HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 07-17Meridian City Council Meeting July 17, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:45 P.M. on Tuesday, July 17, 2001, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, and Ron Anderson.
Members Absent: Cherie McCandless.
Others Present: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Bill Nichols and Bill Gordon.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
O Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: I apologize to everyone here this evening. We’re starting a little bit late but I will open the regular City Council meeting on Tuesday, July the 17th at 6:45. We’ll have
roll call attendance Mr. Clerk.
Appointment of Richard M. Worley as Chief of Police effective October 1, 2001:
Corrie: First off tonight I would like to announce the appointment of the new Chief of Police for Meridian which will take effect the 1st of October of this year. We had a very good
selection of candidates and everyone on the Council had a chance to interview except the President of the Council who was busy at that time. As I said we had a very good slate of candidates
and I think that my choice and the Council’s choice, I hope is going to be the same. At this time I would like to give the Council the name of Richard M. Mike Warley who is a Captain
at the Boise Police Department. At this time I will make that a nomination for the appointment of Mike Warley as the Chief of Police effective October 1, 2001 and will let the Council
discuss it for either their approval or denial.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we accept the appointment of Richard M. Mike Warley as the Police Chief for Meridian, Idaho effective October 1, 2001.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: All right. The motion’s been made and second to approve the name of Mike Warley as the new Chief of Police effective October 1, 2001. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would just like to say that both Tammy and I had the opportunity to sit in on that selection process. I agree there were several good candidates that applied for that position
but Mike stood out heads above those other candidates. We welcome him aboard and look forward to several years of service from you. We appreciate you applying and good luck.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay have roll call vote Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, absent; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Mike, congratulations. Mike is with us tonight. Thank you for coming and we’ll be talking to you and I’ll see you Friday morning as well.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of June 5, 2001 City Council Meeting:
Approve minutes of June 11, 2001 City Council Workshop:
Approve minutes of June 19, 2001 City Council Meeting:
Approve minutes of June 26, 2001 City Council Meeting:
E. Approve minutes of June 27, 2001, City Council Special Meeting:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 01-007 Request for a variance to exceed the maximum 1,000 foot block length for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision
by Hillview Land Development, LLC
– south of Fairview Avenue, north of Pine Street and ¼ mile west of Cloverdale Road:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview
Land Development, LLC – south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots and 15 other lots on 28.59 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land Development, LLC – south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-018 Request for the continuation of a three-year CUP granted in January 1997 for modular buildings in an L-O zone for
the Meridian Assembly of God by Meridian Assembly of God – 1830 North Linder Road:
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-019 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing bank building with a drive-up window and ATM machine in
an I-L zone for Meridian Crossroads Shopping Center by the Dakota Company – south of East Fairview Avenue and east of North Eagle Road:
K. Memorandum of Understanding: Between City of Meridian and Meridian Firefighters Local 2311 IAFF:
Corrie: Okay, Council. Item No. 2 is adoption of the agenda. There are a couple of things. Mr. Bird, you had a couple of things you wanted to change?
Bird: Yes sir. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe we wanted to take item number in the Consent Agenda I -- we do not have the findings and facts completed yet and move it to August 7, 2001. We want to make an Item
5A which is the Agreement with the Emmett Police Department, the Mutual Aide Agreement. I believe that was all we had on changes, I believe. With that I would move that we adopt the
agenda as stated.
Corrie: Okay. Is there a second?
De Weerd: Staff has something.
Corrie: Thank you. Staff?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. Could we move Items F, G, and H to the Regular Agenda?
Bird: You’re going to move them to 5F, 5G, and 5H?
Stiles: Yes please.
Corrie: Okay so, it would be F, G, and H would be 5B, would be F, G, and H. Any other changes? Okay.
Bird: My motion to reflect those changes.
Corrie: All right. Is there a second to the motion reflecting the change?
Bird: Accepting the agenda as noted.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay motion been made and seconded to accept the agenda as adopted with Memorandum of Understanding the Emmett Police at 5A and Item F, G, and H to be 5B and Item No. I is taken
out and be put on the August 7, 2001 meeting. Any further discussion? Okay, roll call vote Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, absent; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 6. Resolution No. ___01-366 : Lease and Trust Agreement with Wells Fargo Bank Northwest:
Corrie: With the Council’s approval I would like to move Item No. 6 up to just in front of the Department Reports as we do have Mr. Skinner and Mr. Bud Way here to talk about the Lease
and Trust Agreement with Wells Fargo Bank Northwest and also the resolution if we have no objections from Council. Hearing none, we’ll move that up and we’ll do the Mr. Way and M. Skinner
if you wanted to make your presentation and then we’ll do the resolution. Okay.
Bird: (inaudible) the agenda first?
Corrie: Oh, I’m sorry. Yes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we pass the Consent Agenda, moving Items F, G, and H to 5 B, F, G, and H. Also tabling Item I to August 7, 2001. With those changes I move that we approve
it.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second to approve the agenda with the corrections and alterations. Any other corrections? Okay, Mr. Clerk, roll call vote.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, absent; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Okay, Mr. skinner.
Skinner: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council my name is Richard Skinner. I reside in Boise but I’m happy to be in Meridian. On your agenda you should have a resolution that I think
the City Attorney has received from us and put into form for your meeting. I think what I wan to do is just give you a brief summary of what is, the actions that are being taken. I
would say that the City Attorney has had the opportunity to review I think all of these documents as well as the resolution. Mr. Way can speak about the financial aspects of the transaction.
That’s not really my part here so I won’t take a lot of your time here. I think that it’s probably important to understand that the resolution approves the transaction for the financing
of the Law Enforcement Building. In doing so, it refers to several documents actually which were all subject -- several of them are subject of the judicial confirmation which was successful.
The major document that’s being approved is the recent Trust Agreement with Wells Fargo Bank Northwest. Basically that provides for a leas. We’ve talked about this before, between
the City and the bank as trustee. The bank then will issue Certificates of Participation in that lease pursuant to the same agreement. The investors will pay their money for those.
That then becomes the construction fund for your project. Then the City pays back lease payments which then go back to the certificate holders. The document’s a little longer than
that but that’s the short summary for that document. Bud will talk with you about -- Mr. Way will talk to you about the financial aspects, the interest rates and so forth on that.
Another document is the offering document, the official statement which is initially prepared in a preliminary form. I think Bud has a few copies of that if you want to see that. I
know that the City Attorney has reviewed that as well. That’s approved. There’s also something called a continuing Disclosure Agreement that’s required under SEC rules. It basically
says you have to submit your annual
audit report to a central location every year so if an investor wants to check to see if there’s anything, a problem with the City they have a way to do that. That’s the continuing
Disclosure Agreement. The final document is the certificate. First is contract and again Mr. Way will talk about that. That’s the contract that Wells Fargo Brokerage Services is submitting
to you for their sale of the Certificates of Participation. Those are the main documents. The resolution also authorizes signature of various closing certificates. The transaction
is scheduled to close August 1st. That’s when the money goes in the bank and the certificates are delivered to the investors. I may have talked too fast but that’s the basic structure
of the documentation. Your resolution will approve those. It will approve the City officials to sign those documents and set the basis for the closing of the transaction. If there
are questions I would be happy to answer them. I apologize if I’ve talked too quickly here. I just didn’t want to take too much of your time.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Mr. Skinner, I would just like to thank you for being involved in this process from inception. I know that your name was lended to the process and your advice has been very
helpful in getting this to this points so I would like to thank you and Mr. Way for all you’ve done. It was tremendous.
Skinner: Thank you very much. I’ve enjoyed it.
Bird: Thank you.
Way: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Bud Way and I’m with Wells Fargo Public Finance. I also reside in Boise but I’m in the Meridian School District.
I’ve had three children go through this very fine School District and my daughter is Homecoming Queen. If she was here I would -- I’d embarrass the heck out of her. Seriously, I
appreciate being here this evening. This is, hopefully the conclusion of a long process that the City has been looking at. I congratulate the City on the route that you have taken.
The issue that we have been pricing and selling and I come here this evening to present a purchase contract is one in which we have been very pleased to bring to the market place.
We had this issue rated by Moody’s Investor Service. They have come back with a rating of an A-1 credit. Now, with an underlying or what they call an issuers rating of a double A-3.
We can throw all these ratings around but what that means is that if this issue was an unlimited taxing authority of the City the rating would be a double A-3. There aren’t too many
higher. The only one higher is the Meridian School District which is rated a double A-2. With which we have there an unlimited taxing authority for the School District. For the City
of Meridian we have, this is not an annual corporation, this is a debt that is going to be repaid over a period of 10 years but it still comes from resources that
are limited only to the City’s cash flow. With that little bit of a background, I wanted to mention to you that we have marketed this issue and we have sold and have a pricing at an
interest rate of 4.53 percent. This is on a 10-year issue. It is an excellent rate in my opinion. A little bit of history is that when we go back a little bit on this issue, when
we first starting talking to a couple members of the board back in, I think it was before November, we were at a 6.07. In March of this year, the interest rate that we were projecting,
we’re at a 5.25. In May we were at a 4.80. June 25th I presented, along with the documentation review, I presented our projection for this issue to be at a 4.43. Tonight I present
to you a purchase contract at a 4.53 because this is the issue that we went to the market with late yesterday afternoon and this morning. Now, it has bounced up and I am willing to
fess up to that but we are at historically low market, historical low bond market at this point. The one thing that I did not anticipate 10 days ago is the fact that I was a little
too aggressive in my projections. Our underwriting area out of Salt Lake has informed me that I have to allow for the recapture of expenses and I was promptly chastised but anyway,
at a 4.53 I don’t mean to be flippant at all. I am very serious when I suggest to the boar, to the Council that a 4.53 is an excellent interest rate. That gives you an added, the difference
between what we projected 10 days ago and today is about 1,600 dollar a year as far as a payment goes. I have for your review and Bill has looked at this too, and I understand he has
a few corrections but it’s the preliminary official statement that we’ve put together and sent out to the market place. We have to, if the Council accepts our proposal this evening,
we will put out what we call the final official statement which will address the final interest rates and any other changes that we will have this evening. I would like to give this
to Will at this point. With that said, I’d be pleased to answer any questions that the Council may have.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don’t have a questions but I’ve worked with Bud for, it’s been over a year, Bud. I just want to thank you for the hard work that you and the bank have done to get this process
through along with Mr. Skinner and Mr. Nichols. Our taxpayers have been well represented and taken very, very good I believe by this type of payback. We’re going to get a nice facility
out of it.
Way: I appreciate that very much Councilman Bird. Also let me state that it’s been a pleasure for me to work, for my firm to work with the administrators as well as the Council people.
I have found them to be very astute and have kept us on our toes and I appreciate that. I think it’s been a team effort all the way. Again I would like to express my appreciation
to Mr. Skinner and his firm for his reliable advice and corrections as we’ve gone through this process. With that, I would recommend that the Council approve our purchase contract.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I first wanted to also thank you. I think when Bud met with Keith and I originally, he kind of looked at us like, now what do you have in mind. We were dreaming.
Bird: I told him we had a wild idea.
De Weerd: But, you know it’s nice to see it come through to fruition. I would like to ask the City Attorney or our Finance Director if there’s anything else that we need to address
at this point. I’m sure you both have gone through this with a fine toothcomb. Do you have any comments?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mayor, members of Council, Councilwoman de Weerd. We’ve been through these documents more than once. I think after the first round, you know we wanted to make sure that we
understood them. Mr. Skinner and Mr. Way helped us make sure we understand those things. In the document review telephone conference that we had, we went through several things. I’m
confident that we have a good product and there aren’t any surprises or gotchas in there. We understand what the terms are and what’s required of us.
Kilchenmann: Mayor, City Council I would agree with Mr. Nichols. I think Mr. Way has been very helpful for me, coming in at the end of the project to understand what’s going on and
I feel comfortable with it.
Corrie: Before we take a vote, Bud I want to say thank you. We’ve had a lot of conversations over the phone and talked. Mr. Skinner, tremendous job. I want to say thank you. Every
time I got on my computer there was a tree sitting there waiting for me but, you both did a fabulous job and my congratulations to all of you, both of you and your bank as well.
Way: Very kind Mayor Corrie but also, again let me state that it’s the credit that did it. The City of Meridian, what we brought to the market was an outstanding piece of credit.
I had an analyst at Moody’s tell me that they’ve never seen a fund balance that’s, or a City, excuse me, that had that type of financials. I indicated that yes, they’re in excellent
financial shape. They have a lot of growth problems, not problems, challenges ahead but at this point and time you’re taking excellent advantage of the financial situation that you’re
in. Five years from now, who knows, you may have to realize some of those assets but at this point in time its excellent credit so it was a pleasure marketing this.
Corrie: Anyone else have any questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, just one more comment.
Corrie: Okay, Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I know our staffs have also put a tremendous amount of time. I know the Police Department put a lot of time and effort into the judicial confirmation in justifying that financial
base. So, everyone needs to be commended for the efforts that they put into it. Now, lets just build.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’ve got one question. Then I’ll make a motion if Will will give us a resolution number. For Mr. Nichols here, as I understand it, when we pass this resolution we pass all the
contracts and everything for the Mayor to sign and for the Clerk to attest. Is that right? We don’t have to pass those individually?
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the Council that is correct. The resolution authorizes the administrative officers of the City, in this case the Mayor and the Clerk to
sign any of the documents necessary to put this into effect. So, it covers it all.
Bird: What is the resolution --
Corrie: It would be resolution No. 01-366 and I would like to have the City Clerk read the resolution by title only at this point.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Resolution No. 01-366. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian authorize the execution and delivery of a Lease
and Trust Agreement relating to the acquisition and construction of certain law enforcement facilities between the City of Meridian, Idaho and Wells Fargo Bank Northwest National Association
as lessor and trustee. A continuing Disclosure Agreement, Certificate Purchase Contract and related document. Setting forth certain findings and purposes in connection therewith authorizing
the execution and approving relating documents agreements and actions and providing an effective date.
Corrie: You’ve heard the reading of the Resolution No. 01-366. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to have its entirety read? Hearing none, Mr. bird, I’ll entertain a motion
on Resolution No, 01-366.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Resolution 01-366 and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay motion has been made and second to approve Resolution No. 01-366. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, absent; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Way: Thank you Mr. Mayor, if I may indulge just a few more – just another minute. If I could obtain the signature on the contract so that we could then proceed to -- we need to close
the issue. I don’t think we’ve mentioned this but what we’re attempting to do is to make sure that we close and fund this project by August 1. Mr. Skinner will be taking care of a
lot of that, but if I can indulge.
Item 4. Department Reports:
A. Public Works Department – Gary Smith
1. WWTP Front Loader Tractor – Bid Results:
Corrie: Okay at this time, we’ll have Item No, 4 which is Department Reports, Public Works Department Gary Smith.
Watson: Thank you Mayor and Council. Hopefully you have the memo that I sent to you last week. There’s just two items on there. The first one is a bid award for a front loader at
the Wastewater Treatment Plant. As we discussed earlier today during the budget hearings, the budget presentations, the City watering facility is up and running. They are doing double
duty with the backhoe that was the subject of some other conversation. I talked with Mr. Shawcroft, the Superintendent after the budget presentation to get some numbers put together
here because I knew the questions would come. He’s saying that presently they’re using the backhoe about 12 hours a week solely for loading bio-solids into the truck that hauls them
off and land applies. He’s claiming that this has been budgeted, up to 40,000 dollars. He asked me to put together a bid package. I did that earlier this month. We structured the
bid such that they could bid new equipment, used equipment, anything in between. As you can see, we only got two bids. One was for a brand new loader. The one that they had their
eye on was the used one at 42,347 dollars. They wanted to purchase that as is and with a canopy instead of a cab, as I had specified. If we delete those two items it brings the expenditure
down to 38,500 dollars. As you can see here the one that they, the used one that they’re looking at has 700 hours on it. I thought I knew the year until tonight. I started looking
through the information now I’m confused between 1986 and 91 but it’s in that range.
Bird: What year?
Watson: 86 to 91.
Bird: And this has got 700 hours on it?
Watson: Yes.
Anderson: It was only driven on Sundays by a little old lady.
Bird: I was just going to say, it never got out of the garage. Brad, excuse me. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Brad, on this, I know we had a discussion during the deal but this is something. The existing backhoe with the front-end loader out there is not big enough to be loading this
waste as I understand. Is that not correct?
Watson: Councilman bird, Mayor and Council that’s what John has told me. They can’t really lift full bucket loads with the existing backhoe and it’s not really high enough. They’re
kind of rubbing it in over the sides. For the little wear and tear on both pieces of equipment. This one’s a lot higher reach. It has a lot more power.
Bird: Yes it’s a front-end loader.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Keith, what he had kind of mentioned to me is they have tried to use the backhoe and have ended up with a great amount of repair to the backhoe because its just not built
for this kind of work.
Bird: I agree. They’ve got it in the budget?
De Weerd: I have nothing further.
Bird: I have nothing further. Go ahead Ron.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I did have a question. Brad, this doesn’t look like a very large front-end loader as compared to the backhoe and the bucket size and stuff like that. Has there been thorough
research to make sure that this is large enough to do the job? This isn’t a real big front-end loader.
Watson: Councilman Anderson, Mayor and Council. They in fact test-drove this for about three weeks earlier this spring. That’s why they had their eye on this one. I told them we
had to go through the formality of bidding it to be legal. They have test drove it and it works fine. It’s only as big as it needs to be.
Anderson: Okay if they’re happy with it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we award the contract for the front end loader to Cesco in the amount of 42,347 dollars contingent upon a change order being executed in the next two weeks that reduces
the equipment cost to 38,500 dollars and authorize the Mayor to sign the City Clerk to attest the contract.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion been made and seconded to approve the recommendation of the Public Works and have Cesco Inc. in the contract awarding. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
2. White Drain Trunk Sewer – Easement and Right-of-way Contract Approval:
Watson: Thank you Mayor and Council. The second item is an easement and right-of-way contract for the White Drain Trunk Sewer. This is one of the several along that corridor. Specifically
it’s for John Kennedy who owns property immediately west of the proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision. It’s not a very long easement but it was signed last week. We would recommend that
the easement right-of-way contract be approved. If there are any questions I’ll answer those.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: All right, I’ll entertain a motion on the recommendation.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the sewer easement and right-of-way contract of John L. Kennedy and authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second to approve the sewer easement and right-of-way contract with John L. Kennedy. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
B. Parks and Recreation Department – Tom Kuntz
1. Bear Creek Utility Plan Design Agreement:
Corrie: Item B, Parks and Rec. Department, Mr. Kuntz.
Kuntz: Thank you Mayor and Council. I have one item for your consideration tonight. As part of the design of Phase 1 of Bear Creek Park, we did not include a utility plan because
we did not anticipate developing the interior of the park other than grass for at least a couple years. With the anticipated addition of two softball fields, we feel its essential now
to install water and power, not only to those areas but also to the different playground, future playground areas. We also recognize that there were no lights planned for the two parking
lots so that would be part of also the utility plan. We have for your consideration tonight an agreement from Briggs Engineering to provide that service at 3,500 dollars and for the
plan to be completed by the end of July. Staff is recommending approval of the agreement.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Tom, is this figured in within the budget that’s been allocated?
Kuntz: Yes ma’am.
De Weerd: Okay.
Corrie: Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on the request.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we recommend, or we approve the agreement with Briggs Engineering to provide a utility plan for Bear Creek Park at a cost of 3,500 dollars to be completed by the
end of July, to have the Mayor to sign and the clerk attest.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to approve the agreement from Briggs Engineering and Bear Creek Park at a cost of 3,500 dollars to be completed by the end of July. Any further
discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I did have a question for Tom. Do we have a signed agreement on that park yet?
Kuntz: Council Member de Weerd, that agreement is still in the hands of the developer although we do want to make sure that this utility plan and the installation of the conduit and
piping will be added to that plan. I know that they’ve had, that Tim Taylor has left the company to start his own business and Matt Schultz from JUB has joined Greg Johnson but I haven’t
heard back from them but I will be following up on that.
De Weerd: Thank you. Can you let me know?
Kuntz: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Planning and Zoning Department – Shari Stiles
1. Sundance Investments Development Agreement:
2. Ordinance No. ___ ______: AZ 01-001 Request for annexation and zoning of 78 acres from R1 to C-C and C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center by Sundance Investments Partnership,
LLC – southeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road:
Corrie: Okay. Item C-4 Planning and Zoning Shari Stiles.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is the Development Agreement for Silverstone Corporate Center. The project at the southeast corner of Overland and Eagle Road. This was approved
for annexation and zoning and the Conditional Use and the plat in April and we have between the attorney’s office and my office and the applicant’s representative, we’ve done quite
a bit of work on trying to get this just right and acceptable for both parties. The Development Agreement includes revised Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Those revisions
were minor in nature and were meant more to clarify the intent of the approvals and some typos in some cases. They were not significant changes but I believe they do need to be adopted
as part of this Development Agreement. Also we have the ordinance annexing the property. Mr. Anderson is very anxious to get a Building Permit for his first building and also to submit
the final plat so he can record the subdivision and start the construction of all the improvements. I can go through some of the changes that were made but Mr. Nichols has been intimately
involved in all of the discussions that we’ve had both between Mr. Anderson and Cornell Larson the architect and Bill McAlvain, their attorney. We believe it’s a good document and meets
the intent and would like to get this started so we ask that you approve the Development Agreement and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign and also approve the Ordinance for Annexation.
Corrie: Mr. Clerk I believe you did say that the agreement has been signed.
Berg: Yes, it has been signed today.
Corrie: Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, what about the Ordinance?
Corrie: We’ve got the Ordinance. I think we do the Development Agreement and then do the Ordinance right next to it.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: I’m sorry (inaudible).
Bird: I’ve got a question for Mr. Nichols. The changes and everything that’s been taken care of in this and they in no way are changing any intent of the original Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law?
Nichols: Council Member Bird, Mayor, members of the Council. Shari is correct. There were some minor changes to it but the jist of it in terms of the requirements that were put on
the developer are not markedly changed. There were just some clarifications. For example, some of the uses that would be allowed in the project, we clarified those. Some of the uses
that are prohibited in the project, we clarified those. We didn’t know that they didn’t like what we had done to
begin with until, it was quite a while after Will sent the Development Agreement out until we first got some issuance. That’s why this came up after the findings had been approved.
They just didn’t get us any kind of response for too long. Then the way they did the response delayed the way we could go back to them and see what changes they actually wanted. They
took the Development Agreement and rewrote it. Then we had to look at it and see what they had changed and left out and so on. We’ve got it back to where we’re comfortable with it.
Its got all the standard things in it that we need in order to make sure the development goes in the way its suppose to be.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. This is a follow up to Mr. Nichols. Okay, then, if we changed our findings and facts and stuff that we had approved in a Council meeting, do we need to approve the
redone ones and then the Development Agreement? Or just the Development Agreement takes care of that completely?
Nichols: Let me just kind of tell you the way I think you need to do it. The Development Agreement has been signed by the developer. The revised findings and facts should be adopted
separately. They’re not on your agenda to be adopted tonight but the Ordinance is also not on the agenda tonight either. So, you cant really, or did you add it?
Corrie: We added it.
Nichols: If you adopt, well Shari’s got something she wants to say but if you adopt the Development Agreement with those revised findings attached, we could call it good. Then the
Ordinance would take care of the annexation.
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I just wanted to call out that the exhibit C, it’s the last sheet, and we’re missing a page. These are showing permitted Conditional Use and prohibited
uses. I also wanted to point out in that list, I don’t have that other page with me but in that list at the request of the developer we did add as a permitted use, post-secondary education
facilities so that if they had a college or university come in and want to utilize some of the space in one of the buildings that they wouldn’t have to go through a second process.
They were happy with that but we are missing that sheet.
Bird: Was that the one Shari that’s telling us what is permitted in there?
Stiles: Well, its not –
Bird: Isn’t that complete?
Stiles: -- complete. I don’t know if we have one more --. Will do you have a copy of that sheet?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, there are two sheets. They continue with a list of permitted uses then it goes on with the Conditional Uses and the prohibited uses.
Corrie: Does he have it?
Stiles: Will has it, yes. Gary’s making a copy of that right now.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We have stuck that other in and this is part of it. Mr. Nichols said that by passing this deal we would revise (inaudible).
Corrie: But on his recommendation?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: He’s the one that would have to defend us.
Bird: And him and Shari have seen this complete thing so I don’t have no problem. I don’t have to see it.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: While we’re waiting, did you get hurt with that tree falling back there? Sorry about that, we’ll have to get that -- big windstorm last night and it kind of broke a few branches
that happened to fall on you so I’m sorry about that.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Shari is this adequate for what you’re asking for?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If there are no further questions I would move that we accept the Development Agreement with Sundance Investments with the revised findings and facts and for the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second to approve the Development Agreement Sundance investment Development with the revised findings and facts attached. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, Mr. Berg roll call vote please.
*** End Of Side One***
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, absent; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: The next one is the Ordinance. What number would that be 01-920? Okay. Would you read Ordinance No. 01-920 by title only at this time?
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council Ordinance No. 01-920, an Ordinance finding that certain to be known as Silverstone Corporate Center the location of which lies contiguous
or adjacent to the City limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada and State of Idaho and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that
said land be annexed to the City of Meridian in zoning designated commercial business district, C-C and general retail and service commercial district C-G declaring that said land by
proper legal description as described below be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada and State of Idaho repealing all ordinances, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith
and directing the City Engineer to add such property to the official maps of the City of Meridian Idaho and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the
Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor and Assessor and the State Tax Commission for the State of Idaho pursuant to Idaho code section 50-223
and section 63-2215.
Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to have Ordinance No. 920 read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I’d make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 01-920, a request for annexation and zoning of 78 acres from R-1 to C-C and C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center
by Sundance Investment Partnership LLC with suspension of the rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second to approve Ordinance No. 01-920 with a suspension of the rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, roll call vote please.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, absent; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 5A. Memorandum of Understanding: Mutual Aide Agreement between Meridian Police Department and Emmett Police Department:
Corrie: Now, we will go to Item 5A then we will have Item 5B which will be taking off the Consent Agenda F, G and H. At this point I will have Chief Gordon to review the request of
Memorandum of Understanding with Emmett Police.
Gordon: Mayor and Council, what this agreement is, is it authorizes our officers to assist Emmett Police for cruise night which is -- smaller agencies can handle problems within their
jurisdiction during the year but certain events take place. We have an agreement signed right now with Boise, Garden City, and now with Emmett. The River Festival is a good example.
We assist Boise. This clears the City as far as liability goes, not only for Emmett but for us. It allows our officers to have full police powers within those jurisdictions. We presently
have four signed agreements out right now.
Corrie: Discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Bill I had a question. Is there something that, do they come and assist us back? I mean is this kind of a reciprocating type of agreement or how does this work?
Gordon: Yes it is. We haven’t requested Emmett to come over here but we could if we needed to. This agreement would allow that. We use Nampa. We use Garden City and we’ve used Boise
on several occasions. I’m sure we would use Nampa. What brought this up is Emmett Chief Hyde requested we come over for cruise night. He’s got officers coming from Payette and Nampa
and I
believe Garden City now us. But it’s just for the one event, a one night so we could use them back yes.
Anderson: We’re paying our officer’s salaries while they’re over there. Is that correct?
Gordon: That’s correct.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Chief, what is cruise night?
Anderson: (Inaudible)
De Weerd: No that could be every night. Is this one night a year?
Gordon: Well, it’s an organized cruise. A lot of the old time car clubs go over there. They pick one weekend. It’s usually a Saturday night and they get going. It can get out of
hand.
De Weerd: With the old timers?
Gordon: Believe it or not, yes. They know how to drink beer and sometimes it gets out of hand.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Gordon: It’s a proven fact that a show of force definitely deters any problems. That’s what Chief Hyde is looking for. It’s interesting. If you’ve never been, you need to swing over
there Saturday night.
De Weerd: This Saturday?
Gordon: Yes Ma’am.
De Weerd: Oh, okay, just any Saturday?
Gordon: No, just this Saturday.
De Weerd: I never thought to cruise Emmett.
Bird: You might be surprised. It was a pretty good town back in my day.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the agreement with Emmett Police Department and Meridian Police Department for mutual aide or whatever that’s called, Memorandum of Agreement
for mutual aide, authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: And the Chief to sign.
Anderson: And the Police Chief to sign.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second to approve the Memorandum of Agreement between the Emmett Police Department and the Meridian Police Department authorize the Mayor and the Chief
to sign. Any further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think I have one more question. How many Police Officers will this entail, are you sending over?
Gordon: Chief Hyde requested three officers. One bicycle, one motorcycle and then one officer to ride with one of his. They pair up the officers with their people so ours are each
one of them is with theirs. They will have a bike officer. They don’t have a motorcycle officer but he will be in the downtown area for the traffic.
De Weerd: Is this overtime so it’s double time or time and a half?
Gordon: We try to schedule it on just a scheduled shift. There are times though when over time is involved, yes. This particular night, I’m not sure how the Captain set it up but
the first priority is just straight time.
De Weerd: Okay but we cover our City first right?
Gordon: Yes Ma’am. Boise County requested officers for the Rainbow festival. We were unable to meet their demands so that was one that we didn’t get up to because we covered the City
first.
Anderson: And we didn’t have 100 extra officers?
Gordon : No, we didn’t.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 5F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 01-007 Request for a variance to exceed the maximum 1,000 foot block length for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision
by Hillview Land Development, LLC – south of Fairview Avenue, north of Pine Street and ¼ mile west of Cloverdale Road:
Item 5G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by
Hillview Land Development, LLC – south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads:
Item 5H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots and 15 other lots on 28.59 acres in a proposed R-8
zone for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land Development, LLC – south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads:
Corrie: Okay next is taken off the Consent Agenda, Item F, G, and H. The Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval Macaile Meadows and also the Facts and Conclusions of
Law on the annexation and also I believe for the request for Preliminary Plat. Shari, you (inaudible)?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. That would be for the variance, the annexation and zoning and the Preliminary Plat. It’s really one issue that effects all three of the findings. If
I can get your concurrence on what that should be stating. It has to do with the access to Cloverdale or Fairview or Pine Street extended. I would also like to note that on the exhibit
A that’s included with the variance and well, -- the plat’s fine. The drawing shown at the back of the findings for the Preliminary Plat, that is the plan that was approved. The plan
that is attached to the variance is not the one that was finally approved. The issue has to do with the access and I believe the motion was that after 60 lots were built then there
would be another access to Fairview, another access to Cloverdale or that Pine Street be extended. On the variance on Page 3, Item 8 it does state that only 60 Building
Permits may be obtained until access to Fairview or Pine has been made available. I just wanted to make sure that was what your motion was or whether you were talking about the Cloverdale
access, whether that was going to be adequate for the access.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’d have to go back to the tape but I believe it was said that there was no mention of taking away the Cloverdale entrance. The only time they can go over the 60 Building Permit
is when they get another road, either to Fairview or to Pine. As I understood it, that Cloverdale does not go away.
Anderson: I think the question that they were (inaudible) clarification for was you said either Fairview or Pine. Pine is going to go in when they build it so they wanted to know whether
you’re putting the limitation on until they build a third access to Fairview or you’re just talking about the two at Cloverdale and Pine that then they can build on all 115 lots.
Bird: I understood just one more access plus the Cloverdale one was what I meant when I made the motion. I didn’t expect two deals to let them go forward but Pine has to be built through.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I believe there was mention in ACHD’s report as a recommendation from staff I think we all need to see the minutes on it but that notation was that there needs to be two entrances
into the subdivision.
Bird: There are two.
De Weerd: That would be Cloverdale and Pine.
Bird: Or Fairview.
De Weerd: Or Fairview.
Bird: That’s the way it was but Pine has to be -- I meant it. Pine has to be a through street. I mean, you can build it right down immediately to Pine now but you’re just dumping
in for a quarter mile.
Anderson: So, you’re saying until Pine is built over to Eagle Road that they can only build on 60.
Bird: That’s what I meant.
Anderson: I would think that’s how it came across.
Bird: And it probably didn’t come across that way. I’d have to look at the minutes 100 percent. I don’t remember if we have the minutes.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Is the applicant here tonight?
Bird: It was mine.
Corrie: How did you understand it?
Butler: I just had an ulcer. I’m sorry this is very difficult. I don’t understand exactly what your condition was but when you talked about it you read, the Council read the condition
from staff from ACHD out of the report which was in your packet as part of the Public Hearing. Staff had said that they recommend only 76 homes be platted until a second connection
to either Fairview or Cloverdale was made available. At that time, we only proposed one connection. That was down to Pine, not Pine extended but just down to Pine. When we went to
the Commission, Commissioner Winecooth is the one who made his motion. He said we recommend approval of staff’s conditions with the exception that Option B which was in you packet which
shows a connection to Cloverdale not to Fairview. Option A was to Fairview. That Option B be constructed, and again this was in your packet, at the onset of the project as volunteered
by the applicant. I have also said in the record that even though staff wanted us to put in this road before the 76th permit, the one out to Cloverdale, we volunteered to help the neighbors
out to spend 100 or 150,000 dollars to put this road in at the onset. My ulcer is related to the fact if we have to extend Pine now to Eagle Road or bring in another connection off
of Fairview, that is so many offsite requirements that far exceed anything that was ever mentioned in the public record. We hope that you can understand that and realize that we’ll
have a connection to Pine via Parkdale not out to Eagle Road and a connection out to Cloverdale. That far exceeded what ACHD wanted. You can tell I’m a little choked up about this.
So, did that answer your question or clarify hopefully what your condition was to be?
Bird: Tammy, I think is the one that made the motion. I believe I seconded. Wasn’t it you that (inaudible)?
De Weerd: I believe I made the motion. I was just quoting the staff comments out of ACHD’s report. I believe Councilwoman McCandless had the concern about the access out onto Eagle.
I don’t know if its all been misconstrued.
Butler: We have gone so far with our traffic studies.
De Weerd: It just meant two access points within the subdivision.
Butler: That’s what we hoped you meant.
Bird: That was it.
Corrie: I didn’t think that it said that you had to do the road all the way to Eagle and Pine.
Butler: Thank god and thank the Council.
Corrie: But you had to do the exits. She made the motion and the way I remember it is two exits, either Cloverdale and Pine or to Fairview whichever comes first. It looks like its
Cloverdale and Pine.
Butler: Yes, Cloverdale and Pine was Option B which is what ACHD chose, not the one out to Fairview. The reason there is the difficulty with working with the property to the north.
We’re able to go through the church property to get to Cloverdale but we’ve been unsuccessful working with the Grossman family and whoever owns that property to the north to get it
to Fairview.
Corrie: She made the motion so she would know what she said.
De Weerd: I believe I was just referring to the staff comments from ACHD.
Butler: We were going beyond that by saying that we’re going to build it before the first Building Permit. That was in the staff that was again in the public record. Dave Winecooth
said he wanted kudos to be expressed for what we proposed to come over to Meridian but that wasn’t in the record.
De Weerd: Well, you know if you had only had the one access it wouldn’t have been a go, I don’t think.
Butler: We tried that. Initially, ACHD said you can do the one --
De Weerd: That doesn’t matter we have two.
Butler: Yes, I understand. Thank you.
Anderson: We’re clear on the point now?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Stiles: Do I need to go over the changes in each document or do you want to reflect that, the comment made by the Council that they’ve taken that requirement away or changed that requirement?
Anderson: I thought all he was asking for was clarification of what the motion was. We’re not asking to change anything, just to clarify the motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: The second is Fairview or Pine so he’s got the two.
Bird: It didn’t say and, it doesn’t say and.
Corrie: It says or, Fairview or Pine. He has one at Cloverdale going through that second one.
Stiles: The way they are written does not indicate what you were just talking about.
Bird: Nothing says --
Anderson: Condition 59 says obtain access to Fairview or Pine has been made available.
Bird: Yes, but Ron what she’s saying is where does it say Cloverdale?
Stiles: I have a suggestion for changing the wording in several areas. Just one change but it would effect several different sections.
Corrie: What would that be?
Stiles: On the variance Page 3, Item 8, change the last line of that paragraph to read be obtained until a second access -- oh well that’s not what you were -- that’s what I thought
you were talking about. Never mind. Only 60 Building Permits may be obtained until a second access to Cloverdale has been constructed. They’ve already offered to do it before they
ever get the first permit.
Butler: Excellent.
Bird: That’s the primary one.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council that’s why we want to have position statements so we know what we have to fix. I apologize for not getting this straight. My intent was
there be two accesses. If you say a second access onto Cloverdale it sounds like you’ve got two accesses to Cloverdale and there’s only one. If we’ll go down through these, if you’ll
highlight each one that’s wrong, we’ll
fix them one by one tonight. Then the Council can adopt them with those changes and I’ll get clean ones to the Council. If, like in that last line of Paragraph 8 on the variance, Page
3, after the word available put in addition to the access to Cloverdale.
Stiles: In addition to the existing access to Cloverdale?
Nichols: It’s not built yet is it?
Butler: To the proposed access?
Stiles: What Ada County Highway District requires and the Fire Department require are two accesses into a subdivision. Their access they are proposing is Driftwood from Cloverdale
and then their second access would be the road extension back to Cloverdale.
Nichols: I’m –
Bird: I’m really confused now Shari because the way I understood it --
Anderson: It turns into Pine.
Bird: The north part of the property’s going along the – the existing north road of the Cloverdale church is going to be extended to go into this subdivision. Okay, that’s the primary,
that’s the first one in. Then they are going to run -- they’re going to run the south deal down and come out on Pine which is already there. There’s nothing to stop the people from
turning and trying to go to Cloverdale through that Driftwood but, my understanding of this whole concept was this north entryway through the churches north road property that they’ve
got back so far was your primary and your first entry. Is that not right?
Butler: Well, it became that Mr. Bird but it’s confusing because the first primary entry was Pine. So, a lot of staff Shari and ACHD refers to Cloverdale as our second access because
we put it, we proposed it after the Pine but it will become the primary access. I think you have a language gap here.
Bird: When Councilwoman de Weerd made the motion and stuff, then Cloverdale was a given.
Butler: Exactly.
Bird: You can get your 60 permits, as I understood it, as long as that was in which that had to be in before you got any permits.
Butler: That’s what I thought.
Bird: Then when you got either the access to Pine or to Fairview, then you could have the rest of your permits.
Butler: That’s what I thought.
Bird: That Cloverdale one was a given from the word go. I mean that’s the primary access you’re going to deal with.
Butler: Yes, it became that. Yes, you’re right I’m just simply --
Bird: Is that not right?
Butler: Simply a condition that says construct a connection to Parkdale and a connection out to Cloverdale prior to the first Building Permit would be fine to us. That will even get
you even better than where you’re at because we’re going to build them both before we do one Building Permit.
Bird: But, you don’t show it in your exhibit A. There’s no north road.
Nichols: That could be our fault Mr. Bird. It could be our wrong exhibit. This plat here, the one that’s attached to the Preliminary Plat findings -- excuse me, Mayor, members of
the Council. One is attached to the Preliminary Plat findings in this plat that you’re seeing on the screen right now. If, when we’re referencing access to Cloverdale, if it said in
addition to the access from Cloverdale to the northeast corner of the subdivision that would clarify which Cloverdale access we’re talking about in addition to the extension down to
Pine, I think. Would it not Shari, if we specified it that way or maybe even adding the words so that it reads in addition to the access, the applicant will build from Cloverdale to
the northeast corner of his subdivision.
Stiles: I just wan to know which way they meant. They have the access up here. This access that’s shown here with the arrow, that’s what they propose to construct prior to even the
first building permit being issued.
Corrie: That goes to Cloverdale?
Stiles: That goes to Cloverdale, go through the church property to Cloverdale. Their other access will be they have to go through Westdale Subdivision and they could go out to Cloverdale.
Now, has this been extended through to Pine?
Butler: Yes it is.
Bird: (Inaudible).
Butler: You had that question at the beginning of the Public Hearing.
Stiles: Pine is built all the way along the boundary of your property it just hasn’t been extended any further west?
Butler: Correct.
Bird: Its expanded to the school.
Butler: Oh, excuse me yes.
Bird: You’re not to the school.
Butler: No, it’s to the end of the school.
Bird: You’re not to the school where it comes across. You’re pretty close to the school but there’s a commercial building there just to the east of where it comes out. Is that right?
Butler: There is.
Bird: My thinking was the reason to have that other access to Pine instead of from Driftwood was that was one of the complaints from the public, they didn’t want the added traffic going
through Driftwood which I understood. But when they get to Pine and go out, they’ve got a stoplight for one thing. That’s the nice deal right there. I thought the north entrance from
Cloverdale to the property was a given. That was it that was a primary entrance.
De Weerd: So, as it’s written its fine?
Bird: Yes, I think so.
Butler: That’s why I didn’t want a position statement. It looks okay to me as long as Shari understands it.
Stiles: So Mark I just want to ask you again. The access to Pine from Westdale Park Subdivision is fully constructed?
Butler: Yes of course we haven’t built our subdivision yet but it’s asphalted from this boundary.
Stiles: To Westdale Park southern boundary. So, they are accessing Pine Street from Westdale Park Subdivision.
Butler: Fully paved.
Stiles: Sidewalks --
Butler: Curb, gutter sidewalks yes.
Stiles: Okay.
Bird: They said it was.
Butler: We’ll be tearing it up a bit to put in the chokers for the residence which will limit the traffic going back and forth on Westdale, those that go in this location here.
Stiles: Well, we still might need to clean up that wording then because if 60 Building Permits may be obtained until access to Fairview or Pine has been made available, they’ll have
access to Pine with their first building.
De Weerd: Yes.
Butler: We will do that.
Corrie: That’s fine.
Stiles: Okay.
Corrie: They can have all –
Bird: Then they can have all their Building Permits as long as they’ve got the road, a two lane right road and approved road to Cloverdale on the north boundary.
Anderson: That’s what Shari is saying, these findings don’t reflect that but I had some suggested wording here. It would read something about Macaile Meadows Subdivision but presently
only 6 Building Permits may be obtained until access both to Cloverdale on the northeast and Pine Street to the south has been made available.
De Weerd: It works.
Butler: It’ll work with us.
Corrie: What was the other one? Is that the only one?
Stiles: Are you talking -- you’ve talked about a 30-foot right-of-way is that what you’re proposing on that road out to Cloverdale?
Butler: The width will vary. ACHD is requiring a 24-foot wide asphalted road for two lanes and a three-foot gravel shoulder on each side. Depending on what type of drainage we need
on each side that width could vary. It’s an easement.
Stiles: So, no sidewalks it’s not a public road?
Butler: It’s for the public. There’s easement to ACHD for public use but it’s not a right-of-way and again that’s in the staff report. ACHD wasn’t certain that in the fullness of
time they wanted that to be the final location. So, it may be at some point in the future they would have a new road coming in through Grossman’s property to the north. I’m sorry Gibson
but it will be a public road open to the public.
Stiles: That would effect Item 8 on Page 3 of the Findings and Fact for the variance and also on Page 9 Paragraph 1. On the Preliminary Plat it would be on Page 13 Item 59. I think
everybody knows where we’re coming from now. There is something in the findings for the annexation and zoning. I’m not quite sure what this comment was on Page 14 Item 6. It says
adopt the recommendation of the Meridian Police Departments as follows, an entrance from the Meridian City limits shall be required.
Bird: I was just looking at that too Shari. I don’t understand that.
Stiles: I know that there was some question with both the comment made by Fire Chief Kenny Bowers that he is concerned about the additional length required and that they will have to
go all the way to Cloverdale to get back to this subdivision. I guess that’s up to us to put more pressure on ACHD to get that Pine Street extension complete.
Corrie: Isn’t there emergency access there anyway?
Bird: I don’t know if you can go down that road there Mayor. I don’t know if you could in the wintertime or not. You can probably do it now but it’s just a dirt road they used --
if you ran the sewer, it’s just an easement isn’t it? A sewer easement?
Corrie: Okay.
Butler: I’m glad Shari brought that up. We were a little worried about that but we felt that we we’re connecting to the Meridian City limits here so we thought that if it became an
issue later that we could deal with it. I’m glad you’re talking about it now frankly because that was one of the other issues in here that I was crunching my fingernails on.
Bird: I wish the Chief was in here.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: The issue is that basically, the Boise City limits cut half way through there on Driftwood. That access to the south of Pine would actually be in Meridian city limits but
when Pine Avenue is completed then that access will be there. I think that’s what they were probably meaning that they didn’t want to have to go clear around to Cloverdale at such time
after Pine Avenue was completed.
Bird: But they will until Pine is run through Ron.
Anderson: That’s what I’m saying. That’s exactly what I’m saying. When Pine Avenue is completed they wont have to go into Boise City limits.
Unidentified Speaker: I just hope that they can live with this in the mean time. This school is there already so you think they would consider that.
Anderson: If you do it any other way then you’re asking them to construct Pine Street out to Eagle Road.
Bird: Read No. 6 there. An entrance from the Meridian City limits shall be required. If I read that right, if you leave that in there I’m like Shari that says that you’ve got to come
from our City limits.
Anderson: You are right now with that street to the south.
Bird: No you’re not because our City limits don’t start until you get there so you have to go into Boise and then come back to us.
Anderson: Is that school in --
Bird: The school is in ours. That’s right.
Anderson: Then that connects --
Bird: And Pine is there but you go into Boise and then come back to us. That’s the only way you’re going to get access to it anyway until Pine is done.
Anderson: Right.
Bird: We need verification on that though.
Anderson: You go into Boise but that access is in Meridian.
Bird: That’s in the Meridian City limits but you come through Boise to get to it.
Corrie: Yes, but it doesn’t say that.
De Weerd: Not if it says it. The subdivision to the south of it is the City limits though.
Bird: We need to just make sure that’s clarified.
De Weerd: The entrance you go into the City limits.
Bird: Everybody understands that but they don’t meet coming from our City limits through.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: I think we’re trying to do the legal work and we’re not qualified. Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, don’t sell yourself short. The reason these things come up is when you pass a motion that says with staff and agency conditions, we take
those agency sheets and we put them in the findings. That came directly off the sheet from the Police Department. That’s where it comes from.
Corrie: Is that not an entrance from the Meridian City limits?
Nichols: I would say that. I can’t define what the Police Department intended. If they intended that they want to have a direct route and not have to travel outside the City limits
to come back in that’s what they should have said but as I interpret it, there will be an access on Pine from within the City of Meridian into the subdivision even if they have to travel
outside to get to it. That’s just one of those odd things about this in fill development.
Anderson: That’s a temporary situation.
Nichols: Well, we hope.
De Weerd: Well, as defined by ACHD.
Corrie: Okay. Do you want that kept in as it reads?
Bird: It’s a staff recommendation you have to keep it in.
De Weerd: It needs to stay in.
Corrie: Was that your question Shari?
Stiles: I don’t think you have to keep the staff comment as a part of your decision and order. It might be part of the findings but I think that if you need clarification then you
need to clarify it in that decision and order because all of -- there’s the Findings and then the Conclusions and then the Decision and Order. If you decide to remove a decision then
that’s where it would be taken out is either in the Conclusions or the Decision and Order.
Anderson: I guess what we’re saying is its an accurate statement. It doesn’t need to be changed or modified.
Stiles: As long as everybody knows what that means.
Butler: I think the attorney clarified it very well.
Anderson: I think we’re pretty clear on it now on the record here.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Stiles: As long as it gets built within the next year and it’s not something that drags out and gets variances for extending the time. I mean, it could be subject to interpretation
at a later date that’s all I’m worried about.
Butler: I think as an applicant’s representative we’re happy with the attorney’s comments that are on the record. We’ll certainly use those later if we need to.
Stiles: So, on the annexation and zoning it would be Page 4, Item 13 that needs clarification on the access. Page 6, Paragraph 7 and Page 14, Paragraph 7.I think the numbering is a
little --
Butler: Just a little off right there. I think there’s a 7 and 12 or something like that.
Stiles: I don’t know it’s a little. It goes from 7 to 18.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Unidentified Speaker: It probably should have been letters or something. Those are sub numbers under an original number that’s on the previous page.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Councilman Anderson is the language that you suggested -- so we’re all looking in the same place, Page 3 on the variance Paragraph 8. The last phrase, as I understood your
statement was but presently only 60 Building Permits may
be obtained until access both to Cloverdale on the northeast and Pine Street on the south has been made available. Is that your statement?
Anderson: Yes Will corrected me its Pine Avenue, not Street.
Stiles: It depends on what part of town you’re in.
Bird: That wasn’t the way the motion was made on the deal. What if, I realize Pine is already in? What if something happens and they decide to cut that off and they pull through Fairview
first? I believe that we have to word it like Mr. Nichols said where Cloverdale is a primary thing. When Tammy made the motion she understood and we give an either. They can have
more when they either had Pine or Fairview. I think we need to leave the or Fairview in don’t you?
Anderson: No I don’t because the main access -- you’re right probably the majority of the traffic will come off Cloverdale but the main access to this is down there off of Pine Avenue.
As Mark indicated that access to Cloverdale, ACHD has indicated that that may not be a permanent one and they may opt for later on an access to Fairview. I think what I’m hearing tonight
is very clear, they’re going to use Cloverdale and Pine not Fairview at this point because there’s no way they’re going to get access through this property to the north at this time.
So, it would be built through those two accesses.
Bird: I agree but the motion was made that we also have Pine or Fairview and I believe that should be left unless we want to redo. I don’t see any problem with leaving that. I don’t
think you can eliminate Fairview as a second option.
De Weerd: I think the motion was that you had two accesses and there were no specific accesses even mentioned. It was just a notation from the ACHD staff recommendations. I don’t
think you have to name any of them. It just has to have two accesses into that subdivision.
Bird: As long as one of them is in the City limits.
De Weerd: I remember saying two accesses. I don’t believe I said any street names did I?
Corrie: You said Pine and Cloverdale.
De Weerd: Well, that’s where my memory goes. We need the minutes if we want --
Anderson: If you want to clarify it, you could just say presently only 6 Building Permits may be obtained --
De Weerd: 60.
Anderson: 60 until two access points have been made available.
Bird: But then you’ve got to stay within the City limits because your other stuff says that. They could come in and have two by going with the church. Now the church down on the south
boundary has a pretty nice road that comes out from their deal there that these guys could hook to. You could have a circle coming out of Cloverdale. That’s why I feel, and I’m pretty
positive that Tammy specified Pine or Fairview and I think we need to keep that in there. The specification of the roads. If not, I know they won’t but they could do that.
Anderson: (Inaudible) what she wants here then we’re going to write that into it.
Corrie: Do you want to leave Fairview or Pine there and then add the words in addition to Cloverdale?
De Weerd: I believe I just referred -- if the two obvious points of entry were Cloverdale and Pine.
Corrie: Then somebody -- we need to get this thing done. You want to have it Pine and -- until access to Pine and Cloverdale is made available you can that (inaudible).
Bird: Changes. That will have to be changed in everything.
Corrie: Yes, in all three of those, the variance, the annexation and zoning and also the Preliminary Plat.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: This off road is already back to where your property basically starts isn’t it back from the house?
Butler: Yes.
Bird: The south road is?
Butler: Yes it is.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: I can’t see any problem with how it was stated.
Bird: And I can’t see any problem with Fairview or Pine. (Inaudible).
De Weerd: How did you suggest Ron?
Anderson: Just saying what it is that we’re hearing from the developer that those are the two that they’re going to use. Just state that and clarify that. Access from Cloverdale in
the northeast and Pine (inaudible).
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
De Weerd: I wish I had my notes in front of me.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I see where Councilman Anderson’s coming from. You know we passed, and I remember, we passed before the public and this was quite a controversial development and we passed before
the public. Before I would vote to take Fairview or Pine out of there I would want to see how Councilwoman de Weerd’s motion was. When you pass a motion and get the Findings and Facts
and stuff in here, that’s not the time for us to start changing our motion. I don’t see where it hurts to leave Pine or Fairview as a second access. That’s what it was meant as.
Anderson: Because we were confused on the issue. Obviously because its not a choice of Fairview or Pine it’s a choice of Fairview or Cloverdale. Those are the two options to the north.
The one on Pine has always been planned to go in and that’s still going in.
Bird: But the basic of that motion was given that the first road in for this subdivision was the northeast corner off of Cloverdale which is already got the deal. I understand Pine
is but they were not, If I remember right, in their first phase they are not going to even have the road coming down. Am I right? To the Pine exit?
Butler: No, we’re connecting both before we do any Building Permits. We will connect both. We will connect both to the road to Pine and to Cloverdale before we do one Building Permit.
Anderson: Like Tammy said the intent is two accesses.
Bird: That’s right.
Anderson: This will do it. Fairview is not an option.
Bird: Fairview could be an option.
Corrie: I think we discussed that. I would like to entertain a motion here somewhere, either to table this until we look at the minutes of what was actually
said or to make the three changes in the documents to say that presently only 60 Building Permits may be obtained until access to Pine has been made available including Cloverdale, or
however you want to put it.
De Weerd: So, I’m referencing the annexation and zoning Page 14 No. 7 to delete after until and replace it with to continue after until access both to Cloverdale on the northeast and
Pine Avenue on the south has been made available.
Corrie: This is on the annexation and zoning –
***End Of Side Two***
Corrie: Okay. Read that again so we can get it on the record.
Bird: Read that motion again Tammy.
De Weerd: Well, I just passed it to Bill.
Corrie: Will’s going to make the deal. Here it is for the record.
De Weerd: I’m referencing then, yes, for this paragraph. I’ll just read the whole thing okay? The applicant requests the development of 115 building lots and 15 other lots for the
proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision, but presently only 60 Building Permits shall be obtained until access to both Cloverdale on the northeast and Pine on the south has been made available.
Corrie: The vote was for the variance, the Preliminary Plat and the annexation on all three of those items as amended by Mr. Anderson.
Item 7. Tabled from July 3, 2001: FP 01-007 Final Plat approval of 36 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.66 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 2 by Briggs Engineering
– east of South Stoddard and south of West Overland Road:
Corrie: Now, we’re on No. 7? All right, Item No, 7 is tabled from July the 3rd Final Plat approval of 36 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.66 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek
Subdivision No. 2 by Briggs Engineering, east of south Stoddard and south of West Overland Road. Staff, this was tabled. He wants to table it again is this correct? You want to table
again until the -- well we don’t have a meeting the 31st.
Bird: The 7th of August.
Corrie: The 7th of August. Are you the applicant? Who is here from the Final Plat on this Bear Creek Subdivision?
De Weerd: I don’t see anyone.
Corrie: There isn’t anybody here. We got a letter stating they wanted to be placed on the July 31st meeting. We don’t have a meeting. It has to be the 7th of August so I would entertain
a motion to table this until the 7th of August.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table the Final Plat approval of 36 building lots and 2 other lots for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 2 by Briggs Engineering to August 7, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to table Item No. FP 01-007 Bear Creek Subdivision No. 2 Final Plat until August the 7th of this year. Any further discussion?
Watson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: I’m sorry, Gary.
Watson: Mr. Mayor, may I make a comment?
Corrie: Yes sir.
Watson: We’ve run this subdivision through our computer model and we’ve utilized fire hydrant flows on Overland Road for calibration of our computer model. We provided the results
of that analysis to the developers. They don’t believe what we’re telling them. That’s the reason for their request to have this, their subdivisions both 2 and 3 tabled.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Gary, in their letter here they state that they would like to do an on site test and compare the actual numbers to what this computer modeling is. I really support that because
I think all it takes is someone to punch in some wrong numbers or something else. I think its good to verify the actual numbers in that computer modeling so I don’t disagree with what
they’re doing. I would want to actually verify them.
Watson: That’s fine Councilman Anderson. I just wanted to relate to you what we did in order to get to where we are with our analysis. It was based on modeling the flow out of the
fire hydrant at Overland and Stoddard. That was taken the flow from that fire hydrant was plugged into the computer model to calibrate the model. Then Bear Creek Subdivision was modeled
for flow, fire flow and domestic flow based on that actual hydrant flow. We can certainly compare the results of the fire hydrants flow now that it’s active and se how the model reacts
with that.
Corrie: Any other discussion? We have a motion before the Council to table this final plat until August 7, 2001. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Item 8. Public Hearing: VAR 01-009 Request for a variance to reduce the minimum block length in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Staten Park Subdivision by D’Alessio Building Development,
Inc. – southeast corner of North Black Cat Road and West Ustick Road:
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from July 3, 2001: AZ 01-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 8.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Staten Park Subdivision by D’Alessio
Building Development -- southeast corner of North Black Cat Road and West Ustick Road:
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from July 3, 2001: PP 01-012 Request for preliminary plat approval of 23 building lots and 5 other lots on 8.15 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
proposed Staten Park Subdivision by D’Alessio Building Development – southeast corner of North Black Cat Road and West Ustick Road:
Corrie: Okay, Item No. 8, No. 9 and No. 10 has to do with No. 8 for the variance of Staten Park Subdivision. No. 9 is a request for annexation and zoning and No. 10 is a Public Hearing
also, a continuation of the request for Preliminary Plat. With the Council’s approval I will open the Public Hearing on No. 8 and continue the Public Hearing on 9 and 10 and we’ll put
them all together and have public comment on all of those. We will have staff comments first then the developer.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I did have a question on the order of this. Do we consider first the annexation and zoning and then the variance and then the Preliminary Plat?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
De Weerd: Consider the variance before its annexed? Okay.
Corrie: It’s variance and then the annexation and then the Preliminary Plat. That’s right. Okay, Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council the variance is to reduce the minimum block length required. We usually see requests to exceed the maximum but they are proposing a block that’s less
than, I think its 300 is our minimum, 500. 500 is the minimum block length. Staff does support this variance for the block length. You can see on the plat, the proposed plat. It
would be this block right in the center that’s less than 500 feet. I don’t know if there are any of the others that are. That was the reason that they submitted this application for
a variance. You did see this project before, Staten Park Subdivision. The changes that have been made since that time are -- a lot was removed from this area and they made these lots
wider. They also increased the size of this lot, the entrance into the subdivision. They have included not just the pathway to the Eight Mile Lateral but they were also proposing a
common lot and a pathway that would traverse this southern boundary and come back on the easterly boundary back up to the street. Those are the major modifications to the original proposal.
They can expand on any of those that there any in addition to that. That is the project. If you have any questions --
Corrie: Council, any questions for staff at this point.
Anderson: I had one on the fencing on the other proposal they were proposing chain link fence on there. What are they talking about now along the pathway?
Stiles: The applicant has stated that they were proposing a four-foot high solid wood fence.
Corrie: Developer.
D’Alessio: Mayor Corrie, members of the Council my name is Dan D’Alessio. For the record I reside at 6314 North Park Meadow Way in West Boise. I am the applicant for the proposed
Staten Park Subdivision. Just a quick overview. Staten Park will be a small high end in fill subdivision. Our application meets and exceeds the requirements of the City of Meridian
and the State Tax Commission. This parcel is contiguous with existing City limits. Our request for R-4 zoning is compatible with adjacent properties and with the Comprehensive Land
Use designation of single-family residential. This parcel is within the Urban Service Planning Area and essential City services are already available. We’ve applied for a waiver for
the portion of Block 2. That is less than the required 500-foot minimum. This is required because the entire parcel is only 536 feet. In
consideration of the minimum 50-foot roadway, any east-west street could only be less than 500-foot. Irrigation water, we will be tied into Wilkins’s Ranch Irrigation System owned and
maintained by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The 12-foot offset at Campfire and Morning Star is within the 18 feet allowed by the ACHD and the ACHD has made no objections.
There’s been no opposition to Staten Park from any of the City agencies or the surrounding neighbors. Staten Park was brought before this Council last February 20th. Some of the Council
Members expressed concerns about a missed opportunity to create higher end subdivision. In effort to accommodate these Council’s suggestions, the following upgrades have been made to
the original plat. As Shari had mentioned, along the northern border (inaudible) and we’ve increased those lots along Ustick from 8,000 to 8500 square feet. That’s lot 3, 4, 5, and
6. Along the eastern border of the property, we completely eliminated one lot increasing those lots from 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. The minimum house sizes have been
increased from 1450 to 2100 square feet with the exception of the 4 lots along Ustick Road. They will have 1600 square-foot minimums, so far above the City and surrounding subdivision
minimums. Along the southern border of the property and adjacent to the Eight Mile Lateral, we will be installing over 1,000 feet of asphalt paved walking path. This path will be five
feet wide with an additional foot and a half of landscaping on each side. There will be a 4-foot high solid wood fence, neighbor friendly fence by the way on the south side of the pathway
between the Eight Mile Lateral. As you can see on this plat, a typical crosswalk section will have stamped concrete brick paving. These changes were made in an effort to assure this
Council of a high end in fill sub that will be a far better use of land for the City of Meridian than was previously submitted. If you have any questions, shoot.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of Council something for Mr. D’Alessio in the file. On the fence you’ve asked for an extension in the latticework. Do you want to review that with the
Council so that when they -- well if they move to approve this I need some clarification on that issue.
D’Alessio: This is a 4-foot solid wood fence. I feel that they should, these lots along here, should be able to have a 6-foot fence for privacy whether it be a 2-foot lattice addition
which is the staff has recommended or a solid 6-foot fence.
Anderson: So, what are you asking? You’re wanting people to be able to put a 6-foot fence?
D’Alessio: These people should be able to have a 6-foot fence whether it be a solid 4-foot fence, 2-foot lattice –
Anderson: At the top so you can see through it.
D’Alessio: Right, just so they can have privacy. I feel that a 4-foot fence along here, especially (inaudible) really hurt those lots. So, this should really (inaudible).
Anderson: Is there a fence on both sides of that pathway? Is that what you’re showing there in that drawing?
D’Alessio: This here would be the fence along the back boundary of this property. Then you’ll have a walking path and then there will be a small 4-foot fence between the water and
the walking path. 4-foot wood fence solid.
Anderson: So, you’d have a fence on each of the pathway?
D’Alessio: Right.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari, what -- in the new Landscaping Ordinance -- I believe there’s some pathway standards. It really limits the 6-foot fence and that’s probably why they went to the 4-foot
but it didn’t talk about any extensions on top of that does it? It has to be a see through fence now that’s how I remember it. That’s why I’m asking.
Stiles: I couldn’t tell you what it says exactly. The reason for – some kind of visibility back there otherwise it just becomes a place for crime. Even if there’s not maybe somebody
in the backyard directly looking through if there’s a perception that somebody can see them the chances are less that they are going to be doing some illegal activity. So, the idea
is to have any pathways visible.
D’Alessio: Just to make something clear. This is the 4-foot fence. That’s the fence between the waterway and the path.
De Weerd: Right.
D’Alessio: It’s the property line fence. I feel that they should be able to have a 6-foot height even if that last two feet is latticing some kind of privacy along those lots.
De Weerd: It depends on what kind of lattice if you can see through it or not.
Anderson: The other problem with lattice is people (inaudible) plant vining type of plant to kind of fill in that lattice then it does obscure it. In a sense you have the type of 6-foot
solid fence. I guess I need to know what our City Ordinance says to know whether, on pathways and fencing to know whether what you’re asking for is against our Ordinance or not.
D’Alessio: If it comes down to it, if it’s a 4-foot fence or nothing, I’ll take a 4-foot fence.
De Weerd: Well, we could probably leave that point to work out with staff. It’s either a 4-foot fence, or –
Anderson: If our Ordinance allows a 6-foot –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: I appreciate the redesign work that you’ve done on this and dropping some of the lots and taking this to a little higher scale and upping the minimum square footages and things
like that. I just wanted to commend you on doing that.
D’Alessio: Thank you.
Anderson: I wish more developers would take a look at what you’re doing. I don’t think you’ll have too much problem selling these --
D’Alessio: I don’t think so.
Anderson: -- these lots with what you’ve done to it.
D’Alessio: We’ve already got four builders ready to go.
De Weerd: Great. I share those sentiments.
D’Alessio: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Anything else?
D’Alessio: Not if you don’t have any questions.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
D’Alessio: Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone from the audience who would like to issue testimony on these three requests? Hearing none and seeing none, Council, anything you want to ask on the record for Public
Hearing?
Bird: I have nothing.
Anderson: I have nothing.
Corrie: If not, I’d entertain a motion to, put that back on –
Anderson: I make a motion you put your cozy thing back on.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: It’s been a long day. Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we close all three Public Hearings for Staten Park Subdivision Items 8, 9, and 10.
Bird: I will second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing and the Continued Public Hearing on Items 8, 9, and 10 of Staten Park Subdivision. Any further discussion?
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Okay. Discussion on the variance?
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion then if there’s no other further discussion on the request for variance to reduce the minimum block length.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for variance to reduce the minimum block length in the proposed Staten Park Subdivision, to have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law drawn up.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the variance to reduce the minimum block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Staten Park Subdivision and for the attorney to draw
up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, absent; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Any further discussion on the request for annexation and zoning?
De Weerd: No.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on that request.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 8.15 acres from RTU to R-4 for the proposed Staten Park Subdivision, to include all staff comments and to have the
attorney draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and decision of order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay, Motion made and seconded to approve the request for annexation and zoning on AZ 01-009 and to include staff comments and for the Attorney to draw up Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, absent; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Any other discussion on the request for Preliminary Plat? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the Preliminary Plat.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 23 building lots and 5 other lots on 8.15 acres to include the condition that the applicant work with staff
on a fence that is acceptable in our current Ordinance for pathways on the property line side of the path to include all staff comments and ask that the city Attorney draw up the Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to approve the request for Preliminary Plat 01-012 and have the applicant work with the staff on the fencing of the pathway. Also to include
all staff comments and the Attorney to draw up the proper Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the request for the preliminary plat. Any other comments? Roll call vote please
Mr. Berg.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, absent; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’d move that we have a 10-minute recess.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Come back and do 11, 12 and 13.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Okay.
Reconvened At 8:59 P.M.
Item 11. Public Hearing : AZ 01-008 Request for Annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development,
Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road:
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 01-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 10 building lots and 3 other lots on 12.71 acres in proposed C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place
Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road:
Item 13. Public Hearing: CUP 01-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for mixed use Residential/Commercial in proposed C-G and R-40 zones for proposed
Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: I’ll open the meeting back from the recess. Items No, 11, 12 and 13 are Public Hearings for Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. The first Public Hearing is
a request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R-1 to RUT to C-G and R-40 zone. Item 12 is a Public Hearing request for Preliminary Plat for 10 building lots and 3 other lots
on 12.71 acres and 13 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for mixed-use residential/commercial in proposed C-G and R-40 zones for the Baltic Place
Subdivision. At this time I will open all three Public Hearings, 11, 12, and 13. We will have staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the property immediately west of the Stonebridge Subdivision, the industrial subdivision that was developed by John Barnes. To the west
of the property is the Meridian Cemetery. On the south is the Hunter Lateral. This would be where the new police station would be constructed. On the recommendations to the City Council,
I did a position statement. It has Steve’s name on it but that was because he had made those comments to me before he left on vacation. The applicant has submitted a response to the
recommendations. Staff’s initial conditions were since this was in a planned development area in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan that all uses had to be developed under the Conditional
Use Process. The Planning and Zoning Commission made their recommendation on the annexation and zoning that on Page 3 Items 3 A through K would require a Conditional Use. These are
items that currently permitted uses in the C-G zone. I would like to add to those Conditional Uses, indoor and outdoor entertainment centers and Planned Commercial Development because
of the definition that we have for Planned Commercial Development is so vague that it could be practically anything. The indoor and outdoor entertainment centers just because of the
volume of traffic that could be generated by something like that we would like to do that under the Conditional Use Process. They’re proposing commercial lots fronting on Franklin Road.
All of these lots would be in the proposed C-G zone. The recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission was that they allow a 5-foot buffer in lieu of the 20 or 25-foot buffer
on the east side and also on the west side where the R-40 zone is and that a 10-foot is still required on the commercial property. The Hunter Lateral, it’s a strange configuration because
this for some reason this piece all of this Hunter Lateral is owned by the Meridian Cemetery. They are proposing to try to make some kind of amenity, a visual amenity for the subdivision
adjacent to that. It is a nice area, has been used for walking for some time. I see we have a representative from the Cemetery Board here. Hopefully he will have some comments regarding
that. The applicant’s understanding that the recommendation that the Hunter Lateral could remain
untiled and fenced with chain link if the Council grants a waiver to the tiling requirement and that the applicant obtain approval from the irrigation allowing rehabilitation of the
north side of the canal within the easement to provide a visual amenity for the apartments. This is the site plan. I would also like to clarify that staff only supports the reduction
of the buffer requirement on the east and west side if these garages remain exactly as they are shown in this plan and this not be turned into open parking are or carports of some type.
This is proposed as a public street at this time? Private? The road coming into the development from Franklin is proposed to be a private street. That would need to be approved as
part of this development so these lots would not actually have frontage on a public street but they would have private road access if that is your recommendation and decision. The applicant
has indicated they do have a letter from the property owner here. This is currently zoned residential in the County. They are operating it as some kind of a group home, I’m not sure
what they call it. Some kind of Rehab Center yes.
Corrie: Is the Chief here tonight?
De Weerd: They have a letter stating what?
Stiles: A letter from the neighboring property owner that they support this current site plan and that they are not requesting additional buffering beyond the 10 feet that was recommended
by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Shari, I have a question. Since that’s a private road coming in from Franklin, is that whole thing private roads inside too?
Stiles: Yes, it would all be private. There’s an existing access coming from the Stonebridge Subdivision. They would continue that access, I believe is the -- they would allow that
access. Otherwise they would have had to create some kind of a permanent turn around here because they don’t have one in this subdivision. They would connect through so people could
access through the subdivision if they desire too so there would be more than one access into the development. They are proposing to have (inaudible). 228 apartments are proposed in
this development. They are proposing some amenities. They meet the 10 percent open space requirement, meet or exceed. Staff would recommend approval with all staff and agency conditions
as amended.
Corrie: Okay, Shawn.
Nickel: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. Shawn Nickel of Land Consultants Incorporated, 52 Second Street in Eagle. I just handed out a copy of the letter from the neighbor
to the west that Shari mentioned approving our site plan as we have proposed. To answer, I guess to answer Shari’s question, yes,
the road off of Franklin will be a private road. That was at the recommendation of the Highway District. They didn’t want such a small public stubbed road into the subdivision. They
prefer it to be private. The parking areas within the commercial and also the apartments will also be private driveways. The turn around that’s coming out of Medimont Subdivision,
we are going to have an improved turn around that will be on public right-of-way but everything else will be private within the development. Just for clarification it is a 228 unit
apartment complex, 19 buildings in all on the apartments and there’s also a clubhouse proposed. Also we’re asking for the approval of the C-G zoning. I like coming up here when I don’t
have anything to really argue about with staff’s recommendation. The only thing I would like to discuss with you this evening is the Hunter Lateral. Everything else Shari has worked
out with us and we also worked it out with your Planning and Zoning Commission. The Hunter Lateral, what we understood coming out of the Planning and Zoning Commission is that they
would recommend a waiver to the City Council provided that we did get approval from the Irrigation District to go in and rehabilitate the northern portion of that canal. Clean it up
and make it more of a visual amenity. We would be in favor of having access to it if a pathway was proposed. At this time we want to have a solid chain link fence on the easement line
to that canal for safety reasons although we would be willing to work with the City and the Parks Department if in the future they did want a pathway along that. At this time we would
like to keep it open, fence it with the chain link fence, go in and rehabilitate it with the permission of the Irrigation District and keep it that way. I’ll stand for any other questions.
Everything else looks great on the recommendations.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Is there a reason why you put a multi-family next to a cemetery? It just looks like a great green playground for kids in a multi-family apartments to go and play in. I just
kind of wonder why this particular use is considered?
Nickel: Your Comp Plan does designate this is a multiple use designation. As far as keeping people out of the cemetery, we are proposing fencing completely around our development.
If the –
De Weerd: I know and I was a kid once and I loved to climb fences too.
Nickel: I guess after that when we’re kids we’ll get into anywhere with regards to how large fences are. It’s a compatible use with a cemetery and a higher density dwelling. You’re
not going to have any opposition from anyone in the cemetery. There is someone here from the Cemetery Board. I don’t believe they’re in opposition to the uses. It’s going to be a
nice quality development.
De Weerd: I guess I have a question for Ron. Where was the light supposed to go for the Fire Station? Is this on property that’s --
Anderson: That’s one of my concerns is the amount of traffic that this is going to generate. Obviously in the report here from ACHD they talked about that it’s in their 5-year work
plan and they have Franklin Road scheduled to be widened to 5 lanes in 2003. At a meeting the other day when we met with them, they talked about that possibly could be bumped back a
year at this point until maybe 2004. One of the things that we’ve been talking to them about is where Stratford comes into Franklin up there is signalization there and with our Fire
Station sitting just a little it to the west of that, is having a stoplight that will actually stop the traffic that’s west bound back in front of the Fire Station prior to the entrance.
It’s not likely in my mind that ACHD is going to want to put in another stoplight at Baltic that close to the one at Stratford. I see approving an apartment complex here and with the
1,700 trips a day I think that it indicated in your traffic study that that would cause that that’s all going to be done just by stop signs. They did recommend putting in a right and
left hand turn lane in the center. There wouldn’t be any possibility for a stop light there in the future. That’s going to be a lot of traffic going in and out of the area. I did
have some concerns about that.
Nickel: Councilman Anderson, is that going to be a full stoplight or just when there’s an emergency?
Anderson: It’ll be a full stop light that will be tied into that intersection at Stratford but it will also operate on the emergencies when the trucks are leaving.
Bird: Shari, show where the eastbound, right where the arrow is, is going to be the light as we understand it. If they get some ground from the cemetery and the other one’s coming
back here.
Anderson: Just about on the property line of the Fire Station.
Bird: The other one’s coming back there by the Fire Station and that would control the westbound. That stoplight would definitely help in and out traffic for your place. Would your
developer be interested in helping put those lights up financially?
Nickel: Are you talking about the one on Stratford or --
Bird: You’re not going to get any other lights. The one on Stratford and the one back on Franklin Road. We’ve got to have one. What did they tell us Ron, 100 feet or so east of the
Fire Station would be the one that stops the westbound and then the east bound? The light for it would be right there on the southeast corner of Stratford and Franklin but, if we’re
stopping the traffic there, it definitely would help get in and out of your area or Baltic across there too by stopping the traffic. It would definitely help going east.
Anderson: What’s the phasing of your development?
Nickel: Mr. Centers could probably explain that a little bit better than I can if he wants to come up in a minute. To address Councilman Bird, do you feel that by donating or giving
some money to that fund for the streetlight that that would prompt it to happen sooner? Is it something that’s already funded for?
Bird: I think it would help definitely move it forward faster. I think it would -- I think it not only would benefit -- I think it would be beneficial to your development too by having
a stop light even though it is a quarter mile away from your entrance –
Nickel: To create a gap.
Bird: I believe it would at least do some stoppage of traffic there. I’ve got some concerns I’m like Ron. When you turn that many more car trips on there -- if we don’t get some lights
in there I’m afraid we’re going to have a major crash with our trucks coming out, our fire trucks coming out onto the road if we don’t have a stop light. I guess it maybe it takes
a couple three of them to get ACHD jumped ahead.
Nickel: I don’t even think it does that.
De Weerd: We don’t want to sacrifice –
Bird: We don’t want to sacrifice our citizens or our trucks or our firemen.
Nickel: I agree.
Bird: Anything that -- yes, sure if we went in -- if we could help put it up, they have a real hard problem thinking they wont have to do it again. That’s been surveyed and they’ve
got the right-of-way, especially down the south side of the road. It would just be a matter of getting some easement from the Cemetery District to put that one there. They’ve already
got the easement over on the north side. Yes, financially would definitely help us move it ahead.
Nickel: Two things to point out to Mr. Mayor, or Council Member. Just to point out that we do have the second access off of is it (inaudible) right there. I don’t know if by creating
more traffic on, what is this street coming up from Medimont? If that would be a more appropriate location for a future stoplight. That a good number of the patrons from the apartments
would use that. Also to point out that because of the commercial uses in the front, they will be paying -- I don’t want to say an increased impact fee. The Highway District really
gets a good impact fee from the square footage of those commercial buildings up there. As far as asking the developer he can come up and talk to you in a moment and talk to you about
the phasing and just see if that’s something that he would be interested in donating to the funds.
Bird: I think you can, if I remember right, the Council and the Mayor can correct me if I’m wrong but as I understand it, once those lights go in the only other lights you’re going
to get is the existing one down there on Nola.
Anderson: That’s going to move to Locust Grove when they realign that.
Bird: They said they weren’t moving. They’ve got the one existing right now.
Corrie: Yes, but they’re going to move Locust Grove and have it right there.
Bird: They’re going to have two right there bang bang?
Anderson: No, they’ll move that stuff at Nola.
Corrie: That’s what they said. That’s the way I understood it. You and I could be wrong too.
Anderson: That’s not a permanent light because when they widen that to 5 five lanes, they’re going to have to move that.
Bird: That’s an awful nice setup for a temporary set of lights.
Anderson: Yes it is.
Bird: That is boy I’ll tell you.
Corrie: (Inaudible) excess spending.
Bird: Then we have to pay for it.
Nickel: Now, of course this is today. Tomorrow everything’s subject to change again from the Highway District (inaudible).
Bird: You got that right.
Nickel: Any other questions?
Bird: I just threw that out Shawn because I believe that that light at Stratford would be beneficial to your development too.
Nickel: And I don’t disagree with that at all, Council Member.
Anderson: The other comment I had was, I guess I’m kind of like Tammy putting an apartment unit -- I’m assuming that you’re going to allow children there, just like Rose Hill Cemetery
in Boise, the vandalism to the headstones and things like that. I mean it’s inevitable that kids are going to go over there and play and they’re going to sneak over there after dark.
They don’t have to climb the fence when they can go out through the front there. I can just see an increase in vandalism in the cemetery and all that associated with putting a project
like this that close to it.
Nickel: I would like to get the input from the Cemetery Board and see if that’s a concern of theirs. We would definitely want to work something out with them and make sure that everyone
is comfortable with that, these two uses being compatible.
Anderson: They’ve been trying to track that problem in Boise for years, maybe there can be some surveillance cameras or something as part of this so they can track down who does it
and go after the responsible parties.
Nickel: Absolutely.
Corrie: Would you like to have Mr. Centers come up?
Nickel: Yes, if he could.
Corrie: As part of your presentation?
Nickel: Yes, please. Thank you.
Centers: Lee Centers, 32 –
***End Of Side Three***
Centers: I think this is a great place for apartments.
Anderson: The neighbors aren’t going to complain much about the noise?
Centers: I wasn’t going to say that. You’ve got 5 10,000 workforce within just a couple miles of this place. This is a great way to reduce traffic and jumping on the interstate and
going either to work or to where they live. It’s affordable housing. I would point out that they’re going to realign Locust Grove. It does go over the freeway. They are going to
move that light there. The majority of these people that have any trouble getting out are going to go out through Kalispell.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Centers: This road here is going to go back out on Locust Grove. At that point they can go over the freeway or they can go down and catch the light and get out. I mean it’s a great
connection.
Bird: That’s true Lee, but at the same token, when is that going to be done? We happen to own the property and this is unplatted there. I don’t know, I know they’ve got to put the
road up through and through our property but I don’t know when its going to go over to Locust Grove. Of course the overpass now, they’ve g to federal money in it, it’s been set back
a year or two.
Centers: Isn’t this Murdoch’s? I think they’ve already gone through the process haven’t they?
Corrie: I think, correct me if I’m wrong, Keith but you’re talking about the street that comes down is it going to come down at that point. We’re going to have Watertower go through
there to Locust Grove.
Bird: (Inaudible) Watertower through or does it just goes to our property?
Corrie: It’ll go all the way through.
Bird: He’s going all the way through to Locust? Okay, is Murdoch coming down?
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: Is it coming? It hasn’t come through yet.
De Weerd: When?
Bird: It hasn’t been platted to come through yet has it?
Watson: Yes, I have the final plat on my desk for Murdoch No. 2.
Bird: Oh, okay.
Watson: It connects to Medimont and it also connects to Locust Grove.
Bird: Okay. I’m sorry Mr. Centers. I was wrong.
Centers: The idea of the garages was to create a sight and sound barrier here and here. It’s kind of unusual that you’ve got industrial and then the cemetery. But, we just felt like
that was the best buffers that we could come up with. You’ve got all those businesses. I mean we’re less than a mile from Jabil. You’ve got the Home Depots and Wincos and this place
is just going to explode with business opportunities. I think it’s just great to have them reduce that traffic and be close to where you’re working.
Anderson: How about the phasing of the project?
Centers: The light office would be -- as soon as we get our approvals we’ll start the infrastructure of that and build that in kind of a development driven thing as we get interest
in that. The apartments, when we feel like that that’s, there’s a few of them in the works and we don’t want to over saturate the market. As soon as we feel like we’ve got a good shot
at it then we’ll go for it. This would all be, this could be all built at one time. It depends on the market.
Bird: Could your commercial expand and less apartment places? If the market –
Centers: What did you say?
Bird: Could, if your commercial end up or the light office or whatever you want to call it. If it goes and your apartments don’t go would you expand your commercial and make it a more
commercial development and less apartments?
Centers: It could.
De Weerd: He would have to come in and change the –
Bird: I know he’d have to come in and change. What, as I ask Shawn, what is your thinking on maybe participating as a – with some money if we could get those stoplights up?
Centers: I would rather not and it’s because of the impact fees. You can’t believe trying to get a Building Permit and what it costs.
Bird: I know.
Centers: And we’ve got to participate in this and participate in that. You know it just gets to the point where this is going to have an elaborate tot lot, an elaborate clubhouse for
the people. There’s like, what is it 15 percent open space? We far exceed the 10 percent.
Bird: It has nothing to do with your development. I’m just asking anybody along there if they would like to help participate with our stoplight before we get somebody killed.
Centers: I have another way to help out with the Fire Department other than this one.
De Weerd: What do you mean by that?
Centers: I just would rather help out with another Fire Station.
Bird: Another location?
Centers: Pardon?
Bird: At another location, you mean?
Centers: It’s a different location yes.
Anderson: So, if I get your answer straight on the phasing is it all depends on the market?
Centers: Yes.
Anderson: That’s helpful. You ought to run for Political Office.
Corrie: I take that as a no? Okay Lee Anything else?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. We have two other people signed up to speak the Public Hearing, Kevin Abernathy the Meridian Cemetery and then Burton Roberts. Name and address please.
Abernathy: My name is Kevin Abernathy, 2310 West Saddlewood. I am the Chairman of the Meridian Cemetery Maintenance District. I’m here tonight to speak to you of course about the
Baltic Place Development. We’ll say that when we first saw the site plans for this development, I was really concerned. When I saw that we were going to have residential dwellings
in the area especially so many people, individuals in that area. After looking a little closer at the site plan and understanding how they had it laid out I do believe the developer
did make a great deal of effort to try to minimize the impact upon the cemetery with the placement of the garages and the location of the actual dwellings themselves. They are located
quite some distance from the actual property line. I think the Commissioners had some very valid comments regarding the increase vandalism in the cemetery. We’ve been very fortunate
over the years. We’ve never had an incident of vandalism at the cemetery with headstones turned over. I guess our feeling is we probably would be less concerned with vandalism and
more concerned with injury to a small child that may get into the cemetery. We have headstones in the cemetery that are very old and very much in a state of disrepair. It would only
take a child backing up against those and the whole thing would topple over on them. We also have of course the concern with the ditch in the area there. The ditch itself has always
been an amenity for the cemetery. Many of our patrons who come to the cemetery really like the fact that we have that running water. If you go and look at that, you’ll see that the
ditch in the cemetery itself has actually been improved with rock lining and its not quite as
wild as it is back on that southern portion of the property. With regards to what you would expect from the developer on that southern portion along the ditch. As we understand it
the Irrigation District has a setback on each side of that ditch of 15 feet. I don’t know exactly what the Council’s recommendation was going to be or what the Planning and Zoning’s
recommendation was for the maintenance of that property. If I understand it correctly it would involve the people in the development there to actually come onto our property and maintain
some sort of grass and landscaping in that area I assume. I think just in discussion with Pastor Bert Roberts, my fellow Commissioner who is also here this evening we felt that we could
actually go almost anyway that the district, excuse the Commission wanted to recommend on that. I will point out however that if you do force the developer to tile the lateral there,
you’ll still have the portion going through the cemetery which is quite a long distance that will not be tiled. So, I don’t know how much you actually mitigate the danger to kids.
Which brings me to the other portion of the development where our concern lies is on the western side of their property there which abuts ours. We read the transcript of the P&Z hearings
and it was a little unclear to us what the final recommendations were that came out of that hearing. Tonight we had a conversation with the developer just prior to the testimony. They
had some interesting proposals. I will say that we have not actually talked. This is the first time we’ve had discussions with the developer on this so we have not reached any consensus
on what we would like to see along that property line. Initially, our thoughts were that we would like to see a minimum 5-foot setback along with at least a 6-foot chain link fence
along there with the vinyl slats to provide some privacy for their development as well as for our cemetery patrons. One of the concerns that we have with having that many people located
in that area, this is going to be an area that people are going to be living. They’re going to be having volleyball matches. They’re going to be out washing their cars. Radios are
going to be going. You’re going to be hearing the cars coming and going. That is a little bit of an impact. Certainly it is an impact on our cemetery so we would like to see some
sort of sound barrier put in place. We, I guess weren’t fully convinced that the garages would provide enough of a sound barrier. We are pleased that there is the great deal of setback
between the dwellings and the garages. That certainly helps. We would also request that the developer consider putting in trees along that west property line there to help. As the
trees mature, not only block the view but also mitigate the noise that comes over from that area. I would point out that I don’t think that request is unreasonable. We had a similar
development on the south side, the Howell Development where we worked out the same sort of arrangements. They set aside funds for trees and we provide the irrigation for the trees and
we actually do the maintenance of those along that property. I think that’s all that I have at this time.
Corrie: Thank you Kevin, we appreciate it. Mr. Roberts?
Roberts: I think (inaudible).
Corrie: Has he? All right, thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I’m a little concerned that this developer hasn’t talked to the neighbors to the west yet. So, I would be in favor of continuing this so that they can have those
discussions to address some of the issues with the setback and fencing and landscaping. I guess I also have concern of the number of traffic. With the lack of the light on Stratford
and having no knowledge of the phasing plan of that, traffic is a concern with that number coming out. I see that the light would have helped mitigate some of that but maybe we could
put a condition on that the apartment development cant happen until the road improvements come in or until the light goes or something. I guess that is a concern of mine too. My biggest
concern is they should be talking to the neighbors and work out these issue and it shouldn’t happen tonight.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’ve got a question for Shari. Today, we got the (inaudible) from Shawn the reply on the recommendations of the annexation and zoning that we had given. I’ve got a question
Shari. Have you had a chance to read it?
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: Item No, 3 for clarification, applicant would like this paragraph to further state that all remaining principle permitted uses listed under the C-G zoning designation and Zoning
Ordinances be allowed without Conditional Use approval. Do you agree with that? What is the deal on that?
Stiles: I would agree if we add indoor and outdoor entertainment facilities and planned commercial developments to the list of required Conditional Uses.
Corrie: Comments, questions?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: I guess, applicant, do you have anything that, rebuttal or anything you want to answer this questions?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Nickel: Mr. Mayor and Council. Shawn Nickel again, real quick, yes this is the first we’ve talked to the cemetery group. They were notified of the previous meetings. We did not have
a neighborhood meeting. We talked to them just before. I think we can, as a matter fact we will work out any issues they may have. Their concerns were regarding fencing and landscaping
along that western boundary. I was just talking with Mr. Centers and we would agree to either provide them with trees of their choice that they could plant, or that we would help them
plant along their boundary or we could go in and we could do that as part of our Landscaping Plan and provide trees. It’s just something that we would like to work out with them because
they’re the ones that are going to be benefiting from the trees more so than our development. It’s more appropriate for them to kind of help us do a Landscape Plan along that side but
we would agree to the 5-foot setback and the chainlink fence with the slats and then some additional trees for some additional buffers and sound barriers. As far as the Hunter Lateral,
as he stated, the Hunter lateral along their property is not currently tiled nor is it going to be tiled where the new police station is I believe. The 15-foot easement is actually
on our property and that’s the portion that we’re proposing that we would rehabilitate and maintain with the approval of the Irrigation District. So, we wouldn’t actually be going on
the church’s property to maintain that Irrigation Easement. It would be the Irrigation Easement that would be on Mr. Centers' property which is about 15 feet. As far as the uses, yes,
we agree with Shari. That’s fine if she wants to add those to the list of uses. All we’re stating is that if there are uses that are principally permitted within the C-G zone, we would
like to keep those as principle permitted uses. Then we’ve agreed to that list to bump those up to Conditional Use Permit for future review by the P&Z and the Council. If you do decide
to postpone this, we would like to move forward. We believe that we can work everything out with the Cemetery Board but if you decide to postpone us or table us for additional meetings
could you please state any additional concerns you may have so we may address those for you at the next meeting? Tammy did state some of her concerns which I appreciate but if anyone
else has any concerns that we can address that would be really appreciated also. Do you have any questions for me?
Anderson: It isn’t a question. It is just a statement. I disagreed with your statement that you made about the landscaping and the trees would benefit the cemetery more than you and
that they should participate. I mean, they are an existing business that’s there. The trees would be a buffering for the noise and stuff that would be coming from your development
so I guess I disagree that those trees would be there to benefit them. They would be there so that your project would be compatible with the existing –
Nickels: I agree with that. When I said participate, I wasn’t meaning that they would be responsible for any of the cost of those. All I meant was that we’re going to have garages
along our side. We’re impacting them. I would rather beautify their site than -- we’re not going to have any benefit from the trees. I still
think that they would have more benefit. It wasn’t a really negative comment. It was just that we would like to work with them as much as possible.
Corrie: I had a question, Shari. The garages along there, the back of the garage to their property line is how many feet?
Stiles: Five.
Corrie: You’re not going to have trees back there to fit at 5-foot.
Stiles: Not on their property.
Corrie: Not on their property. Now, if the cemetery wants to put the trees along their property they can work that out but you don’t have enough room.
Anderson: That was a question that I had with the other development that went to the south of you guys. Were those trees put in on your property too?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: That was put on your property? Do you want these trees on your property? Then you’ll be watering and cutting and taking care of the trees? Okay. I didn’t think there was
going to be enough room on that side, 5 feet from the garages (inaudible).
Nickels: Yes, Mayor. We would rather have that than the fence and kind of have a 5-foot no mans land that we would have to maintain. We propose to them to actually, either way we
could bump up our fence to be flush with the garages and then provide the landscaping. They could maintain it with an agreement or however they would want to see that.
Corrie: How are you going to maintain that 5 feet between the garage and the fence? What was the plan on that?
Nickels: Originally what I was thinking about doing is actually having the fence 5 -foot off the property line as well. Have it flush with the garages. Actually have the fence all
the way along this. It would actually abut the garages, go through here and then have a Landscape Agreement with the cemetery. We would provide landscaping and they could maintain
it. We would either do grass and then some trees so that when they’re mowing their lawns they could just mow right up to the fences. That was kind of my vision on that.
Bird: You actually use the garages as part of the fence. You’d just go between the –
Nickels: Exactly.
Bird: That’s a good idea.
De Weerd: Now, are you stubbing out to the west? Oh, you have it different –
Nickels: Is that upside down? I’m sorry.
De Weerd: I thought what are you stubbing to the cemetery for?
Nickels: There wont be any future development out there.
De Weerd: We’ve been here all day.
Nickels: I know. I’m sorry.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Nickels: Thank you.
Corrie: Motions?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: I guess we can either close the Public Hearing, we can continue the Public Hearing for more information. If you think you have enough information you can close it.
Anderson: My. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I still have a concern kind of like Tammy was talking about that until we know for sure when Franklin’s going to be widened and we have concrete time frame from ACHD,
I’m reluctant to dump more traffic onto that two lane road at this point. Since Mr. Centers couldn’t give me any phasing time frames I guess I’m kind of like her. I mean I’m thinking
that maybe we approve this in phases, that the front part being the business part of that or the commercial part that we approve that and until such time as the road is widened to five
lanes that they not be permitted to take out Building Permits on the apartment units.
Corrie: Other comments on that?
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: No other comments? Then I guess go back to the original –
Anderson: (Inaudible) has a comment now.
Corrie: Okay. Come up, it’ll be fine. We’re still on the Public Hearing.
Nickels: Mr. Mayor and Council, just to point that the Highway District has approved the traffic counts as Franklin Road exists today before they even expand the lanes or add new lanes.
If you are leaning towards that you might want to table us, let us come back with a better phasing plan as opposed to just flat out giving us a phasing plan. We would rather look at
it, talk to the Highway District again, find out their time frame and then maybe coming back to you with a phasing plan that might be more appropriate for both of us.
Anderson: Maybe you can clarify for me. When I read the comments of ACHD, even if they approved it they did say that it would change the level of service which to me means that obviously
its going to be a worse level of service if we dump all that traffic on there. Even if it is approved, it does change the level of service there.
Nickels: Right and I would hope that that change in level of service would actually at least keep it as current, 2003 or bump it up. That’s something that I could find out from the
Highway District. See if they included that within their bumping it back from 2003. Maybe adding this traffic, changing the level of service, maybe they will keep it on schedule for
2003 or maybe even bring it -- I don’t know, I can’t answer that.
Anderson: I guess it’s been my experience that just changing the level of service doesn’t speed up (inaudible). I mean, it’s the funding for them that’s the key thing.
Nickels: Thank you.
De Weerd: Well, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Then I would move to continue Items 11, 12, and 13 Public Hearing request for annexation and zoning of Baltic Place, request for Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
until August 7, 2001.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion been made and second to continue the Public Hearing on Items 11, 12, and 13 on Baltic Place Subdivision until August 7, 2001. Any further comments, discussions?
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 14. FP 01-011 Request for Final Plat approval of 43 building lots and 5 other lots on 15.87 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 3 by Briggs Engineering – east of
Stoddard and south of Overland:
Corrie: Okay. Item 14 request for a Final Plat for Bear Creek Subdivision. They’ve made a request to table that until August 7th of 2001 so I will entertain a motion to table it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table the request for Final Plat approval on 43 building lots and 5 other lots on 15.87 acres in R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 3 by Briggs Engineering
to August 7, 2001.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to table Item No. 14 until August 7, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 15. TE 01-006 Request for a Time Extension for Final Plat approved on July 18, 2001 for Heron Brook Townhomes by Pinnacle Engineers – northeast corner of Meridian Road and Blue
Heron Lane:
Corrie: Okay. Item No, 15 is a request for Time Extension of Final Plat approved on July the 18th for Heron Brook Townhomes by Pinnacle Engineering, northeast corner of Meridian Road
and Blue Heron Lane. Staff comments for the extension? The applicant isn’t here. What is the staff’s comment on this one?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. They are nearly ready to record the plat but they would not get it recorded by the deadline. That’s why they’ve requested the extension. They are ready
to submit for Building Permits and have made a lot of progress from where they originally started. Gary had looked at the plat, had to send it back for some changes and believes he
may be able to sign it tomorrow. It’ll probably be 6 weeks or so before it can be recorded.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: So, I assume this was approved in 2000, not 2001 which is tomorrow.
Bird: Yes. We have the date stated here we haven’t even gotten there yet. Well, we will be in about two hours and (inaudible).
Stiles: Yes, it would have been 2000.
De Weerd: Okay, so a six month extension, or two months?
Stiles: Six months should be fine.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for Time Extension for Final Plat for Heron Brook Townhomes to let see –
Stiles: January?
De Weerd: -- January 18, 2002.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the extension of Final Plat on Item No. 15 request for Time Extension 006 to 1-18-2002. Any further discussion? All those in favor
of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 16. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Okay. Delinquencies, sewer water and trash delinquencies. Anybody here on this list before I read it?
Bird: Well, lets take a look here.
Corrie: Okay. This is to inform you in writing. If you chose to have the right to a predetermined hearing 7:30 Tuesday July 17, 2001 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in
person and be judged by the facts and defend the claim made by the city that your water sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued
on July 18, 2001 unless payment is received in full. Is anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water sewer and trash delinquency? Hearing none, you are hereby informed that
you may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the fourth judicial
district court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though you do appeal, your water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is 37,104.14 dollars.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve this delinquency turn off and also have the turn off services date from July 18th to July 25th which gives us a week which I think they have requested.
That’s all, for the sum of 37,104.14 dollars.
Corrie: Do I hear a motion on the -- excuse me. Do I hear a second on the motion?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion been made and second to approve the turn off list and to be continued July 25, 2001 in the amount of 37,104.14 dollars. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Being the last thing on the agenda.
De Weerd: It’s related to this. I don’t know if anyone’s more comprehensive about this report thing but I think it might be advantageous if Leslie comes and explains why there are
delinquencies in all columns and they’re still getting water service. I kind of asked John Shawcroft or Rick Clinton about it earlier. He suggested that it might be helpful to have
Leslie at a workshop and explain the process here. Everyone else, or do you guys understand this and know why we have such high figures in some places.
Anderson: I was just curious like even looking at this one. We’ve got somebody that’s into us 2,300 dollars. It seems like at some point we ought to be cutting off that service before
they get too far into us.
De Weerd: I think he kind of explained to me it’s more than it looks. I would just think it would be helpful.
Bird: We’ve got a business for 809.20 dollars balance.
Anderson: Here’s one for almost 4,600 dollars.
Bird: I think Gary can answer most of these questions. Cant you Gary?
Corrie: He tried to last time and he couldn’t do it.
De Weerd: It might be better time at a workshop.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Jabil -- okay. Workshop, do you want to have it?
Bird: I would like to have it there. Our billing if you talk to people that read the bills and stuff they’re a joke. I personally don’t ever see mine. My wife takes care of it.
Corrie: I can make arrangements to have them send one to your office if you’d like.
Bird: I get one out there in the office from Boise City and I can read that real well.
Corrie: With that, Mr. Berg if you will put that on the next agenda with the approval of the president we’ll do that.
Bird: You bet.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion that we adjourn then at 9:55.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK