreage parcels on City sewers and City water and those kind of services. So, I think a mix of densities is appropriate. Some limited
commercial, may or may not be. I don’t know, it just depends on what type how it fits into the City’s goals and objectives and providing services to the surrounding neighborhoods.
So, I guess, in general I think the City should look forward and determine how they’re going to service this property and surrounding properties.
Corrie: any other questions? Thank you David. Anyone else of the public who would like to issue testimony? Okay. Comments from the developer.
Johnson: My name is Greg Johnson. I reside at 2433 Canada Road in Melba. First of all, I’d like to address some of the objections that were raised. The fire department, I believe,
is completing a fire station on Ten Mile road, this year, is that not correct? I was told, by the fire chief, that the response would be less than two minutes, from that location, and
should be very adequate to service this area. Traffic is a problem all over the valley. I think Chinden Boulevard is one of our main arterials or accessing to the City of Boise, and
moving traffic throughout the county. My understanding, talking to the State on it, is they do have plans of expanding Chinden in the near future, and there are some traffic signals
plans for those areas, as was mentioned by Mr. Turnbull. Also, these projects and other projects are paying impact fees that would provide for the expansion for Linder Road, which is
a main access road to the Eagle area and into Meridian. Also Meridian Road would be available for those impact fees, and as growth occurs, as those roads are prioritized, by the City
and ACHD, those improvements will be made. Approximately, one year ago, we met with two members of the City Council and Staff, to approach the development of this property. At that
time, it was determined that it would be beneficial to the City of Meridian to control the development of this property and to have the building permits and fees that would come from
the development of this property. We agreed that we would try to obtain an annexation route. We pursued that over the next few months and actually had secured an annexation route.
As projects were submitted to the City along, they were tabled due to lack of sewer service and we were unable to obtain that route. Because ground is very expensive to sit and hold,
we determined to take this approach to annexation, to try to speed up that process. At that same meeting, it was indicated to us that the white trunk was under design and that easements
were being obtained, that it would be under construction by the fall of 2000 and that it would be completed by the spring of 2001. Under that assumption, we, and others proceeded, and
were, at this point, requesting an annexation at this time. I have entered into an agreement, with Mr. Marty Goldsmith, who has property to the west that runs from Linder Road to Ten
Mile. We have entered into cross sewer agreements and an agreement to jointly build the trunk line up Ten Mile Road, from Mr. Bews’ property to the north, where it is designed to go
through Mr. Goldsmith’s property. Over to Linder Road
and then through our property over to Meridian Road as we development. We would expect to enter into a late-comers agreement, to address Mr. Bird’s question, of whether or not we would
drill the well. We are open to discussion for that. At this time, we felt that extending the water trunk lines on Linder Road and possibly Ten Mile, to create a loop and a well site
would be sufficient at our end, but we’ll discuss that. Our first objective was to come into the City and be able to develop in the City. We understand that our proposed layout may
not comply with the current comp plan. We had planned on using a PUD that would allow the commercial uses in a residential zone. I understand that that has been submitted to the Planning
and Zoning but it hasn’t been processed yet. We would have time to go under that PUD. We would expect to do that or comply with the comp plan, as it is at the time we make the application
for the plat. I think, in considering comp plans, if it could be considered that Chinden is a major arterial, and even though it is on the exterior, or the north boundary of Meridian’s
impact area, it adjoins with Eagle City. It ties into Boise, and is developed in commercial and apartment sites just a few miles east of here and would be very appropriate for commercial
and office usage, because of the high traffic on that area, as opposed to residential backing up to Chinden Boulevard. We purchased this ground on the basis that it was in the urban
service planning of Meridian and it had been for several years. It’s our understanding that when ground is brought in to the urban service planning area, that there is representation
that within ten years, those services would be available to be used for development. Staff has made the comment, in Section E of their comments, that – well, I’ll read their comments.
It says, “With the white trunk designated as a priority and the three square miles of development, that will occur subsequent to the construction of the white trunk drain, the north
slough trunk may necessitate acceleration of the capital improvements at the Meridian wastewater treatment plant. Staff feels that it is premature to annex this property until the desired
alignment of the north slough is better known and easements are obtained by the City.” Both Marty Goldsmith and I are willing to give those easements and build that portion of the sewer.
We would control the easements all the way from Ten Mile to Meridian Road so there wouldn’t be a problem, such as there is in the white trunk. If the City chooses to develop both the
white trunk and let the north slough go, then it would probably command that there would be an accelerated building program in the wastewater treatment plant. This would be accommodated,
though, by the additional fees generated by sewer hookups, and also the City could take the option of not building the white trunk and letting it be built by the developers as the north
slough trunk would be proposed to be built. Those are all options. Just a paragraph below that, they expressed concerns the water system, because of no wells in this area. I believe
there are well sites, and if not, we would provide well sites and we certainly plan to extend the water facilities up the section line roads with twelve-inch water mains to provide connectivity
there. We put out substantial money to acquire this property. We are spending substantial money to hold this property for development. We feel that it is just to ask the question,
can we proceed with the north slough trunk at this time? Because the white trunk is not being built. And can we proceed to develop this and improve these
properties. If we are denied annexation, I guess I would ask, at what point in time will that be built? So that we can acquire an annexation route through those properties that will
be on the white trunk, or would it be the City’s position to make us wait that three-square mile sections of ground are developed, and then we would be allowed to develop? Any questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I have a question of Staff. In our facilities plans for the north slough, where is that in the planning stage? How many years out before design and the building
begins on the north slough?
Smith: Council de Weerd, Mayor and Council. We don’t have a plan to build north slough. Right now, the plans that are on the table, or are being facilitated or moving forward, are
the white drain, as a priority one, the south slough is a priority two and the Five Mile trunk extension as a priority three. Those are the three areas that we’ve been concentrating
our efforts on getting some sewer lines built.
De Weerd: Okay, you have no estimate, in our area of impact – there was some talk about having the urban services available, that would be in the time frame with the impact agreement.
Is that correct?
Smith: I believe there is time period in the impact agreement.
De Weerd: And we could still facilitate that?
Smith: I don’t recall the date of that agreement. Shari says it’s seven more years before the date of that agreement expires.
De Weerd: Well, that’s just my question of Gary.
Corrie: Do you have questions of Stan? Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, how far are we along on the white? What is the status on it? Have we started it up Ustick? Are we getting easements bought?
Smith: As I understand it, from our consulting engineer, we have easements. They have been discussing easements. I don’t think we have any signed easements on the entire length of
the property or the project. We have been waiting for the easements, through the Bews’ property. I understand that there has been a submittal, to Planning and Zoning Department for
a Preliminary Plat for annexation and zoning, however it does not include all the of Bews property, it does not include the Young property, which the white drain trunk would need to
pass through. I believe Mr. Bews has an option on. So, we are not any further now than we were three months ago, four months ago, or five months ago or six months ago, whenever we
came to a grinding halt. The frustration level is rising in my department. Trying to work with land developers, landowners, get this
installed or get easements obtained that coincide with future roadways in their development.
Bird: Gary? Yes, sir. Follow up on that. Once we get the sewer line up Ten mile, where White takes off -- somebody was to finance North Slough -- I believe, in meeting with – in
meetings a couple of months ago, that our sewer, unless everything was built within six months, our sewer plant is capable of handling what will be on the North slough. So, if the developer
wanted to go ahead and start the North slough, I mean I don’t like jumping around for this annexation and stuff, but it would be feasible to do, as far as the development is concerned.
Smith: With the development on the north slough?
Bird: Yes.
Smith: Yes. Now, I don’t know what the impact would be to the plant with the north slough and the white drain. That I can’t tell you. But to exchange the white drain flow and place
that flow in the north slough, obviously it’s just a trade off there.
Bird: Also, we’ve got the south slough addition and the Black Cat north down, to a deal that we are kind of committed to. I might be wrong, but unless the whole area developed, unless
we got our fifty-thousand people out there, within six months, that the plant is on a continual marrying of it, that we would be okay.
Smith: We’re continuing to upgrade the plant, capacity-wise. I can’t answer your question, specifically, as to how much development can take place in those two drainages.
Bird: Let me ask you from an engineering standpoint, the north slough being done before the white, does that hurt anything, engineering?
Smith: Nothing that I can think of, Council.
De Weerd: I guess, maybe engineering-wise, it doesn’t mess anything up, but certainly, it does. And growing in a logical order, it does. So, the sewer line is not everything involved
in planning the City. Mr. Mayor, I do agree with what Mr. Johnson has said that if this application is being denied, we do need to give them a better idea on the timetable of the north
slough. Mr. Johnson also mentioned the impact fees do pay for a lot of the services. This is such a size and because of the annexation method, is not really accepted. The other three
that were, were really services necessary for a community. I don’t think we’re really short of house right now, but I think we would need to have a cost benefit analysis done, that
would not only include infrastructure, but it would include roads, parks, libraries, police, fire, school, in addition to the infrastructure development. I guess that would be asked
for, if it did get approved. There is also the issue of
the comp plan. I would imagine that their plan wouldn’t come through until the update is done. I do like their plan, and fortunately, I think it is really necessary closer to town,
rather than on the fringe of our impact area. But I do like that, I just think there are a lot of obstacles that we have and I think it’s time that the Council have another workshop
on sewer, get another update on the white and discuss more of a time frame. I know there are a lot of property owners waiting for the white to be developed and the north then be in
line at some point. We do need to start figuring out our dates too.
Corrie: Any other questions of Council before we close the deal? It’s still open.
Smith: Mr. Bird asked about the design of the north slough trunk. We have submitted a design on Ten Mile. And we can proceed on that very rapidly. We would do the design and submit
it to the City Engineer and JUB for their review. To address Mrs. de Weerd, because of the restriction in the white trunk, it isn’t real apparent right now, but there is a lot shortage
coming in Ada County. Without that being built, and without the north slough being built, there will be a severe crunch on lots and prices are escalating quite rapidly right now. Kuna
has no treatment capacity right now.
*** end of tape 1***
Smith: – is somewhat restricted because of just land. Right now, the whole north end of Meridian is tied up. Over the next year, it will cause a severe impact in lot prices. That’s
all.
Corrie: Any further questions of Council, Staff?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and Second to close the Public Hearing. Further discussion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Now, is everybody done? We’re not going to be asking any questions so that we have to open it up again.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. I guess I’d be more in favor of tabling this until we can have a workshop and discussing our sewer plans.
Corrie: Okay, we have a motion on the floor to close the Public Hearing. Any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Comments? Discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I guess, just to start off the discussion, now, amongst the Council members, I agree with what our P & Z staff has recommended on this one. I think to go this
far out of our existing city limits, really does put a kink in orderly growth and planning. I think a lot of the concerns, that have been raised already by some of the citizens – the
sewer is an important issue, and we would love to have a partnership in extending the sewer in that area, and we know at some point that’s going to come. But like Tammy de Weerd was
talking about, the road improvements need to come, the intersections need to be improved with stop lights, police and fire protection, parks – all those things have to come along with
the orderly growth. I think also, as Tammy had stated Meridian isn’t necessarily out there looking for more houses to fill up our city limits. We have plenty of houses out there already.
We are looking for orderly growth in a community. A community, that we can be proud of, and developments that will enhance our community. Some of these annexations that were done,
that Kent pointed out, you can’t blame those all on the current City Council, but most of those had a significant benefit to the community of Meridian, when they were annexed. In this
particular case, I don’t see where this would be a significant benefit for the community of Meridian. I think that as growth goes, it may come out in a U-shape, based on the waste treatment
plant and its location, and where some of the development is going. I think this is probably a project that eventually is going to happen. I think it’s just a couple years premature
at this point. I, for one, would not be in favor of, at this time. Stretching that far out, and annexing down the center of a road, for three-quarter of a mile to go out and pick something
up that we’re really not in need of at this point, that really doesn’t do anything to enhance our community.
Corrie: Any other comments, questions, discussion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I agree with some of the things that Councilman Anderson said. I don’t like to see it coming around to do our annexation. Their plan is excellent. I have always
felt that, all along, that Chinden Boulevard should a commercial deal. The nice thing about commercial, they do pay their ways. Subdivision, the house is done paying its way. I don’t
like jumping trunk line to trunk line. I think the sewer is very important to get out there. Any help we can get definitely does help. We want to expand our fire department. We want
to expand our Police Department. At least commercial developments and residential developments help us do that. So, while I’m not one hundred percent in favor of this, I don’t think
it’s a bad idea. Like Ron, I hope it could come in place within two years, but, we’ll see.
Corrie: Any other comments? As we see how this vote goes, I’m sure you’ll all be interested in my State of the City address. I’m not doing a commercial here, but I will include an
item of this nature in that address. In a way that I think we
should go and are going, you’ll have my opinion at that time, unless it comes out as a tie, then you’ll get it earlier. Are there any other comments?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Speaking of commercials, we are in the process of updating our comp plan, and it should go to Public Hearing at some point. Residents in the area of impact have
as much at stake as the people living in the City. So I encourage you to keep a look out for those Public Hearings. We do have a draft plan at the Planning and Zoning Office. Pick
it up. You are in our area of impact and it will be urban at some point. So, you may want to see what the blue print of your community will be.
Corrie: We hope to have that to the Planning and Zoning Commission first of March. Right Shari? In March. Any other discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the request
for annexation and zoning of the 339.73 acres of the Keltic Heights Subdivision by the Parkland Development.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we have our City Attorney draw up a Finding Of Facts And Conclusion Of Law in support of our Planning and Zoning Commission denial of this project
and all the appropriate paperwork for that.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and support the Planning and Zoning Commission’s denial of the request
for annexation and zoning. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you give roll-call vote please.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 00-050 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a sales and project information office in a temporary trailer for Ashford Greens No. 4 by the Brighton Corporation
– Black Cat and North Waggle Place:
Corrie: This is a request for a conditional use permit for a sales and project information office in a temporary trailer for Ashford Greens No. 4 by Brighton Corporation, Black Cat and
North Waggle Place.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Could we have a five or ten minute recess?
Corrie: Yes. Before we go into that Public Hearing, we will take five minutes. We’ll be back at twenty-five after eight. Thank you.
(Reconvened at 8:25 p.m.)
Corrie: I will reconvene the City Council meeting. We are on Item No. 9, which is a Public Hearing, as I stated, requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a sales and project information
office in a temporary trailer for Ashford Greens No. 4 by Brighton corporation, Black Cat and North Waggle Place. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and Staff’s comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a temporary trailer for Ashford Greens Subdivision. Temporary buildings require Conditional Use Permit in this zone. It was nice to deal
with someone who told them what they needed to do. There was no whining involved. They promptly submitted their application and appreciate their cooperation in getting this approved
to City Council. We recommend approval with Staff conditions of approval.
Corrie: Take any questions from Staff Council.
De Weerd: It’s so detailed, how could you have any questions?
Corrie: Since this is a Public Hearing, the developer first.
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is David Turnbull. My address is 12426 West Explorer Drive in Boise, Idaho. I want to note, that for the record, my wife broke
me of whining many years ago.
Stiles: Thank you. Or thank her.
Turnbull: I don’t think there’s – I don’t have much to add. I was not here for the Planning and Zoning commission meeting, I was out of town. John Wardle handled the application there.
He, unfortunately, got married on Saturday and is off on his honeymoon, so I’m here today. I don’t think there’s really a lot to discuss, except that I would like to mention that this
would not be your typical construction trailer, that’s the gray with the green. We are actually ordering this in a kind of stripped down, finishing it out with a shingle look on the
sides and cornice moldings – we plan on using this from project to project, so we’re building it out first-class and the interior will, likewise, be more like a home finish. So, we
plan on doing a first-class job with it and appreciate the Planning and Zoning Commission’s approval and would ask the Council’s concurrence with that.
Corrie: Any questions from the Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you, David. Anyone here like to give testimony in favor of it? Anyone here against the project? Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: If there’s not questions, can I get motion to close the Public Hearing?
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close of Public Hearing on the Conditional Use Permit. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carried. Council, discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion on the request for the Conditional Use Permit –
Bird: I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit for sales and project information office in the temporary trailer for Ashford Greens No. 4, by Brighton Corporation, for the
Attorney draw up the proper papers.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for the Conditional Use Permit and have the Attorney draw up the correct papers. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those
in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 00-054 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct the new Meridian City Police Station in an R-8 zone by Lombard-Conrad Architects – south of Franklin
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: It is a Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct the new Meridian City Police Station in an R-8 zone by Lombard-Conrad Architects – south of Franklin Road and west of
Locust Grove Road. At this time, I’ll open the Public Hearing and staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the new Meridian City Police Station. I hope you all don’t have to step down (inaudible) this application. This property was recently annexed
as an R-8 and is being platted, with the remainder of the property owned by Kevin Howell. There is a request for a waiver of tiling the Hunter lateral. They had proposed a water amenity
or to use it as a pathway,
and we had a response from Nampa Meridian that they oppose that use, if it were to be enhanced, it would have to be outside their easement. We would recommend approval of the Conditional
Use Permit with Staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Any questions from Council.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Any testimony by the applicant, which would be the Meridian City Police Department?
Thomas: Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Michael Thomas. I represent Lombard Conrad Architects, residing at 1221 Shoreline Lane, Boise, Idaho. In regards to the Conditional
Use for this facility, the facility is approximately, designed here as a thirty-five thousand square foot facility, with a future build-out proportion of forty-two thousand square feet.
I’d like to clarify the waiver request to not tiling the Hunter lateral would also include not tiling the irrigation ditches that are also existing on the site. Approximately to the
West side of the Hunter lateral, at that cross Watertower Road to the north at this time. The facility, as well as the request to not tiling the canal, would be not to create a pathway,
as stated by Planning and Zoning, but to beautify the amenity of the feature. We would, again, not be into the easement of the Hunter lateral. Those would be kept sacred and secure,
and we would, basically create pocket over there by the retention pond, shown off on the west side of the site, by the future foot bridge, that would just be pockets of wild grasses
and small shrubs. There’d be western wheat grasses, Idaho fescue, sources of sandbar willow and dogwood and some service berry, that would enhance some of the water fowl and upland
game birds that would be dispersed by the development of this facility and this agricultural area. With that, the issues at hand, is the condition use for the use of this facility on
this site and the waiver request not to tile the Hunter lateral and the adjacent service ditches. Any questions?
Corrie: Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor. You were talking about thirty-five thousand square feet on up to forty-one, did you not bring that down, the square footage down some, from thirty-five?
Thomas: City Council member, we at this point in time, are concerned with the budget for thirty-five thousand foot facility. What we are currently at the point of getting a construction
manager on the project to get confirmation of the cost per square foot facility that would allow us to either reduce portions of this existing design or to redesign it. We have a secondary
design in place that allows for
reduction of the program down to a thirty thousand square foot building, approximately twenty-nine thousand seven hundred and fifty square feet. But it does take off some added amenities
to the facility, of probation, attorneys’ offices, and that sort of thing. Reducing, in thoughts of taking off the auto-sally port, where perpetrators are brought in around the back.
Reducing significant amount of parking for the patrol vehicles. Still allowing for future expansion that may, in footprint, where we have the outlying parking lots on the east and
west side would remain and the footprint landscaped area would remain. We would just reduce the size of the building to accommodate the budget for the facility.
Corrie: Are there any questions? Is there anyone here who would like to issue testimony on this request for this use permit? Either pro or con?
J. Anderson: My name is John Anderson. I’m with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and I guess I was kind of confused. We did send in written comments regarding the waiver, request
for waiver. Is that still being considered at this time? Because I’d like to go ahead and comment it and back up what our letter talked about. A number of years ago, when the City
of Meridian put this ordinance in place, it was for several reasons. These open ditches have hydraulic pressure that leaks out. Along side they cause problems, saturation, the ground
sometimes starts dipping down and people call and complain about that. In addition to that, there’s safety. They added safety measures. If you want to put a pathway along there, the
District does have a new license agreement with the City of Meridian to do so. This is done in a pipe facility on our open laterals, so that would be a great to opportunity to put a
pathway in if it was piped. Without that it is against District policy, so if that is the plan – they talked about soccer fields earlier in the zoning meeting that I attended. Those
waterways are a natural magnet to those children. If that occurs, we have all kinds of problems with that. The District does burn these ditches annually. We also spray. I don’t want
to get into some kind of a problem where they’re putting in this nice habitat. I think you could put the habitat in along side the pipeline, it would work great. If that’s the goal,
to enhance the upland games birds. You know, quite often when people play with these things, we come through and do the normal maintenance, that we do, including dipping the ditches
out, it just interferes. So I’d really like to urge the Council more not to allow this waiver to happen. It’s worked wonderfully, and, there again, like I said, it’s a great opportunity
for a bike path once it’s piped, and without it, it doesn’t exist. Thank you.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Go ahead.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, we might inquire of Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson, is there a problem with a waiver, so long as that property is not developed into a soccer
field, or so long as anything with vegetation or any
landscaping would not interfere with your easement, is there a problem with waiving that? Or deferring that tiling requirement until such time as the City chose to do something with
that property to the west?
J. Anderson: No, if that wasn’t going to occur and it was just the police station, the foot bridge, it’s not that we’re anti-bridge, but every time you put a structure across our facilities,
it makes our work, once again, difficult – they tend to catch on fire, they tend to get in our way when we dip the ditches out. So, that wasn’t going to go in, and if they used the
road crossings on either side of the property, yes, I would have no objections to that. Knowing that the reason that they put that in, was the leakage next to these ditches. That was
another big problem. The City got called on as much as us, so these things do – you know, they’re open dirt, ditches, they do tend to laterally leak and that solved a lot of that problem.
Corrie: I have a question, does this same ditch run through the cemetery?
J. Anderson: Yes, it does.
Corrie: Is it tiled?
J. Anderson: No, it’s not.
Corrie: Do they have a problem with sinking graves or something there?
J. Anderson: I don’t know.
Corrie: Okay, the same one that runs by the fire station?
J. Anderson: Yes.
Corrie: Does the Cemetery have some bridges that do cross it?
J. Anderson: Existing bridges, yes.
Corrie: Do you burn those?
J. Anderson: Do we burn those particular ones? No. Have we ever burnt them? Yes. I worked ditch for ten years and I burnt a few things down. Not intentionally.
Corrie: I’m trying to get in my mind here, where we’re going.
J. Anderson: One thing, just so I can let you know. Some of the landscaping they did do down at the fire station on Franklin, is now going to cause us to either have to pipe it or
they’re going to have to move some of that back. And,
unfortunately, that’s going to be at our expense. I like landscaping, but there is now no way for us to get in there and do any maintenance, where they planted the shrubs and trees
– it’s completely blocked out. So the only answer we have for that, as budget allows, is going in there and tile through that area, so we don’t have to worry about that. Because as
the trees get bigger, it’ll even get worse for us.
Corrie: Any more questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Any other testimony?
R. Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. It seems like we have a conflict, then, between our City Ordinance and Nampa Meridian policy, as a general policy, because our Ordinance does
allow for either tiling of the ditch or to leave the ditch open and use that as an amenity in a project. It almost sounds like we have a conflict between your policy and what our City
Ordinance says. Is that what I’m understanding – where there are allowances so that we can still have the amenities?
J. Anderson: Amenities that are allowable, we don’t have a lot of problem with, grasses and low shrubs that are not interfering with our roadway and when we burn – that’s not a problem.
The amenities we’ve seen and do have a problem with, is have someone come in and go out and three-to-one slope the ditch, and turn a four foot ditch into a thirty foot ditch. Literally,
I’ve seen this happen. Those are the kind of amenities where people come and they want to put in little waterfalls and drops. Those are the kind of amenities that we wouldn’t allow,
so, yes, we might have different concepts of what an amenity is. We just want to run the water down the ditch and not have it disturbed, is what our goal is.
Corrie: One of the main things that caused us to look at tiling of everything inside the City, was the fact of the aquifer replenishment. If we run pipes through everything, we don’t
get that aquifer replenished. So that was one of – I don’t know if all these people were on Council at that time – but that was one of the main things they were thinking about. How
do you replace the aquifer that naturally done that way? Now, you’re not going to lose any water, that’s for sure, if you get it through a pipe, and it goes to somebody else and they
irrigate. But all that water that’s going through all that land is not being percolated back into the soil, into the aquifer.
J. Anderson: Well, I’m not a hydrologist, but what I understand about that, is it only really hits the shallow aquifer, it doesn’t do the long-term good. We have open drain ditches,
Five Mile Drain, Ten Mile Drain, and (inaudible) creeks, but they’re subterranean drain ditches and their job is to perk that water up out of the ground. With the piping we’re doing,
we’ve yet to see any loss of the water. We
monitor. We have measuring stations through some of these facilities. But it ends a lot of arguments. I’d be all for it, if every time we had to go through a back yard and clean a
ditch and burn a ditch, we didn’t have to grab our lawyers and fight somebody else’s lawyers, I’d be in total agreement with you guys. But the real world is, that these people encroach,
they build dog runs, their homes, they plant trees, and it’s making our job difficult, at best, to try to work out something together. We pipe a tremendous amount and concrete lines.
There are several areas, in the Meridian area that are so saturated with water – Locust Grove and Victory area. You can pull water at a foot out there. That has such a tremendously
bad water table, and it’s all coming out of the Ridenbaugh Canal and the New York Canal, probably, and all the big laterals out there. Our goal is now to get rid of – dry up the land
and take away the aquifer, but to do it in a safe manner. The problem is like I said earlier, you go through a subdivision and these ditches are right next to somebody’s lawn and all
the sudden those lawns start sinking, that’s when the problems start. It’s really helped us to maintain, and I think the City, too, hasn’t got near as many complaints, once that Ordinance
was past. It’s helped us all.
Bird: Mr. Anderson? How many acres does this Hunter lateral, how many inches do you run down that most of the time?
J. Anderson: At the head end, about sixteen hundred inches, top of my head.
Bird: How many acres do you suppose that flood irrigates now?
J. Anderson: Between flood irrigation, pressure irrigation, which we’re also involved in, roughly probably seventeen eighteen hundred acres.
Bird: How many acres do you suppose have been lost out that lateral in the last ten, twelve years?
J. Anderson: Off the Hunter? –
Bird: What capacity, is it running at?
J. Anderson: – Off the Hunter, actually not a whole lot, because most of the farm ground, that was served off the Hunter, is all now being served by pressure irrigation. So, the Hunter,
itself, which serves most of the old section of Meridian, is still in use. So, I’d say very little, very little. I could pick laterals that have higher loss, but we’re actually seeing
more acres brought back in our system, then getting out anymore, because of this pressure system stuff. So that’s what’s saving the aquifer.
Bird: You’re running the same inches now as you were ten years ago?
J. Anderson: Ten years ago? Probably really close. I have hundreds of miles of these things –
Bird: I know.
J. Anderson: -- (inaudible) recorded on that, but I’d say pretty close. There’s not a big loss on the Hunter.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: If there is no other testimony, I’ll hear a motion to close the Public Hearing.
McCandless: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion was made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the request for Conditional Use Permit to construct the Meridian City Police Station.
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council discussion?
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Bill, I guess I have, in the back of my mind, is if we approve this Conditional Use Permit and don’t tile the ditch, is there anything in the Master Pathway agreement, between
the City of Nampa and Meridian that would cause us (inaudible)? Now, that’s a loaded question, I know, but they did make the statement here that, by doing that, it would need their
written consent before doing anything.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, a master pathway agreement simply sets out all the common terms that would apply on any pathways that are adjacent to any Nampa Meridian
facilities. With regard to each specific pathway, there would need to be a separate license agreement, entered into, which would take into account, the individual characteristics of
that particular proposed
pathway, as it relates to that facility. If, in the future, there were some sort of pathway proposed for the Hunter lateral, the City would have to enter into negations with Nampa Meridian,
with regard to what the terms and conditions of that license agreement would be. So, I think that there are a couple of the things to consider. In the master Pathway agreement, we
have agreed that, essentially, that the pathways, themselves, would not interfere with Nampa Meridian’s purpose of delivering water. That’s the essential thing that they wanted preserved.
I think the words somewhere in there “unreasonably interfere”, or there’s something like that that we went back and forth on -- Things like a bridge over a facility, typically require
a crossing agreement with whoever holds the water. In this particular case, the proposed foot bridge would not be allowed unless and until Nampa Meridian agreed to it, in connection
with some sort of crossing agreement or some sort of license agreement, with regard to that foot bridge. That was one of the reasons I asked the question about, to what extend the
objection to the waiver is. Because as I understand it, there are no immediate plans to improve that property west of that ditch, it’s just east of the ditch, where the Police building
would be build, that this Conditional Use Permit is primarily addressing. And with the architect’s representation, that any improvements, landscaping, and so forth, would be outside
Nampa Meridian’s easement, whatever width that easement is there, these improvements, landscaping, shrubs, grasses, would be outside that easement. And therefore, by definition, would
not interfere with Nampa Meridian’s right to maintain that ditch and deliver water through it. I don’t know if that answered your question.
Corrie: It did. I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood, myself as well. Any further discussion? Okay, I’ll entertain a motion, then, on the request for the Conditional
Use Permit.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I would move that the Attorney draw up the proper papers for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the new Meridian City Police Station in an R8 Zone south of
Franklin Road and west of Locust Grove Road, and include the variance, in lieu of the fact that the Police Department has no plans to construct anything, in the way of getting in the
way of maintenance of the ditch. They just don’t want to tile it at the present time.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the Attorney draw up the proper papers for approval of the Conditional Use Permit, including the variance. Any further discussion.
R. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to clarify with John, that’s doable with your organization, as long as it’s not being developed over there on the –
J. Anderson: Yes. My concern was that Planning and Zoning (inaudible – away from the microphone)
R. Anderson: No, I’m just asking for clarification on the motion before I vote on that, that that’s allowable. Not trying to take additional testimony. No thanks. Don’t want to go
there.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay, roll-call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. Public Hearing: RZ 00-008 Request for rezone of 5.17 acres from L-O to R-4 by J-U-B Engineers for proposed Devlin Place No. 2 – south of Devlin Place between Sunburst Subdivision
and Sunnybrook Farms.
Corrie: This is a request for a re-zone of 5.17 acres from L-O to R-4 by J-U-B Engineers for proposed Devlin Place No. 2 – south of Devlin Place between Sunburst Subdivision and Sunnybrook
Farms. Public L-O if for offices and R-4 is for homes. So, at this time, I’ll open the Public Hearing and like Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this property was previously re-zoned to L-O, and what some of you may remember, was proposed to be developed as an assisted living, nursing home, Alzheimer’s
care unit, by Prestige Care. The development agreement that was entered into reflects that plan. Also, as part of that rezone, was when they dedicated the acreage to be known as Chateau
Park on the northern end of this property. Staff would recommend approval of the rezone to R-4, with Staff and Agency conditions. The development agreement that was entered into will
need to be modified as part of that rezone.
Corrie: Do you have some questions, Staff?
Anderson: I’m just curious, Shari, the way that looks, that field has been empty for years, and they’re only developing the back part. Is there some plan for that front piece of property
that we know of at this time?
Stiles: I know of no plans for it. If they get this rezone done, this will remain an L-O zone. And because they have a significant modification to their original Conditional Use Permit,
anything that comes in here, will require a Conditional Use. The next Public Hearing deals with a Preliminary Plat, but this will also need to be platted as a one-lot subdivision, or
whatever they proposed to do in
the future. There was an issue, when this came in. It was roughly twenty acres, I think, originally owned by Joan Priest and there was an issue with the sewering of this property,
particularly the closer you get to Cherry Lane. I think maybe, they can be served from Cherry Lane, for this piece? No? They’ll have a lift station? Do you know how they can serve
this? (inaudible). But – I don’t know what the reason was the Prestige Care didn’t follow through with their original plans, but Mr. Woods, wanted to add this as another phase of the
Devlin Place Subdivision.
Corrie: Any questions? Any testimony?
Fluke: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, thank you. My name is Daren Fluke with J-U-B Engineers, representing the applicant in this matter. We don’t have much to say about the rezone.
We needed to accommodate the subdivision, so if you wanted to open that up, I’d be happy to talk about that as well. It’s clearly a down zone on the property. I don’t think you’ll
see any opposition from our neighbors for that reason. We would anticipate that we would see some opposition, if we did try to develop this as an L-O parcel. That was one of the reasons
for going forward with this particular application. As far as the rezone is concerned, I don’t have too much to say. I’ll just reserve my comments for when we talk about the Preliminary
Plat.
Corrie: Any comments from the Council members
Nichols: Mr. Fluke. Would there be any difficulty getting DD&F, whoever they are, to agree to the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit that had previously been issued. Have you
had any discussion with them about that?
Fluke: We don’t anticipate any problems. They are aware that they will have to modify their agreement with the City. When they sold this property to my client, he did make them aware
of the fact. The plan that was approved before, obviously, required this acreage, for what they wanted to do. So, anything that they would do with this front parcel, wouldn’t look
anything like what was approved previously. We are not aware of what their plans are for the property.
Nichols: Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else from the Public like to issue testimony in this request? Gary, refresh my mind a little bit, what was the problem with sewering in this area? Was it -- ?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, it’s just really shallow. There is a stub sewer that is provided out the south boundary of this property, right there where the arrow is.
That’s the only way that remaining piece can be sewered. There is no sewer in Cherry Lane. It is very shallow. That’s the issue. The ground is low, as you probably remember. It
sits quite low.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions of the Council? Hearing no other testimony, I’ll enter a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the request for rezone, Devlin Place No. 2. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion, Council? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion, then, on the request for the rezone.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we have the City Attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in support of the request for rezone of the L-O to R-4, for J-U-B
Engineers for the proposed Devlin Place No.2.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: A motion has been made and seconded to direct the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in support of the request for rezone of Devlin Place No. 2,
Item No. 11. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 00-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 4 other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by J-U-B Engineers for proposed
Devlin Place No. 2 – south of Devlin Place between Sunburst Subdivision and Sunnybrook Farms:
Corrie: Item No. 12 is a Public Hearing on a request for a Preliminary Plat approval for sixteen building lots and 4 other lots on 5.17 acres in the proposed R-4 zone by J-U-B Engineers
for the proposed Devlin Place No. 2. At this time, I’ll open this Public Hearing with Staff comments first.
Stile: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council this is for the planned, Preliminary Plat plan for Devlin Place No. 2. We would recommend approval with Staff and Agency conditions. But I
believe we’d need to wait until that rezone was done and the development agreement was amended, prior to acting on the plat? Is that correct?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, in response to Shari’s comment, we can hold off on the Final Plat, I think, until all those things were done. So, go ahead and approve the
Preliminary Plat, if you choose to do so. There are quite a number of hoops that have got to be jumped through, with regard to the existing CUP, the existing development agreement,
some of those items. They wouldn’t be able to sell the lots until the Final Plat was recorded, so that’s a substantial incentive to get it all done.
Corrie: Okay, representative of J-U-B.
Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Daren Fluke, again, with J-U-B. You can see this pretty well fits in with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. These are about eight thousand
square foot lots, more or less. And it’s just basically what you’ve got around it. We do tie in with three existing stub streets. This does work better, we think, for the neighbors
than what was previously approved. With regard to the existing development agreement and Conditional Use, we’re in agreement that the other property owner needs to do something, although
I don’t necessarily agree that that needs to hold up this plat. They entered into agreement with you, to develop this property in a particular way, and if they never come and ask to
do that, there’s really no reason to hold up this project. We will be entering into our own agreement with the City, on this portion of the site, and clearly, their development could
not be approved, by this body, because they don’t have, what they promised the City they would have when they were to develop it. The City’s bases will be covered. We’ll do everything
we customarily do, with a subdivision. I just ask that you not hold us hostage to what DD&F do or do not do, with their piece of property, when they come in to develop it. They’ll
have to go through all the customary hoops that they’d have to go through. But, there’s no reason to hold us up, while they go through that. If you like, I’ll add –
*** end of side 3 ***
Fluke: – I just point out for the record, as I did for the Planning and Zoning Commission, this application was submitted prior to the City’s adoption of the Landscape Ordinance.
We’re certainly not opposed to complying with the ordinance, however, we are pushing that five percent number pretty close. This lot, right here, will be our drainage lot. That contains
almost nine thousand square feet, eighty-nine hundred. Then we have this sewer easement in path right here, that we could count. That’s about another two thousand square feet. So
that gets up to about eleven hundred. We’re not opposed to putting that in grass, right there, if the Irrigation District will allow it. What we have there now is a ditch that we are
piping. That paperwork has been submitted to the Irrigation District, because we’d like to – we only have a month, or so, to get that done, before they won’t let us begin construction.
So, we’re working through the permitting process on that right now. They want clear and unfettered access to their easement, which will be about twenty feet along here, so they can
drive on that. But right here it’s not a problem, because they can be on the road. We
anticipate that they’ll let us grass that little sliver there, and that would get us awfully close to the five percent number. So, we’re not opposed to it, I just want to point out
that I don’t believe that we’re subject to that ordinance, because we were in before it was submitted. We’ll do everything that we can to comply with the spirit of that. If not, the
exact letter of the law.
Bird: If you get eleven hundred square feet, you’re pretty –
Fluke: Yes, we’re –
Bird: You’re pretty close to your five percent on, basically, two hundred and thirty thousand square feet.
Fluke: Exactly. We come within a couple hundred square feet. I just don’t want my client – or I don’t want condition of approval on their saying that we have to have exactly five
thousand square feet, because…I’m sorry?
Bird: Five percent.
Fluke: Five percent. Because we’ll be pushing it and I’d really hate for that to hold this up, when really, the ordinance doesn’t really apply to us.
Corrie: Council, question?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? I guess I would have question of Council. From your earlier comments it sounds like you’d advise us not to act on this until the rezone is done.
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor, Members of Council, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is you can go ahead and conditionally approve this. You approved the rezone,
I have to prepare the documents for that. The Preliminary Plat could be approved, subject to – before they can come in and record Final Plat or have Final Plat approval, there’s certain
things that need to be done. I would disagree with Mr. Fluke, on the issue of what we can require, because, when this parcel was bought from DD&F, it constituted an illegal lot split
inside the City of Meridian. For that reason, we can require this and we are. So, I would say you have the power to do it and they’re willing to do it, and they can work with their
seller, to get their seller’s consent, if that’s what’s required, or the seller’s going to be in some sort of default or fraud or something that way. I don’t see it as a major problem,
but we certainly have the power to do so. Splitting off this parcel constituted an illegal lot split.
Fluke: Can I respond?
Corrie: Still a Public Hearing.
Fluke: Thank you. Just for clarification sake, I was not trying to state that you did not have the power to do that. I think you certainly have the power to condition it, just about
anyway that you see fit, so long that it benefits the public interest. What I was saying is – what I was trying to say that there’s really no benefit to holding this project up until
you get DD&F to jump through a bunch of hoops. We will do everything that we have to do to build this subdivision. If they want to come in and build their assisted living facility
tomorrow, they’ve immediately got problems with the City, because, all of the sudden they don’t have the parcel that they agreed to develop. They’ve got to amend their development agreement
at that time. I guess, the point is, who cares? There’s just really no reason to hold this project up. When they come in and want to do something with that, yes, they have to amend
the agreement. But there is nothing that should preclude us from going forward because we’ll be entering into our own agreement with the City. Maybe it’s just a matter of semantics.
I certainly think you have that ability, I just don’t know what purpose it would serve.
Corrie: Okay. Anyone else from the Public?
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Nichols would like to ask –
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, if there is no one else to testify on this, I do have a question of Shari. Where this sewer easement is, I don’t see a recommendation here,
with regard to the fence height along – what height fences? I can’t recall now, whether or not that’s covered in the Landscape Ordinance or not, where it would be along a pathway there.
Should there be some sort of fence height restriction – no more than four feet along that micro path.
Stiles: Yes. Yes there should. To be consistent with what we’ve done in other cases where there is a pathway involved, we ask for a maximum of four feet high, so it’s non-site obscuring.
And also that there be a deed restriction placed on those adjacent lots that they may not build a six foot high site-obscuring fence.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor. I think the applicant needs to respond to that, because I’m not sure it was in any of the discussions, as to what their position would be.
Fluke: It’s not a problem for us.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public who would like to testify. Any comments from Staff or questions.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item No. 12.
Bird: So Moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing of request of Preliminary Plat of Devlin Place No. 2 Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council, any discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the request for the Preliminary Plat.
Bird: I move that we have the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Decision of Order in favor of the request for the Preliminary Plat approval for sixteen
building lots, and four other lots on Quiet Point, seventeen acres in a proposed R-4 zone by J-U-B Engineers for proposed Devlin Place No. 2, with Staff comments, and also on the five
percent, if they can get around the eleven thousand square feet, or eleven hundred square feet, I mean, that they’d be sufficient at this time.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded.
De Weerd: Eleven hundred?
Bird: Eleven thousand, I’m sorry. I was really giving it to them nice. Eleven thousand.
Corrie: That was going to be my discussion.
Bird: Yes, eleven thousand, instead of eleven hundred.
Corrie: Okay, any further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Also the addition that Mr. Nichols had pointed out?
Bird. The fence?
De Weerd: On the fence?
Bird: Yes, that was part of it.
Corrie: By the Staff comments?
Bird. Staff comments.
Corrie: Okay, any other discussion? Okay, motion is to have the Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in favor and to include the Staff comments and the five-percent
landscaping discussed in the motion. Further comments.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Public Hearing: RZ 00-009 Request for rezone of .25 acres from R-8 to C-G for general commercial use for proposed Tranquility Ponds by Potter Land Surveying – East 3rd Street
and Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Request for rezone of .25 acres from R-8 to C-G for general commercial use for proposed Tranquility Ponds by Potter Land Surveying – East 3rd Street and Fairview Avenue. RZ
00-009. This time I’ll open the Public Hearing and Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, this is for the little property right at the southwest corner of 3rd and Fairview. It was formerly occupied as part of Bodine Oil Company.
Right here would be where the emissions and Rocky Mountain Collision Repair. I believe this is a house here. There are apartments here. This is the Ponderosa Paint building and back
here would be where an existing trailer court is. For some reason, some of this frontage is zoned residential, all along Fairview. We haven’t been able to determine why that is. There
will be another application in the near future, for this piece here, because that is also zoned residential. The applicant has submitted a plan. We just wanted to make it clear that
this rezone was not an approval of that plan, as submitted. It does not meet agency comments or City Ordinance requirements. So, when they did come in and ready to develop that property,
they would need to comply with the existing City Ordinance. We recommend approval with Staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Thank you. Comments? Questions? Council? Shari? Staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening?
Stiles: He didn’t show up.
Corrie: Whoops. Okay. Is there anyone from the public who would like to issue testimony at this point? Okay. I guess Staff is recommended that it be approved. Does the Council
have any questions in their mind, that they would like to table this until they talk to the applicant? Or are they satisfied with the Staff’s comments?
Bird. I’m satisfied with Staff, myself.
Corrie: Okay. Everybody? All right, then I’ll request that the Public Hearing be closed.
Bird. So Moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the request of rezone by Tranquility Ponds, Item No. 13. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion of the Council? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion of the request on the rezone.
De Weerd: I move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order to approve the request for a rezone of .25 acres from R-8
to C-G for a proposed Tranquility Ponds and to include all Staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. The motion had been made and seconded to have the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with approval of the rezone request of Tranquility
Ponds and to include Staff comments. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 00-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 20.20 acres from RT to C-G for proposed Sparrowhawk
Subdivision by Hubble Engineering, Inc. – northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road:
Corrie: Item 14 is a Public Hearing. This is a request for annexation – can you hear me out there? I can hear myself, but I would hope that you can – and zoning of 20.20 acres from
RT to C-G for proposed Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Hubble Engineering, Inc. – northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road. At this time I will open the Public Hearing
and Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, this is for the property on the northeast corner of Franklin and Nola Road. There is an existing industrial subdivision here, Mr. John Anderson
lives right here. They are proposing annexation of all of this as C-G zone. Next hearing we will deal with the Preliminary Plat. I guess as part of annexation and zoning I want to
go to the arial. It would include all of this property here. There is an existing pond that has been constructed. There is also a little bar that is not included as part of the annexation.
Bird: Chief would have a talk with us on that.
Stiles: They don’t have any plans. They don’t have any development plans that were submitted, as part of this request, but they have come in with a Preliminary Plat and it would require
a development agreement and all uses of the property, would be required to be developed, under the conditional use process. We would ask that the annexation be approved with all Staff
and agency conditions.
Corrie: Okay, is the applicant here this evening?
Nickle: Mr. Mayor, Council, Thank you. Shawn Nickle, Hubble Engineering, 701 Allen Street, Meridian, Suite 210. Sorry about the bar. Don’t hold that against us. I mean, don’t hold
it against us that we don’t have it included in our application. Thank you Staff, for the recommendations. Your Planning and Zoning Commission has also recommended approval of this
rezone application. We are in agreement with the developer agreement that will be forthcoming with the condition that we develop each of the three lots that you’ll see in a minute,
as Conditional Use Permits. I’ll stand for any questions you may have.
Bird: How does that pond fill?
Nickle: It is filled through diverted irrigation water.
Bird: Right in there? In that area?
Nickle: I believe so, yes. I did submit a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers, regarding that pond. I don’t know if that was included in your packet, or not. I do
have an extra copy here. But they did go out and analyzed the pond and didn’t see it as a potential wet lands problems.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Shawn?
Nickle: Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public who would like to issue testimony in this annexation and zoning?
Anderson: I am John Anderson. I reside at 120 north Nola Road, which is on the West side of this property. My concerns have partially been met. There was a discrepancy, when they
surveyed the property. They have now corrected. I was just told that tonight. My concern, as a homeowner, is our water supply which is a ditch that comes down, crosses Franklin Road.
You can kind of see the line. Can I walk over there so I can show you?
Bird: Take your microphone with you, there, John.
Anderson: This is our water that diverts down into my property and also serves eighty acres across the road from us. The water comes back to the pond right in here. My concern is
that they’re allowed to develop yet this spring, that they have all work completed by the fifteenth of March, just like our Irrigation District would require. Our Irrigation District
has not jurisdiction down this far. This is the tale end of what’s called the Barker lateral. It’s a very major facility in our system. It’s got to be done and ready to go, because
water wastes down that way, if it’s not being used in the subdivision up above. This ditch services over approximately two hundred-fifty acres. I’d like to be a contact person, matter
of fact, I’m the Secretary-Treasurer of that water user association, so I get beat up at home too, on the side, so, I’d like to part of that discussion. Making sure they get the proper
diversions it, making sure the pipe is sized correctly, and making sure that City Council, would hopefully, require that they be completed with all work by the fifteenth. I guess, at
this time that’s all I have to say, until (inaudible due to background noise). Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public like to testify. Shawn? Answer to his questions?
Nickle: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, the majority of the developers, at one time or another, have worked with John. And, because his house is right there, I guarantee we will
be working with John, to get that completed by the fifteenth. Rest assured that will be taken care of.
Corrie: Thank you, John. I thought that would be the answer. Okay. Staff comments? Questions of Staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay, I’ll entertain a motion to close this Public Hearing on Item No. 14.
Anderson: So Moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on annexation and zoning proposed by Sparrowhawk subdivision. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Public Hearing is closed. Council discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion for the request for annexation and zoning by Sparrowhawk subdivision.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. I move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law to approve the request for annexation and zoning for 20.20 acres from
R-T to C-G, for the proposed Sparrowhawk subdivision to include all Staff comments and public testimony.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to have the Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with approval of the annexation and zoning of Sparrowhawk Subdivision,
with the Staff comments and public testimony. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 00-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 3 building lots on 20.20 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Hubble Engineering,
Inc. – northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road:
Corrie: Item 15 is a Public Hearing. It is a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 3 building lots on 20.20 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed
Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Hubble Engineering, Inc. – northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and invite Staff comments
first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, just a few pictures of the site. This is showing the existing pond. I guess we have a lot of pictures of the site. This is the proposed
subdivision. I don’t believe it reflects the most recent revisions to the plat. I would also like to add – note too, as they’re proposing to pipe these ditches – to make sure that
they’re not in that landscape set back, because John doesn’t want any trees in there. So you’d have a problem meeting the Landscape Ordinance, if that were in that thirty-five foot
landscape set. We would recommend approval with all Staff and Agency conditions.
Corrie: Thank you, Shari. Any comments, questions from Staff? All right, then, since this is a Public Hearing – by the engineer’s representative?
Nickle: thank you Mr. Mayor. For the record, Shawn Nickle, Hubble Engineering, 701 Allen Street, Meridian, Suite 210. This is a first for you, because I am in agreement with every
condition that Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission have requested. I’m not going to appeal any of them. Just for the record, I’d just like to state that I did submit a revised
plat to Staff and City Clerk and also Public Works showing the reconfiguration of Mr. Anderson’s property and I also submitted a new legal description. That’s been taken care of. In
addition, Staff wanted some additional landscaping lots along Franklin Road. We also included that in the revision. And also a lot to show the future pressurized irrigation system.
That was also submitted. So we are in agreement with all the conditions, and would ask for approval.
Smith: Mr. Nickle, what is the date on the latest plat?
Stiles: Ours is stamped January 11th.
Bird: That’s when we received it.
Nickle: May I look at one of those plans?
Bird: One-ten. Revised one-ten. Is that the one?
Nickle: It is.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public like to issue testimony? Okay. If there is none, Council, any questions for Public Hearing testimony?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item No. 15.
Anderson: So Moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on request by Sparrowhawk subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council discussion?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: Hearing none, alright I’ll entertain a motion on the request for the approval of the Preliminary Plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that we approve the Preliminary Plat approval for three building lots on 20.20 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Sparrowhawk subdivision by Hubble Engineering,
Inc. for the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to incorporate the applicant’s and Staff’s comments.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat and have the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and proper order and including Staff
comments and public testimony.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Further discussion, Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I just noticed something we got today, from ACHD, that they haven’t had any opportunity to review this application. Would this have any impact on the Preliminary Plat?
Stiles: Not particularly. Until uses are proposed for a subdivision, they really don’t have much information to go on, so with each of those lots going through Conditional Use Permit,
they’ll be able to do a report on every lot.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16: Public Hearing: VAR 01-001 Request for variance by Hummel Architects allowing an increased building height to 57 feet from the existing maximum height of 35 feet for the new
Mountain View High School generally located southeast of the intersection between Locust Grove and Overland Roads:
Corrie: Item 16 is a request for variance by Hummel Architects allowing an increased building height to 57 feet from the existing maximum height of 35 feet for the new Mountain View
High School generally located southeast of the intersection between Locust Grove and Overland Roads. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council this is for the proposed buildings at the high school site. It’s very difficult to build the auditorium and gymnasium at thirty-five feet.
We did want to address also at this time, the proposed field illumination masts that are included on the plan. And also the lighting fixtures that were within the parking lot, itself.
The lighting in the parking lot cannot exceed thirty-five feet. But we did want to address that height for the football field, because obviously they need a height greater than the
thirty-five feet. We would recommend approval of the building height variance with Staff conditions.
Corrie: Any questions, Staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Shari, will they have to come back for another variance for those light mast poles at the football and baseball field?
Stiles: Our Ordinance doesn’t really address something like that. It does address the parking lot standard fixture height, but that I wouldn’t think would require a separate variance
for that.
Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening?
Straubhar: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council. Thank you. I’m Scott Straubhar, representing Hummel Architects which is representing the Meridian School District, 802 West Bannock, Suite
700, Boise, Idaho. We appreciate Staff’s recommendation of approval the heights of the gymnasium and the auditorium. They do exceed the thirty-five foot limit, however, they are what
they are. An eighteen hundred-student school needs to have a gymnasium and an auditorium. So, we thank them for that approval. We brought an elevation.
Scott, one of my business partners is holding that up. I think it gives a better representation of what the high school would look like then. What you see over here on the board, you
can see how we’re putting the building together. The colors, that will be used on the building. The two specific areas that exceed the height limitations are that area right there,
so everything else is below the thirty-five foot limit. We’ve tried to break down the scale of the exterior walls by putting thirty-five or smaller areas around that, for instance at
the auditorium. It is a tall wall that is surrounding that as a story and a half-area-spaces: art classrooms, band rooms and choirs, likewise we did the same thing over on the gym walls.
So, the scale isn’t just abrupt right from the ground straight up on a wall, there’s actually other volumes that sort of help break it down. The other think I’d like to point out,
we tried to treat the back side of the building, the side that faces towards the subdivisions, with the same sort of care with did the front of the building side, the approach from Overland
Drive. With that, I would stand for any questions that you have.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Questions?
Anderson: I see the bars, but where’s the razor-wire around the…Oh, those aren’t bars on the windows, they’re just panes in the windows.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. How is that oriented to the surrounding subdivision?
Straubhar: We have a site plan we’ll show you. The surrounding subdivisions are right along here along the southwest side. So, the buildings are oriented along here, but the high
part is here and right here. The rest of it is at thirty-five feet.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Anderson: I was going to say, all that parking lot, a lot of cars. When I was going to high school, I’m going to date myself, two of the kids had cars. The rest of us walked. I’m
really dating myself.
Corrie: The story I heard was you had to date yourself.
Bird: Mr. (inaudible due to laughter) is being nasty there.
Anderson: I walked into it.
Corrie: Okay, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: Anyone else in the public like to issue testimony. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for the Public Hearing. If none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing
on the request for variance on Item 16.
Bird: So Moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the request for variance on Item No. 16. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, all entertain a motion on the request for variance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I moved that we approve the variance by Hummel Architects, and increase building height to fifty-seven feet from the existing maximum height of thirty-five feet for
the new Mountain View High School, located on Locust Grove and Overland Road for the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order, with applicant
and Staff’s comments
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for variance by the Mountain View High School for the building height to fifty-seven, from the existing maximum
height of thirty-five feet and have the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with Staff comments. Any further discussion? Heating none, all those in favor
of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 17: Public Hearing: VAR 01-002 Request for variance by Hummel Architects to reduce the number of landscape islands in the parking lot for the new Mountain View High School generally
located southeast of the intersection between Locust Grove and Overland Roads.
Corrie: Next item, number seventeen, is a request for variance by Hummel Architects to reduce the number of landscape islands in the parking lot for the new Mountain View High School
generally located southeast of the intersection between Locust Grove and Overland Roads. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, this is a request for a variance from our brand new landscape ordinance. They have applied for the variance because they don’t want to provide
the internal landscaping that’s required by the ordinance. The primary reason was to allow the marching band and the ROTC an area to practice when the football field was in use. We
are able to provide, through alternative compliance, an area that they can leave open to allow for that marching band and ROTC, however we do not agree with the variance request and
ask that it be denied. There is a huge expanse of asphalt. And even though they will be providing some islands at the end of those parking rows, we don’t feel it adequate for the heat
island that will be created from this and is not in keeping with the intent of the new landscape ordinance. Typically, if you’ve ever been near a high school, this is a great place,
in the wintertime, for spinning cookies. If there’s not some kind of routing, through the placement of these planter islands, they can kind of discourage that and create more orderly
habits, perhaps, I hope. The existing Meridian High parking lot, if you’ve ever been through that, or have ever been unfortunate enough to miss the elevation difference, and run over
some wheel blocks out there, they would certainly need to have wheel blocks out here to help with that problem. We feel that, since this can be taken care of through alternative compliance,
that they do not need a variance. Their main need for the variance seems to be financial in nature, and that is not a reason for approving a variance. Thanks.
Corrie: Any questions of Staff?
Bird: Shari, refresh my memory on public schools parking lots. I don’t recall any that’s got these kinds of islands in there. I see more hazards with having them in there, with kids
and snow and stuff. Tearing up cars, tearing up the -- to maintain them would have to be a nightmare. I’m thinking of the schools that I can think of in the valley here, plus the college.
College of Idaho, they might have some at the activity, but that’s the only one I can think of. And I’m real hard-pressed for any public parking lot, that I can think of, that has
those in there.
Stiles: Oh, I can help you with that. I know that originally, that was the concern of the school that put the big clock tower, or bell tower, or whatever it was in there.
Bird: (inaudible)
Stiles: that was an original concern of them, but they have said that that has worked out really well. They haven’t had an issue and it looks really nice. It has kind of helped mitigate
some of the traffic issues in there. I know it was kind of a site with one of our tours with the Treasure Futures group. The school district had some real favorable things. I know
that they tried to fight it at that time too.
Bird: Timberline does that? Their parking lots are? I think that, well, when the applicant comes through, we’ll find out.
Corrie: any other questions? Applicants.
Rubel: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, my name is Skyler Rubel. I’m one of the partners of Hummel Architects, along with Scott Straubhar and Paul Hoker. We’ve been working very
closely with the Planning and Zoning committee and I guess it was our luck to draw the first project that would be testing the new ordinance for landscaping.
Stiles; Congratulations.
Rubel: thank you very much. I guess, you know, we do want to say, on behalf on the Planning and Zoning Staff, that we do commend their efforts and what they’ve created for the City
of Meridian. They’ve gone to a lot of hard work. We knew we had our work cut out for us, especially with the new ordinance being put into place. I guess or future, we’d like to recommend
that schools be taken looked [at] in a different light, than a commercial property. Schools are a public entity, along with the City. Tax-payer dollars do go to both agencies. I guess
one of our concerns, is that, as you notice on the site, the whole property, fifty-five acres, is inbound and is not fronted any major arterial roadways. Overland is north about five
hundred feet, Locust Grove some quarter to a half mile to the west. And, as part of the ordinance, and working closely with the staff, we’ve taken a look at some alternative compliance
with the landscape buffer, which surrounds the entire site. Due to some of the safety concerns, we’ve closely with them and we’ve got them resolved so it isn’t such dense vegetation.
So, it will protect both property owners as well as the school. One of the big concerns, of course, is cost. We typically look at a cost per square foot as associated with the building
landscape at around $2.50 a square foot. Just to give you an impact, of what the landscape ordinance is doing to the site now, it’s pushing it up towards $4.00 per square foot. And
when you’re comparing that to a two hundred-fifty thousand square foot building, you can see there is close to one million dollars worth of landscaping on the site. Yes, it is cost…additional
cost for the landscape islands. I do want to point out that we have met the coverage percentage of landscape in the lots. The islands have gotten really big. That will help us, as
far as maintaining those. A lot better chance of survival than the little, you know, six by six planting curb portions, within the site, which are every twelve car stalls, per the Ordinance.
I might point out the La Bois, which is now timberline, I believe the percentage was one in twenty cars for that, so there was a little difference in the ordinance. So, what you see
tonight, it is a reduction in the landscape islands that we’ve shown, but we have covered the required square footage for percentage of landscape within the parking lot. There are security
concerns with canopy trees. With kids parked underneath those. We will try to specify plantings that will be as light and lacy as we can. I didn’t want to use snow removal, since
I probably should have since this year we’ve had a lot of snow, but typically, that doesn’t impact us as much. But the big concern, is not the initial installation cost, it’s the long-term
maintenance cost. If you’ve been
in big parking lot, after a high school game, obviously kids do want to funnel to get out, but I think our concern is a day to day use, of backing, pulling into stalls, and looking at
a landscape planter every twelve stalls. We have a real concern for that. Let’s see what else I’ve got here…One of the approaches that we use on the design of the facility was to disperse
the major parking lots. Obviously, with the configuration of the site, not in a perfect rectangle, it added challenge, plus the topography changed, from south towards Overland Road.
So, we had to disperse the parking and a major south entrance, that can also be utilized, excuse me, a north entrance be utilized near the auditorium. Also a east, southeast parking
lot that can be utilized for the sporting events, when games are being held. Faculty parking is in the rear of the facility, so we keep the conflict between automobiles of the faculty
and students away from each other. Also the major bus loop does come around to the rear and drop the students off behind. So, we tried to mitigate all those traffics conflicts as best
possible. Let’s see…I think…Paul, can you think of any other issues that I may have missed?
Hoker: My name is Paul Hoker. I’m with Hummel Architects as well. The one thing I wanted to point out, as Skyler mentioned, is that we are respecting the percentage. The Ordinance
does address percentage of landscape area versus paved area. We have not attempted to vary from that, only to congregate planting around the perimeter. And, in light of that, we are
required to have five-foot buffer parking lots against adjacent properties. These are, apparently undeveloped properties, but in respect for such a vast expanse of parking for future
neighbors, this will be a part – we’ve increased this to about a ten foot planting buffer, so we can effectively shield that parking lot from future development as well. The other one,
that Skyler has mentioned, is it is effectively shielded from the public view by other developments.
Rubel: I guess that ends our testimony. If there are any questions, we’d be happy to answer those.
Corrie: Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Mr. mayor, I guess I do have one. In your upper lot there, you have just two little islands sitting out –
*** end of tape, side 4 ***
Rubel: Again, where those islands are located, are on the perimeter of the practice area designated for the band and the ROTC. So, again, trying to meet the spirit of the Ordinance,
we wanted to include those. I guess, typically, we would usually put landscape islands, near the major entrances, to the school,
and around the major roadways, but typically, a lot of these auxiliary islands we would not usually include in a typical design for a high school. But, again, trying to meet the flavor
of the Ordinance, we were attempting to find a halfway point.
Hoker: If I might add, one of the specific requirements of the ordinance, was landscape islands which delineate the flow of traffic. So we have, essentially, respected every aspect
of it, except for what we perceive to be a long-term maintenance concern, which is internal. As a direct comment to Council de Weerd’s comment, I would actually prefer that these not
be here, as well. They were placed there – essentially, we had illumination posts in this area – and we used the islands, again, as Skyler indicated, in the spirit of the ordinance
to illuminate the football field. But it is true that they just kind of sit out there, for no apparent reason, other than to attempt to meet the Ordinance requirement.
Corrie: Does that answer your question, to some degree? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Council, any other testimony you’d
like to hear? Questions?
Anderson: Mr. mayor, I guess technically, our Landscape Ordinance isn’t adopted yet either, is it?
De Weerd: Yes.
Corrie: Yes, we approved it.
Bird: Just did.
Corrie: The signed one.
Anderson: Oh, it’s signed. That’s the one we’re putting off tonight. The Landscape Ordinance. And was this project, I mean several projects we’ve heard tonight, they’ve talked about
how they’d been submitted prior to that landscape Ordinance changing. Was this one of those also, that was also being planned.
Stiles: Nothing had been submitted on this for approval. When they apply for the building permit, is when they need to comply with the ordinance requirement. And that’s when they
came up with that applying for Certificate of Zoning compliance, the plan they had didn’t comply with the Ordinance.
De Weerd: Mr. mayor. Shari, from what I understand from applicant, they have done the required islands, they’ve just kind of grouped them in a different way. Is that correct? Square
footage-wise?
Stiles: You’re talking about, is the percentage that is required per the ordinance, which is five percent. They are asking for a variance on breaking up this
expanse of asphalt with the planters, so the exterior of it is what they’re proposing and the interior would have no landscaping, with their proposal.
Corrie: any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: I have none.
De Weerd: None.
Corrie: Okay, since there’s no other public testimony, I’ll entertain a motion for the Public Hearing to close.
Bird: So Moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing for the variance request for the number of landscape island in the parking lot of the new Mountain View High School. Any
further discussion? Hearing that, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council discussion.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I have kind of mixed emotions. I support our new Landscape Ordinance, but I also feel, too, that at some point you have to use a little bit of common sense. I
think that the Landscape Ordinance, in my mind, especially in parking lots, was designed more for, we’re talking about a big retail shopping mall or something like we have at Eagle and
Fairview, that that adds a little bit of beauty, the landscaping there. I think in the case of this school, to me this is a lot like a park. There’s all kinds of green space. There’s
baseball diamonds, there’s football fields, there’s soccer fields, that aren’t even being taken into consideration here. I’m surprised the architects missed that argument, because that
would be a good one about all the extra green space that was in there. So, I do think that they are trying to comply with the spirit, and they’re putting as much landscaping near the
ends of the parking lot as possible. I personally like a big, large asphalt area. There are things that sometimes a community may want to do. I know in the Fire Department we’ve looked
for big, large asphalt to go out and practice driving our fire trucks in the past. Shari commented about kids spinning “cookies,” that’s one of the places where I took my daughter,
when I was trying to teach her how to drive on snow, where she can’t hit something.
De Weerd: Well, that’s an endorsement.
Anderson: Well, she drives pretty good. So, I really don’t have a problem in this case, for allowing a variance for this particular application.
De Weerd: I remember fighting with Family Center, on their parking lot, so I’ve heard a lot of the different arguments before. I think, that in the spirit of the Landscape Ordinance,
and some of the requirements, I do agree we have to have some flexibility, but large masses of asphalt, is not only aesthetically, sometimes displeasing, but it also has environmental
effects as well. Even if they took that one line across and just did it every other thing. At least that’s going to break it up a little bit and have some consistency. And I know you
hate it when I try and rip things apart, so I’m trying to behave myself. It’s my Planning and Zoning background.
Bird: You try and design one.
De Weerd: You know, there was a lot more to that Landscape Ordinance than just what looks pretty. It’s also what, in tying to address some of the environmental interest, bare expanse
of pavement, and those kinds of things too. So, I don’t see a financial hardship. And when we come with our fifty-six acres, you’re going to see landscape islands, because we have
to also live up to our own Ordinances too.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I side with Councilman Anderson on this aspect. I believe we have to use common sense. I think open area for bands and things, I think the looks of it. There’s a
lot of green area and stuff out there. The buildings are attractive. They have landscaping around. I think they have plenty of landscaping. Security-wise, I think five years from
now, when those trees are up, you have some shadows, hidden places, nights after ball games and such, might not be the most desirable, as having it wide-open. So I have to agree with
the variance and I think it does make a hardship on the taxpayer.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Bird: A million dollar…
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I also agree that I think they’ve done a beautiful job in trying to comply and still leave that open space. It’s a very, very nice looking building and it’s going to be
beautiful. But I don’t think they need a landscaped area every twelve spaces, not at a high school.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, with your permission, I would make a motion that the Attorney draw up the proper papers approving the request for a variance by Hummel Architects, to reduce the landscape
island in the parking lot for the new Mountain View high school on Locust Grove and Overland Roads.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: A motion is made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the proper order of the variance for approval of the request for the variance number 01-002. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
Anderson: Aye.
McCandless: Aye.
Bird: Aye.
De Weerd: Naye.
Corrie: Okay, since it’s three to one, you don’t need my comments. The Attorney will draw up those then. Approval of the request. By the way, you did a nice job, you fellows. Thank
you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Item 18: FP 01-001 Final Plat approval of 2 building lots and 1 other lot on 5.4 acres for Elliot Industrial Park in an I-L zone by Hubble Engineering, Inc., generally located on Wilson
Lane behind D & B Supply
Corrie: Item No. 19 is the Final Plat approval of 2 building lots and 1 other lot on 5.4 acres for Elliot Industrial Park in an I-L zone by Hubble Engineering, Inc., generally located
on Wilson Lane behind D & B Supply. Is the applicant here this evening? Do you have anything that you wish to say? So you agree with everything there? Staff?
Stiles: You went ahead, without me.
Corrie: I’m sorry. I’m trying to get Mr. Anderson out of here, so he can get home early.
McCandless: Only him?
Stiles: We recommend approval with Staff and agency conditions. This second lot will be coming through with Conditional Use Permit whenever they have a use for it. I think something
is coming up pretty soon, so…
De Weerd: I don’t think anyone was paying attention.
Corrie: I’m sorry. State it one more time, Shari.
Stiles: We would recommend approval with Staff and Agency conditions and Shaun will do whatever we want.
Corrie: Okay, sounds good. And Shaun just said he would…anything. Any other discussion by the council on this request on the plat?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: then I’ll entertain a motion of the Final Plat, on Item No. 18.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. I move that we approve the Final Plat for two building lots and one other lot on 5.4 acres to include all Staff comments and ask that the Attorney draw up a Decision
of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Final Plat on the request for two building lots and one other by Elliot Industrial Park and include the Staff comments and the Attorney
to draw up the proper order. Any further comments or discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 19: FP 00-027 Final Plat approval of 41 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.15 acres in an Ada County R4 zone for Vienna Woods No. 3 by Skyline Development Company – east side of
Locust Grove between Chinden and McMillan.
Corrie: This is the Final Plat approval of 41 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.15 acres in an Ada County R4 zone for Vienna Woods No. 3. Staff.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council. The infamous Vienna Woods subdivision, phases three and four coming in. I believe Mr. Johnson’s here tonight to agree to park impact fees
for this development. Is that right (inaudible)? The property is currently being served with a temporary lift station that’s going into the south slough. Phases one and two have already
been approved. We would recommend approval with Staff and agency conditions. We had a hard time getting our comments together on this, because of some differing opinions on what jurisdiction
we have. We feel the City does have the ability, since it is serving this property, that it would meet ordinance requirements for future annexation into the City. There aren’t any
major problems. There’s a little bit on
some of the frontages, and so forth, that don’t meet out ordinance requirements. Also, they had requested that number six be deleted, which was requiring a minimum residential size,
which is required by our ordinance. I don’t think you’re going to see any houses less than fourteen hundred square feet out here, with the size of these lots, but it’s not worth fighting
for, I guess, is what I’d say. They will require the City to sign the plat. It will require the City Engineer and the City Clerk to sign for Council approval, indicating Council approval
of the plat.
Corrie: Do you have any comments of the Staff’s comments, or differences of opinion.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor. Tucker Johnson, representing Skyline Development, 10464 Garverdale Court, Boise, Idaho. I don’t, other than the comments, which I’d submitted to Staff and the
City Clerk for dissemination on Monday, as soon as I received the Staff report. As Shari pointed out, there are just some minor jots and tittles, more or less, in terms of jurisdictional
issues. It is zoned in the County, R4. It is the County’s zoning ordinance that sets the dimensional standards, and so forth. We did, in the Preliminary Plat stage, work very hard
to comply with both ordinances, although technically, it’s the County ordinance that we are required to comply with on the zoning issues, lots size, lot dimensions and so forth. Out
of the whole two hundred and twenty-seven-ish lots, there are only, like, ten lots that don’t strictly comply with the City of Meridian’s ordinance. And there is quite a difference
between the county ordinance and the city ordinance. In the County we could’ve had seventy foot-wide lots by one hundred and fifteen feet deep. These are all, with the exception of
about ten, eighty feet-wide minimum and the arc lengths and everything. So, there was a deliberate attempt, two years ago, when this Preliminary Plat was approved, to meet with the
conditions of both jurisdictions as best we could. I would just ask…I would stand for questions…but ask that the comments – the letter that I wrote, perhaps clarifying technical points
in the staff comments – that they be incorporated into the motion recommending approval to the county Planning and Zoning and the County Board of Commissioners. We’re glad to cover
any of the issues in my letter and the Staff Report, that you may specifically have questions to.
Corrie: Council have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Nichols: Mr. Johnson, since I wasn’t sitting here, when it was approved, isn’t this subject to an agreement to annex, when contiguous to City Limits?
Johnson: We had previously submitted our request before we even submitted our Preliminary Plat.
Nichols: Standard request to ask this.
Johnson: Okay.
Nichols: So, what is being done to notify people, who buy lots in your subdivision, that they’re subject to an agreement to annex into the City Limits.
Johnson: There is a note right on the face of the plat. There are also two references in the covenants, one right at the very beginning on the first page. It’s a line all on it’s
own. It says: “Annexation to the City of Meridian has hereby been requested and the City of Meridian may annex this property at any future time that it becomes contiguous…” and so
on and so forth. We have…we are used to having to notify people of that in other projects that we do. So, right up front there’s nothing hidden in there at all.
McCandless: I don’t have it in mine, either.
De Weerd: So, it’s on the plat and your CC&I, then?
Johnson: Yes, please annex us. We’d have one less jurisdiction to work with.
I don’t know what happened with it.
Corrie: You can see some of the difficulties that can arise when ever you’re outside of the City coming in later and you’re under the County. When you come in, you’ll be under the
City, at that point, so what Shari’s telling us, we’re pretty close anyway –
Johnson: Very close.
Corrie: -- just to remind the Council that it can happen differently, that if we don’t have a good developer with us. Any other questions?
Anderson: If one ordinance is more restrictive than the other, though, couldn’t you just build it the most restrictive and you’d meet the requirements in the other one?
Johnson: You could. You could build it to the more restrictive, the question is which? But, one, this is a carbon copy of the Preliminary Plat, that was recommend for approval by
this previous Council. To answer your question directly, yes it is possible. To answer the question in another way, yes we are in direct compliance with the approved Preliminary Plat.
There is nothing really new here, just maybe people paying a little closed attention to, well it’s one foot narrower right there, than our ordinance requires.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Just a comment. Are you voluntarily collecting impact fees for parks in your subdivision?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member. No, we are not. When this project was approved, which obviously was before several of you were on this particular council, if I’m not mistaken,
the City of Meridian did not have an park impact fee ordinance in effect at that time.
De Weerd: Yes, we did.
McCandless: Really?
De Weerd: We’ve had it for like six years.
Johnson: I stand corrected, if that’s the case.
Bird: A city limit impact fee, but not a impact area fee. We don’t have an impact area fee now.
De Weerd: But Edinburgh was voluntarily doing that –
Corrie: That’s correct.
De Weerd: – So, that why I asked.
Corrie: We haven’t talked to Ada County, yet, that they would collect it for us. It’s on the agenda. It would be nice if you did. Those people are going to require parks same as
anybody else.
Johnson: Right in the middle of this project, Mr. Mayor, is a 2.4 acre park which will be completeness with the top lot and community amenities and so forth. We have made every design
effort to try to make this conducive for families. They are, actually, within walking distance of Boise’s regional sports complex. The pathway system and road systems, in the future
phases and final phases of Vienna Woods, connect t Austin Creek. Those internal pathways and that, with in a quarter mile, you’re into the forty acre sports complex. I know that’s
one of the major directions that pedestrians, for larger recreational activities will be going, other than the open 2.4 acres that we will have in the middle of the subdivision.
Corrie: has the County asked you to help with that at all?
That’s Boise.
Corrie: I know its Boise, but has had it open? Have they said anything to you about helping with that at all?
Johnson: There has been no inquiry to that effect, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Thank you. Just a personal question. Any other questions?
Anderson: Do any of the rest of you have our Staff comments in your packet? I don’t --
De Weerd: We don’t.
Corrie: I have Kenny Bowers.
McCandless: The planning --
Anderson: I don’t either. Got his responses, I just don’t know comments are.
Johnson: I can share.
Stiles: I don’t know why you didn’t get this.
De Weerd: Will’s looking for them.
Corrie: You received them Monday, you said?
Johnson: I believe I actually received them, it was either a Friday or a Monday.
McCandless: It couldn’t have been Monday…
Johnson: It was Thursday. I think it was Thursday, because I talked to Bruce Freckleton about some technical items, and he said, oh, a couple of typos here and there, and a couple
of other technical issues. He said, would you please put your response in writing, so we can just merge the two for the attorney’s benefit, so he’d have them written out, instead of
having to listen to the tape recorder so much.
Corrie: Okay. Gary, I’m a little confused on Item No. 11 of our comments. Application for water and sewer will need to be process in the Public Works Department for each building
lot. The assessment fees will be collected at the time. The City of Meridian will require inspection of the service line connection. And I think they are questioning whether the City
is inspecting the sewer lines the builder installs from the street to the house. Do you have their comments back? Are there any problems there? Or am I reading cross-wise? Are we
going to be doing what we asked there on 11, that the application for sewer and water is processed through our public works department?
Smith: Yes –
Corrie: And that’s okay with you then?
Smith: Yes, we’re sewer and water assessment fees. I think the question that Tucker raised, was the inspection of the service line from the street to the house and inside the house.
I think that is being done by the State now, isn’t it Tucker?
Johnson: Correct, Gary. The State is responsible in rural situations, for plumbing and electrical –
Smith: Right.
Johnson: – and talking with Tom Shultons (sic), the Ada County Building inspector, this county does not issue a building permit, until the State has signed off on electrical and the
plumbing.
Corrie: Anyone else have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay, that being the case, I will ask for the title plat approval or disapproval from the Council.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make the motion that we instruct the city Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in support of approval of Final Plat for Vienna Woods
No. 3, 41 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.15 acres in Ada County, an R4 zone, subject to Staff comment.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Johnson: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Anderson, does that include any of the applicants’ clarifications on the staff’s comments?
Smith: I don’t know that he’s actually disagreeing with any of their comments, though, he’s –
Bird: Yes he is.
Smith: – just clarifying on a lot of those. I guess, I agree with his clarification on those ones in there. So, I guess it would be subject to his comments.
Johnson: Thank you.
Corrie: Do you have anything specific, then (inaudible)?
McCandless: Oh, Shari had something specific. Did you have anything on his comments that you did not agree with? Did you have anything?
Stiles: No. Didn’t have any problems with them.
Corrie: Okay. A motion has been made and seconded, to have the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, with approval, and with Staff comments and clarification
of the questions of the applicant. Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 20: FP 00-028 Final Plat approval of 23 building lots and 1 other lot on 9.61 acres in an Ada County R4 zone for Vienna Woods No. 4 by Skyline Development Company – east side of
Locust Grove between Chinden and McMillan.
Corrie: Final Plat approval of 23 building lots and 1 other lot on 9.61 acres in an Ada County R4 zone for Vienna Woods No. 4. So we’re in No. 4 at this point. And, Shari, comments?
Stiles: I don’t have anything. Tucker’s comments are fine on this one too.
Johnson: I would stand for question, Mayor. A couple of typos, couple of little fixes here and there, is all my comments were related to.
Corrie: Council have any questions? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on Item no. 20, Final Plat approval of the Vienna Woods No. 4.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we would approve the Final Plat approval of 23 building lots and 1 other lot on 9.61 acres in an Ada County R4 zone for Vienna Woods No. 4 by Skyline
Development Company, and to incorporate the applicant and staff’s comments.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: – and for the Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Corrie: Motion had been made and seconded to have the Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with approval to include staff comments as well as the applicant.
Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 21: TE 01-011 Time extension of the 1/14/99 and 1/4/00 time-extension approval of the preliminary and final of Turnberry Subdivision No. 2 by Briggs Engineering - west of Black
Cat, south of Ustick and east of McDermott.
Corrie: Item No. 21 is the Time extension of the 1/14/99 and 1/4/00 time-extension approval of the preliminary and final of Turnberry Subdivision No. 2 by Briggs Engineering - west
of Black Cat, south of Ustick and east of McDermott. Staff comment. What’s going on?
Stiles: I don’t even know what happened. They weren’t eligible for another time extension. They already had one time extension, which is all they can be granted without a variance.
But, I think they were concerned they were not going to meet their recording deadline. The plats are recorded, so I don’t know what…
Corrie: Well, yes, Mr. Attorney?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, it was getting tedious getting out of these meetings at 9:00 p.m. anyway. Shari, when was it recorded?
Stiles: it’s been probably the last two weeks.
Nichols: so, Gary’s signed off on it and it’s been recorded and…
Stiles: They’ve applied for building permits.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, it’s my recommendation that you consider this request for time extension moot.
Corrie: Agree one hundred percent.
Bird: I make a motion we moot.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: We mooted that one.
Item 22: AP 01-001 Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Director’s interpretation of the definition of “flashing sign” for A to Z Rental & Supply – 1603 East 1st Street.
Corrie: Item No. 22 is Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Director’s interpretation of the definition of “flashing sign” for A to Z Rental & Supply – 1603 East 1st Street. Planning
and Zoning Director, what is your interpretation of the flashing sign, and we’ll find out what the appeal is for.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council this is request for electronic greeter board. It is located in an existing CC zone. We still consider these non-conforming signs and prohibit
it in the current ordinance and in the proposed ordinance, they still would not be permitted in this zone. If the Council is to
consider this sign, I would like you to place some conditions on it. That if they operate it in a manner that is flashing or, you know – it’s just that the capability is there to do
a lot more than just display a simple sign, and they are distracting. We would prefer that you deny the appeal, but if you approve it, we ask that you put some conditions on that approval.
Bird: Shari, what is the flashing? Where the (inaudible) reader board?
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: That’s what is considered flashing? I haven’t seen it, but, is it like the one over here at the bank? Where it runs across the screen?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Is the applicant here for the appeal?
Williamson: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, first of all, let me say, I’m a new resident here and a new homeowner and new business owner, and glad to be here.
Corrie: You name, please for the record?
Williamson: Toby Williamson and I reside at 2578 North Valmet Place in Meridian. With all due respect to the Planning and Zoning Director, we don’t intend to have a flashing sign.
We certainly don’t intent to emulate a Las Vegas-style sign at the entrance to our business. The sign is a replacement. In fact, I’m accompanied by the sign manufacturer. The top
sign, which you can’t see very well there, certainly does not exhibit the type of business that I’m trying to portray. The lower one is going to, yes, have a reader board, but the reader
board is going to be similar to the Idaho Independent Bank, Meridian High School, etc. The sign conforms, as indicated in the memo to you, from Planning and Zoning, in all respects,
with the exception of the possibility of a flashing sign. We don’t intend, as I said, to use it as a flashing. There will be a scrolling, similar to what Idaho Independent Bank does.
We will have promotional items. We will time and temperature. And more importantly, we also, as good citizens of the City of Meridian, hope to be able to promote the City, itself,
and of the charitable organizations or other activities that are going on. So, again, our intent is not to have a strobe light affect, or a dancing light, if you will.
Corrie: Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay, Thank you. Okay, you’ve been asked by the applicant for an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Director’s interpretation of the definition of
flashing sign and allow the new A to Z supply sign to include the reader board. Any discussion.
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess I just want to say, that I think message centers are very appropriate and I think they can be done, as has been demonstrated in several signs around town.
And I guess the definition of this as being a flashing sign. I disagree with Shari’s interpretation of that. I don’t really consider them a flashing sign and I would think that these
could have a condition put on them. Where, instead of having the ability to flash the lettering, that she just work that out with the applicant on these types of things, to say that
have to scroll or just roll across the screen, or something like that. But I don’t see that as offensive or distracting or anything like that. I think we do have to control the size
of these and sometimes where we put them. We don’t want to end up with another Jackson’s, but small ones like this, I think they are very aesthetically pleasing to me.
Bird: I agree.
Corrie: I would suggest that perhaps the council do an addendum or something to that ordinance. That if you don’t think that’s – the ordinance is a little different than what we
are saying here. I think, if we can change that ordinance to accommodate those, that would be fine. But I think we need to have some work done on it. Otherwise –
Bird: I think you’re right, Mayor.
Corrie: – we’re going to have these come back to us each time. Because she cannot do anything different than what the ordinance says, –
Bird: That’s right.
Corrie: – and it will come back to us each time.
Bird: That’s what we have to --
De Weerd: The new ordinance --
Corrie: Well, –
Bird: We got the new ordinance, we can do it before we pass --
Corrie: It allows it in certain places, so, just make sure we have that covered.
Stiles: I guess I’m just a little bit curious, I mean the ordinance has been approved, except for the final form that had the graphics in it. So I don’t know how you’re going to change
that once you have already approved it? Do they have the ability to make changes in the provisions of the Ordinance?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council and Shari, the ordinance has not been up for a first reading. So it has not be approved or adopted. I mean, it’s been in the Public Hearing,
the Council has directed us to take those and put it in a form of an ordinance, but it’s not been adopted, as such. So it is still capable of being changed, if there is some change,
like to accommodate this sort of thing. In other words, does it matter if it’s in a CC Zone as opposed to a CG zone and Council wants it to be allowed in a CC zone, then we make that
change at the next reading.
Stiles: Well, I guess it’s like, if something is being proposed, we’d like to know it so we don’t go to all the trouble of having that, you know have that ordinance done. But the primary
trouble was getting the graphics into the text, not changing some part of the text. And we had some problem with some tables, I think –
Stiles: Yes. Well, if you do approve it, I’ve had to call some of the existing reader boards that have been approved by Council to have them tone down their signs, and if you approve
it, you might be getting a call from me if they get out of hand.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I would move that we approve the appeal, on the interpretation of the definition of a flashing sign to A & Z Rental Supply, at 1603 East First. And allow them to
put up the sign that they showed, with the reader board, a flowing reader board, not a flashing reader board.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: A motion has been made and seconded to approve the appeal of Planning and Zoning Director’s interpretation of the flashing sign, that the reader board not be a flashing one,
but a rotating reader board. Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Item No. 23 has been added to Locust Grove Overpass Agreement. Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Thank you Mr. Mayor. If I can pass these out, since I just got this done today.
(inaudible)
Bird: I appreciate it too, Mr. Nichols --
(Unidentified): Mr. Mayor, Council members
Corrie: Yes.
(Unidentified): I drove from Salt Lake City, and if you don’t mind, I know it’s late, I could help you out here. I came to support this agency (inaudible). I’m the person involved
in it. The only thing I’d to say, is that it’s really confusing now days. I really appreciate Mr. Anderson’s comments on the message centers. They are the new thing. I compliment
you for the way you’re operating them here, you know, just scrolling them along, because they are very pleasing like that. The thing about it is, that when you do your ordinance, there
is nothing really that says something right now, because I looked at it. I really encourage you to pay attention. The message centers are coming into being, and business owners want
them. Right now, they’re allowed in any zone. Just to give you a little clue – and I’ll wrap it up – Salt Lake City just finished four years of study and they have nothing at all in
their new ordinance. So don’t do like they did. I compliment you. Thank you.
Council: Thank you.
Item 23: Locust Grove Overpass Agreement and Addendum No. 1
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, you will recall that we got from ITD, a proposed agreement which had in it the requirement that the City write a check to ACHD for 1.8 million
dollars –
*** end of tape, side 5 ***
Nichols: – which the Council and Mayor were reluctant to do, because that wasn’t the agreement. The agreement was that the City would help provide acquisition of right-of-way by trying
to encourage donations and would commit up to 1.8 million dollars for that purpose. The Mayor sent a letter to ACHD saying this is not the deal and we got a response from ACHD that
set out their understanding of what the 1.8 million dollars could be used for. So, today, having gotten the item from the Mayor, which he received from Sherry Huber, from ACHD, I put
together this addendum. Basically, what it provides for, is the City creates a reserve within thirty days after ACHD notifies the City that they are ready to begin right-of-way acquisition.
Those funds, then, can be drawn by ACHD upon certain things. They have to show that they have acquired the right-of-way. They have to show how much it was. They have to have a copy
of the closing statement. And submit all those things…summary of the transaction. Then the City has five days to honor the draw request. The City’s obligation is up
to the 1.8 million dollars but it is not in excess of the 1.8 million. If all 1.8 million is not used, then the City has no obligation to spend any sums beyond what is actually used.
So what I’ve done in this addendum, is I’ve created four new sections to cover that agreement. Paragraph five under second two, is simply a reiteration of what was their Section 2.2
before.
Corrie: Any discussion or comments on the addendum?
Anderson: I guess, just some comments, and I’ve been thinking more about this. I got calls from news media and they were doing a story about growth in Meridian. I guess my original
thoughts, again, were that a lot of what the City would be contributing would be in-kind donations of land or right-of-ways that we could acquire throughout the process. And as people
brought projects to us and when large companies came and wanted to come into the City of Meridian, that there would be a partnering. Now, as I’m seeing this thing, and I’m looking at
this, it almost appears like we’re taking 1.8 million dollars out of General Fund money or end up doing that. I don’t feel real comfortable with that. I don’t think it’s right that
the City fund an overpass, when we have other agencies, who that is their primary focus and they’re collecting taxes through Ada County district, or State Highway. I just don’t feel
good about taking General Fund tax money to fund an overpass. I guess, if the number was smaller and I had a better handle or an idea of exactly what kind of monies we were going to
be, out of General Fund, I’d feel a little easier about this agreement. But the way it is now, I see the potential there, that if nobody steps forward and if nobody makes any donations
or there are no in-kind donations of easements, that ultimately the City could be taking 1.8 million dollars out of their General Fund. I don't personally feel good about that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. The in-kinds and donations, they’re welcome to work on it. That comes out of it. Their estimate to buy right-of-way, for thirty-six parcels, I believe, was 2.2 to
2.4 million. But really, you don’t know how much of each land you need to take yet. I feel that I don’t want, I don’t like to use tax payers money twice. We pay enough State, Ada
County Highway District, and everything else. But if you’ve got – and I believe this one area that has to be done, especially with that new high school out there, to get across that
freeway – but I believe that this is one of the most important road projects that the City of Meridian needs, right now, is that overpass. I don’t like seeing 1.8 million spent. I
hope it won’t be spent. I hope we can get some donations from people, from developers, that have land around there. But I, for one, think it’s a necessity that this community needs.
And I don’t know how else you’d get it built, if you don’t come up and help.
Corrie: The estimate of cost with that project, is between eight and nine million dollars at the present time. The State ITD had got 2.7, with our 1.8 is 4.5, which is still about
a four and a half million dollar shortage, which ACHD was coming up with. But like Keith has said, they stated that if we could…anything that we
come up with, other people giving us right-of-way or a better price, we would not have to go this 1.8 million. It may not be that high. So , there’s always a possibility, but what
we can get on our own, they are going to send us the plat, they are buying the right-of-way. That it may not be the 1.8 million dollars that we have to spend. They said that if we
can’t get the right-of-way or the prices down, that they would come in and help us and buy the right-of-way and we would, up to 1.8 million dollars, would be the City’s part, to help
get that on the road. One of the things that ITD mentioned that , if this isn’t going to be happening now, with the partnerships perhaps with all the industrial, and the City and the
County and the State, this may be delayed until 2006 to 2009. So, by that time the high school’s going to be built, there’ll be 10,000 cars going on Overland Road. There will be no
way to go across, except on Overland Road. And I understand where Ron’s coming from, I really do. I’m a little hesitant myself, but we’re going to have to do some partner-shipping
in Meridian to get some of these things done. Like Ten Mile. I think that could be brought up within another two years, by the developer, willing to put up half that. That’s what
happened to Micron, they got theirs. So, that’s the whole thing behind this 1.8, that we’ve come up with. We may not have to use that.
Anderson: And I guess, I still feel really uncomfortable. Like Jabil, for example, is a large employer out in that area of town. And I don’t even know if they’ve been approached or
asked, in a partnering manner, but I would like to go into this thing knowing that we’ve got a commitment on the line for five hundred thousand dollars or something else. We have never
advertised that the City of Meridian has a street department, we don’t build roads, that’s not what our function is, as a government agency. And yet, we’re taking the tax dollars of
our citizens and kicking 1.8 million into and overpass. I agree with you guys, that’s it’s badly needed, but we’re going to take a lot of criticism as a group, using that tax payers
money, that intended that money to be used for something else, than to pay for roads.
Corrie: any other comments?
De Weerd: I agree with Councilman Anderson. I think we need to find out if there is commitment, even among the employers and the developments in that area to help support it. And
what confuses me, I understand from ITD, that they have plenty of funds. Where they’re lacking is the time for design and engineering. One of their engineers said, they don’t have
a problem with funding right now. So what are they doing asking us for 1.8 million dollars? It‘s more their time constraints, they have right now, in their design.
Corrie: Are you talking about ITD or ACHD?
De Weerd: ITD.
Corrie: ITD is not involved in this one, as far as the 1.8 million. We are having a meeting with Jabil, and we have already had some meetings with some others out there in that industrial
park and Hon. And hopefully we can get some of that, even with Williams, on that police area there, that they can give us some right-of-way there. So, it’s going to cut it down, but
the ITD, the 2.7 is in their, I don’t understand where you got that, but they don’t care if they have a lot of money, they're are telling us they don’t have. Fact is, they had to come
up with this 2.7 the hard way. The hard sixes –
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, just to clarify, ITD would be involved in building the road, because it goes over the freeway. But as far as the acquisition of right-of-way,
that’s an ACHD project, because it’s a local road and so approaches and so forth are ACHD acquiring the right-of-way and ITD would not be involved in any right-of-way acquisition at
all.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. ACHD, and if we help out, have the right-of-way and, like Mr. Nichols said, the ITD and the federal grant money that they’re picking up, or whatever they’re going
to do, takes across the freeway. From landing to landing is theirs and from road to landing is ACHD’s, as I understood it.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor. I’m just sitting here and remembering, last summer, when we had such trouble funding all of our City government, that we were even talking about going to the
polls and having people vote on raising our mill rate, .04. I’m worried about what it’s going to do to our budget next. Good grief. I don’t know where this money’s coming from?
Anderson: Is there anyway that we could postpone a signing or a commitment of this until you have had the opportunity to have some meetings with some of the potential contributors
to this. To find out if there is going to be any commitment at all from them, or rather are we looking at the whole 1.8 million. I can justify, a little bit better, to the tax payers,
if we’ve got some partnering of the some businesses, but I’m having a real hard time knowing that right now we don’t have a single commitment.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. As I understand it, we can delay it. The longer you delay, the longer is goes. It’s going to go out to 2007, 2007 you’ve already got your problems.
McCandless: Two million seven, you mean?
Bird: Two thousand seven, before it’ll get done.
McCandless: Oh, oh you’re talking about year.
Anderson: I’m talking, Keith, three or four months, to meet some of the potential contributors.
Bird: Ron, I don’t know. I’m just going to what they’ve said, that if it -- ITD, right now, is looking at putting it to 2006, 2007 right now. And ACHD is looking at a way, if this
thing is signed -- it’s a vote, guys. I know that we have never voted on this, but we all four of us sat down there at meeting, and discussed it. And give them…
McCandless: I don’t trust it…
Bird: Well, I don’t like to see…nobody likes to see other money going. ACHD makes me sick, when I see what we send them every month, and then we get over-code at Ten Mile, for our
project in 1999. But I also think, for the safety of the City…if we’re not going to put that overpass in, we probably should not have had the high school go out there. Period.
McCandless: You could be right.
Bird: Nor should be put Peter O’Niell’s project go in.
McCandless: I agree.
Bird: So, if you want to delay it, we certainly could take a vote on it. And go see…there’s a lot of people the Mayor could contact and see if they’ll come forward. It’s going to
benefit everyone out there. It’s gong to benefit our new Police Department, our new building and our Police Department. It’s going to benefit that whole…Nahas, Hon, Kevin Howell’s,
probably Barnes.
Anderson: I agree with you. It’s going to benefit a lot of people. And I think, maybe they should step forward and contribute a little bit.
McCandless: Yes, I --
Bird: On the same token, how much impact fee has Jabil paid already? Gary, do you have any idea what their impact fee was? What Pete O'Niell paid?
McCandless: And where’s it going? That the trouble, we never can find out exactly where it’s going either.
Bird: I’ve told you for three years, where it’s going.
McCandless: I know.
Bird: The tail doesn’t wag the dog, the dog wags the tail. And ACHD isn’t the dog.
McCandless: That doesn’t make it right.
Bird: What?
McCandless: That doesn’t make it right.
Bird: I know it.
McCandless: I would like to…I would really like to see if there is somebody out there, that would help, instead of just blindly signing this thing.
Corrie: Well we can, we can ask them, but I would be very cautious about…I realize that 1.8 million is what we have been talking about. We’ve got everybody on board here, and then
all of the sudden the City is saying, wait a minute. We’ve got a second thought about this. We are going to see if anybody else is coming in here on this. I can see that point, but
if we don’t stick to what we had planned earlier, I think we’re going to be in deep place and can’t get out of it.
McCandless: Between a rock and a hard place.
Corrie: yes you are, and if you don’t –
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: – get that overpass done, that high school is going to be a heap-o-hurt. And then ACHD –
McCandless: so is the City.
Corrie: – is still got there…I don’t know what they are going to do on Overland Road…they haven’t that decision yet, with the preliminary. Water flows downhill.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Okay, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Get this thing on the table, so we’re not here all night discussing it. I would move that approve the cooperative agreement with ITD and ACHD on the Locust Grove overpass, with
the inclusion of addendum number 1 and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: A motion has been made and seconded to approve the agreement, cooperative agreement between ITD, ACHD and the City of Meridian and approve the addendum No. 1 with the Mayor
to sign and the Clerk to attest. Any further discussion? Okay, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, naye; McCandless, naye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Anderson: That’s why they pay you the big dollars, now.
Corrie: I said my part, and the way I felt about it. My vote is aye. We will sign it and have the clerk attest it. I appreciate the input. I understand where you’re coming from.
We’ll see what happens, but I think we’ve gone this far, we don’t need to back down. I think it causes a lot of problems.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor. Just a point of clarification. On the existing agreement to which the addendum will be attached, the Section 2, in that original agreement, needs to be crossed
out and initialed so that this applies to it.
Item 24: Water, sewer, Trash Delinquency
Corrie: The last is a delinquency turn off. Schedule this for February 14, 2001. This is to inform you in writing, if you choose to, you have a right to a pre-determined hearing
at 7:30 p.m., February 6, 2001, to appear before the Mayor and City Council, to appear in person, to be judged on the facts and defend the claim by the City that your water sewer and
trash bill is delinquent. You may retain council to (inaudible) this contingent February 14, 2001,unless payment is received in full. There is no one present who wishes to contest
the water-sewer bill, to approve the delinquency turn-off.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the delinquency turn-off list, scheduled for February 14, 2001, for the sum of $79,624.75.
Corrie: do I have a second.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the deli turn-off list. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Gary? Excuse me Mr. Mayor. How come this turn-off delinquency list is getting higher than a kite every month? It is because –
McCandless: It’s so early.
Bird: – well, I want to explain. My wife…we got our water bill the second or third, or whatever day and the delinquency was like the ninth or tenth.
Smith: Previous month. That was last month, thirty days ago.
McCandless: It doesn’t look like it.
Bird: Oh, it doesn’t on the bill. People are getting --
Smith: Last month there were some…there were some billings that didn’t get out.
De Weerd: We didn’t get ours.
Smith: Because I didn’t get mine.
Bird: I hope that’s my kids’ fault or my kids’ excuse.
Smith: And they didn’t turn anybody off last month, because there was a foul-up --
Corrie: Okay, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So Moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 11:07 p.m. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOUNED AT 11:07 PM
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK